• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

1792 Contract Rifle in Original Flintlock

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Now that I have it on my computer where it's easy to read, I've been reading Tait again. He says there were 382 (?) rifles at HF, but says nothing about them being damaged and in need of repair. Maybe Lewis found good rifles there to chose.

First I should mention that Tait's article (that you generously provided to Phil [plmeek] and he posted here) is the only information I have seen thus far from Tait. So there may be information in the other article or piece you recently mentioned about Tait writing on "Short Rifles," of which I am not aware.

Second and to be fair, I must also point out Tait wrote one (now maybe two?) articles and not an entire book like Moller did. (Tait does cite Moller many times in the end notes of the Article you sent to Phil and he published here as PDF files.) Also, I've gone over the end notes of that article three times now and there doesn't appear to be anything there on how Harpers Ferry received those arms or in what condition they were in. So I agree Tait did not mention in what condition the 1792 rifles were in at HF. Actually, that blows my mind that I've never seen or heard of anyone discussing what condition the rifles were in at HF.

Tait does speculate, though he writes the following as if fact, that - "Thus, only the four hundred rifles promised to Virginia for issue to her forces, along with Arms sent up from New London, would have been shipped back to that arsenal, where they would have been cleaned, refurbished [repaired] if necessary, and properly stored." (This was in 1795 when the rifles mentioned were returned to New London and then they were stored there until later.)

What Tait doesn't mention is that Moller speculated some of the 1792 rifles at HF came from the large quantity of rifles that had been originally sent to Fort Pitt and then returned to public stores, following the disbanding of the Rifle Battalions from Wayne's Legions when they were reorganized into Infantry Regiments in November 1796. (Moller doesn't go into that much detail from the info Phil (plmeek) offered, so I filled in some of the speculative information in this paragraph, though it is informed speculation on what the Military did during the period.)

In the following paragraph from the one I posted in italics above from Tait's article, Tait goes on with further speculation to say - "The rifles would have remained at New London [from the 1795 order] when the completion of the storehouse at the new Harpers Ferry Armory made the former redundant." The last sentence in Tait's speculative paragraph was, "Thus it was that rifles lay in stores at Harpers Ferry when Lewis traveled there in mid-March 1803."

OK, I must give Tait credit, because he seems to be one of the very few who actually writes speculation about WHY they would have sent the 1792 rifles returned from different parts of the country to Harpers Ferry at all, I.E. "where they would have been cleaned, refurbished if necessary, and properly stored." I very much agree because that is exactly what the Military did then and still does today. HOWEVER, what Tait doesn't mention and may or probably didn't know is that once the rifles were "cleaned and refurbished [repaired] if necessary," what was done with the rifles once they had been cleaned and repaired at Harpers Ferry? Now, this is informed speculation on my part, but there is no doubt they would have informed Schuylkill in reports on how many they had cleaned and repaired, so Schuylkill would order what to do with the now returned and serviceable 1792 rifles and frankly THAT'S a problem with Tait's and a good many others' speculation, as well.

Going back to what Tait wrote, " when the completion of the storehouse at the new Harpers Ferry Armory made the former redundant." This is one of many references different authors have described as "storehouses, warehouses or Arsenals" THAT DID NOT EXIST when Lewis was at HF. Now perhaps Tait is just using the wrong terminology because he didn't know the correct terminology of the period, but the problem when using the wrong terminology leads people to believe there were such additional buildings there when Lewis was at HF. In fact, there was ONLY one single building that they locally called "The Factory" and we know as the Armory. The SECOND building erected at Harpers Ferry WAS a storehouse for Arms, BUT it was not begun until AFTER Lewis left Harpers Ferry and not completed until 1806. It later was referred to as "The Small Arsenal" after a THIRD building was erected even later. OK, so why is that important?

The One, Single building at Harpers Ferry when Lewis was there was what they locally called "The Factory" and later was called The Armory. This building had three floors. The bottom floor had the forges and some large equipment including a water powered Trip Hammer and wheels that ran straps up to the second floor for belt driven equipment. The second floor was where the rough forged parts were filed and finished and also including stocking and assembling the Arms. The third floor was where they stored lumber to make stock blanks, stock blanks they had cut from seasoned wood, AND any completed Arms they had made, until there was enough to make a shipment to Schuylkill Arsenal - WHERE ALL completed and serviceable U.S. Arms were stored for LONG PERIODS, including many other 1792 rifles that had not yet been issued out. (Moller and others do document this long term storage of Arms as do many period references.) IOW, Harpers Ferry was NOT a long term storage area for arms they HAD already "cleaned and refurbished/repaired" as those were no doubt sent to Schuylkill Arsenal.

So what does that leave as far as 1792 Rifles at Harpers Ferry? Though it is only my informed speculation because I can't give you period documentation, MOST of the remaining 382 M 1792 rifles MUST have been so damaged that they could not easily clean and repair them and then send them to Schuylkill Arsenal. This because those rifles had been there at HF for ONE and A Half Years by the time Lewis showed up.

Now, perhaps there is information out there I don't know about that may show my speculation to be wrong? If so, I'd love to see/read it.

OK, will go on with other problems in Tait's article in another post. This is all I can type at one setting.

Gus
 
Last edited:
I apologize to Kansas_volunteer and others for not posting this sooner. I've been busy helping a friend with a project the last two days and didn't notice the email in my inbox.
 

Attachments

  • Frank Tait response to Short Rifles.pdf
    5.4 MB
I am going on the record as calling BS on Mr. Tate. Lewis and Cruzatte went into the willows along the river because they had spotted elk. Nobody goes after elk with a round ball gun of small caliber. Crussate took the appropriate rifle, one of the short hunter's guns in the heavier caliber. The one elk that has fallen to my .535 Hawken was a smallish calf of about 250 lbs. The shot was taken broadside at about 40 yards in the Salmon River Country of Idaho. The ball was .526 in diameter, cast of pure lead, the charge 120 grains of 3fg. The ball entered between the ribs, exited between the ribs and was found somewhat flattened under the hide on the offside. The animal made about three jumps in deep snow and piled up. The record of bullet performance from the journals is completely accurate, the spherical round ball is the lightest projectile that will fill a bore, as I recall my ball runs about 212 grains. This is the kind of performance you can expect from a round ball gun on game, the only way to increase hitting power is to increase bore size.
 
Last edited:
excerpted from Lewis journal May 11, 1806

arrived here it was about 20 minutes after noon and of course the observation for the ☉'s meridian Altitude was lost; jus opposite to the birnt hills there happened to be a herd of Elk on a thick willow bar and finding that my observation was lost for the present I determined to land and kill some of them accordingly we put too and I went out with Cruzatte only. [2] we fired on the Elk I killed one and he wounded another, we reloaded our guns and took different routs through the thick willows in pursuit of the Elk; I was in the act of firing on the Elk a second time when a ball struck my left thye about an inch below my hip joint, missing the bone it passed through the left thye and cut the thickness of the bullet across the hinder part of the right thye; the stroke was very severe; I instantly supposed that Cruzatte had shot me in mistake for an Elk as I was dressed in brown leather and he cannot see very well; under this impression I called out to him damn you, you have shot me, and looked towards the place from whence the ball had come, seeing nothing I called Cruzatte several times as loud as I could but received no answer; I was now preswaded that it was an indian that had shot me as the report of the gun did not appear to be more than 40 paces from me and Cruzatte appeared to be out of hearing of me; in this situation not knowing how many indians there might be concealed in the bushes I thought best to make good my retreat to the perogue, calling out as I ran for the first hundred paces as loud as I could to Cruzatte to retreat that there were indians hoping to allarm him in time to make his escape also; I still retained the charge in my gun which I was about to discharge at the moment the ball struck me. when I arrived in sight of the perogue I called the men to their arms to which they flew in an instant, I told them that I was wounded but I hoped not mortally, by an indian I beleived and directed them to follow me that I would return & give them battle and releive Cruzatte if possible who I feared had fallen into their hands; the men followed me as they were bid and I returned about a hundred paces when my wounds became so painfull and my thye so stiff that I could scarcely get on; in short I was compelled to halt and ordered the men to proceed and if they found themselves overpowered by numbers to retreat in order keeping up a fire. I now got back to the perogue as well as I could and prepared my self with a pistol my rifle and air-gun being determined as a retreat was impracticable to sell my life as deerly as possible. in this state of anxiety and suspense remained about 20 minutes when the party returned with Cruzatte and reported that there were no indians nor the appearance of any; Cruzatte seemed much allarmed and declared if he had shot me it was not his intention, that he had shot an Elk in the willows after he left or seperated from me. I asked him whether he did not hear me when I called to him so frequently which he absolutely denied. I do not beleive that the fellow did it intentionally but after finding that he had shot me was anxious to conceal his knowledge of having done so. [3] the ball had lodged in my breeches which I knew to be the ball of the short rifles such as that he had, [4] and there being no person out with me but him and no indians that we could discover I have no doubt in my own mind of his having shot me.

Case closed
 
Artificer said:
The term "UnCivil War" comes from the fact we were fighting each other and therefore not civil to each other.

Gus

Wrong!! The word "CIVIL" in "CIVIL WAR", referred to citizens of the same Country at war with each other. This isn't your "WOKE< CANCEL CULTURE" here! Every damned war is uncivilized.

As a 26 year veteran of the USMC, where I rose to the highest enlisted rank in my MOS, MGySgt E9, and from before Cambodia to after Somalia, I need no lessons about the nature of War.

This post of yours has nothing to do with this thread.

Gus
 
Last edited:
Artificer said:
The term "UnCivil War" comes from the fact we were fighting each other and therefore not civil to each other.

Gus



As a 26 year veteran of the USMC, where I rose to the highest enlisted rank in my MOS, MGySgt E9, and from before Cambodia to after Somalia, I need no lessons about the nature of War.

This post of yours has nothing to do with this thread.

Gus
Got news for ya grunt...you can brag all you want about your USMC....I was military and been there to in'68 and '69! And your comment has nothing to do with it either. I get fed up with people trying to change history to be politically correct.
 
Got news for ya grunt...you can brag all you want about your USMC....I was military and been there to in'68 and '69! And your comment has nothing to do with it either. I get fed up with people trying to change history to be politically correct.

Got news for you. This and your other post has nothing to do with this thread. If you wish to discuss politics, then take it to the political forum where it belongs.

Gus
 
Thank both of you for your service. We are a free people and everybody gets an opinion, and the freedom to state it. That is the sole and only thing I am ever going to run up an unsecured beach and get my butt shot off protecting.
 
Got news for you. This and your other post has nothing to do with this thread. If you wish to discuss politics, then take it to the political forum where it belongs.

Gus
Better tell some of the other folks that too!!! :doh:😂🤣
 
Thank both of you for your service. We are a free people and everybody gets an opinion, and the freedom to state it. That is the sole and only thing I am ever going to run up an unsecured beach and get my butt shot off protecting.

Yes, everyone in this country does have the right to their opinion.

However, rules of this forum state such opinions should actually be about the topic of the thread.

I'm going to remain civil and leave it at that.

Gus
 
Yes, everyone in this country does have the right to their opinion.

However, rules of this forum state such opinions should actually be about the topic of the thread.

I'm going to remain civil and leave it at that.

Gus
I'd agree with you....but I haven't seen one thread where that has actually happened....including your post and mine :ThankYou:
 
Lets get back to squabbling over the original topic.

I have been pondering over what Lewis did with those 15 slings he took along. While he may have wanted sling swivels on the 15 short rifles, I am not sure they were installed. Either that or the slings became unserviceable during the two years the Corps of Discovery were on the march. I keep thinking of the instructions issued for the April 1806 portage. The men with the short rifles were ordered to carry their rifles over the portage not sling them. The others with muskets received no orders not did the contractors who had their personal rifles. While I am very much aware that the Land Pattern Musket with the 42" barrel is the Short Land Pattern. But I think the 1792 Contract rifles had 42" barrels. So the "short Rifles" carried by the Corps had to have barrels shorter than 42". In Dearborn's letter, he refers to the prototype as the short rifle. Specific designation for arms was never a strong requirement for any military firearm.

Such musings still leave us with no answers, only questions.

My speculation is that the rifles may have had the slings in storage for the two years of the journey.Cruzatt

Lewis had 15 rifles of 54 caliber.

Cruzatte was a poor shot.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top