1792 Contract rifles

[BillinOregon]

I've been shuffling my books and papers trying to think of muzzleloading firearms that have a significant connection with Oregon. After thinking about it, the first on the list is a 1792 Contract Rifle, as carried by members of the Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery on their way here 210 years ago.
I did a search in the gun builders forum and found a number of posts going back a ways and typically citing either the Track of the Wolf kit, or the (apparently) more accurate kit from Don Stith.
Just wondering who here is currently shooting a 1792, and what your experience with it has been. Whose kit did you choose -- if you chose a kit? What caliber did you end up with? Stith includes a .49 caliber Rayl barrel, but Flayderman says these rifles varied from .50 to .60, and Oregon requires a .50 minimum for elk.
If anyone wants to put up a recent photo, that also would be mucho appreciado.
Many thanks,
Bill

 

[Alden]

Would you not go out on a limb and consider an 1803 Harper's Ferry Rifle?

 

[BillinOregon]

No thanks Alden. I think it's pretty certain now that the 1803 Harpers Ferry came just after the Voyage of Discovery prepared to shove off for points west. Still, 'tis one of the handsomest of the U.S. martial rifles, to my eye.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Yeah, Bill, latest thinking is the "Lois & Clark" guys(private joke)probably picked up M.1792 contract guns rather than the "M.1803" then in development. Most surviving 1792 rifles would qualify as 'plain' by our modern standards. The clever little blue outfits and folding "pikes" that went out to the rifle companies when the 1792 was young are rather clever and "darling precious"! :rotf:

 

[BillinOregon]

I found the information in Note 1 at this site pretty convincing, although I expect it will never be confirmed 100 percent:

http://www.westernexplorers.us/Lewis-and-Clark-Expedition-firearms-summary.html

 

[Shine]

I have a neat .54 made from 1803 parts. Made to be a recycled parts gun for the early 1800s. Getz Barrel and the lock has siler internals. All the furniture was made by the builder. Local guy up here by the name of Dave Gross. I have number 37 he has built some nice guns for the guys up here.

 

[Wes/Tex]

That's an interesting use of parts! Certainly more comfortable to shoot than the hooked butt plate I'm thinking.

 

[Shine]

It is very comfortable. Both of those rifles I load pretty heavy. The accuracy load is 105 Grs 2ffg for the Hawken and 90 Grs ffg for the composite rifle. That wide flat butt plate is more forgiving than the other.

 

[Dphar]

No thanks Alden. I think it's pretty certain now that the 1803 Harpers Ferry came just after the Voyage of Discovery prepared to shove off for points west. Still, 'tis one of the handsomest of the U.S. martial rifles, to my eye.

Actually the evidence for the 1803 prototype is just as good as for the Contract Rifle in fact I think its better. For example, Lewis took 15 rifles with him. There are 15 more first production 1803s than the order specified. Why would this be?
ALSO. The manufacturing techniques of the time required PATTERN RIFLES. It would have been impossible for Dearborne to have made recommendations for modifications based on drawings because DRAWINGS WERE NOT USED. He HAD to have a rifle in his hands. So HF HAD to have pattern rifles ON HAND when Lewis was there. He also had a letter stating "Make Capt Lewis anything he asks for". ANYTHING.
THEN two of the rifles carried on the expedition burst in the upper part of the barrel. Something the 1803 was known for NOT the 1792. The L&C Expedition also knew what they were facing. They had put a lot of research into it and the French, based in St Louis had been far enough west to have already named the Yellowstone River. It was known that rifles under 50 caliber were deficient for western use due the the size of the animals and the ranges being longer and the 54 was a better choice. The 1803 is 54.

While NOBODY knows what the rifles were, its not mentioned to that level a detail, we KNOW they were short. This is repeated in the Journals.
So Frankly other than the "they had them in storage at HF" there is NOTHING that points to the 1792 being used by L&C. It would be wonderful if one of the lost Journals of the other party members was found and IT contained more info on the rifles. But finding one is extremely unlikely.

Dan

 

[BillinOregon]

Dan, you make some good points as well. It's mysteries like this one that make this avocation so fascinating.

Shine, your parts 1803 is really a handsome weapon.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Well considering that the specifications for the 1803 were not put in writing by the Secretary of War until May of 1803, and that Lewis ordered his 15 rifles in April of 1803, and the supplies including the rifles were shipped in July of 1803... that's a pretty neat trick. As for the number discrepancy of 15... it could simply be a case that the armory was to maintain a specific number of rifles, and as the Corps of Discovery had removed 15 older rifles, 15 rifles were added to the order for the first 1803 models to bring the inventory up to required amounts. The fact that the inventory at Harpers Ferry does not note that of the first rifles two were destroyed while with the Corps, nor does it mention any of the 1803 models being sent with the Corps, calls into question that the first 15 went with Lewis and Clark. Of course the records don't show any of the 1792's going with the Corps either...

LD

 

[Shine]

Thank you, it was a gift from my father in law with the promise I give it to my son. He is 4 he should be ready by next hunting season. :thumbsup:

 

[Dphar]

Dan, you make some good points as well. It's mysteries like this one that make this avocation so fascinating.

Shine, your parts 1803 is really a handsome weapon.

Due to the lack a HARD evidence I cannot say either is wrong cause we just do not know. But the 15 extra rifles in the paperwork is just too much a coincidence to be ignored.
People today tend to look at manufacturing in the light of todays practice rather than historical.
Blueprints were unknown at the time for example and I know Dearborne was not looking a photos. So he had to make recommendations based on a prototype. Then there is the variant 1803 that is not the same as an 1803 that is out there in the collector world (sad shape but its not quite the same as the standard 1803). Its just one of many things about the past that irritates me from the standpoint of "knowing" things.

Dan

 

[Carl Fowler III]

Dan, I've seen all this evidence before and wonder if it allows us the best of both worlds...as no one can say definitively what was used we can use both without being historically incorrect....more guns = more fun! :grin:

 

[BillinOregon]

Well, one thing to recall is that most if not all of the members of the corps were members of the U.S. Army, so we have 15 U.S. martial rifles of some sort and 15 muskets drawn, in addition to a number of "personal" firearms on the trip, including the infamous air rifle and squirrel gun. It would seem a 1792 would not be entirely out of place whether it was among the 15 or not.
The possible modifications of the 1792 I have heard of might include shortening barrels to make the rifles handier in canoes/boats; adding sling swivels in anticipation of much carrying on foot; and exchanging the non-interchangeable locks from Dickert's and others' shops for new, standardized locks from Harpers Ferry, and bringing some extra locks that would therefore easily replace broken ones in the field.
Hey Mr. Peabody, can we borrow your "Way-back Machine"?

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Would you step off into the unknown with an untried model of a brand new firearm, that is radically different in appearance to the firearms that you have handled in the past? It is possible, and perhaps that's the explanation for taking the muskets as well...

As for parts interchangeability...

In May 1798, Congress voted for legislation that would use eight hundred thousand dollars in order to pay for small arms and cannons in case war with France erupted. They offered a 5,000 dollar incentive with an additional 5,000 dollars once that money was exhausted for the person that was able to accurately produce arms for the government. Because the cotton gin had not brought Whitney the rewards he believed he would get, he accepted the contract. Although the contract was for one year, Whitney did not deliver the arms until eight years later in 1809 using multiple excuses for the delay of such. Recently, historians have found that during 1801”“1806, Whitney took the money and headed into South Carolina in order to profit from the cotton gin.

Although Whitney's demonstration of 1801 appeared to show the ingenuity of interchangeable parts, Merritt Roe Smith concludes that Whitney's demonstration was "staged" and "duped government authorities" into believing that he had created interchangeable parts. The charade was only useful in order to gain more time and resources for the project but not to create interchangeable parts.From "Eli Whitney's Other Talent" by Peter Baida in the May/June issue of "American Heritage" 1987

So Whitney's interchangeable parts didn't enter the American arsenal until 1809, and he is credited with the idea in 1801... and I am not certain that the specifications for the 1803 lock included interchangeability. If they had they would have infringed on Whitney's patent... and thus would have had to pay Whitney...and I am told that Whitney never actually achieved this goal..., he simply had backup parts fitted to the locks that he used on his contracted rifles but one could not swap a mainspring or a hammer or a sear from one lock to the other for example. the Harper's Ferry arsenal apparently was the location of true parts interchangeability... but I am told it was on the 1842 musket, and not before...

LD

 

[Zonie]

I have read that when Lewis was shot in the rear they somehow determined the wound was caused by a .54 caliber ball.

Using this evidence Pierre Cruzatte admitted he fired the shot while thinking Lewis was an elk.

The 1795 Springfield rifle was a .50 caliber gun and the 1795 Springfield musket was a .69 caliber gun.

If all of this is true, where did the .54 caliber gun come from and what was it? :hmm:

 

[Carl Fowler III]

Zonie, as most soldiers will admit; it's better to be shot in the rear than in the front! Closer to medical attention is their reasoning? :wink:

Lewis must have had one big A$$ to have it mistaken for an elk! :haha:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

where did the .54 caliber gun come from and what was it?

Well, according to the United States Army Center for Military History, the 15 Corps of Discovery rifles were shortened and rebored, and I would suggest the reboring changed them to .54 caliber.

LD

 

[BillinOregon]

LD, thanks for that link. I think if I were to have a Corps of Discovery rifle built, I would take this tack. I wonder if the original 1792s had swamped barrels, the shortening of which would be less than ideal.