1792 Contract Rifle in Original Flintlock

[Artificer]

Thanks for the link to the journals. I see the myth of the 1803 Harper's Ferry rifles even makes it into academic pieces.
https://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/item/lc.jrn.1804-05-10#lc.jrn.1804-05-10.01

With respect, I've seen nothing that proves 1803 prototype rifles were not made at Harpers Ferry for the expedition. I'm not saying they were made, because there is no proof, but that does not mean they weren't made.

The two biggest arguments against it I've seen are as follows.

1. PRODUCTION of the M1803's was not set up until after Lewis left and none of those rifles were sent to the Expedition before they left. All this tells us is the production rifles weren't used.

2. Supposedly the idea of what an 1803 rifle wasn't even thought up until the letter from Secretary of War Dearborn wrote a letter to HF Master Armorer on 25 May 1803. The problem with this argument is Dearborn made some minor recommendations that tell me he had seen at least one, if not as many as three prototype M1803 rifles before he wrote the letter.

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

John Shields recut William Clark's small rifle in the field during the expedition, a fact documented in the journals. Shields obviously knew what he was about, and on a rifle with enough rifling left to spin a lead bolt, Shields needed nothing but a rod long enough to cast the bolt around, a cutter inlet into the bolt, and a means to hold the barrel while he worked on it. According to Ned Roberts, the work holding was typically accomplished by the early pioneers by fastening the barrel in a partially split stump. The set up would have been child's play for Shields.

 

[Artificer]

John Shields recut William Clark's small rifle in the field during the expedition, a fact documented in the journals. Shields obviously knew what he was about, and on a rifle with enough rifling left to spin a lead bolt, Shields needed nothing but a rod long enough to cast the bolt around, a cutter inlet into the bolt, and a means to hold the barrel while he worked on it. According to Ned Roberts, the work holding was typically accomplished by the early pioneers by fastening the barrel in a partially split stump. The set up would have been child's play for Shields.

Yes, but only because he was a gunsmith and brought his tools with him. Also, he cached many of those tools and so did not have them for much of the journey.

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

Interesting. Do we know whether he cached them prior to the freshening job or not?

 

[Artificer]

Interesting. Do we know whether he cached them prior to the freshening job or not?

Without looking it up in the link I posted and since it was done in 1806, it was on their way back and after Shields got the tools back from the cache.

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

Most of what I have read on the above described freshening process, is that the grooves were chased first, then a new bolt cast, and the lands chased. Where ever she landed was the new bore size +-, and all cuts were running with the grain of the iron. I am pretty sure Lewis took 15 molds as well, I assume they were sized to the individual rifles. Somewhere in my research awhile ago I found something to the effect that the rifling guide at Harper's Ferry post expedition was still a wooden one.

 

[Artificer]

Most of what I have read on the above described freshening process, is that the grooves were chased first, then a new bolt cast, and the lands chased. Where ever she landed was the new bore size +-, and all cuts were running with the grain of the iron.

That's true, BUT unless the gunsmith already had the correct size cutters for cutting the grooves and scraping the lands, he would have needed to make them. That's not mentioned in the journals, but it was still true.

I am pretty sure Lewis took 15 molds as well, I assume they were sized to the individual rifles.

Lewis did take 15 molds that were MADE at HF and not ones that came with the rifles. Since the barrels were almost sure to have been bored out uniformly by HF, they didn't have to make 15 different "cherries" (cutters) to make the molds to fit each barrel individually.

Gus

 

[kansas_volunteer]

We really need someone to get eyes on the Air Farce Academy rifle. How can that be done? Could the library be persuaded to take photos?

 

[4575wcf]

I have been in correspondence with the nice lady, Ruth, who oversees the exhibit. She seems to me a person that could be worked with. I am most certainly not the person to send to Colorado, there would be too many small nuances that could sail right by me. I would like to see the rifle looked over by someone very well versed in what should or should not be present. The brochure has an email and a welcome to contact. I still have a gut feeling about this rifle I cannot shake, but I could be as wrong as can be.

The Friends of the Air Force Academy Library
P.O. Box 188
USAF Academy, CO 80840-0188

[email protected]

www.friends.usafalibrary.com

 

[4575wcf]

As far as the contract rifle to 1803 transition goes, it seems a bit too coincidental to me that Dearborn, a professional soldier and politician, would of a sudden come up with specifications for a new US rifle. The fact that the new rifle would basically reflect the supposed basic changes that Lewis requested seems even more coincidental. Of course I began research to see if there was any existing correspondence between Lewis and Dearborn, but outside of the letter informing Lewis of Clark's rank, there appears none. Lewis did name a 70 mile stretch of river for Dearborn, which may or may not reflect on their professional relationship. The next step is to research Dearborn and find out if he was any kind of a knowledgeable rifle guy.

 

[Artificer]

As far as the contract rifle to 1803 transition goes, it seems a bit too coincidental to me that Dearborn, a professional soldier and politician, would of a sudden come up with specifications for a new US rifle. The fact that the new rifle would basically reflect the supposed basic changes that Lewis requested seems even more coincidental. Of course I began research to see if there was any existing correspondence between Lewis and Dearborn, but outside of the letter informing Lewis of Clark's rank, there appears none. Lewis did name a 70 mile stretch of river for Dearborn, which may or may not reflect on their professional relationship. The next step is to research Dearborn and find out if he was any kind of a knowledgeable rifle guy.

I can save you the trouble, he wasn't a knowledgeable rifle guy. What most people don't seem to know is that he didn't personally come up with most or all of the specifications and particularly not on it being a half stock. I think I remember reading the half stock recommendation came from General Hand and at least one or two other senior officers. What Dearborn did is confirm something that was already a popular idea for a half stock rifle, not come up with the idea on his own. This confirmation probably was finalized after he examined the one to three prototype rifles before he wrote the letter.

Henry Dearborn (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

Gus

 

[kansas_volunteer]

OK. Let's muddy the waters a little more. Jake Hawken worked on 1803s at HF. Maybe he had something to do with it. Just sayin'.

 

[4575wcf]

From a military standpoint, apparently the 1803 lacked ruggedness, but they should have seen that.one coming. The plains rifles were a much heavier built gun.

 

[4575wcf]

So who is this Hand fellow? What is his background, and would he have known which end of the rifle the ball came out of? My personal theory has always been that somebody saw Lewis's modifications to the military rifle, recognized a good idea, and implemented it. That may be totally incorrect, so much of what we accept as fact about the C of D has been disproven from documentation in the computer era.

PS
If all the rifles were of a uniform bore size, why would a person need to take 15 molds? 40 + members with not at least 3 different calibers .49, 50+?, and 69. I would think 5 or so molds of each would be a great plenty to take along. Oh and another couple for the small rifle size, which would double as a buck and ball mold for the muskets. Now there is some short range Indian medicine!

 

[Artificer]

So who is this Hand fellow? What is his background, and would he have known which end of the rifle the ball came out of? My personal theory has always been that somebody saw Lewis's modifications to the military rifle, recognized a good idea, and implemented it. That may be totally incorrect, so much of what we accept as fact about the C of D has been disproven from documentation in the computer era.

PS
If all the rifles were of a uniform bore size, why would a person need to take 15 molds? 40 + members with not at least 3 different calibers .49, 50+?, and 69. I would think 5 or so molds of each would be a great plenty to take along. Oh and another couple for the small rifle size, which would double as a buck and ball mold for the muskets. Now there is some short range Indian medicine!

Here's General Hand's bio. Though he passed before Lewis got to HF, he had been an advocate for a half stocked rifle to Secretary Dearborn.
Edward Hand - Wikipedia

I'm not sure Lewis had much, if anything to do with the prototype 1803 Rifles, as they were already worked on before he got to HF.

I'm sure the original idea for 15 bullet molds was the same as 15 spare locks. Chances were they might not need all of them, but better to have them than not in case of damage, loss or even theft. BTW, Lewis didn't make up the equipment list, but his notes were written on it, so he agreed with it.

Gus

 

[plmeek]

OK. Let's muddy the waters a little more. Jake Hawken worked on 1803s at HF. Maybe he had something to do with it. Just sayin'.

I posted this earlier in the thread.

Jacob Hawken and some of his brothers (not Samuel though) worked at Harper's Ferry from 1808 to 1818.

Jake Hawken likely worked on the second run of the M1803 when they were made from 1814 to 1816, but he wasn't there during the initial development of the rifle.

Speaking of "mud", seems like a lot is being thrown against the wall to see what sticks.

What is the issue with Hand? He simply acted as a contracting agent for the Secretary of War, working with the gunmakers in Lancaster and issued contracts for them to build rifles for the 1792 Contract. General Hand didn't design any rifles. The 1792 Contract Rifles were probably very similar to the rifles the gunmakers were making for the civilian market. Hand sent sample rifles to Secretary of War Knox who in turn sent back to Hand some changes he wanted made to them which Hand passed on to the gunmakers.

As the 1792 Contract Rifles were being made and delivered, Hand was involved with shipping them to various locations to be issued to troops or placed into storage.

There is no evidence that Hand had any involvement or influence on the development of the HF M1803.

I see Gus responded with a link to Wikipedia while I was typing my message.

 

[Artificer]

I posted this earlier in the thread.

Jake Hawken likely worked on the second run of the M1803 when they were made from 1814 to 1816, but he wasn't there during the initial development of the rifle.

Speaking of "mud", seems like a lot is being thrown against the wall to see what sticks.

What is the issue with Hand? He simply acted as a contracting agent for the Secretary of War, working with the gunmakers in Lancaster and issued contracts for them to build rifles for the 1792 Contract. General Hand didn't design any rifles. The 1792 Contract Rifles were probably very similar to the rifles the gunmakers were making for the civilian market. Hand sent sample rifles to Secretary of War Knox who in turn sent back to Hand some changes he wanted made to them which Hand passed on to the gunmakers.

As the 1792 Contract Rifles were being made and delivered, Hand was involved with shipping them to various locations to be issued to troops or placed into storage.

There is no evidence that Hand had any involvement or influence on the development of the HF M1803.

I see Gus responded with a link to Wikipedia while I was typing my message.

I ran across the reference to Hand being one of two or three that proposed the half stock design to Dearborn (months before Dearborn's May 1803 letter authorizing the M 1803) while I was looking up the storage facilities at HF when Lewis got there.

I was much more interested in correcting the WRONG information often spread around by different folks that HF had more storage facilities than they actually had when Lewis arrived. So I didn't take much note of the fact that Hand proposed the half stock design.

Gus

 

[plmeek]

It would be interesting to know more about the proposals made to Dearborn on the half stock design if you can remember those sources. It was such a radical departure for a military arm at that time.

Half stock fowlers had been common in England and Europe in the late 18th century and half stock sporting rifles were popular in England about the same time, but I'm not aware of any half stock military arms before the HF M1803.

 

[Artificer]

It would be interesting to know more about the proposals made to Dearborn on the half stock design if you can remember those sources. It was such a radical departure for a military arm at that time.

Half stock fowlers had been common in England and Europe in the late 18th century and half stock sporting rifles were popular in England about the same time, but I'm not aware of any half stock military arms before the HF M1803.

I lost track, but I may find those sources again.

It was because of the interest in the English half stock sporting rifles and even on an English possible half stock military rifle, that got Hand and one or two others interested in the half stock design. This even though British Ordnance settled on the short, but full stocked Baker Rifle.

You are correct that the prototypes for the M1803 and the authorized 1803 were the first U.S. half stock rifle.

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

Given all the information you gentlemen have provided I have slightly modified my take on the L& C rifle. I have abandoned the Ketland lock idea, and joined the majority who surmise the locks were direct 1792 replacements made at Harper's Ferry. I favored the idea of the Ketland lock because there must have been bins of them in different sizes lying about at Schuylkill Arsenal when Lewis visited. My mistake there, by the way, I assumed incorrectly the locks were stored at Harper's Ferry. I would have jumped in the bin and basked with them for awhile. Turns out they are not as interchangeable as I thought, being subbed out to many makers, and the idea that Lewis adapted many of his guns to the Ketland lock pattern found on the McCormick horse pistols he MAY have taken to simplify supply does not seem to hold water. One thing I forgot to mention about the Academy rifle--the lockplate seems to have a teat out the back like an 1803 lock. Since the cock was broken on one lock by a man known to be a good hunter and probably carrying a short rifle, I think the cocks were not double throated, and this one also is not. Also of interest is an article from Outdoor Life magazine that I found online where a fellow has gone through the journals and made up an estimate of the big game taken. He attributes 43 grizzlies to the expedition. I figured they were in the river bottoms, in the days when these bears were plentiful, but I had no idea they took that many of them on with round ball guns. Clark and Drouillard put ten balls into one before he gave up the fight.