1803 Harper's Ferry Rifle

[TreeMan]

As soon as the flux capacitor comes in from autozone I’m gonna get in the DeLorean And settle this once and for all!! I have questions man!!

 

[Mongo]

Leon Budginas contacted me in 2000 after I wrote an article on the Model 1803 "short rifle" and the L&C Expedition. Unfortunately, I was out of state and could not examine the rifle.
Michael Carrick sent me a number of photos of purported early rifles, some of which showed faded s/n stamps (they had three digits, not two). The fact that the lock does not fit the mortise in the attached photo (Carrick photo, I added the arrows) and leaves a noticeable gap, shows that this is not an original stock for an early Model 1803 and thus not a Corps of Discovery weapon.
That being said, the "short rifles" used by L&C were early Model 1803's, as shown in ordnance correspondance and the expedition journal entries. Carl P. Russell highlighted the minor differences in his book "Firearms, Traps, and Tools of the Mountain Men" in 1967. Jesse Melot of the Rifle Shoppe also categorized the early rifles (Type I, Type II, and Type III).

There is no US government rifle Model 1800 rifle, never was.

My guess, not having examined the rifle, is that it is a parts gun (it is missing many parts).

 

[Grenadier1758]

I bought the parts for my 1803 Harper's Ferry Rifle from Track of the Wolf (Advanced Projects Kit from the Rifle Shoppe) in 2000. When I realized that the 1803 production was not authorized until after Lewis left Harper's Ferry. If course one of the mysteries associated with the 1803 Rifle is that the initial authorization was for 2,000 rifles expanded to 4,000. However the government paid for 15 additional rifles. Were these the rifles taken by Lewis as a preproduction model for the Corps of Discovery? What did they look like? @Mongo, I wish you had seen the Budingas rifle. I would be curious about your article on the 1803.

Having shot my completed rifle, I agree with the great handling that would have made this a far better choice for the Corps of Discovery than refurbished 1792 Contract Rifles. So many questions about the rifles that were just not documented by Lewis or Harper's Ferry or in any of the journals.

 

[Zonie]

Yes. It's too bad the Lewis & Clark records didn't include:

"Received 15 fine rifles from Harper's Ferry, these being the pre-production guns of the newly made half stock rifles.
They appear to be well made and following a few shots made by myself I have no doubt they will serve us well.
A good supply of extra locks and assorted parts was also delivered so I have no doubt that they will serve us without mischief
for the duration of our adventure."

Of course, if the records included that bit of information, we wouldn't have such lively discussions about the guns they took with them.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Oh, we would still debate the rifles if we had evidence of preproduction 1803 rifles being taken with the Corps of Discovery.

How did they perform?
What was the twist?
Square bottom or round bottom rifling?
Which of the modern rifles compares most closely to the Lewis rifles?
Where are the molds for the bullets or balls used?
If they used ball, what did they do when patching material ran out?
Did they clean with tow or wool from bison pelts?
...
We can find plenty of topics to keep the conversations going.

 

[Mongo]

Unfortunate that Lewis did not take along an artist. I find it rather odd he, Clark, Ordway, nor Gass didn't provide a list of firearms and to whom they were issued- common long rifles, personal long rifles, Charleville pattern muskets, etc. We also know the officers carried arsenal issued horseman's pistols, Lewis's privatley purchased pocket pistols, and swords, and espontoon (no swords for the enlisted men nor sergeants). That, and two blunderbusses on swivels, and the swivel cannon. As luck would have it, letters from contractors and the arsenals covering the time frame after 1800 to the War Department were destroyed in a fire. Luckily we do have illustrations from Gass's journal showing expedition members using short rifles.
I don't think Lewis's short rifles differed much from the 1803 production rifle, as noted in several letters from Dearborn to Perkin (Dearborn only suggested minor improvements, such as a wider entry pipe, rear sight, and ferrule on the stock to prevent splitting). As such, I think the Track M1803 is an excellent choice (and can be easily modified as an expedition short rifle).

Not to be outdone, I think someday some researcher will locate more documentation. Michael Carrick located a journal entry finally proving what type airgun was used on the expedition.

Illustration from Sgt Patrick Gass's journal showing expedition members shooting bears.

 

[Pete G]

Not to mention patch lube and cleaning solutions.

 

[Grenadier1758]

The Corps of Discovery was always near water, so we can assume they cleaned with water. They shot enough bears to render bear oil for lubricant.

Of course we can still debate what they used. Probably used some of that portable soup they could use for lubricant.

 

[Einsiedler]

Good thread. Thanks to you all!

 

[Einsiedler]

Greetings,

I ran across this link the other evening, and I thought in the interest of great discussion (and to keep the thread alive) I would post. I don’t believe it has been posted in this thread. If it has been posted elsewhere, please forgive.

I do admit that I like the configuration of this rifle.

https://greatwar.com/wwi-links/lewis-and-clark-short-rifle/

 

[tenngun]

Is there documentation that Harpers Ferry supplied spare parts for the rifle locks OR were just replacement locks provided? If Harpers Ferry supplied spare parts for the locks, then it is MUCH more probable they made the locks and very possibly/probably the rifles as well.

Contractors used dies to forge form lock parts into and thus even the raw parts could be made into "quasi-interchangeable" parts. However, Harpers Ferry would not have those dies, but made their own dies.

Also, since it has been years since I read anything on the Corps of Discovery, was there a Harpers Ferry trained Artificer or gunsmith that was known to have gone with them?

Gus

We often have talk on this forum about correct features for x military gun, and decry a certain gun like a bess from so ands so as having incorrect features. But even a bess made for the army and used in America during the revolution was far from uniform. Even with go no go testing.each company or regiment had an armorer attached to it. Who could fit new parts to a gun as needed.
I bet when Cornwallis went to York town or After Saratoga more then one bess had a barrel that was cut off and a new lug fit after a muzzle was damaged, the ball on the forearm chewed up, cocks twisted funny and maybe a weird gap at a lock to wood fit.
What’s that got to do with the CoD? Only they did have an artificer with them who had the skill to make an almost fit fit and work.
Thirty years later at rendezvous we think of the fur companies bringing new guns west, but they also brought gun locks.

 

[Pete G]

They shot enough bears to render bear oil for lubricant.

After the first few encounters I'm sure they had a campfire meeting: Guys, quit messing with the bears...

 

[Einsiedler]

After the first few encounters I'm sure they had a campfire meeting: Guys, quit messing with the bears...

!!!

Yup!

 

[vintovka]

The 1803 is about the best looking US military rifle ever. I have known trusts set up in which of all the items in the estate an 1803 was specifically noted to be given to a family member due to the former owners love of it!!. FWIW used to buy and sell MLs at almost a wholesale level. Got a call from Turner at DGW way back when as they were closing out a number of items including first run Tenn Mountain rifles and Navy HF 1803s. Drank deep at just a hair over $2K for dozen plus of each (shipped!!) and never looked back. Still have one of each and both will go to my grandkid.

 

[tsmgguy]

Tantalizing article by Jess Melot of The Rifle Shoppe linked here:

The Rifle Shoppe, Inc. - US Arms - 1800 US Short Rifle (Lewis and Clark Rifle) (935)

Jess built a L&C 1800 pattern Harper's Ferry rifle for me. It's a thing of great beauty, and subtly different from later M1803 versions.

 

[Mongo]

There is no such thing as a "Model 1800 rifle" (short or otherwise), it's a creation of early 1900's writer Charles Sawyer who wrote about the Harpers Ferry rifle, but pictured a Type II 1814-1819 Harpers Ferry rifle.

The rifles used by the L&C Expediton were early versions of the Model 1803 (called the short rifle in the Expedition's journals, and ordnance correspondence, but was later called the "iron ribed rifle" and "Harpers Ferry rifle"). The locks and parts were made at Harpers Ferry, as recorded in Clark and Lewis's journals, the 1814 edition of the journals by Nicholas Biddle/Paul Allen (who had help writing them from Clark and Pvt. George Shannon), and noted in the " Bailing Invoice of Sundries, being necessary Stores Vizt." listing "rifle locks" totalling "14 Setts Gunlocks" (inventoried at Fort Mandan).

William Clark, 20 April 1806-

The Guns of Sergt. Pryor & Drewyer were both out of order. the first had a **** screw broken which was replaced by a duplicate which had been prepared for the Locks at Harpers Ferry; the Second repared with a new Lock, the old one becoming unfit for use. 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 entirely unfit for use; but fortunate for us I have it in my power here to record that they are in good order, and Complete in every respect—


https://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/

 

[FlinterNick]

I wonder if Harpers Ferry "pre-fitted" a spare lock to each rifle rather than just supplying 15 spare locks? This would have been almost mandatory had the rifles been Contract Rifles and especially had they not all come from the same maker.

The biggest problem I envisage would be either the location of current threaded holes in the lock plates for side plate screws or trying to drill side plate screw holes in replacement lock plates out on the trip. Harpers Ferry could also have ensured the lock plates from both the completed guns and the spare locks were close enough in size to switch without major fitting. Actually I would presume they actually tried the spare locks in the rifles, to make sure they functioned correctly in them.

Now had Harpers Ferry made all the rifles and spare locks, they could or probably did have a drilling template for all the holes in the lock plates. The added benefit would have been all the threads in the holes for similar screws would have been the same. This was a HUGE deal because there was no such thing as standardized threads per inch taps and dies at that time. Further, and if necessary, repair parts could more easily have come from cannibalizing parts from spare locks.

I would love to see a list of Artificer/Gunsmith tools that were supplied for the trip. That could tell us a lot about what kind of maintenance they could have done on the trip.

Gus

If spare locks were made, its likely they were made for specific guns and already fitted. When I researched Lewis and Clark’s Contract Rifles and Short Rifles, it seemed as if they were anticipating extremely heavy use of the guns, and would have wanted spare parts For this specific expedition.

The actual 1803 Lock that was designed for the first 1803 pattern rifle was likely not used until around 1810-1812. The very first 1803 rifles had very small locks almost pistol sized, soon thereafter they went back to a larger contract style common rifle lock And omitted the fly from the tumbler.

The 1803 Rifle that many are familiar with today saw most of its service in the war of 1812, Texas Revolution, Florida Wars and Mexican American War. A small number were converted to percussion for the CSA And bored out to .58 caliber.

The US Contract Rifles are an every confusing enigma, especially those carried by Lewis and Clark. In reading about what was supplied to Lewis and Clark, it should be also noted that they were supplied with a good amount of Contract Muskets too, these would likely have been Virginia pattern muskets or 1795‘s. From speaking with Jess about the contract rifle locks one thing he had mentioned is they had flys on them, which you don’t typically see on military flintlocks.

The contract rifle’s also had early use with the American Legion under Anthony Wayne. If these rifles were in stockpile, its possible some made it to the expedition and were in needed to new locks.

The sling swivels were an interesting omission on the 1803 rifle patterns, the US military felt they were not necessary at the time And the mounting of an underribb made addicting swivels complicated.

 

[tsmgguy]

Greetings,

I ran across this link the other evening, and I thought in the interest of great discussion (and to keep the thread alive) I would post. I don’t believe it has been posted in this thread. If it has been posted elsewhere, please forgive.

I do admit that I like the configuration of this rifle.

https://greatwar.com/wwi-links/lewis-and-clark-short-rifle/

The article linked just above puts the 1972 Contract rifle v. M1800 rifle controversy convincingly to bed.

 

[Einsiedler]

The article linked just above puts the 1972 Contract rifle v. M1800 rifle controversy convincingly to bed.

Quite possibly so. Lots of information.

I would add, not that it matters just a whole lot, but I’m still of the school that thinks there is no model 1800. That it’s still a model of 1803.

 

[Mongo]

Info on early production M1803 rifles was featured in the April/May 2000 article I wrote for Muzzleloader magazine (The Short Rifles of the Lewis and Clark Expedition) which showed that the L&C Expedition's "short rifles" (US govt nomenclature) did not have the brass band on the forestock, had a small mouth entry pipe, and small aperature rear site (the latter easily widened with a file). The Budginas rifle was known even back in 1995, and perhaps earlier, since I contacted Jess Melot at The Rifle Shoppe and we discussed some details at length.