1803 Harper's Ferry Rifle

[Artificer]

LD,

I don't know we can be sure that just because 15 new locks were ordered to be fitted (and other non-described replacement parts as well) that this means new production rifles were not used. If these were spare locks, that makes a whole lot of sense to me in case a lock broke in the field and they could immediately fix the rifle by using the spare lock.

Remember, though the expedition was not going to the far side of the world, they were going way out beyond anywhere that regular gunsmith work was available. Yes, I know they had one Artificer/Armourer, but if a severe problem came up with a lock plate, I am unsure if he could have fixed any and all problems.

Gus

 

[54ball]

Dearborn ordered 4000 M1803s. This order was placed after Lewis had left Hapers Ferry. The govt. received 4015 for the first run of 1803s.
Thin? Maybe so, but there are other clues.
It seems to me that 1792 proponents site lack of evidence for their view where as M1803 prpopnents site thin evidence but evidence just the same.

No one will ever know for sure, especially the documentation x3x3 crowd. I know, I know.....I'm a reenactor so I get it but sometimes on some subjects.....

We will never know. I believe that boat sailed in April 1861.

 

[Artificer]

We will never know. I believe that boat sailed in April 1861.

Yes, there was that little matter of pulling tools, equipment and supplies out of the Arsenal and then burning it down then :haha: ; but depending on what information is still available, I think we could be more certain IF we explore some different areas and if that information is still possible to glean from other sources.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Found out some interesting things on the Harpers Ferry (HF for future use) early work force.

The first Master Armorer was Joseph Perkins (he, himself sometimes shortened it in writing to Perkin). He had been a lock maker in Bristol (or maybe Birmingham), then immigrated and worked in Philadelphia after the AWI where he did a lot of work on repair of government arms as well as civilian gunsmithing, before being chosen to work at HF. On another forum, I looked at an Inventory he proposed on 20 August 1798 for the tools needed for the work force at HF. By the quantities of certain tools like standing vises and hand vises, it seems he was looking at supplying tools for a work force of 30 Artificers/Armorers.

A few sources on the web mentioned that in 1800, the work force at HF was less than two dozen (less than 24) Artificers/Armorers. This information was footnoted as having come from “Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms, 2001,” though I do not have a copy of that year’s Guide to verify it.

Wiki and some other sources say the HF Armory was only one room and had 25 workers in 1802.

I could not find a quantity of workers at HF when Captain Lewis showed up to order his rifles and other items, though I imagine it was not many more than the 25 the year before, or perhaps they had hired enough workers for all 30 sets of Armorers Tools from the 1798 proposal? I don’t know, but I think a work force of 25 or maybe a couple more is likely.

We also have to remember that HF was originally set up to make M1795 Muskets on a high priority.

“Only 293 muskets were made at the Harpers Ferry Armory in 1801.” http://harpersferryarmoryguns.com/

That is on average over 24 Muskets made a month and that gives us some idea of minimum possible arms production two years later when Capt Lewis showed up to get his rifles and other equipment made.

I have not been able to find out how many workers were assigned to manufacture the items Capt Lewis ordered. I don’t know if other arms production was halted at HF while they made those items? A special order from the President through the Secretary of War COULD have caused that to happen. However, it seems the Rifles and other equipment could have been made by half of the HF workers or less, in the two months time they worked on the order.

So, it is possible that the Rifles Capt. Lewis received from Harpers Ferry could have been early prototype M1803's OR at least "New Harpers Ferry Manufactured" Rifles, instead of the M1792 Rifles being the only possibility.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Some thoughts on the locks of the rifles for the L&C expedition.

From everything I have been able to learn about the M1792 Contract Rifles, it seems the only requirements for uniformity were barrel caliber and length. This means there could have been and most likely was a wide variety of not only locks on those rifles, but variations in lock parts and screws.

If the L&C rifles were M1792 rifles, the closest thing to interchangeable parts (though not truly interchangeable) would have been had all the locks on the rifles chosen were made by the same lock maker. This because most likely they would have made the same diameter and threads per inch of the screws for different parts of the locks. Using the same diameter of the screws by one maker, also helped ensure the Sears and Bridles had holes in them that fit and would be in the proper position for the screws that lock maker made and for the Sear Nose and Sear Leg to be in the correct position to work in the lock. The same lock maker would have used the same Tumbler Grinder to shape the Tumblers and dies to forge the rough shape of the parts for the locks.

So, I know if I had been the Master Armorer at HF (or the Armorer in charge of the project) and had to use M1792 Contract Rifles, the first thing I would do is try to find at least 15 serviceable rifles with locks from the same Lock Maker. Actually, it would have been better to find more than that in case some of the locks were not serviceable or even if serviceable, not worn very much. Also, some other parts of rifles in stock may have caused them to not be serviceable and that would lead to looking for more rifles with locks from the same lock maker.

Different sources say there were as many as 300 M1792 rifles on hand at HF when Capt. Lewis showed up with his list of requirements. Would there have been at least 15 serviceable rifles out of that 300 with the locks all made by the same lock maker? There may have been, but we don’t know as there doesn’t seem to be any records on how the rifles were chosen, if they indeed were M1792 rifles that were used.

OK, so why would one look for rifles with the locks from the same lock makers when HF was going to make spare locks for each rifle? There are a few reasons I can think of. The first reason is that the holes for the Side Lock Screws would have been in similar positions where they were drilled in the lock plates. That would have made it easier to drill those holes in similar positons for the HF made replacement locks to make the replacements as close as possible to a “drop in fit.” The next reason is that it would have been more likely both the size and threads of the Side Lock Screws would have been similar, if not the same sizes.

The next reason for choosing rifles with locks from the same lock maker would be that if/when parts on those locks got lost (as in Side Plate Screws) or broken, it would have been more likely possible to cannibalize parts from other broken locks and those parts either fit or not need as much fitting to work. Remember, the expedition was expected to take about three years, if I have the details from the original planning correct. That meant three years without all the tools and equipment found in even a civilian gunsmith shop. So even though the HF replacement locks were to be used and had spare parts that could be fitted to them, it would have been better to have the original locks where they could be made serviceable by cannibalizing parts from broken locks.

Gus

 

[54ball]

Excellent thoughts Gus. You provide logistical point of view that is often missed. It surely was not as easy as dusting off 15 M1s.
I read some info on the Dickert Enterprise. According to this he continued to make rifles for the United States well into the 19th Century. Many assume that the Contract Rifles were aged veterans of Wayne's Legion. Maybe not!

It would really be something if a order for Dickert for 15 short Rifles was uncovered or........
15 military Rifles in the English Style.....Pure conjecture....

It makes sense to me that the M1803 was well on it's way when Lewis visited the Armory.

More clues...short rifle barrel failures on the expedition. Early 1803s were known to fail past the round transition. Was it Clark or Lewis that was shot in the backside by hunter with one of the Short Rifles?

 

[Artificer]

Thank you for the kind words. I was very involved in making custom guns and logistics in the modern military, figuring out what I needed to bring to the Spring and Fall NSSA Nationals to work on WBTS guns there over many years and finally for two trips as the U.S. Team Armourer to the World Championship Matches, where I wound up working on original Japanese Matchlocks all the way up to original and repro WBTS firearms.

Those last trips involved a lot of logistic planning and guessing. For example, on the first World Championship when a Team Member brought his original M1840 Flintlock Musket in near mint condition and had a broken top jaw screw, the fact I had thought of and brought top jaw screws for as many guns as I could find, saved the day. I had a repro that was of correct diameter and shape, but not the same thread size. After checking the repro screw against the original threads, I told him I could tap the original **** for the modern threads, but I would not do so without his permission as it changed the originality of the Musket. He happily agreed and he won the Gold Medal with that musket that year, in some part because of that repro screw.

There is a possibility that Lewis got 15 brand new contract rifles from outside HF, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to tease you with that until I can get time later to type it out.

I also ran across the fact that at least one or two (maybe three) of the L&C short rifles wound up bursting on the trip, as you described. But will also have to tease you with that until later.

Those are excellent clues you brought up that need to be more fully explored.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I don't know we can be sure that just because 15 new locks were ordered to be fitted (and other non-described replacement parts as well) that this means new production rifles were not used.

My point was not simply that.

My point was, it would have been if your theory is right, fifteen new locks, AND fifteen new rifles (so now that's thirty locks), PLUS what we would call prototypes to be used for evaluation purposes that were left at the armory after Lewis departed. So how many of the new, unapproved pattern rifles were made do you think before the pattern was approved?

Note it's fifteen "new" locks, not "spare" locks. A minor circumstantial point, but why not use the word "spare" or "additional" and etc. to note each rifle had a second lock? IF your theory is they were to be dropped-in in case a lock broke? On the other hand, since they are going out beyond technical support, if they were using the older rifles, a brand new lock fitted to the old lock mortise in each rifle would be a good idea, no?

LD

 

[Artificer]

Dave,

The problem for many of us who don’t have copies of the letters and replies Lewis wrote to Secretary Dearborn and others ”“ as well as the Journals of Lewis, Clark and other expedition members; is that many of us have to depend on what someone else wrote about the letters. As you are well aware, when someone else paraphrases, they may not get the original intent or information correct.

For example, I have seen some paraphrased descriptions where it seems to state any of the following:

1. HF made 15 new replacement locks and parts for the locks. In this case the old locks were replaced with new manufactured HF locks.

2. HF made 15 spare locks for Contract Rifles on hand and the rifles used their original locks until they broke.

3. HF made 15 new replacement locks (to replace the old locks on the rifles) and then another 15 spare locks to be used if/when the 15 replacement locks broke.

4. HF made 15 new rifles and then an additional 15 spare locks and parts.

In one of my recent posts, I was trying to describe what I think the best way the Supervising Armorer would have gone about choosing Contract rifles on hand, as in Number 2 above.

Since I wrote that, I found two additional pieces of information from another forum. The first is (or at least supposed to be) a correctly transcribed copy of a Letter/Journal entry written by Lewis while on the journey.

“Lewis, 20 March 1806-
"The guns of Drewyer and Sergt. Pryor were both out of order. the first was repared with a new lock, the old one having become unfit for uce; the second had the **** screw broken which was replaced by a duplicate which had been prepared for the lock at Harpers ferry where she was manufactured. but for the precaution taken in bringing on those extra locks, and parts of locks, in addition to the ingenuity of John Shields, most of our guns would at this moment been untirely unfit for use; but fortunately for us I have it in my power here to record that they are all in good order."

The second was a transcription of some of the bales in which goods were repacked at Fort Mandan, but unfortunately a date was not given. Though it was noted the list does not mention the inventories of all the bales that were packed, it does mention that a total of “14 Setts Rifle Locks” were packed, a few each in different bales that were mentioned. Now if I were going to pack bales of goods and equipment to be used in canoes or boats, I DARN sure would not put all my spare Rifle Locks in one bale, just as it seems they did, just in case a canoe or boat was sunk or a/the bales came loose on the rivers and were lost.

So it seems from these references that whatever rifles Lewis actually procured from HF, HF did indeed provide an additional 15 spare locks to be used to replace any broken locks in the rifles.

Now to answer your earlier question of: “So how many of the new, unapproved pattern rifles were made do you think before the pattern was approved?” Allow me to begin with some official correspondence letters.

Once again there is a problem in that I have not found an accurate transcription of the 25 May 1803 letter Secretary Dearborn wrote to HF Master Armorer Joseph Perkin/s, where Dearborn goes into specifics about the then “new rifle” that became the M1803. IMO from what I have read about that letter (though I have not actually read a correct transcription), Dearborn goes way too far into technicalities to have not actually seen at least one “prototype” rifle from HF. I believe I recall that two new HF prototypes (or maybe three) were brought or sent to Dearborn so he could examine them and approve them as is, or direct changes ”“ before this letter was written by Secretary Dearborn to Joseph Perkin/s.

There is another letter I have not seen that was dated 16 June 1803 and from Secretary Dearborn in reply to a question Master Armorer Perkin/s sent to Dearborn. Perkin/s had written earlier about whether or not to add bayonet lugs to the Rifles? Dearborn mentions in this reply that it was “not expedient” to add a bayonet lug.

There is yet another letter I have not read dated 2 December 1803 from Secretary Dearborn to Joseph Perkins. Dearborn suggested minor improvements to the short rifle, including a larger bell mouth entry pipe, front brass band on the forestock, and a wider aperture in the rear sight.

OK, if as I believe Secretary Dearborn had actually seen two or three prototype rifles before he wrote to Master Armorer Joseph Perkin/s on 25 May 1803, that means there were at least two or three prototypes that early. Now we have to remember that before prototypes were manufactured, they almost certainly had drawn up at least some plans for the rifle and parts. The problem is, I don’t have any information on when the plans were made.

And to put yet another zinger into this discussion, some people who have studied accurate transcriptions of the original letters/journals, have stated there was no mention in letters or Ordnance documentation that any Contract Rifles were shortened by HF.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

OK, if as I believe Secretary Dearborn had actually seen two or three prototype rifles before he wrote to Master Armorer Joseph Perkin/s on 25 May 1803, that means there were at least two or three prototypes that early. Now we have to remember that before prototypes were manufactured, they almost certainly had drawn up at least some plans for the rifle and parts. The problem is, I don’t have any information on when the plans were made.

Alright so then either, there was a total of 18 of the 1803 rifles made, 3 ended up being inspected by Dearborn, and 15 more were made (each with an extra lock) for the expedition, OR they made at least 18 or so examples of the "new rifle". Lewis decided he wanted 15 of them with his expedition, so 15 additional locks were then fitted by Lewis placing and order for the extra locks.

This makes some sense..., IF the rifle was pretty much "approved", and I noted from what you wrote that Dearborn is making tiny changes..., a different ramrod thimble, a reinforcing band, a larger rear sight aperture...., not drastic changes, thus leaning toward the idea that the rifles pretty much could have been started upon at the armory. The locks, barrels, and stocks, etc could have been pretty much completed, and Dearborn's changes/additions could have been accomplished with very little extra work.

Can we find when the proposed rifle's shorter length and half-stocked configuration first was suggested/ordered? That might help.

I do remember, and am looking to find it again, a reference where Lewis wanted rifles of the "Lancaster Pattern", but in a larger bore (.54) for the expedition. Now I would think if that was correct, the 1803 was not the rifle, for a half-stock is obviously not of that pattern. However, it's quite possible that Captain Lewis changed his mind IF there were sufficient 1803's to be had, or finished, in enough time. I don't know if the reference was an actual "order" or simply his expressing an opinion to another person in a letter.

I suppose it could have been as simple as Lewis wanted the Contract rifles shortened and rebored, and the head armorer suggested the captain consider the armory's newest rifles instead, already short and already .54.

LD

 

[Grenadier1758]

And once again we come back to the rifle owned by Leon Budginas and shown to the Rifle Shoppe. The rifle is stamped with the serial number 15. It is a half stock with features (narrow sight, straight thimble and no brass barrel band) altered by Dearborn's instructions. The lock has more of a tail than an 1803 lock, the barrel is different as well as the under rib being hollow.

You can read more about this rifle. 1800 US Rifle

This rifle may support the theory that prototypes were supplied to Lewis from HF.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

And once again we come back to the rifle owned by Leon Budginas and shown to the Rifle Shoppe. The rifle is stamped with the serial number 15. It is a half stock with features (narrow sight, straight thimble and no brass barrel band) altered by Dearborn's instructions. The lock has more of a tail than an 1803 lock, the barrel is different as well as the under rib being hollow.

You can read more about this rifle. 1800 US Rifle

This rifle may support the theory that prototypes were supplied to Lewis from HF.

Exactly, well said.

 

[Artificer]

Can we find when the proposed rifle's shorter length and half-stocked configuration first was suggested/ordered? That might help.

Dave and everyone else,

The short answer to your question is I do not know when the half stock designation was first planned/suggested/proposed. As far as I know, that was never recorded, though documentation may come about on that someday in the future. However, that is a superb question.

Personally, I think we need to consider more of the background of the M1792/94 Rifle for this discussion. To me, the whole idea of Secretary Knox authorizing these rifles to be made, is hazy at best, but that may be just the character of a young Nation who really did not want much of a standing Army and could not afford it, either. The “normal” explanation of the use of these rifles is that they were issued out to regular troops and militia’s “as needed” and then returned when no longer needed or required repair. However, how these rifles were issued, to whom and when, and how they were stored when new or returned is a mystery to me.

Now I think we need to consider the Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia. Wiki has this to say, “The Schuylkill Arsenal was built in 1800 to function as a quartermaster [Supply Depot] and provide the U.S. military with supplies.[3] One of its most famous tasks was outfitting the Lewis and Clark Expedition. It was the third federal facility in the young nation.” This information does not tell us how the Contract Rifles were issued and returned before it was built, but once it was built in 1800, it seems all “New Made” Contract Rifles were delivered there after they were built and then issued out as ordered by Government Officials. Now, this may be a stretch on my part, but it seems to me this is where the New or Serviceable Contract Rifles were stored, when not issued to “regular troops or militia’s?” There is some documentation to support that, mentioned by those who have full access to the Full Five Volumes of the L&C papers and journals. However, since I don’t have full access, I can’t give a really good quote on that.

OK, so what about the Contract Rifles that needed repairs? Prior to HF being built and equipped and staffed; most likely they had local Philadelphia Gunsmiths do the repairs. (Note: This may be where Joseph Perkin/s [later the Master Armorer at HF] enters the picture, as he was paid over a thousand pounds to repair “government arms” as early as in the mid 1780’s and would have been well known locally in Philadelphia.) But after HF was built, it seems Contract Rifles that needed repair were sent to HF for that work, which would have made sense at the time. This would explain the approximate 300 Contract Rifles that HF had on hand when Capt. Lewis showed up at HF the first time. Those Contract Rifles needed various amounts of repair work. There really was no other reason to store Contract Rifles there, when there was a Government Arsenal to store serviceable items. Then when HF repaired the rifles, they would be sent to Schuykill Arsenal for storage and issue. So the Contract Rifles on hand at HF when Capt. Lewis showed up, almost certainly would not have been in “ready to issue condition” and would have required repair before issued to Capt. Lewis.

BTW for those who are not familiar with Military Terminology, the word “Armory” from the very earliest period in the U.S. always meant a government facility where weapons were manufactured/assembled. The word “Arsenal” always meant a facility where weapons (and other items) were stored, but not manufactured; though in later years some weapons were repaired at Arsenals. (Confused yet? Wait, there is more. :grin: ) However for modern military veterans; the local storage/issue/recovery area for weapons are often/usually called “an Armory or Armories,” even though no manufacture of Arms is done there. So if forum members are confused about those terms, trust me, even most Armed Service veterans don’t know the differences, unless they were involved in Ordnance.

Bottom line, the Contract Rifles on hand at HF when Capt. Lewis showed up there on March 16, 1803 almost certainly had to be repaired before Capt. Lewis, or anyone else, could have used them.

OK, sorry for another of my long winded posts, but I thought it necessary to begin there. More in my next post.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Part II

OK, it would seem the Contract Rifles on hand at HF when Capt. Lewis got there were probably as broken/rusted and needing repair as some folks have noted. Definitely not in the condition Capt. Lewis would want when he was going off far beyond any kind of major gunsmithing support. He would have required new rifles or at least rifles that were in very good serviceable condition.

Was it possible that New Made Contract Rifles were available for Capt. Lewis from another source? The following information is some of what I mentioned in a sort of a “teaser reply” to 54ball. When I mentioned it earlier, I did not fully understand it and did not understand the chronological order. So had to research it a bit and decided to put it in chronological order with other information so I could follow it, as well as to assist other forum members. This new information comes from discussion on another forum and I decided to italicize it to show it was the new information.

In a letter dated March 14, 1803, Henry Dearborn, Secretary of War, instructed the superintendent of the Harpers Ferry Armory, Joseph Perkins, to "make such arms & Iron work, as requested by Captain Meriwether Lewis." (Note: This is one phrase I think is too often glossed over. The Secretary of War is authorizing HF to MAKE arms for Capt. Lewis [as well as other items needed]. Now I realize this does not prove new rifles were made, but clearly there was authority for HF to have done so.)

Also on that date:

March 14, 1803 - Henry Dearborn, sec. of war, has his chief clerk write to Israel Whelan at the Schuylkill Arsenal to obtain any materials that Lewis may require. He does not mention rifles, or anything specifically.

March 16, 1803 Lewis arrived at HF w/ Secretary of War Dearborn’s letter authorizing HF to “"make such arms & Iron work, as requested by Captain Meriwether Lewis."

On March 24, Secretary of War Dearborn follows up with a letter to Israel Whelan at Schuylkill Arsenal and indicating that he will send a check for $1,000 to obtain equipment for Lewis. Apparently Whelan would have no idea that Lewis was obtaining any guns at HF - perhaps assuming that rifles would be part of what he will supply to Lewis.

May 6, 1803, the Gratz brothers at Philadelphia receive payment for 20 new contract rifles at $13 each (Moller). These are paid for directly by Israel Whelan, and delivered to William Irvine. Those could well have been Lancaster or York made rifles. In George Moller's book (American Military Shoulder Arms (Niwot: University Press of Colorado, 1993), he assumes these rifles are intended for Indians, and possibly imported, since he never heard of the Gratz Bros. We do know that there were rifles traded to the Indians through this same period, but as Moller notes they had used rifles in public storage at the arsenal. A letter written by Dearborn in this same period talks about Whelan obtaining rifles for the Indians from Irvine (therefore from public stores). So why would Whelan go through the Gratz bros. unless the government wanted brand new rifles for a more important reason (if they still had plenty of 1792's)?

May 7, 1803, Lewis arrives at Philadelphia from Lancaster - he then works with Whelan to obtain everything he needs. According to the receipts, some of Lewis' purchases were paid for out of the indian dept. Lewis purchases his gun slings (perhaps for the 'new" rifles he sees at Schuylkill arsenal), and other riflemen equipment in Philadelphia. His purchases shown on receipts include 10 packing boxes for rifles. Does each box possibly hold two rifles? At the same time, he obtains boxes for swords - though he never mentions buying swords in Philadelphia, he must have since they were included on the expedition. Therefore this could explain why additional rifles were not listed either. (Note: This quote has led to a side argument on which rifle was used primarily from where packing boxes were made for them. HF most likely made packing boxes when they had muskets to ship, so they could have made boxes for the rifles. However, HF was not in business to make/provide boxes for all the other gear, so Lewis had to get boxes from Schuylkill arsenal for the rest of the stuff anyway. So I don’t see packing boxes made there as anything more than the expedient place to make all the packing boxes, but I could be mistaken.

18 May, 1803, Lewis received a requisition receipt from HF. (I still have not been able to determine if the rifles were done at that point and delivered to Lewis. I am certain Lewis would have fired the rifles had he actually picked them up then, to ensure they worked and any that didn’t would have been repaired. The fact that there is no mention of firing the rifles on this date does not automatically mean it wasn’t done, though, just that it was not recorded.)

25 May 1803, letter Secretary Dearborn wrote to HF Master Armorer Joseph Perkin/s, where Dearborn goes into specifics about the then “new rifle” that became the M1803

8 July 1803, Captain Lewis wrote a letter to President Jefferson that he had fired the rifles the day before. I still have not been able to document if Lewis was at HF or not when he fired the rifles.

One other thing I think should be mentioned is the following article by S.K. Weir who uses many of more recent sources to unequivocally state that Contract Rifles were used by Lewis and Clark.
http://www.westernexplorers.us/Lewis-and-Clark-Expedition-firearms-summary.html

One thing I have noted by those who state either the Contract Rifles or Pre-Production/Prototypes M1803s were used is that BOTH sides state there are no letters or Ordnance Records to prove work was done at HF on the other rifle they do not think was used. IOW, they usually don’t mention the rifle they believe was used also had no proof as far as work done on the rifles at HF, except for fitting new locks, which both sides agree on. So this seems to be a moot point for both sides, to me. Even the side that believes Contract Rifles were used, admits to the new model Rifle Locks were already available when Capt. Lewis first showed up at HF to order his rifles and other gear.

Personally, I think the presence of those new Model Rifle Locks already at HF need to be investigated further. This may be the “Guerilla in the Room” that everyone is not seeing or brushing right past. New Model Rifle Locks did not magically appear when Capt. Lewis showed up, but their presence then is more than a bit intriguing, if not mystifying.

Harpers Ferry Armory’s primary concern was the production of Muskets and from an earlier post, HF and Springfield Armory combined were not making near enough to satisfy the needs of the Militia in all of the States at this time. So the design and tooling for Rifle Locks was not a priority. I can’t believe the Rifle Locks and tooling was made on a whim. There had to have been some authorization for HF to have done this and that would have had to pre-date when Capt. Lewis showed up, and for some time before that. That tells me HF was already working on designing a new rifle earlier than what we so far have seen documentation. IOW, no need to have designed and made tooling for a new Rifle Lock, if they were not working on a new Rifle Design.

Further, that letter of 25 May 1803 from Secretary Dearborn to HF Master Armorer Joseph Perkin/s, where Dearborn goes into specifics about the then “new rifle” that became the M1803 ”“ is perhaps misunderstood. Some folks have said it was almost insulting to Perkin/s, if such a rifle had already been planned or worked on. OK, I have not seen that letter, but I don’t take it that way at all. I have looked up Secretary Dearborn’s biography and except for when he was on the failed expedition to Quebec in the AWI, there is nothing in Dearborn’s past that would lead one to think he was even fairly knowledgeable on rifles. (Have I missed something?) I tend to believe that Dearborn was clearly stating the parameters for the new rifle he was authorizing to be put into production and where would he have gotten the options for those new parameters? Again, I think Dearborn actually saw two or three “pre-production/prototype” rifles on which to make his decisions for the new U.S. Rifle.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

One of the main points that people make on the rifles Capt. Lewis got from HF possibly being Contract Rifles is the “15 gun slings” he later procured in Philadelphia and possibly/probably from local contractors. They usually cite a drawing of Capt. Lewis with his own personally owned weapon that he had sling swivels and a sling made for and assume the slings and swivels had to be like that for the 15 rifles from HF. I may be mistaken, but I think the following link shows the period image of Capt. Lewis with that rifle/gun and with the sling swivels, but no sling? If this is not the period image people refer to, does anyone have a link to the one they are referring to? http://www.clayjenkinson.com/wp-co.../1-2-26F-25-ExplorePAHistory-a0a9j0-a_349.jpg

The point some “Pro 1792 Contract Rifle” folks try to make is that supposedly a front sling swivel could not be put on a rifle with an Iron under rib as some suggest the early Iron under ribs were hollow. Well, what stopped them from making a solid barrel lug for the sling swivel and dovetailing and “sweating” or soldering it on the barrel underneath the hollow Iron under rib? Then they could drill through the hollow Iron under rib and into that solid lug and through the hollow Iron under rib on the other side, to hold the front sling swivel?

Since HF would have had to make such an added barrel lug for the front sling swivel and attached it to the barrel of 1792 Contract Rifles for a front sling swivel, I don’t see why they could not have done it for a “prototype/pre-production” M1803 rifle.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Grenadier 1758 wrote about “the rifle owned by Leon Budginas and shown to the Rifle Shoppe” in a recent post above.

Just found a PDF containing discussions on both the M1792/4 Contract Rifles and the rifle Grenadier mentioned, the latter can be found by scrolling down to the following article in the link below. Not sure how many forum members may have seen this article and figured some folks would be as interested in the article as I was.

“The SHORT RIFLE of LEWIS & CLARK
A recently discovered "Model 1800" may well be one of the weapons made for Meriwether Lewis at Harpers Ferry
BY RICHARD KELLER AND ERNEST COWAN"
http://www.lewisandclark.org/wpo/pdf/vol32no2.pdf

I want to give credit to the person who posted the link above on another forum as he is/was a member here as well. His first name is Dan and the reason I know he at least was a member here is because we discussed some things on long rifles in this forum. What I am not sure of is what his forum name on this forum was/is? It may be either Dphariss or DPH on this forum? I don’t know for sure, but wanted to make sure he gets credit where credit is due.

Gus

P.S. I hope the link above works, as I have had problems trying to post PDF links before.

 

[In Over My Head]

Gus,

That ( http://www.lewisandclark.org/wpo/pdf/vol32no2.pdf ) is a very convincing article. (And you are a fabulous sleuth.)

Model 1800 Rifle needs to be recognized in our lexicon. It is interesting that The Rifle Shoppe has established a kit of parts for that rifle but I understand that they are difficult to procure from. I think a Model 1800 recreation is going to the top of my wish list!

 

[Mongo]

The "Model 1800 rifle" is a misnomer created by an early 1900's arms writer, who was writing about and pictured a Model 1803 Type II (1814 production) rifle. No such rifle was ever made at Harpers Ferry prior to the manufacture of the "short rifle" (Model 1803); this is evident in ordnance correspondence and in various government documents.
The "Model 1800" rifle being promoted by certain arms collectors is NOT an 1803 rifle used by the Corps of Discovery. It has a Type II stock and lock mortise, which is clearly evident in photographs. Note that whoever created this piece simply dropped in an 1803 lock, leaving space for the original 1814 production lock. Type II production rifles also had barrels that did not have serial numbers, some were left unmarked, while other specimens had serial numbers added later. I've noted in several photographs that they also do not picture the left side of the rifle, neglecting to show the sideplate.
As for the Model 1792 era common long rifles, they did not use Model 1803 type furniture and parts; this is a modern creation (some 1807 contract long rifles did use 1803 style parts). The 1792 contract rifles were noted in government correspondence for being very poorly made. Ones that did pass proof and inspection also varied in their features from the same contractor (Dickert being one example). None of the 1792 era contract long rifles nor Model 1803's were produced with slings or swivels, and the Model 1803 short rifles were not cut down or modified 1792 contract arms. The "short rifle", early versions of what is now called the Model 1803, were certainly used by the Corps of Discovery as noted in the journals of Captain Lewis, Lt. Clark, and Sgt. Ordway.

Fake "Model 1800" rifle which uses a Model 1803 Type II (1814 era) stock-

 

[brazosland]

The "Model 1800 rifle" is a misnomer created by an early 1900's arms writer, who was writing about and pictured a Model 1803 Type II (1814 production) rifle. No such rifle was ever made at Harpers Ferry prior to the manufacture of the "short rifle" (Model 1803); this is evident in ordnance correspondence and in various government documents.
The "Model 1800" rifle being promoted by certain arms collectors is NOT an 1803 rifle used by the Corps of Discovery. It has a Type II stock and lock mortise, which is clearly evident in photographs. Note that whoever created this piece simply dropped in an 1803 lock, leaving space for the original 1814 production lock. Type II production rifles also had barrels that did not have serial numbers, some were left unmarked, while other specimens had serial numbers added later. I've noted in several photographs that they also do not picture the left side of the rifle, neglecting to show the sideplate.
As for the Model 1792 era common long rifles, they did not use Model 1803 type furniture and parts; this is a modern creation (some 1807 contract long rifles did use 1803 style parts). The 1792 contract rifles were noted in government correspondence for being very poorly made. Ones that did pass proof and inspection also varied in their features from the same contractor (Dickert being one example). None of the 1792 era contract long rifles nor Model 1803's were produced with slings or swivels, and the Model 1803 short rifles were not cut down or modified 1792 contract arms. The "short rifle", early versions of what is now called the Model 1803, were certainly used by the Corps of Discovery as noted in the journals of Captain Lewis, Lt. Clark, and Sgt. Ordway.

Fake "Model 1800" rifle which uses a Model 1803 Type II (1814 era) stock-

I assume this is NOT the Budginas rifle, correct?

If it’s not then the rifle you pictured is just what you describe...a collection of parts. But the Budginas is still a credible rifle and may be what some claim it to be.

 

[Many Klatch]

This thread has been fascinating reading. I'm more of a shooter than a researcher/collector, so I tend to worry more about trigger pull instead of intricate historical questions. I really appreciate the time and effort expended by all the participants in this thread. I also appreciate that all these posts were done without any of the usual snide comments that I often see in other places when there are disagreements. I read all the posts and the article about the Budingas gun. Fascinating!! I'd sure like to believe that the Rifle with serial #15 is a true survivor of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.