If I wanted a buffalo rifle.....

French Colonial said:

It would not be a Hawken.

Let me explain my thoughts.

Prior to the Lewis and Clark expedition most of the Bison east of the Mississippi had already been killed and that was with flintlocks, at that time mostly full stocks.

When Lewis and Clark returned in 1806 they met with boats and hunter/traders going up river which again would have been obviously flintlocks and could have included some 1803 contract rifles.

So from 1806 to arguably 1836 all the rifles going in to the west would have been flintlocks, 30 years of killing buffalo with flintlocks before percussion guns even made the scene. How fast hunters gave up their tried and true flintlocks for new technology percussion guns is up for speculation but I am also one of those who believe that when they did there were more Leman's and others than genuine Hawken's. Rifles were being made by lots of less famous makers and many in larger numbers than Hawken.

Percussion guns then made the scene but in a very short amount of time were supplanted by cartridge rifles. Remington introduced the rolling block in 1867.

I believe the name Hawken is similar to the name Sharps, there is no question that there were many many more Remington rolling blocks on the frontier in the late 1800's than Sharps rifles (factory records show production numbers of rolling blocks dwarf the number of Sharps produced) and no question more bison were killed by rolling blocks but the Sharps has "the name" (makes you wonder what would have happened if Matthew Quigley carried a rolling block).

It is a little late for the time period I am interested in but I think if I ever go buffalo hunting out west again I will use a 1803, seems like the perfect buffalo gun, at least until the rolling block came along.

Click to expand...

nkbj said:

If I wanted a buffalo rifle...
I have one. A TC New Englander. The .54 barrel was relined to a .457 bore and 24" twist so it surely would be a super penetrating squishy mushrooming load if I was to load it up to maximum bullet weight and maximum powder charge. The longer bullet to barrel contact length of a heavier bullet than what I prefer shooting would only make it more accurate.

Click to expand...

andy52 said:

Buffalo is really big and not the brightest bulb in the closet. I killed one several years ago with a .54 Hatfield Plains rifle. A drop-and-flop shot isn't likely with a muzzleloader. The one I shot was at 50 yds close enough that I saw where the ball hit, right behind the shoulder about middle top to bottom. The big dummy just kept browsing as if nothing had happened it walked for about 30 to 45 seconds and started wobbling from side to side and fell over. I wouldn't call it a buffalo hunt you just kinda' work your way up to the one you want and shoot it, not much hunting to it.

Click to expand...

French Colonial said:

My hunt was quite a bit different, we were driven out to either dug outs or Teepee's where we stayed for a week my best friend and I stayed in the dug out and it was cozy.
Once the truck dropped us off all travel was by horse. We had to saddle up and go looking for the different herds as according to the owner they congregated in three different groups and he had a huge amount of acreage.

We then either had to belly crawl or walk on the opposite side of the horse from the buffalo and tack back and forth quartering until we could get close enough to shoot. Luckily buffalo don't count feet.
Once they made you out, even from distance, they would stay out of rifle range.
It was a splendid experience, we all dressed in period attire.

Unfortunately, they went out of business, they were south of Dodge City KS.

Click to expand...

tenngun said:

The last buff in New York was seen in early eighteenth century. They were hunted out with smoothies.
I’ve never hunted buff but think my TFC would be plenty
Hanson said typical rifles in the early MM period were .50, sporting three and a half foot barrels.
As I recall Germany’s top ace who taught the Red Barron how to dog fight said ‘ it isn’t the machine it’s the man’ I think that holds true for hunting with an ml

Click to expand...

French Colonial said:

You missed the point of my post entirely.

I was thinking something more historically correct, something that would have actually been used back in the day, maybe instead of "If I wanted a buffalo rifle" I should have asked "What would a reproduction of a buffalo rifle from the time period actually look like"

Click to expand...

nkbj said:

A few years ago on the forum there were photos of an original flintlock rifle of about 3/4" bore that had been made with flip up long range sights with the apertures shifted left for longer ranges to adjust for the lateral drift created by the rotation of the descending ball. That's about as close to an authentic period piece buffalo rifle as I can imagine. Oh, and by the way, seems to me it was French.

Along those lines it's been tempting to me to have a rifled barrel made for the 1816 musket. It would have to be smaller than 3/4" but wow, it could be a booger. Currently I have begun experimenting with a sight mounted on a spare rear barrel band.

Click to expand...