1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle?

[DanChamberlain]

I'm not a flintlocker per se, but have used a flinter .36 long rifle on and off. Now, I'm sort of interested in the period of the Lewis and Clark excursion and was wondering if anyone has one of these rifles and what they think of them. I already shoot .54 in my perc Lyman GPR and the the Harpers Ferry sort of intrigues me.

Pros and Cons?

Thanks

Dan

 

[sundog]

I have a Navy Arms 1803 Harpers Ferry and I love it. Mine is .58 cal- Navy Arms made them .58 and .54.
Pros- Lightning fast ignition from a big powerfull lock that isnt fussy about flints. Overall it is a nice carry rifle, lightweight and fast handeling, a great mediun distance hunting rifle.
Cons-The sights are copyed from the origional so they are low to the barrel and the reasr notch is quite wide. It is not a 100 yard target rifle at least not in my hands. That being said the verry sights which make it not a 100 yard paper puncher make it a good hunter because you can get on game fast with the sights. Not to say it is inacurate but I cant punch paper clover leafs with it.
If you look at my post in hunting earlyer this week you will see that I chose to use my Harpers Ferry for a Wild Boar hunt rather than my TC Big Boar or my Lyman GPR, The quick sight picture and fast handeling was the reason.

 

[rabjr]

Well first, theres much debate on whether the 1803 Harpers Ferry or a gun similar to it was used by L&C. If that doesn't matter, your not going to get an "Authentic" one from any of the importers. They all seem to be what that companys idea of one was. If you want a real one look at Tracks or TRS parts sets that are parts copied from originals. I put one together a few years ago and it proved to be an excellent shooter.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Yea the debate will never really be resolved. I thought it was interesting a few years back that for the two hundredth anniversary, there were two companies selling high dollar "reproductions" of the Corps of Discovery guns. But they were selling different guns! One was selling a fairly accurate 1803 and the other was selling a repro of the earlier contract rifles refitted with 1803 locks.If I am correct the 1803 Harper's Ferry "rifle" was still a smooth bore.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

............ If I am correct the 1803 Harper's Ferry "rifle" was still a smooth bore.

Oh, really? You may have been confused by an 1803 dated M1795 musket? The M1803 Rifle was a .54 caliber rifle. It was the first rifle made at the National Armory at Harpers Ferry.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I think the 1803 Harpers Ferry is a beautiful rifle and makes about as good a flintlock hunting rifle as can be. However, the imports do have their share of problems. Locks are particularly bad. I've owned three of them over the years, two .58's and one .54. The first I refaced the frizzen with some of Russ Ham's super material which is now know to be a health hazard but it sure made that sucker spark! I never could get satisfactory accuracy from the factory barrel so I rebarreled it with a Sharon .50 caliber and it was then a great shooter until I foolishly sold it. The second .58 shot "sort of OK" after doing all I could to tune it up so I don't regret trading that one off. The third, a .54, I got very cheap because the owner could never make it spark. He took it to a gunsmith who had no better luck. The owner gave it to me in lieu of the 150 bucks he owed me. I replace all of the lock internals and the hammer, re-hardened the frizzen and got it to shoot pretty fair. I traded that one to a friend, even swap for his .50 Blue Ridge. I didn't especially want to swap but felt sort of sorry for the guy because he wanted a bigger caliber for a buffalo hunt and didn't have cash to spare.
But my point to you is that none of them were good out of the box and that is what I hear from other owners as well. I still like the 1803 but now I would get the Track of the Wolf kit. It's not cheap but is pretty much a bolt together kit.

 

[BobKrohn]

I recently got one from an online auction.
The lock sparked great!
BUT, the problem was that the lock internals are REALLY ABSOLUTE garbage. India-Pakistan child labor type quality. Would not stay on full cock. I tried to reshape the tumbler notch. Would stay on full cock but because of geometry it would catch on the half-cock. No fly on tumbler.
I bought a L&R 1803 HF replacement and with minimal (1-2 hrs) grinding and reshaping lock plate and wood removal on stock had a nice fit. Lock DOES have a fly. There are slight unavoidable gaps in fit each end if pan but are not too noticeable. Touch hole lines up great.
It is a beautiful and externally nicely finished gun otherwise. It's an attractively unusual looking rifle and is sure to get attention. Have not shot it yet so can't speak about accuracy.
Maybe use the old lock as a fire starter.

PS I think (IMHO) that the 1803 HF was specifically developed for the L&C Exp (and for others later).
It was to be a special purpose army weapon for the unique needs of the frontier military. We do the same today. It was rifled, a first for USA. It was a durable half-stock and shorter than "standard". Smaller caliber so lead supply went farther. It had NO PROVISION for a bayonet. Lastly, few were made, only like 4,000 in the first run. People say that L&C didn't get these as the 1803 wasn't "issued" till, gosh, maybe MONTHS after L&C left. :rotf:
Yup, I'm sure that they hadn't been working on this rifle for quite a while and hadn't made numerous prototypes and conducted tests. They wouldn't under any conditions give out any until they were ready to issue them for all others. :haha:
The Louisiana Purchase had been in the making for YEARS. These guys were using "leading edge" technology for the time. The metal frame folding boat for example. Packing gunpowder inside lead boxes. Sheesh, even the expedition leader used a COMPRESSED AIR RIFLE on this trip. President Jefferson and his picks for the team were forward thinking geniuses.

 

[rabjr]

It was rifled, a first for USA.

Thats not exactly true. It was the first Armory produced rifle issued to the army. It was not the first issued rifle.

As to the rest of it, I want proof before believing one way or the other. The trueth and what we want to believe is true, usually are two very different things.

 

[Rod Lassey]

I've got one of those Italian 1803s as well....it taught me alot about gunsmithing.

The nonsparking frizzen I refaced with steel from a handsaw, brazing it on then rehardening. Then the tumbler was too soft, rounding off the full cock notch. Before I hardened that, I took my die grinder with a fine pointed burr and cut in a vee for a fly, and drilled the tumbler for the same. Smoothed it all up, filed the full cock notch, and then casehardened the tumbler.

Made the lock work great, but it still would shoot very well. The .58 caliber barrel had very shallow rifling, and a fast twist (I suspect it was rifled the same as the barrels of the Springfield repros, designed to shoot Minie balls). Any powder charge over about 40 grains tended to strip the ball right through--and I had to use an obscenely tight ball/patch combo to get any accuracy.

My solution was to smoothbore the barrel--I cut slot in the end of a rod, and wrapped it with emory cloth, and went at it with the rod in an electric drill. Took awhile, but I polished that rifling right out.

By the way, I later had the chance to examine an original 1803 that had been smoothbored, as well.

Rod

 

[ohio ramrod]

Apparently then I was not correct. I was relying on my memorey rather than looking it up. They say the eyes are the first to go and then the memerory and then ,Gee I cann't remember the third.

 

[BobKrohn]

For those interested.

Lewis and Clark Official website regarding guns used

March 14, 1803 Letter to HF by Sec of War to provide guns
(4 months)
July 08, 1803 Expedition guns completed
(3 months)
October of 1803 Mod 1803 official full production starts at HF
(7 months)
May 14, 1804 After wintering in Camp Dubois, IL, Expedition actually leaves civilization to go up the Missouri.

Link to Expedition starting point details

"While Lewis went ahead on horseback to St. Louis, Clark and the crew got the keelboat up the Mississippi, and set up winter quarters on the Wood River in Illinois, opposite the mouth of the Missouri. Meanwhile, Lewis made friends, collected supplies, and gathered more information in the city. At last, on May 14, 1804, forty-two soldiers and hired hands embarked from Camp Dubois and proceeded up the Missouri toward the Pacific Ocean."

Obviously, there was no way that L&C had input to development of the 1803 and would not have used pre-production models of that rifle. They would have preferred to take well used Model 1792 Contract Rifles into the wilderness for several years. These guns were not made at HF but by numerous different contractors. It's doubtful that there was much chance of parts interchanability. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[BobKrohn]

Oops :redface:
I replaced the lock with one from R.E. Davis
NOT L&R.

Link to R. E. Davis Lock Co - 1803 replacement lock

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

We've had this discussion before. It always ends the same: those who own copies of the 1803 just KNOW that L&C carried them and cannot be shaken from this belief by facts and logic. The rest of us fell asleep right in the middle of the discussion and dreamt of air rifles and portable soup. :snore:

 

[Dphar]

For those interested.

Lewis and Clark Official website regarding guns used

March 14, 1803 Letter to HF by Sec of War to provide guns
(4 months)
July 08, 1803 Expedition guns completed
(3 months)
October of 1803 Mod 1803 official full production starts at HF
(7 months)
May 14, 1804 After wintering in Camp Dubois, IL, Expedition actually leaves civilization to go up the Missouri.

Link to Expedition starting point details

"While Lewis went ahead on horseback to St. Louis, Clark and the crew got the keelboat up the Mississippi, and set up winter quarters on the Wood River in Illinois, opposite the mouth of the Missouri. Meanwhile, Lewis made friends, collected supplies, and gathered more information in the city. At last, on May 14, 1804, forty-two soldiers and hired hands embarked from Camp Dubois and proceeded up the Missouri toward the Pacific Ocean."

Obviously, there was no way that L&C had input to development of the 1803 and would not have used pre-production models of that rifle. They would have preferred to take well used Model 1792 Contract Rifles into the wilderness for several years. These guns were not made at HF but by numerous different contractors. It's doubtful that there was much chance of parts interchanability. Yeah, that makes sense.

This discussion is enough to make anyone who wants to know cry.
The L&C Expedition had been in planning for years. It was secret (by the standards of the the day) and considered very important by Jefferson.

Lewis had letter directing HF to make whatever he wanted.
The interesting part is that HF made 15 more 1803s than were ordered. The same number as Lewis took. If what I have read is correct. More ????
Its just not resolvable to everyone's satisfaction.
Then we know that the rifles he picked up at HF were badly rusted coming down the Ohio. How badly?? Were they still considered serviceable? No mention. But there was time for more rifles to have been sent. Not everything about the expedition is "on the books" either.
We KNOW the LOCKS in the rifles were made in HF. THIS much is mentioned in the Journals.
Had they mentioned the balls to the pound. ANY description. But there is nothing.

All we know is they were "short rifles" and some people even want to argue about this.
So folks can pretty much make up anything they please.
But remember that at this time everything was prototyped. They did not build from drawings. So for Dearborne to have ordered the 1803 and to make suggestions for changes, he almost surely had a prototype in his hands. It was the way things were done at the time. So it is entirely possible there WAS a prototype 1803 at HF when Lewis was there. But this is supposition.
People who want hard documentation will have to assume what they will. There are (at least) 3 possibilities for the rifles all based on assumptions and all cause arguments.
But they were not full length contract rifles and they did have HF locks in them.

Dan

 

[DanChamberlain]

Thanks all for the responses. It appears there is not a concensus among the crew as to the relative quality of the reproductions available...or their authenticity. May I direct y'all to my initial post:

"I'm not a flintlocker per se, but have used a flinter .36 long rifle on and off. Now, I'm sort of interested in the period of the Lewis and Clark excursion..."

I'm not sure...but I just can't read that and get the feeling that the author is going to be a stickler for period authenticity, at least to the point where it will pass muster at a graded rendevoux. But, that's just me.

Appreciate all the replies.

Dan

 

[paulvallandigham]

The burden of proof should be on the folks that want to run you out of an event because your " gun is not historically correct!", and not on you. I know that is not how that works some places, and they don't get my business, or recommendations to other shooters to attend their events.

SINCE THERE ARE NO SURVIVING,DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES OF THE GUNS THAT WENT WITH LEWIS AND CLARK, it more than a bit difficult to prove anything, one way or another. We know that Harper's Ferry made the 1795 contract gun. We also know that there was an 1803 model in " the works" ( ie. " prototypes" )at the time the expedition was being organized. There seems to be some record that suggests that 15 more of the 1803 proto-type guns made than were "ordered". We know that there is NO explanation in the records for this discrepancy. And we know that L&C took 15 guns with them.

Can we draw the conclusion that these same 15 guns are the ones that appear in the records as exceeding the number ordered??? Its tempting, but without knowing the history of orders, record keeping, and shop practice with proto-types, its more than a bit risky to do so.

There remain good arguments that the guns of L&C are either the 1795 contract muskets, or the 1803 prototypes.

I tend to be a bit conservative, and take the view that L&C were unlikely to take any equipment as important as their guns that were at all experimental, and unproven. The folding boat is about as daring as I think they would go, and that only because the boat did not weigh much, and did not occupy much space. After all, they were taking a substantial wooden riverboat up the river, and the entire expedition was premised on the idea that there was a water route from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean.

Not only do other opinions vary, but I can make an equally strong argument for them as well. We simply do not know all the facts. I think its wonderful that the Air Rifle taken on the expedition has survived after being lost in a private collection for more than 100 years. Its still possible that one of the 15 guns will show up, mismarked in some archived collection, or museum, but I do not want to get anyone's hopes up. After 200 years, I think it becomes more and more unlikely that anything will turn up.

Having said that, I recall an article about 10 years ago about a battle in New York near Ticonderoga that resulted in deaths on both sides. The bodies were found in a mass grave during a recent excavation. One body had buttons common to a military uniform, and the skull clearly showed that death was caused by a blow to the back of the head from a war club with a spike. Someone more knowledgeable than me looked at that picture and x-ray, and recalled that there was in a New York Museum a war club from a famous Indian chief, who had told of being in that battle and killing an officer with a blow to the back of the head with his club. On further comparison, the war club fit exactly the wound in the skull found, and the officer's remains were positively identified as a result. After more than 200 years! How about that!

That incident proved that we Americans just don't dig up and disturb the graves of only NON-White peoples, ( proving again how racist we white folks are!) and that history and archeology is all about learning the facts, and not in disturbing remains of anyone, regardless of race or religion, unnecessarily. It also proved the worth of keeping on looking and digging for the records and information. Who knows?? Someone may just find the answer out before we all are dead and forgotten. :thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

In the interest of getting us off of the 1803 vs 1795 Contract gun debate, as I recall, there was a small bore rifle taken along too (besides the air rifle).

What was that gun and what would be a suitable reproduction for Dan Chamberlain to consider?

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I think it was referred to as the small rifle. Some take that to mean small bore and others that it was made by someone named Small. It can be as contentious a subject as the 1792-1803 rifle thing. I believe it was a smaller bore rifle than the main rifles they carried but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by anyone who was there.

 

[paulvallandigham]

The journals are silent about the details of that rifle, and I know of no other source( Letters from some of the men to family members, that have been discovered, so far) of information on it. No one even knows the caliber, and all assume it was a flintlock. Other than that, I think someone can say anything, and no one will be able to prove him a liar.

 

[Dphar]

In the interest of getting us off of the 1803 vs 1795 Contract gun debate, as I recall, there was a small bore rifle taken along too (besides the air rifle).

What was that gun and what would be a suitable reproduction for Dan Chamberlain to consider?

I think both Clark and Lewis had small bore kentuckies along, personal guns. One was about 36 caliber I *think*. Both were too small to hunt big game. I would have to read the whole set of books or hope its in the index for know the exact text.
One was "freshed" during the return trip.

Dan