As usual with these threads, they often go off in a lot of different directions that makes it kind of hard to follow. That said, there are a number of statements that I find confusing and others that appear to be down right misleading.
First off, from the fuzzy photo and the meager description provided in the document from the Air Force Academy Library that has been linked in this thread, I don't believe there is any way to identify that rifle as a 1792 Contract Rifle much less a Lewis & Clark "short rifle."
There are many errors in the document concerning the subject rifle and other guns covered in the document that make the whole thing questionable. Dave pointed out the problems with the Brown Bess. Another example is the "Kentucky Rifle - Circa 1790". That rifle has a lock plate with a rounded tail common on locks of the 1820s, 30s, and later. I believe the patch box design is of a later design. That rifle probably dates from the 2nd quarter of the 19th century.
The subject rifle is titled "Kentucky Type Contract Rifle - Circa 1795". Where do they get that date? The early Federal Contract Rifles of 1792 were made in 1792 and 1794. Another request was made of U.S. contractors for a different configured rifle in 1807 that has become to be known as the 1807 U.S. Contract Army Rifle. So the date of "Circa 1795" is a silly error.
Martin Fry is stated in the document as the maker of the rifle. Martin Fry is
not listed in surviving documents as one of the contractors for the 1792 Contract Rifle (George Moller,
American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol. II, pages 21, 22, and 23).
Frank M. Sellers in
American Gunsmiths has three entries for Martin Fry gunsmiths,
- Martin Fry, Jr., (1739-1780). York, Pennsylvania, 1760-1780.
- Martin Fry III, (1769- ). York, Pennsylvania, 1799-1809.
- Martin Fry, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 1821 tax records.
Henry J. Kauffman in
The Pennsylvania-Kentucky Rifle has one entry for a Martin Frey that was born in 1769 and has him in York. He states that Frey owned a one-third share in a boring mill which burned in 1800.
If we can believe the rifle in the Albert P. Clark collection at the USAF Academy was made by Martin Fry as claimed, it would have to be the Martin Fry from York that was born in 1769. He would have been 23 in 1792 and just barely past his apprenticeship.
Moller found documents for 507 rifles delivered from York in 1794 from unknown makers (Moller 2011, pg 23). It is possible that young Martin Fry made some of these rifles, but there is no way to prove it.
Ketland locks have been mentioned many times in this thread. I'm at a total loss as to where this comes from and what it has to do with the 1792 Contract Rifles. I see nothing in the fuzzy photo or in the meager description to suggest the subject rifle has a Ketland lock!
Again, I refer to Moller pages 9 and 10. Moller transcribes a letter dated 28 Sept. 1795 from Tench Francis, purveyor of public supplies, to John Ketland of Philadelphia where Tench Francis is ordering 3000 rifle locks and 3000 musket locks from the Ketland "house in England". This would be the firm of Ketland & Co. These locks were delivered to the Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia over the period from 1797 to 1800. Obviously, these locks were not available to the contractors who made the 1792 Contract Rifles in 1792 and 1794.
It has been suggested that some of these Ketland locks were present at Harper's Ferry when Meriwether Lewis visited to order his rifles. The source for this is not given. Moller has the locks delivered to Schuylkill Arsenal. He states "The musket locks were issued to U.S. contractors of muskets and are believed to have been used in many of the muskets delivered from 1797 by the U.S. contractors of 1794 and by the contractors of 1796 ship muskets." Moller goes on to say, "The Ketland rifle locks purchased by the United States have been observed on rifles contracted by Purveyour of Public Supplies Israel Whelen for the Indian Department. They have also been observed on U.S. contract ship pistols and horsemen's pistols." He makes no mention of any of the Ketland locks being transferred to Harper's Ferry. Had he found documents that they were, he surely would have mentioned it.
I can't find in my files a copy of Frank Tait's article on the 1792 Contract Rifle and the Lewis & Clark expedition. I do have several pieces written by S. K. Wier that appear to summarize Tait's points. Wier writes, "Gunsmiths at Harper's Ferry fitted the new locks, apparently the same flintlock design used later on the Model 1803 rifle." This is consistent with Don Stith's offering that
Grenadier1758 linked to in Post #23 in this thread. I'm not aware of any published articles that suggest Ketland locks were used on Lewis & Clark's "short rifles".
The introduction of Ketland locks in this thread appears to be a total red herring to me. They were
not used by the original 1792 Contract Rifle makers. There is no evidence they were used on Lewis's "short rifle". And I see no evidence that the subject rifle has a Ketland lock.
There is only the slimmest of possibilities that the rifle in the USAF Academy Clark collection is a 1792 Contract Rifle. There is zero evidence that it is one of Lewis & Clark's "short rifles." Considering the errors in identifying and dating other guns in the collection, I view the claims made in the document as wild speculation and puts the whole document in doubt.
As I read this thread, there are comments that come off as "statements of fact" that in reality are pure speculation. Some may be honest lapses of memory. Others I wonder about.
There is an active thread on this forum titled "
All of this misinformation is really getting old". The OP writes in his opening post, "I've never seen so much misunderstanding in any topic. Yes, it's probably inexperienced shooters but the sayings get passed around so much they become convoluted. It's hard to take when they want to argue the point because they believe it so much".
I apologize to anyone offended if I come off too harsh with my comments above. But I really believe people need to be more careful and resist citing facts from memory and/or presenting speculation as fact. Less knowledgeable people read them and may take them as true facts and continue to repeat them. The misinformation gets perpetuated.