1792 Contract Rifle in Original Flintlock

[Artificer]

I'm not ruling out any rifle out as I don't believe we have enough information to prove which rifle/s were used.

However, it makes NO "period" sense to me that Lewis would have picked from the damaged/broken 1792 rifles stored at Harpers Ferry when there was a large quantity of NEW, New Old Stock, or slightly repaired 1792 rifles (see Phil, I am paying attention ) in stock at Schuylkill Arsenal.

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

Well the letter from Dearborn gave him a pretty free reign. Personally I would have had the workers at Harper's Ferry pick me out 15 similar ones with sound wood. The guns were probably close 10 to 12 years old at the time, some probably had seen some hard use, and some had probably not seen as much hard use. I would have entrusted the employees to get them fitted up and right, and concentrated on my iron framed boat--NOT. Actually given the original plan of the Expedition the boat was important. To find a portage able water route east to west for trade was a goal, and the boat could have been THE answer. I thought Ambrose had Lewis picking up more new rifles in PA to arm more expedition members as the number grew from the predicted 15 men.

 

[Artificer]

Well the letter from Dearborn gave him a pretty free reign. Personally I would have had the workers at Harper's Ferry pick me out 15 similar ones with sound wood. The guns were probably close 10 to 12 years old at the time, some probably had seen some hard use, and some had probably not seen as much hard use. I would have entrusted the employees to get them fitted up and right, and concentrated on my iron framed boat--NOT. Actually given the original plan of the Expedition the boat was important. To find a portage able water route east to west for trade was a goal, and the boat could have been THE answer. I thought Ambrose had Lewis picking up more new rifles in PA to arm more expedition members as the number grew from the predicted 15 men.

Well, Schulykill Arsenal had some Artificers employed there long before Lewis showed up. Though I can't document at least one had skill at repairing arms, it is almost unthinkable that at least one didn't - considering the Arms stored there. That Artificer could easily have picked out 15 rifles made by the same maker and in good serviceable condition.

WHY with the almost "free hand" Lewis was given would he have NOT chosen the much better condition Rifles at Schuylkill compared to the much more used/damaged/broken ones at HF?! It didn't make sense in the period and it doesn't make sense today.

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

There is one and only one incidence where it does make sense--and this is pure speculation. If Lewis had done a great deal of research on the type of service that was going to be required from the expedition rifles--and there is evidence he did just that--and he was pursuing a modified design, he MAY have selected rifles that needed work, but were very close candidates for the mods to what he had in mind. As an example say one is a great candidate for conversion, but it has a rusty bore and a broken cock. Well you are going to have it rebored anyway, and it gets a brand new lock. Throw it on the incoming pile. Outside of that, you are right, why not go with the nicer ones?

 

[Artificer]

There is one and only one incidence where it does make sense--and this is pure speculation. If Lewis had done a great deal of research on the type of service that was going to be required from the expedition rifles--and there is evidence he did just that--and he was pursuing a modified design, he MAY have selected rifles that needed work, but were very close candidates for the mods to what he had in mind. As an example say one is a great candidate for conversion, but it has a rusty bore and a broken cock. Well you are going to have it rebored anyway, and it gets a brand new lock. Throw it on the incoming pile. Outside of that, you are right, why not go with the nicer ones?

My speculation is that even if he was considering doing the modifications ahead of time, why not use the BEST rifles available to modify, I.E. those stored at Schuylkill?

I would not be surprised if sometime in the future, original documentation may eventually be found that's exactly what Lewis did, though for right now, there is no evidence he got the rifles from Schuylkill.

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

What about the tight time frame? If the rifles were already there and work could begin immediately. Remember babysitting the boat construction detained him a month longer than he figured.

 

[Artificer]

What about the tight time frame? If the rifles were already there and work could begin immediately. Remember babysitting the boat construction detained him a month longer than he figured.

That's just it, it wasn't a tight time frame! Not when there were at least 20 skilled workers at HF to do the work. Even their first year, ending about 1 1/2 years earlier, they averaged making 24 Muskets from scratch every month. By the time Lewis showed up, they were even more skilled and experienced. Further, using the much better condition rifles to modify would have saved them time.

Lewis did not actually fire the rifles until 8 or 9 July after his first visit there on March 16, 1803, to arrange for military supplies needed by the expedition. That was close to four months before he fired the completed rifles.

Gus

 

[plmeek]

I would have entrusted the employees to get them fitted up and right, and concentrated on my iron framed boat--NOT. Actually given the original plan of the Expedition the boat was important. To find a portage able water route east to west for trade was a goal, and the boat could have been THE answer.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the passage I quoted above, and I may be taking the quote out of context, but isn't this exactly what Lewis did based on the letters he wrote to Jefferson and others. Didn't he concentrate his time and attention on the portable boat and leave the work on the rifles completely up to the Harper's Ferry personnel? I don't remember reading anything that suggested he gave any detail instructions to the gunsmiths or specifications that he wanted on the rifles.

 

[Artificer]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the passage I quoted above, and I may be taking the quote out of context, but isn't this exactly what Lewis did based on the letters he wrote to Jefferson and others. Didn't he concentrate his time and attention on the portable boat and leave the work on the rifles completely up to the Harper's Ferry personnel? I don't remember reading anything that suggested he gave any detail instructions to the gunsmiths or specifications that he wanted on the rifles.

The only thing Lewis asked for was to have sling swivels made and installed, wasn't it?

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

What I was implying was that Lewis apparently delegated the work of getting the rifles ready for the expedition--and spent his available time working with whoever was getting the boat ready. The boat was the priority. I would have been more interested in the preparation of the rifles. I must get "Undaunted Courage" from my best bud and read through it again for a refresher. I am getting fuzzy on some of the details.

 

[plmeek]

Ok. I got 'cha now. That's the way I see it, too.

 

[kansas_volunteer]

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. He also says the order to begin work on a prototype 1803 arrived about two months after Lewis departed, and says nothing about prototypes already existing when Lewis arrived.

 

[4575wcf]

Seems to me that the more information that comes in, the more solid the case is for the contract rifles. Summing up, I am of the opinion that:

1. Contract rifles to be modified for the expedition were at Harper's Ferry when Lewis arrived
2. The rifles were shortened, the bores were freshed-out to a larger size, and swivels were fitted.
3. New locks, 15 each and 15 spares, and parts thereof were made at HF, fitted to the rifles, and supplied with them.
4. The cocks were single throated

These observations are based on the following surviving correspondence, and journal entries

Lewis writing to explain that although HF had his rifles and other goods nearly in completion, the boat was holding things up. Indicating HF was doing some work on the rifles.

Lewis taking 15 slings and molds for the rifles. Indicating the rifles were set up for slings, and needed their own molds.

Lewis recognizing the ball that fell from his buckskin britches after he was shot in the arse by Pierre Crusatte as "one from the short rifles" indicating a recognizable difference (larger size)

Lewis describing repairs for short rifle locks using parts from HF, where the locks were made. Lewis describing one cock as broken, indicating a common enough occurance found in single throated cocks, breaking at the sharply curved stress point.

 

[Artificer]

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. He also says the order to begin work on a prototype 1803 arrived about two months after Lewis departed, and says nothing about prototypes already existing when Lewis arrived.

There are numerous errors in the Tait article. Some of which may be expected of even the most diligent researcher who didn't understand the "big picture" of how U.S. Arms were originally planned, made and stored as well as what appears to be a total ignorance of Armory operations in the period and even much of how U.S. Arms were issued and later recovered. Some of what he considers "evidence" is in fact no more than his own speculation, though he does not come right out and say it when he presents that speculation.

I don't have time to type it all out now, but will do so later.

Gus

 

[Grenadier1758]

I was curious about the use of slings. I was able to peruse the 5,000 page copy of the Journals, which included Lewis's, Clark's, Floyd's and one other serjent's journals. The search revealed only a few hits with regards to slings. One was a sling to support a member's broken arm and the other was in a footnote that speculated that the "short rifles" were carried over a portage (in April of 1806) and slings must have been used. Lewis only mentioned that the short rifles were to be carried. There was no mention of how to handle the muskets. The muskets would have slings. No such affirmation by Clark or the other journals.

The mention of the short rifles is fairly often. No mention of caliber. In the footnotes, Russell states that the HF 1803 was probably used since the rifle was notably shorter than the musket and other "Kentucky rifles".

The journals are no help.

 

[ML48]

Thank you for providing the information and thanks to hawkeye2 for making it easy to find/see it. That is a MOST interesting piece!

However, when estimating age of an "ensemble" like this, we have to go with the most recent part or modification to the rifle. In this case it is the Sword Bayonet.

To my knowledge, Sword Bayonets did not become common on U.S. Model Rifles (even if they were contracted to be made by private civilian contractors) until many M 1841 "Mississippi" Rifles were modified in 1855 for Sword Bayonets and then Sword Bayonets were made for M1855 (2 Band) Rifles a couple three years later.

So it is most probable this rifle wasn't shortened and had the Sword Bayonet added until at least a few years after 1855. My best guess is this was done shortly before, or more likely, shortly after the UnCivil War began during the period both sides were desperately trying to arm their Troops.

I have a fairly large number of books on Federal and especially Confederate Arms, including such modified pieces, but I've never seen this rifle listed in them. So I can't offer any information on who may have modified this rifle.

Bottom line, I can't see this rifle having been shortened anywhere near early enough to have influenced the M1803 Rifles. HOWEVER, it was a real treat to see it and I'm saving the link in my files.

Again, thanks to both of you!

Gus

Is the uncivil war the same as the unrevolutionary war, or the unworld war 1, or the unworld war 2, or the unkorean war, or the unvietnam war?

 

[kansas_volunteer]

I forwarded to plmeek scans of a two-page piece by Tait addressing the short rifle issue. Perhaps he can post them here as he did the longer Tait piece. It would crush the short rifle wishes some have here. Short rifles he says just didn't happen.

 

[fireman1]

I forwarded to plmeek scans of a two-page piece by Tait addressing the short rifle issue. Perhaps he can post them here as he did the longer Tait piece. It would crush the short rifle wishes some have here. Short rifles he says just didn't happen.

Interesting. I hope that plmeek can post those.

 

[Artificer]

Is the uncivil war the same as the unrevolutionary war, or the unworld war 1, or the unworld war 2, or the unkorean war, or the unvietnam war?

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

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

Mr. Stith has apparently joined this camp offering his latest rendition of the L & C rifle as a full length contract rifle. I think if I was gonna spend several months in a canoe with rifles I would opt for shortened ones, but let's see what Tait has to say.