Flintlock Hawken??

[oneshot]

Would this be more period correct for pre 1840?.If so how far back would it go?

oneshot 1

 

[Stumpkiller]

Three part question.

How much Pre-1840? Anything between 1700 and 1820 would have been a flintlock, period.

Would a flintlock be more common than a percussion between 1820 and 1840? I think so. Flintlocks had been pretty stable in design features from 1690 or so on up until the 1820's, and they certainly would have taken a while to phase out. Especially on the outposts far from supply routes

Would a Hawken be more common than say a Dimick, Leman, Golcher, Henry, Tyron or other half-stocked plains style rifle of that era? I don't think so. They all came to be known as Hawken-style plains rifles, but every soul certainly didn't have a Hawken cradled in his arms. He may have WANTED one, but . . .

How many Flintlocks did the Hawken Bro.'s produce? Good question. I know of only one surviving exapmle - but I'm not a big student of the plains rifle style in general and my source is from a pre-Vietnam book.

The Wright Brothers didn't make the first practical airplane until 1905. The most famous airplane of all time. So, how long did it take for everyone in the U.S. to own their own airplane? ::

 

The Wright Brothers didn't make the first practical airplane until 1905. The most famous airplane of all time. So, how long did it take for everyone in the U.S. to own their own airplane?

Interseting argument, however, (don'cha jest hate tha howevers ) one could argue that the rilfe was a NECESSITY , the airplane is not. It would have been really tough surviving without a rifle or smooth bore in that era, however most of us survive just fine today without an airplane. ::

 

[SquirrelsaurusR]

I read in a book (I forget which one) that there are two reasons for so few flint Hawkens surviving. First, they started out making flint rifles (of course), but later switched to percussion. Second, a lot of the flintlocks they made were later converted to percussion, so there are very few original flint Hawken rifles to be found in museums today.

 

[Ohio Joe]

Oneshot, I'm guessing your talking the fur trade era? If so, a fullstock Hawken flintlock is period correct. So are numerous other fullstock flintlocks. A Hawken halfstock flinter would be as well. If your reenacting, (doing the rendezvous thing), your normally given the dates; 1820 to 1840 period, or pre 1840. This being the case you can also use full or halfstocked percussions. When Jed Smith was killed down on the Cimarron by Comanches in 1831, he was noted as carrying two percussion pistols. This I believe allows the percussions into any pre 1840 camp. However, flintlocks in my opinion were predominant in the pre 1840 period.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Lets then compare to something we lately all do have - cars. My (wisearse) point was that the Hawkens are like todays Cadillacs: expensive, heavy, certainly solid & well made, unmanoueverable in tight spots, inefficient for long distances and commonly encountered but not in the majority. It's not just that we can't all afford them, some of us really don't want a Cadillac for other reasons.

Do you need an 11 pound 'long range' rifle to trap beaver or assault Indian defenders (remember just who was tresspassing)?

 

[oneshot]

Ohio Joe you are right on the Rendezvos thing,I found a Guy that has a couple Flintlocks,thought they are cool,problem is getting my wife talked into letting me buy one
considering I just bought two Shotguns.

I have a Percussion,like it,might have to make do with it until I cand sweet talk the wife more.

oneshot

 

[musketman]

Hawkens are like todays Cadillacs: expensive, heavy, certainly solid & well made, unmanoueverable in tight spots, inefficient for long distances and commonly encountered but not in the majority.

But which got better millage the Hawken or the Cadillac?

When was the last time you seen a 164+ year old Caddy? :haha: :haha: :haha:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Gettin old don't take nuttin but time. Here's a 1903 that looks purty good for 101 years old. My mother-in-law is a 1915 model and she ain't near so easy on the eyes.

 

[Doc Arroyo]

Are you speaking of a Hawken Brothers (Sam and Jacob) or a Christian Hawken (their father)? Do you want fullstock or half stock? Is the person that you portray a wealthy man, or a common trapper?

Christian made fullstock flintlock rifles. Sam and Jacob made fullstock flintlock rifles, and then half stock percussion rifles. IMHO they didn't make fullstock percussion rifles, or half stock flinters. Would you get kicked out of a rendevous for either one? Probably not, but how historically correct do you want to be?

If your building a historical character (for reinactment or just because) you have to ask yourself alot more questions than "Is it period?". If your looking for a rifle to shoot at most rendevous shoots, then pick the one you like the best.

 

[Ohio Joe]

Doc, Your forgetting about the 1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle. It is felt that this rifle was the rifle that spawned the halfstock Hawken rifle. John, Jacob, and Joseph Hawken all worked at Harpers Ferry during the developement of this rifle. I would agree that they may not have made halfstock flinters for the fur trade, but it wouldn't surprise me if one day one showed up. Also, I would not be surprised to fined that they converted not more then one fullstock Hawken flinter to percussion? It would not surprise me to find out someday that they converted halfstock percussions' to flint? That's the nice thing about reenacting this time period. You have many options and they're all acceptable provided they land within the limitations of that recreated time frame.

 

[Doc Arroyo]

Ohio Joe-

Doc, Your forgetting about the 1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle. It is felt that this rifle was the rifle that spawned the halfstock Hawken rifle.

Actually, I didn't forget the 1803. But I "read" the
original post to mean one of them flintlock Great Plains Rifles. I had a GPR in percussion myself. It was a fine shooter, and not a bad Hawken "replica". But too rich for my character. And the halfsock flinter just looks wrong IMHO.

That's the nice thing about reenacting this time period. You have many options and they're all acceptable provided they land within the limitations of that recreated time frame.

And that's the main point that I had. If your at a rendevous with a pretty wide open "time frame" and pretty loose interpretation of historically accurate, then shoot what you feel like!

But if you are working or volunteering for a historical reinactment, especially for school groups, then your setting yourself up for a little different level of expectation. The "if they had had it they would have used it" stuff doesn't work then. In 1838 a dirt poor trapper would have a hard time explaining carrying a halfstock percussion Hawken and a Colt Paterson revolver. Wrong guns for the character! Kind of like a homeless person driving a Ferrari today.

We all have to decide for ourselves the level of historical correctness that we are striving for. Enjoy! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Ohio Joe]

Doc,,, I do agree with you. Weapons is one of those areas in which reenacting at a rendezvous is the most vague. That and the fact that we buckskinners do tend to lead the public down the wrong path presenting the thought that all mountain men had wall tents and such... I'm just as guilty... Yes, if you are presenting the public, school groups, or any group looking for historical facts you do want to be in proper character and present the facts that are known and available for research.

 

I hate to be a wet blanket, but all I'm seeing lately is Hawken, Hawken, Hawken!
When "buckskinning" got its start back in the 1970's we all were new to the game and the historical information needed to create our own historical persona's. The word "Hawken" became the standard by which all mountainman rifles should be judged by. In other words, it wasn't our fault, we didn't know any better.
But now, anybody thats stayed with the "hobby" and has done research and documentation should know that the Hawken rifle was LESS than 10% of all the rifles during the Rocky Mtn. fur trade(1820-1840). Less than 100 Hawkens went to the Rockies during that time!
Friends, after all this time and all the experts in the research field of the fur trade, its embarrassing to see people STILL have Hawkenitis!
If you want a true, bonifide, MOUNTAINEER's choice- J. Henry trade rifle in the Lancaster pattern or English pattern! Either one will do. These two rifles, alone, accounted for 50% of ALL the rifles in the Rockies from 1820-1840. 2500 in all!!!! Why? Because they were the fur company's contract rifle. When you signed up with the company, thats what they gave you! A $12.00 trade rifle, not some $30.00 "BMW". Compare THAT to your puny 100 Hawkens! After the Henry's, the second most popular were the rifles that came from home, yes, the pennsylvania's and the southern mtn.'s that junior brought with him to St. Louis when he signed on with the fur company.
So gentlemen, before I get off my soap box, let me say that if you only take one thought from this post, let it be that people who take an interest in history thru reenacting really, really need to do the researching, reading, and documenting. You owe it to yourself and the hobby.
I thank you. :curse:

 

[Mtn-Man2u]

Manynames, A Big Welcome to the Camp, I wanted to make you feel at home (Officially) here at the Camp!!!!
And your remarks is right on for me, because I was interested in buckskinning in the seventies. I had not found the rifle I wanted yet. I was considering a Percussion rifle out of Gander Mountain catalog, that had the look of a Hawkins style rifle. I threw that from reading, from Muzzle Blast magazine and the Dixie Gun Works catalog. At that time, I was looking for something that wasn't to expensive. So I think it would have been that way for the young men, heading to the mountain. They had seen the older Trappers with their 50cal or 54cal or even 58cal flintlocks rifles. and maybe someone or two would have a percussion rifles in those calibers too. And they were bring their 36cal varmint long rifle. Trying to do the best possible job they could do, until they could trade for a better one. As long as you feel good with your rifle- flint or perc, and enjoy the experiences in the great outdoors as our brothers of old enjoyed their lifles. We too can enjoy the great outdoors too.
Take care everyone,---Steve----Mtn-Man2u

 

[Rocky Johnson]

Manynames- Hawkenitis ? I like that. Who is to blame for that? Thompson Center? CVA. Meaning that was the easiest way to go. Welcome to the camp. Rocky /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Darkhorse]

I don't know about anybody else, but I caught "Hawkenitis" from a guy named "Jerimiah Johnson" over 50 years ago.
It took many years to really see how "only" similar to a plains rifle my older factory jobs were. We used to think they were an accurate copy.
As I have aged I tend to prefer the early longrifles. I have just build a 38" "Isacc Haines" and I am planning a swamped 42" .40.
But, my after the .40 is built, the next one will be a fullstock flintlock Hawken. I just like the gun. I guess I prefer to be one of the 100 rich guys who could afford one.

 

[roundball]

But now, anybody thats stayed with the "hobby" and has done research and documentation should know that the Hawken rifle was LESS than 10% of all the rifles during the Rocky Mtn. fur trade(1820-1840). Less than 100 Hawkens went to the Rockies during that time!

Only 100 rifles in 20 years???
Bonafide documentation categorically proves that?

The number "100" seems awfully precise given the norm for documentation and record keeping that existed (a.k.a didn't exist) during those times, to say nothing of the 40 year span of time (almost a quarter century?)...seems a mite low to me, but I'm not a historian :shocking:

 

[Ohio Joe]

Manynames,,, Your right... Though I have noticed a trend in the last few years of buckskinners' moving away from the Hawkens' and leaning towards the Lancaster's, and some Henry's, but more toward the Lancaster's... At least in my area... However, if someone want's to be in that, "less then 10%", that's their choice, just as being a company man or free trapper was the choice of each mountain man back then. Granted, there is no doubt that there were more company men, but I've also noticed that not many want to portray one. I have also noticed that today's rendezvous have taken on more of a "trade fair" appearance. Many traders seem to cater to the tourist rather then the buckskinner's needs. I guess in buckskinning we take the good with the not so good??? ::

 

Roundball,
To answer your question about "100 Hawkens", I'll say in the heat of passion, I was not accurate.
BUT! My friend! Here are some quotes from a very good book on the subject(The Hawken Rifle: It's Place In History, by Charles E. Hanson Jr.)-
Page 68- "To approach the situation with hard figures, the American Fur Co. brought in about 2,300 rifles for trappers, traders and Indians in the period 1830 through 1839. During the same period the Hawken shop production was 1,200 or less of all types of guns-rifles, pistols and shotguns-to supple trappers, traders and the entire LOCAL demand. The importations of fur company rifles were all intended for the fur trade and the only question is how many went to trappers. The reasons for producing Hawkens were much more complex. Only 39 were recorded as fur company orders in the 1830-1839 period so all others going to trappers were probably purchased by free trappers."
Now, this is only a 9 year period! And only 39 rifles recorded!! The companyman to free trapper ratio was roughly 5:1. The book later states that the total firearm output for the fur trade from Sam/Jake was roughly 500 pieces. But that was- rifles, PISTOLS,& SHOTGUNS combined! Were there Hawkens prior to 1830? You bet! But it looked a hell of a lot different than what people think. On page 9 of this same book is a picture of a circa 1825 Hawken. Looking at it, it isn't any different than your average kentucky/pennslyvania rifle of the period.
Now, here comes my bold statement- If the Hawken brothers are to be remembered in close relationship to the fur trade era(1820-1840), it can only be for two areas. 1st, their single shot, percussion PISTOL. They DID make more pistols for the trappers than any other form of firearm. And 2nd, their work with repairing and fixing firearms coming back from duty in the mountains. Yes, they were more important as a repair shop than a supplier of rifles to the fur trade!
The Hawkens and their rifle were at the top of the world during the years 1840-1855.
Gentlemen, for those of you that are truly interested in the facts, read the book I stated above by Charles Hanson.
Whew! looks like I went from soapbox to pulpit!! Gotta stop that.
Manynames