Other than the kits being offerd by Track and Don Stith, is there a finish 1792 Contract rifle available from somewhere you know of?
-
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
- Thread starter Liver eatin’ Johnson
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
hmmm... 58 views and no replies. I'll take that as a no 
Guest
If you are talking about the US Army model of 1795, it was, in effect, an unaltered 17663 Charlevile with all steel parts and single throat cock.
; In the contract of 1812, some contractees modified the pan to brass(as in the '77 Charleville) and used a double-throated cock. Eli Whiteny was one who made these mod's to the French .63(US'95), while others kept the steel parts with swan-necked cock.
: I am not familiar with the 1792 Contract.
; In the contract of 1812, some contractees modified the pan to brass(as in the '77 Charleville) and used a double-throated cock. Eli Whiteny was one who made these mod's to the French .63(US'95), while others kept the steel parts with swan-necked cock.
: I am not familiar with the 1792 Contract.
Doc Arroyo
Greybeard
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 976
- Reaction score
- 9
Liver-
The Rifle Shoppe also has parts, and I understand that Naraggasset Arms was also making the rifle.
The pricy on is here...
Village Restorations
Darryl-
All the info you gave was for the muskets of the period that the U.S goverment was buying. Liver is asking about the 1792 Contract rifle. They are a bit heavier stock, full stock Pennsyvania trade rifle with brass furniture and a couple of different patch boxes made by a number of rifle makers in Pennsylvania, mostly in the Lancaster area.
After the half stock 1803 rifle, and the Halls rifle and carbine came out, the next group of "contract" rifles were typically refered to as "Common Rifles".
The Rifle Shoppe also has parts, and I understand that Naraggasset Arms was also making the rifle.
The pricy on is here...
Village Restorations
Darryl-
All the info you gave was for the muskets of the period that the U.S goverment was buying. Liver is asking about the 1792 Contract rifle. They are a bit heavier stock, full stock Pennsyvania trade rifle with brass furniture and a couple of different patch boxes made by a number of rifle makers in Pennsylvania, mostly in the Lancaster area.
After the half stock 1803 rifle, and the Halls rifle and carbine came out, the next group of "contract" rifles were typically refered to as "Common Rifles".
Guest
Yes as stated, the info was for the government contract firearms - I wasn't aware that civilian arms were referred to as contract weapons.
Guest
Hi Daryel
Prior to the adoption of the 1803 US rifle the government had purchased a number of rifles fron civilian Mfgs. and these were known as the conteract rifles in question. They were not top quality weapons for the most part, just good durable rifles for the use of the ranger units, marines etc.
Several I have seen did not even have bridled frizens or tumblers, since that was not specified in the contract. They were brass mounted, simple furnature, one inch barrels, about .48 cal, barrrels were oct for about 14" then turned round for the rest of the 36" length. Not round and tapered, just round. These were the guns Lewis&Clark had restocked, modified with the new rifle locks, rebored to .52, fitted with slings for the voyage. Least that's the way I read it.
Just informin'
Prior to the adoption of the 1803 US rifle the government had purchased a number of rifles fron civilian Mfgs. and these were known as the conteract rifles in question. They were not top quality weapons for the most part, just good durable rifles for the use of the ranger units, marines etc.
Several I have seen did not even have bridled frizens or tumblers, since that was not specified in the contract. They were brass mounted, simple furnature, one inch barrels, about .48 cal, barrrels were oct for about 14" then turned round for the rest of the 36" length. Not round and tapered, just round. These were the guns Lewis&Clark had restocked, modified with the new rifle locks, rebored to .52, fitted with slings for the voyage. Least that's the way I read it.
Just informin'
Do you have a reference on them being rebored to .52? Most of my reading indicates they were .49. Thanks.
Ghost-
The Lewis and Clark rifle I'm thinking of sounds like what Doc mentioned - this is Don Stith's Lewis and Clark version:
The Lewis and Clark rifle I'm thinking of sounds like what Doc mentioned - this is Don Stith's Lewis and Clark version:
Guest
Muzzleloader Mag. did a good article on the contract rifles a couple of years back. I'm quoting from memory of what I read in that article so may be off a hundredth of an inch on the specs since the book got tossed during a move.
Sec. Knox had specified that the contract rifles be equil to .48 cal. (the Sec. of War wrote the contract, imagine a sec. of war with enough gun knowledge to write a contract with specifications for the service rifle) Remember, they did not shoot the tight patch-ball combinations we shoot today, so the rule of taking bore size and subtracting a micrometer measured patch is not accurate for the specification. Knox specified balls to the pound as bore size. Lewis and clark found the bores on the rifles in storage not to be uniform and in advanced and varried stages of erosion, so reboring to a standard size was necessary. All of this was done as balls-per-pound so there was never a caliber size specified.
In theory, there was not a uniflrm contract rifle. The furnature had been left up to the builder and even the locks were not uniform until Lewis and Clark specified the new govnt. lock. The only uniform thing about the contract rifles was the barrel length, barrel profile and almost uniform caliber. The wood was normally plain, the patchbox plain (patchbox was required), and the hardware durable.
Sec. Knox had specified that the contract rifles be equil to .48 cal. (the Sec. of War wrote the contract, imagine a sec. of war with enough gun knowledge to write a contract with specifications for the service rifle) Remember, they did not shoot the tight patch-ball combinations we shoot today, so the rule of taking bore size and subtracting a micrometer measured patch is not accurate for the specification. Knox specified balls to the pound as bore size. Lewis and clark found the bores on the rifles in storage not to be uniform and in advanced and varried stages of erosion, so reboring to a standard size was necessary. All of this was done as balls-per-pound so there was never a caliber size specified.
In theory, there was not a uniflrm contract rifle. The furnature had been left up to the builder and even the locks were not uniform until Lewis and Clark specified the new govnt. lock. The only uniform thing about the contract rifles was the barrel length, barrel profile and almost uniform caliber. The wood was normally plain, the patchbox plain (patchbox was required), and the hardware durable.
