flintlock TC "Hawkins" and clones

The various threads on PC guns are getting long--I would like to make a few points: first, when the TC Hawkin first came out there were few competitors and I thought it looked grand (it was percussion of course). It was beyond my meager Army pay (with a wife and two kids). I never owned one, deciding later to jump in and build my own rifles from scratch...be that as it may, the main problem is that TC named their rifle a "Hawkin" which it is NOT! Now if TC had called it their Plains Rifle, they would have been on firmer ground and some of the controversy today would not be...my humble research has found several examples of original rifles that look much like the TC 'Hawkin'(on the outside). Now the rub, these rifles are ALL late plains rifles of the post 1840 period! Tryon made similar rifles as late as 1875. And ALL were PERCUSSION! The flintlock TC "Hawkin" is simply an historical anomaly. Now, for hunters and target shooters this makes no difference at all. For those of you interested in period dress/gear activities, these rifles do not really fit the pre-1840 'rules', although most rondys accept the TC 'Hawkin' and its clones. To those who say the TC guns do not represent anything in history, you are not quite correct: the percussion ones are representative of guns from several different makers in the 1840-1870s period. You are correct about the flint TCs. To those who care not for rondys or living history events, enjoy your fine-shooting and attractive TCs&etc. BUT, those who want to join in the pre-1840 events ought to look at other guns. It simply does not take that much effort to properly research the guns you need for a personna. There are numerous books and the net...my personal library has over a dozen books on the old guns, yet I have learned much from just going to google and searching. HAVE FUN! :m2c:

 

[musketman]

I can boldly say this about T/C Arms, they were, and still are a great launching pad into the world of black powder...

Many, many shooters started with a T/C rifle and to some, it's the only choice... (right Roundball :winking

T/C's warrantee is second to none, even if you are not the original owner, they'll make it right, let's see a 1800's Bucks County rifle maker compete with that... :haha:

So they don't look like a Hawken, I still thank T/C for my start into black powder... :thumbsup:

 

[roundball]

I'm beginning to truly wonder if I've been misinterpreting my fit here...was under the impression that TC Hawkens were an accepted form of rifle in the general context of traditionally related discussions on this forum.

If they're really, and I mean deep down really, not desired here...such that the general membership wishes they would go away...then I'm embarrassed to have missed that point all this time...I've just been going merrily along thinking everything was fine and dandy.

Since my only 'traditionally oriented' muzzleloading foundation to date is the TC Hawken, my options are limited...really really sorry if I've missed the boat that much

::

 

[Tahquamenon]

So are we to understand that if Thompson/Center had called their Hawken something else, then it would be more generally accepted amongst reproduction enthusiasts?

:huh:

The T/C Hawken is advertised as "reminicent" not reproduction. It's a fine sidelock ML in Hawken-ish Style. It was never intended to replicate original S & J Hawken rifles.

The really perplexing thing is that T/C could easily make a J&S Hawken plains (or really several other styles) rifle that would generally pass muster.

I wish they would and I've asked many times. I'd buy one.

 

How you got this from my discussion I'll never know. No one has said that they are not desired here, no one has said that they don't generally fall under "traditional" ML class. No one is saying you cannot enjoy shooting them or owning them. What I am saying is that they resemble traditional rifles of the 1840-1870s era (in percussion). I said that you ought to enjoy them in hunting, shooting, etc...but that if a person wants a correct rifle for most pre-1840 living history activities he/she should look at other guns. You appear to be overreacting to the whole PC discussion, which is odd in that by your own admission you could care less about reenacting, etc.... :relax:

I'm beginning to truly wonder if I've been misinterpreting my fit here...was under the impression that TC Hawkens were an accepted form of rifle in the general context of traditionally related discussions on this forum.

If they're really, and I mean deep down really, not desired here...such that the general membership wishes they would go away...then I'm embarrassed to have missed that point all this time...I've just been going merrily along thinking everything was fine and dandy.

Since my only 'traditionally oriented' muzzleloading foundation to date is the TC Hawken, my options are limited...really really sorry if I've missed the boat that much

::

 

Again, you missed my point: the TC "Hawkin" resembles plains rifles of the 1840-1870s era and if they had called their gun a Plains Rifle, it would have been more accurate than calling it a "Hawkin" which it does not closely resemble. Or even a "California Rifle", of which I have seen several examples that the TC resembles (again, mid 1800s). I don't know what you mean by "reproduction enthusiasts" (but I did produce a couple of kids myself), but my point was that they DO resemble real traditional rifles of the past, just not of the periods alot of us "do" in reenacting, etc. If your interest is just shooting/hunting sports it does not matter. If you want to be a longhunter it does matter. :m2c:

So are we to understand that if Thompson/Center had called their Hawken something else, then it would be more generally accepted amongst reproduction enthusiasts?

:huh:

The T/C Hawken is advertised as "reminicent" not reproduction. It's a fine sidelock ML in Hawken-ish Style. It was never intended to replicate original S & J Hawken rifles.

The really perplexing thing is that T/C could easily make a J&S Hawken plains (or really several other styles) rifle that would generally pass muster.

I wish they would and I've asked many times. I'd buy one.

 

[roundball]

How you got this from my discussion I'll never know. No one has said that they are not desired here, no one has said that they don't generally fall under "traditional" ML class. No one is saying you cannot enjoy shooting them or owning them. What I am saying is that they resemble traditional rifles of the 1840-1870s era (in percussion). I said that you ought to enjoy them in hunting, shooting, etc...but that if a person wants a correct rifle for most pre-1840 living history activities he/she should look at other guns. You appear to be overreacting to the whole PC discussion, which is odd in that by your own admission you could care less about reenacting, etc.... :relax:

I'm beginning to truly wonder if I've been misinterpreting my fit here...was under the impression that TC Hawkens were an accepted form of rifle in the general context of traditionally related discussions on this forum.

If they're really, and I mean deep down really, not desired here...such that the general membership wishes they would go away...then I'm embarrassed to have missed that point all this time...I've just been going merrily along thinking everything was fine and dandy.

Since my only 'traditionally oriented' muzzleloading foundation to date is the TC Hawken, my options are limited...really really sorry if I've missed the boat that much

::

(Mike, I was actually responding to Musketman, not your post)
:redthumb:

 

[bob1961]

so where does a T/C hawken (plains rifle) fit in time with a flintlock in place of a capper....i might have fun with this when people ask me what kind of gun is that....i'll just say it's a plains rifle :crackup: eace:..........bob

 

[Stumpkiller]

So are we to understand that if Thompson/Center had called their Hawken something else, then it would be more generally accepted amongst reproduction enthusiasts?

The T/C Hawken is advertised as "reminicent" not reproduction. It's a fine sidelock ML in Hawken-ish Style. It was never intended to replicate original S & J Hawken rifles.

The really perplexing thing is that T/C could easily make a J&S Hawken plains (or really several other styles) rifle that would generally pass muster.

I wish they would and I've asked many times. I'd buy one.

I've maintained this for years. Think what "might have been" if T/C had started five years ago and marketed a flintlock in the style of a 1795/1803 Harper's Ferry rifle? Some of their past offerings were near-nuff credible New England halfstock rifles that were produced in the early 1800's.

I know some specific cases of m/l's miffed with T/C's choice of model name for their Hawken (which is a quality firearm. I've oned one in the past as well as several other T/C past and current).

Just a few modifications on the master pattern and a couple slight revisions in the cast components and they could have eliminated a lot of angst in our reenacments.

Think what we'd have if T/C came out with a long, slim PA longrifle in 50/50 scale (that's radio control airplane for "it looks great from 50 feet ar 50 mph"). I'd stand in line to buy a .32 or .36 cal rifle with a 41 or 42", 7/8" wide barrel from them.

But then, when they came out with their Hawken they were producing a gun for the 70's market that was A LOT less sophisticated. I see from their product line where their marketing thrust lies, and it saddens me.

Now here's an idea. We have hard core, details or death activists who want every screw hand filed, and on the other flank we have "it loads from the muzzle, but I need 3,200 fps and 300 yards accuracy for my hunting demands". I propose we will always need the "I gots my coonskin cap and my smoke pole, I'm gonna have fun in spite of anyone" camp right in the middle for folks who just want to mind their own business, or maybe that of the feller next to 'em, as long as we're having fun in relative safety. THAT is what I remember about the NMLRA when I first joined in the 70's. Muzzleloaders, bib-overalls, fur hats and ear-to-ear grins.

I'm making a pledge. From this day forward, I Stumpkiller, not too tightly wrapped but generally harmless, do hereby promise not to interfere with the enjoyment of a fellow blackpowder shooting, muzzleloading enthusiast in his pursuit of happiness or hunting success unless a question is posted by that person which invites my opinion.

And that goes for all three categories I moderate: flintlock, accessories and, gulp, my beloved traditional muzzleloading hunting (within the definitions and descriptions for those categories; and by that I specifically reserve the right to maintain that God intended traditional muzzleloading projectiles to be solid lead, shape optional).

Roundball - you are as welcome here as sunshine is on a frosty morning and pancakes are on an empty stomach. I'd share my woods with you any day, and I have no higher compliment to offer any hunter.

 

[Bearbait2]

Mr. Stumpkiller,
Well said!
Best Wishes

 

[Claude Mathis]

I'm beginning to truly wonder if I've been misinterpreting my fit here...was under the impression that TC Hawkens were an accepted form of rifle in the general context of traditionally related discussions on this forum.

If they're really, and I mean deep down really, not desired here...such that the general membership wishes they would go away....

Whether they meet the criteria for a specific event or time period, is another matter, but that is a separate issue from their place on the Forum.

This is not a "traditional only" muzzleloading forum, so they certainly are welcome here.

 

To repeat, there is no historical precedence for a flintlock TC Hawkin style rifle. They were percussion. I suppose TC got into flinters back when PA had a flinters only deer season. AGAIN, this does not matter if you are just using them for hunting/shooting sports. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! Just don't expect it to be acceptable in all period camps (many won't care, down here in the realm of the Great Southwestern Rondy you'll see all sorts of guns). I suppose you could argue that you just prefer the old time flintlock and had it built that way. I know for a fact that flintlock rifles (longrifles) were used in the Ozarks up until at least the Civil War. But in Little Rock they were making percussion plains rifles. :imo:

so where does a T/C hawken (plains rifle) fit in time with a flintlock in place of a capper....i might have fun with this when people ask me what kind of gun is that....i'll just say it's a plains rifle :crackup: eace:..........bob

 

[tg]

Mike, could you direct me to some sources of 19th century TC type guns with the type of sights TC uses?

 

[musketman]

Many, many shooters started with a T/C rifle and to some, it's the only choice... (right Roundball )

Roundball, when I said that, it was ment in the highest respect to you...

To me, you are the leading authority on T/C Arms on this web site...

 

[sidelock]

Has anyone seen Jim Bridgers "HAWKEN" thats in the MT State museum in Helena MT ?? I think ROBBERY every time I see it. Almost in perfect condition, and almost like my TC "HAWKEN" except :imo: for some slight details. But I"ll bet every rifle Mr.Hawken made varied in some (or maybe more) detail. We are not talking mass production here. I think of my TC as a pretty good repro. even with the custom features I have added-----and the game I have taken with it """wearing blaze orange"" didn't care a whit. :imo: :m2c: :relax: :sorry:

 

[roundball]

Many, many shooters started with a T/C rifle and to some, it's the only choice... (right Roundball )

Roundball, when I said that, it was ment in the highest respect to you...

To me, you are the leading authority on T/C Arms on this web site...

Good gracious, I don't consider myself an authority on anything...I hope you're not confusing my being opinionated with having any actual real knowledge!
:: ::

I do appreciate the clarification though...and that was the only purpose of my response to you yesterday...you are a Moderator so I wanted to be sure which way to take the "winking icon" in your post...was looking for assurance that I understood the references to TC, that's all.

Nothing what-so-ever about my involvement here has ever been anti-pc...wish I had a rack full of pretty Issac Haines here right now...and a Manton SxS Flintlock too...but they're just not in the cards I'm holding.

Thanks again, I appreciate the feedback
:redthumb:

 

[musketman]

wish I had a rack full of pretty Issac Haines here right now...and a Manton SxS Flintlock too...

Me too...

Then I can sell them on ebay and buy me a full size cannon... :crackup:

You are a fine members Roundball and yes, you do know your T/C stuff, we would be lost without you...

 

[roundball]

I've maintained this for years. Think what "might have been" if T/C had started five years ago and marketed a flintlock in the style of a 1795/1803 Harper's Ferry rifle? Some of their past offerings were near-nuff credible New England halfstock rifles that were produced in the early 1800's.

I know some specific cases of m/l's miffed with T/C's choice of model name for their Hawken (which is a quality firearm. I've oned one in the past as well as several other T/C past and current).

Just a few modifications on the master pattern and a couple slight revisions in the cast components and they could have eliminated a lot of angst in our reenacments.

Think what we'd have if T/C came out with a long, slim PA longrifle in 50/50 scale (that's radio control airplane for "it looks great from 50 feet ar 50 mph"). I'd stand in line to buy a .32 or .36 cal rifle with a 41 or 42", 7/8" wide barrel from them.

But then, when they came out with their Hawken they were producing a gun for the 70's market that was A LOT less sophisticated. I see from their product line where their marketing thrust lies, and it saddens me.

Now here's an idea. We have hard core, details or death activists who want every screw hand filed, and on the other flank we have "it loads from the muzzle, but I need 3,200 fps and 300 yards accuracy for my hunting demands". I propose we will always need the "I gots my coonskin cap and my smoke pole, I'm gonna have fun in spite of anyone" camp right in the middle for folks who just want to mind their own business, or maybe that of the feller next to 'em, as long as we're having fun in relative safety. THAT is what I remember about the NMLRA when I first joined in the 70's. Muzzleloaders, bib-overalls, fur hats and ear-to-ear grins.

I'm making a pledge. From this day forward, I Stumpkiller, not too tightly wrapped but generally harmless, do hereby promise not to interfere with the enjoyment of a fellow blackpowder shooting, muzzleloading enthusiast in his pursuit of happiness or hunting success unless a question is posted by that person which invites my opinion.

And that goes for all three categories I moderate: flintlock, accessories and, gulp, my beloved traditional muzzleloading hunting (within the definitions and descriptions for those categories; and by that I specifically reserve the right to maintain that God intended traditional muzzleloading projectiles to be solid lead, shape optional).

Roundball - you are as welcome here as sunshine is on a frosty morning and pancakes are on an empty stomach. I'd share my woods with you any day, and I have no higher compliment to offer any hunter.

Yes, I agree that TC is one company that could retool a little and offer an alternative...either an expanded design of their existing Hawken model, or a whole different Hawken replica more truer to form up at the next level...but I doubt that'll ever happen.

As you correctly point out, they're more and more driven by the CFO to follow the marketplace instead of creating a market...and unfortunately, all companies have to do that to a degree or they go under.

In fact, there may not even be a large enough market segment left to support their remaining investment in traditional muzzleloaders much longer, which today are reduced back down to only the Hawken and Renegade models...their whole catalog of a couple dozen models has been otherwise discontinued.

And it wouldn't surprise me at all if the next iteration we'll see is that they'll be dropped from the general production catalog all together and Fox Ridge will deal with them on a 'build to order' basis only, just drawing from the inventory of parts set aside for warranty service...and then maybe only for a while unless the trend turns around but I doubt it will...IMO, I think the number of people shooting some form of 'traditional muzzleloader' at all is in a constant state of decline...thanks
:redthumb:

 

[hobbles]

Well boys, I have to say that I started out in other muzzle sites and ended up here, I feel that this is the most open opinion site I have found that fits me, I'm not tryin to be PC , I am not puttin any other site down,,, I have got help from other sites also,, I just feel better here,, I can/have asked and learn't a lot from here,, I have found that I can ask anythin and if ya'll know the answer you will tell me, and if you don't you will pick on me (Musketman)

And Claud
""This is not a "traditional only" muzzleloading forum, so they certainly are welcome here.""

The way you run this board you MAKE people feel welcome here, For that I thank you,,

roundball
""I'm beginning to truly wonder if I've been misinterpreting my fit here""

I may not agree with everything you say , but I will read all you have to say, I have learnt allot from you also and thanks to you I really like my T/C Hawkens,, Your knowledge of T/C was needed by me,, So don't stop,, Us new guys need your info,,,

I could go on and on bout the rest of you boys, but enough swelled heads for one mornin,,
Bottom line is,, You don't have to be PC to be on here,,

 

[Zonie]

I don't know that anyone can say for certain that there were no California style halfstock rifles using Flintlocks.

Perhaps we have never found a surviving rifle, but that in itself does not say one never existed. It only says we have not found any.

Because the Flintlock is not uncommon today in some "backwards" countries, it should be obvious that the lock style never really died out.
Why, I know of some people in the 21st Century in one of the most affluent countries in the world that still think flintlocks are superior to the caplock, :: not just for re-enacting, but for target shooting and hunting.

I can't help but feel there were people in the 19th Century that felt the same way.
If this is true, then one cannot say there was never a custom made flintlock halfstock rifle that looked somewhat like a Flintlock "TC Hawken".
For someone to say that style of gun is not Period Correct for a re-enactment of the 1830-1880 time period only says the person is not aware of what could have been. IMO, It also shows a bit of unjustified intolerance.

As I understand it, it is probably wrong to show up at a re-enactment wearing or using something which was not invented until after the re-enactment time period. An example of this might be the use of a nylon comb or a plastic foam coffee cup during the American Revolution.
The use of a Wheellock rifle at the same re-enactment, (although it was totally outdated by the time of the American Revolution) cannot be said to be totally incorrect. It can only be said that it's use would have been very uncommon.