1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle?

[BobKrohn]

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

I mean no offense and don't intend to be 'difficult'. :v :bow:
There seem to be some very sensitive and aggressive people here.
But is there any chance you and 'Russ T Frizzen' were on the OJ Simpson jury?
Just curious. :hmm:

The reason I peripherally brought up the 1803 question was to prepare 'DanChamberlain' for the type of supercilious comments like those made by 'Russ T Frizzen'

Link to[url] Dictionary.com[/url]

...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.

'DanChamberlain' mentioned that he had an interest in getting an 1803 since he had an interest in the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The exact same reason I got one.
He would show up at an event, eager and excited to enjoy himself with his new toy, only to be descended upon by someone like 'Rusty', who will come up and delight in belittling and embarrassing the poor guy for his stunning lack of knowledge and "proving" his own.
I would bet that most of us (at least myself) aren't preoccupied, even possessed, by microscopic attention to detail. Most of us can't afford ($) to. After 30 years muzzleloading I finally splurged bought my first (used) buckskin pants. My rifle was a T/C Hawken. I've always tried to make sure I wasn't too 'inauthenic' I've suffered having to deal with these types of detail personalities before.
'DanChamberlain' (in a later post)

"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."

Give guys like 'DanChamberlain' and myself a break.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Son, you don't even know me. I have never "descended" on anyone or ridiculed their rifles or any of their equipment. Accusing people you do not know of things that they have never done isn't the best way to make friends. You seem to be as sensitive and aggressive an individual as has come along in recent times and apparently feel that you are that last word on this subject. We've done this topic before and there has been no definitive proof put forth that L&C carried the 1803 rifle on their expedition. So far, there still hasn't. There is nothing wrong with an 1803 rifle if it is a well made copy. The Italian ones do leave a lot to be desired. This, too, has long been acknowledged--most often by former owners of the imported rifles.

 

[BobKrohn]

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.
Dan

It's difficult for me to tell from your post but I'll assume that you realize that in my very last sentence I was being facetious? Or were even refering to me. (The post was a reply to me.)
Please don't wake up :snore: Russ T Frizzen :snore: as this is just boring factual history stuff!

*) There were secret discussions with Congress to get funding early in Jan 1803.
Jefferson had been working on this for years before he became Pres.
Link to History Channel article on early interest in Louisiana Territory
Jefferson had contacted war hero, George Rogers Clark (older brother of William Clark) about an expedition right after the US Revolution was over.
Link to US Park Sevice site re W Clark referencing his BROTHER G.Clark

*) The lack of massive 'official records' would probably be due to the secret nature of the preparations for the trip due in turn to the political controversy regarding the constitutional legality of the purchase and diplomatic issues with France and Spain. After all it wasn't ours YET.
Link to detailed history at official White House site, of events leading to the Louisiana Puchase

*) Meriwether Lewis had been working for Pres Jefferson as a personal secretary for quite a while. Knew him for years before. Family friends. I think he even lived at the White House.
Link to Wikipedia page on Lewis

*) Harper's Ferry is only about 70 mi away from Washington D.C.
Eli Whitney (Mr Interchangeable Parts and government contractor for muskets) help establish Harpers Ferry in late 1790's.

*) Jefferson was Vice President (1797”“1801) so must have had some authority to 'investigate' the possibilty of a purchase and an expedition.

I have seen (although I can't find it now) an article on a "recently discovered" 1803 with the number '15' stamped on it. It even had some repairs (mainspring?) mentioned in period documents. Will keep looking.

The Expedition was not a spur of the moment undertaking with frantic preparations.

 

[tg]

"I would bet that most of us (at least myself) aren't preoccupied, even possessed, by microscopic attention to detail"

Whether L&C took the 1803, 0n their journey or whether longrifles had swamped or straight barrels in the 1770's, or whether the TC and other similar half stocks are accurate replicas of Sam and Jakes guns can hardly be called microscopic attention detail, as Russ stated most often someone jumps in head first then is dissapointed when those who spend a lot of time studying gun history do not validate their choices.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

There you go again! I very much enjoy and seek out facts pertaining to history. You do not know me and are not even close to forming an accurate picture of me. On the other hand, the picture that you are forming of yourself is that of one who desperately wants the 1803 to be the rifle they carried on the expedition. And maybe it was. Finding a rifle with the number 15 on it simply shows that it was the fifteenth rifle in the production series. It doesn't show that this was the fifteenth rifle issued to the expedition. The fact that it was repaired in a manner similar to other 1803s doesn't mean all that much--many firearms types tend to have the same weaknesses thus requiring the same repairs.
I am not trying to cause you grief, but nothing that I have found in over forty years of study and talking with people who have much more experience than I has ever shone that the 1803 went west with Lewis and Clark. I see little to be gained in continuing to post in this thread since you are convinced that the 1803 went west with L&C, and I remain unconvinced that anyone knows which rifle they took. I will be quite happy if it is proven to be the 1803 and I will be just as happy if it turns out to have been a modified 1792 rifle. Because I love history and I love the facts that form the basis of history. It is simply a respect for the truth. Not the biased interpretation of various possible events to be used to justify the use of a rifle in my possession at a re-enactment.

 

[bob308]

my point on the whole mess is this. about half belive if it is not proven in black and white then it did not happen and could not have happened. and no way they are wrong {in their own small minds}.

then there are the ones that say it could have happened but it is not proven it did or did not. they just want to have fun.

all this boils down to way i did not take up this end of the sport of b-p shooting. too much bickering over nothing. just one trying to be more correct then the other.

i onced listened to a discussion over weather or not there were self stricking matches before 1840.

 

[tg]

"
my point on the whole mess is this. about half belive if it is not proven in black and white then it did not happen and could not have happened. and no way they are wrong "

Typicaly research with black and white proof is needed,before anything can be conluded to be a fact, all else is speculation at best.

Those who find speculatuion and hearsay to suit their level of acceptance of an item or issue should not get involved in a place where facts are the goal.

 

[tmdreb]

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:

That's a bunch of manure. I own an 1803 copy and am interested in the L&C debate only because it's interesting and involves research. I have no intention of reenacting L&C stuff. However, I do on occasion attend Texas Revolution events, and we do know that this weapon was in Texas in 1835-36. So, debate the nuances of the term "short rifle" all you want, it doesn't matter for my usage.

What's more useful to me is whether or not that R.E. Davis lock shown in the link is intended to fit the Italian repros. I've been told on here in the past that I'd just have to live with the lock I've got (works fine now, but we'll see) but this one is purported to be a "replacement lock" so I'd be interested to know if that's what it's intended to be.

 

[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:

That's a bunch of manure. I own an 1803 copy and am interested in the L&C debate only because it's interesting and involves research. I have no intention of reenacting L&C stuff. However, I do on occasion attend Texas Revolution events, and we do know that this weapon was in Texas in 1835-36. So, debate the nuances of the term "short rifle" all you want, it doesn't matter for my usage.

What's more useful to me is whether or not that R.E. Davis lock shown in the link is intended to fit the Italian repros. I've been told on here in the past that I'd just have to live with the lock I've got (works fine now, but we'll see) but this one is purported to be a "replacement lock" so I'd be interested to know if that's what it's intended to be.

Your manners are deplorable young feller. But that's to be expected from some folks I guess. Not enough trips to the woodshed when they were young 'uns. Since the post didn't refer to you why in Hades did you even bother to jump into it? And it isn't manure. Always seems like folks with these guns want them to be the expedition gun. I've already stated my position on the subject so there's no need to do so again. Actually, after your uncalled for outburst, your second sentence pretty much covers it. :thumbsup:

As to the lock in question, my suggestion would be that you go to the R. E. Davis web-site and see what they have to say about it.

 

[tmdreb]

Aw, come on! You weren't supposed to take that so seriously! I was referring to the bit that says "those who own copies of the 1803..." which does actually apply to me.

I had plenty of whuppin's when I was young, but I also developed a sense of humor somewhere along the way, and I hope you did too!

Anyhow, this is what the site says about the lock:

We have totally redesigned all of the face parts of this lock to more closely approximate the originals. New molds were completed by Larry Zornes of The Mold and Gun Shop. Like its predecessor, this lock throws a shower of sparks in the pan for reliable ignition, and makes an ideal lock for a reproduction Harpers Ferry or hunting gun. Right hand only.

Dimensions: 5 3/8" x 1 1/16".

#1018
$125.00

The implication is that it is to be used for building a reproduction, and not necessarily for replacing the lock on Italian reproductions.

I really don't have any intention in participating in yet another rehash of the L&C debate, I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Lightening up is always sound advice and I'll do my best to follow it! :v The wording on their web-site is a little vague--it could be interpreted as meaning it fits repros or that it is a good lock to use if you are building a complete rifle from scratch. At $125.00 each, they ought to be a bit more specific.

 

[BobKrohn]

What's more useful to me is whether or not that R.E. Davis lock shown in the link is intended to fit the Italian repros. I've been told on here in the past that I'd just have to live with the lock I've got (works fine now, but we'll see) but this one is purported to be a "replacement lock" so I'd be interested to know if that's what it's intended to be.

I know it's hard but just try to ignore 'Russ T Frizzen'. This is not his first time to "go off".
I think the scientific term is "Gadfly". There are a couple more like him that just love to argue about inconsequential BS. You will recognize them soon enough. It's an attention getting device and by engaging them you are only providing positive reinforcement that will just make it worse.
Link to Gadfly at[url] Dictionary.com[/url]


I have started a NEW topic on the lock replacement I did on my Italian HF 1803 rifle.
Hopefully this will avoid "static noise".
i.e. Rusty and tg, PLEASE don't go there.

Link to Post: 1803 Harpers Ferry - RE Davis Replacement Lock (Topic#230562)

 

[DanChamberlain]

First of all, this is not directed at Russ T, but a general reply to all who have responded. In my original post to this thread, I mentioned that I was interested in the "period" of the expedition. As such, I was interested in a rifle that represented that period, not necessarily that expedition. It's the same way with the Civil War. My only long gun that represents that "period" is an Iron Framed Henry. As it shoots .44-40, it's not "authentic" and that matters not one whit to me.

But, having said that, I really do appreciate historical authenticity as it relates to the rendevouz that I attend (as a tourist, not a competitor or participant). I also appreciate the threads where people who have done their research, share it with the rest of the crew here. I love to learn.

The confusion comes, when someone initiates a thread, people with vast historical knowledge might assume everyone is interested in authenticity, over rendition. My Lyman GPR is not authentic, but it is a rendition of a period piece, and not authentic. Yet, no one assumes to tell me that my GPR is not authentic.

My .36 Long Rifle is a Pedersoli Frontier. It's not authentic, but when I carry it after squirrel and rabbit, I feel a kinship, without having to don buckskins. I don't look down my nose at those who do.

Anyway, thanks for the assistance. When all is said and done, the replies have led me to believe attempting to obtain one of these guns may be a manure shoot! I don't mind tinkering, but I don't want to have to rebuild something that should be functional from the start...like my GPR.

Regards

Dan

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

.......................

*) Harper's Ferry is only about 70 mi away from Washington D.C.
Eli Whitney (Mr Interchangeable Parts and government contractor for muskets) help establish Harpers Ferry in late 1790's.

True and false.
(1) Yes, Harpers Ferry is a relatively short distance from Washington and a great deal of developmental work on arms was done there, especially on rifles. Springfield did not successfully build a rifled arm until the M1855 series.

(2) Eli Whitney had nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment or setting up of the arsenal at Harpers Ferry and, while he made some efforts at the interchangeability of firearms parts, locks in particular, he was almost completely unsuccessful in the project despite what some lower level "history" books say. See the following:

"American Military Shoulder Arms" 2 Volumes. by George D. Moller
University Press of Colorado, 1993.

and

"U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets and Their
Bayonets The early years, 1790-1815"
by Peter A. Schmidt
Man at Arms Press


Yes, I know, nitpicking. You shouldn't be so hard on Russ, you could obviously learn a lot from him.

 

[BobKrohn]

.......................

*) Harper's Ferry is only about 70 mi away from Washington D.C.
Eli Whitney (Mr Interchangeable Parts and government contractor for muskets) help establish Harpers Ferry in late 1790's.

True and false.
(1) Yes, Harpers Ferry is a relatively short distance from Washington and a great deal of developmental work on arms was done there, especially on rifles. Springfield did not successfully build a rifled arm until the M1855 series.

(2) Eli Whitney had nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment or setting up of the arsenal at Harpers Ferry and, while he made some efforts at the interchangeability of firearms parts, locks in particular, he was almost completely unsuccessful in the project despite what some lower level "history" books say. See the following:

"American Military Shoulder Arms" 2 Volumes. by George D. Moller
University Press of Colorado, 1993.

and

"U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets and Their
Bayonets The early years, 1790-1815"
by Peter A. Schmidt
Man at Arms Press


Yes, I know, nitpicking. You shouldn't be so hard on Russ, you could obviously learn a lot from him.

No, you're NOT nitpicking. AND you cite a reliable source. That's the way it's supposed to be done.

You are absolutely correct about Harper Ferry.
I misread an online citing and the the guy who should get credit for setting it up was Louis de Tousard. (sorry Eli).
Thank You.

Link to Louis deTousard

re Rusty: I'm sure he is knowledgable, I would love to actually meet him and talk about guns and such but he is very abrasive and just loves to look for an excuse to argue. (AND he never cites sources. Please work on that Rusty. It will help everyone)

 

[tg]

"Rusty and tg, PLEASE don't go there"

I have no intention of going anywhere you may be with the capiolized letters and the links to places that have nothing to do with the topic,I enjoy researching guns usually much earlier than the 1803, but not with pompus wannabe gun historians with an attitude, I find the ignore option to suffice quite nicely in such cases. :bow:

 

[tg]

"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 "

The typical response to this question Dan would be cost/value quality of the product compared to others if there are any and the historical aspect of the gun usually a brief word on time frame, furniture options (if any) and comments on any historical based questions if there are any, the one who posts the question can then have as much info as possible at their disposal to use or not as they wish.I hope you have good luck and enjoy the 1803 if you end up buying one.

 

[BobKrohn]

"Rusty and tg, PLEASE don't go there"

I have no intention of going anywhere you may be with the capiolized letters and the links to places that have nothing to do with the topic,I enjoy researching guns usually much earlier than the 1803, but not with pompus wannabe gun historians with an attitude, I find the ignore option to suffice quite nicely in such cases. :bow:

I wouldn't go anywhere with "capiolized letters" either! Or anyplace with run-on sentences and poor grammer! Let me guess, Public School?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Bob, for heaven's sake....

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Bob, for heaven's sake....

It's O.K. Only 58 posts and he's already calling the shots around here! We've seen his type before--they come in and cause a ruckus and then go elsewhere--spreading their toxic waste about the web with glee. They--like the odor of flatulence in a crowded room--are soon forgotten. Perhaps, like most trolls they simply crawl back under their bridge until the next time. Anyway Bobby, you are hardly a new experience for us and singling a couple of us out is S.O.P. for your type. If you are going to continue in this vein, at least try to be original. Thank you for your co-operation.