This article first appeared in Muzzle Blasts Magazine in 2020. NMLRA Members get access to digital scans of all the Muzzle Blasts Magazines since 1938. Join Today

Part 1 was published in Muzzle Blasts Magazine in September 2020

Part 2 was published in Muzzle Blasts Magazine in October 2020

Part 3 was published in Muzzle Blasts Magazine in November 2020

By Fred Stutzenberger

Making muzzleloading pistols is a much-maligned craft. “To a gunsmith, Kentucky pistols leave a lot to be desired. Pistol making is time-consuming and challenges all of the skills required to make a good rifle. A barrel, breech plug, and lock have to be inletted. Triggers, thimbles, nose cap, butt cap, side plate, bolts, screws, sights, ramrod, and stock all have to be created just as they must for a longrifle. To be of use, the hardware has to be of rifle quality. There is little difference between making a rifle and making a pistol—except how does the smith hold onto a pistol stock while working on it? Getting a grip on and maneuvering the smaller stock into solid yet convenient working positions to perform intricate in letting, shaping, and carving can be . . . exasperating! And, most important, the gunmaker cannot get a rifle’s price for his pistol—which requires almost the same effort and expense to produce.” (Chuck Dixon 61). This article expands on some of Chuck’s observations and offers some alternatives for solving problems in pistol making.

Having built at least a dozen pistols and a lot of rifles, I share Chuck Dixon’s perspective on the economics of mak-ing pistols versus rifles. In the mid-18th Century, a gun-smith could get anywhere from £3 - £4 for a brace of pistols. A British pound (£) was equivalent to $4 American. The pistols would sell for $12-16, equivalent to $576-768 in today’s currency—a pretty paltry sum considering the work and materials involved. In contrast, a prime (“made”) beaver pelt would be worth ~$7.50; the broad range of pelts needed to barter for a trade gun was anywhere from 11-20 ($528-960) in today’s money). So roughly, dis-counting Hudson’s Bay Company mark-up a gunsmith could get as much for a cheap trade gun as he could for a brace of pistols if he were bartering directly with the buyer. No wonder the colonial gunsmith made very few pistols, and those he did make were for wealthy customers who could afford to pay top dollar for a nice brace.

The purpose of this article was not to dwell on the comparative cost of building a Kentucky pistol versus that of a Kentucky rifle. However, the initial cost versus final value is a consideration, so I did a little survey of pistol kits versus rifle kits in some of the catalogs that have accumulated over the years. The pistol kits, including all parts, averaged ~$400 whereas rifle kits averaged ~$750. The shaped and inlet pistol stock accounted for ~17% of the total price, while the equivalent rifle stock was ~30% of the total. At the time of publication (1999-2002) of those prices, their dollar amounts have increased ~45%.

So much for the bean-counting. Let’s move on to the making. First of all, Chuck’s frustration in stabilizing a pistol stock in a variety of workable positions will be addressed, moving from homemade fixtures that anyone can jig together in the shop right up to relatively expensive alternatives.