Building the 1792 Contract Rifle

[TomFoolerythe3rd]

I just bought Track of the Wolf's 1792 contract rifle kit. The lock still has not come in but I am hoping to start on it soon. Anyway here is my question to y'all. Do I put a nose cap on this rifle? What size should it be? On the website the drawing shows the rifle with no nose cap, and in a book called United States Martial Flintlocks it shows a drawing with a nose cap. The choice is hard because there isn't a surviving example of this rifle. Thanks.

 

[Zonie]

My only reference about this gun doesn't answer your question and although it shows several pictures of the butt end, they are cut off so I can't see the muzzle. I am refering to Flayderman's Guide, 6th edition.
He says "although no known patterns were supplied by the government, it has been reasonably established from existing specimens and official correspondance that the guns followed a general style with charactereristics common to most, if not all of them." He goes on to say of the barrel: "Observed specimens were part octagon section tapering and blending into the round section rather than a clearly defined sharp line where the octagon becomes round...". He does not address the issue of a muzzle cap.
He feels the words "Contract Rifle" really addresses the manner of purchase more than the actual features the gun might have had but does reference Tench Coxe's (Purveyor of Public Supplies) 1807 letter which says "...they are to be common, plain rifles substantially made."
The fact that this discription was written in 1807 does bring to question in my mind whether it was applicable to the guns made in 1792.
Flayderman also shows a 1808-1815 Virginia Flintlock Rifle Contract and the rifle in the photo does appear to have a nose cap.
As most of the 1792 contract rifles were built in Pennsylvania and nose caps were common in that era I would think you could build it with a nosecap providing the size and shape are fitting to the times. On the other hand, if you did not use a nose cap, I don't think anyone living could say it was "wrong".

 

[Haggis]

This is not fair!!! I haven't yet finished my Trade Gun, I have a miniture Trade Gun to build for my Granddaughter, and now I'm looking at this 1792 HF and saying to myself, "I just got to have this."

Dawg-gone it.

 

[Voyageur]

Whatcha building for your grand-daughter Haggis?

Voyageur

 

[Zonie]

Interesting sites Voyageur.
I do note that several of the references seem content to say L&C used the 40 gauge (.44) with a 3 foot plus 6 inch barrel. However one site did mention the following quote
" it appears that Lewis had the arsenal shorten the barrels of 15 of the 1792 / 1794 rifles to between 33 and 36 inches and re-bored."
This 36 inch length is similar to Flayderman's comments about barrel length although his comments are general and cover the years 1792-1808.
One (like me) also wonders what caliber they were bored out to? Lewis was not dumb and must have been somewhat aware of the fact that buffalo would be in existance and IMO a .45 is hardly adaquate for buffalo when a kill means your party eats meat for supper. It makes one wonder.

Getting back to the Posts original question. Assuming TomFoolerythe3rd is making a Lewis gun would the armory reinstall a nosecap after shortening the barrel even if it existed on the unmodified gun?
Of course if TomFoolerythe3rd (dam that's a long handle) is Not making a Lewis modified gun then all of this although interesting is somewhat academic.

What did L&C actually supply their group with? I don't think we will ever know.

 

[Voyageur]

It is frustrating 'zonie...as you know, the most deadly animal that L&C had to deal with was the Plains Grizzly. I had occassion to use Thwaites translation of the Journals in my work and what is left out is, indeed, frustrating.

You would think that they would take at least .50 caliber but I reckon L&C would point out that we are exercising hindsight.

I had read that the 1792 Contact Rifle was a 'poor rifle' in any event. If it had to do with the lock then L&C attempted to solve that problem. If the problem was the barrel, then perhaps the 'rebore' was done to solve that problem rather than improve the rifle's porperties against dangerous game and/or Native Americans.

Voyageur

 

[Haggis]

Voyageur
What I have in mind is the 2/3 scale model I saw in Hanson's sketch book years ago. I'll use an old .410 barrel as recommended and get someone proper to fit it with a breach plug. I'll grind and file the flats and rings, then I figured to rework a small pistol flint lock to cinch the deal.

My TG will be similar to a circa 1815 Barnett and I'll try to my Granddarling's look just like it; only in a lighter ball.

 

[tg]

I recall reading somewhere that the 1792's were changed from the original small cal in the specs. to something around .50 in bore size for/by L&C but cannot recall the source. even in 1792 -1800 .45 -.50 was small for military ?militia type guns.

 

[Voyageur]

I've got that book Haggis and you should be able to make up the parts into a pretty nifty little trade gun. I suppose 'Becky's Lock' is too pricey for what you have in mind?

.50 is kinda small, hey tg? You have to go to .51-.52 to get a true .50 caliber ball. It sure would be nice to know L&C's thinking on the subject.

Voyageur

 

[Voyageur]

Here is some info I dug up. Apparently, this was the type of rifle actually taken by L&C for the Corps of Discovery. Two or three of the sites have good photographs and they all show a nosecap.

Voyageur

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

The U.S. Contract Rifle, Pattern of 1792, was obtained for the federal government in two purchases by General Edward Hand, former commander of the Continental Rifle Regiment of 1776, and an officer of considerable frontier experience.

After their fabrication in Lancaster and York, Pennsylvania, Hand sent about 400 of the rifles to Cumberland, Maryland, to equip Major General Daniel Morgan's Virginia Riflemen during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. At the end of this short-lived uprising, the rifles were turned in and stored at the federal arsenal at New London, Virginia. In 1801 they were transferred to the new armory at Harpers Ferry.
In March 1803, Captain Meriwether Lewis, 1st U.S. Infantry, ordered fifteen rifles removed from stores at Harper Ferry and prepared for the upcoming voyage of discovery. Lewis specified that new locks be fitted to the rifles and that a number of interchangeable spare locks and components be produced. In addition, Lewis ordered that the rifles be equipped with swivels to accept the slings which he obtained in Philadelphia. This proved a practical adaptation for a long trek through unknown terrain.
Understandably, the new lock design was used on the prototype
1803 half-stock Harpers Ferry rifle ordered by Henry Dearborn just weeks after Lewis' rifles were readied for the "Corps of Discovery."

SPECIFICATIONS:
Per instructions of Secretary of War Henry Knox in 1792, and as modified by Meriwether Lewis in 1803.

 

[Zonie]

Perhaps the .44 cal rifles explains why not once but on several occasions when Lewis and Clarks party were confronted with a Grizzly bear (which was a totally new animal to them) their shots had little effect and damn near got a few guys killed. (It did teach them the fine art of tree climbing in a land with few trees.)
I (in my minds eye) always thought they were using bigger bore guns like a .54 and while a Griz is an awesome beast with a truly bad attitude a .54 should have had more effect on it than their recorded history of the trip indicates it had.

 

[tg]

Yeah, if the bore were actually .49 or .50 the the ball would be smaller yet probably more so then that by our standards today. the balls per Lb. thing was still the standard denotation then and I do not think that they used as tight of combos that we do, speed and ease of loading for survivals sake would suggest this. I wish I could recall the source that I read on these guns made used by L&C but it has been a long time since I delved into that era.

 

[Voyageur]

Boys...I just bought a book entitiled: Tailor Made, Trail Worn by Moore & Haynes where they show firearms of the type carried by the Corps of Discovery. On page 257 they have a photograph of an original 1792 Contract Musket and a Model 1803 Harpers Ferry side by side. Apparently the rifle turned up in 2001.

I'm not going to say anything more about this book as I hope you'll seek it out and have a look for yourself. There is much more than just the firearms in this book. I picked it up at Barnes & Noble today. It's worth a look fellas.

Voyageur

PS - the originals all seem to have nose caps! On reflection, as the rifles were prepared at a government arsenal, I don't think they would left the nose caps off.

 

[TomFoolerythe3rd]

Thanks for all the replies and leads on information. With the holiday upon us, I haven't been able to get at my computer. In doing some minor research on my own I was coming to the conclusion that not having a nose cap wouldn't be right. One of the things that was leading me down that road was the comparison I was making with the 1807 contract rifle. From everything I have read it seems like the military would have wanted a nosecap, so they wouldn't have to keep replacing broken stocks as often. Now I will just have to decide on a style and length. Thank you.

I find the lockplate interesting. With the kit I ordered (currently back ordered) an 1803 style lock without the Harper's Ferry stamp or 1803 date. This first time around I wanted to try and make just a 1792 contract rifle. Not the Lewis and Clark gun that most of you have given such good information on. If this rifle turns out, then I think I might go back and order the same kit with sling swivels and the 1803 lockplate. Thus also making any barrel modifications and stock alterations needed for a top notch Lewis and Clark gun.

In the next month or so I am going to be teaching the expedition to my classes. I always find the drawing and jounral entries about the hunters from the expedition running up a tree after stumbling across bears funny. It is my opinion based on what I have seen or read that the expedition was probably armed with .50 cal rifles and not a more useful .54. Of course, I am no expert. But thank you all again for a very interesting bunch of replies and information.

 

[TomFoolerythe3rd]

And yes I do realize that I have a long handle.

 

[Haggis]

TF the 3,
I loved teaching my students about the Corps of Discovery; right up until recent health issues have caused me to abandon something I would have done for free, teaching history.

It's a shame I can't pass some of my stuff on to others, I have a computerized slide show with a zillion of maps and photos for every lesson I taught; from before Columbus right up until WWII.

 

[rogue]

May I suggest you contact Tomfoolery3rd (too long, make it LongTom?) and see if he would be interested in your materials. I have no idea how long he has been teaching, or if his school district would allow your material in his curriculum, but it might be worth a try.

 

[rogue]

May I suggest you contact Tomfoolery3rd (too long, make it LongTom?) and see if he would be interested in your materials. I have no idea how long he has been teaching, or if his school district would allow your material in his curriculum, but it might be worth a try.

 

[Deadeye]

Jan. Feb. 04 of Muzzleloader magazine, page 75 has an article titled " Lewis' short rifles" with a couple of pictures of what they think they may have looked like and just what alterations he had done to them.
Deadeye

 

Fellows, the contract rifle was not the 1803 rifle. It was the rifle made for the early Gov. army by numerous CONTRACTORS. The main stipulations were a bore of around .45 and barrels of 36-38 inches, turned round for the last 2/3 of their length. Locks were hand made and each was different, so even the "common lock" with no markings is not proper for this gun. That was the lock that Lewis specified be used so he could obtain interchangability of parts for his corps. It was notjing but a scaled down French/U.S. musket lock, not the lock that was actually used on the contract rifle.
The nose cap is irrivelent, do what you want to with it. Whatever it was I'll guarentee it was a cheap way out. Lewis' modifications to the contract guns included a sling swivel, so the full stocks of the contract guns were probably cut back to half stock. The 1803 uses a simple brass band at the entry of the ramrod. Some of the contract rifles may have had a simple brass band folded and crimped around the nose of the full stock. Wallace Gusler shows this in the Sept. Muzzle Blast as a typical treatment. It may have inspired the armerors at HFto do the same on Lewis' guns and the 1803. No two contract rifles were alike so make it the way you want it.
Hagis, you got way too much time on your hands! Go make that little girl's TG!