stuart cee dub
32 Cal.
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 1
In Response to Graham.
Yes the debate will go on .But it is quite interesting .I have pondered this a lot over the years .
Looking at the photos from the 1977 article,the conversion work on the lock was crude just not up to Hawken shop standards.Based on existing examples ,the Hawken shop may not have been greatest woodworkers,(no one has faulted their inletting or the sturdiness of their wood selection ) but their metal work was always of a high order.
I can imagine to two possibilities......
Scenario 1) ...Maybe he had a customer come in and say ''Hey Ive got this old lock can you build one of your 18.00 guns around it and save me a buck or two ? ''
The Hawken shop build and sold guns far more expensive and more strongly built than the eastern trade rifles most people carried in the 8 to 10 dollar range.
Scenario 2)....Guy decides its time to convert to percussion or busts the hammer to his flinter ,doesn't live in St Louis .He's out in the sticks ,goes to a post where the second string gunsmiths ply their trade fixing Indian trade guns.Maybe he's a blacksmith too does a bit of shoeing on the side .
''Sure I can fix this. I've converted lots of flinters .50 cents ''
For many years I've looked at the Smithsonian Hawken and imagined scenario one but really wanted to see what the lock looked like on the inside .The crudeness of the conversion to me is convincing evidence.It's a dirt common ,typical conversion to percussion using a drum.
We know Hawken production was in the transition period between flint and percussion and that of early persussion guns.Lots of trade guns were made in flint well into the percussion period .Flinters remained popular out west long after percussion guns became common in the east .
Hawken would make guns to order.Presumably that could mean they would make a flinter or even use some crappy lock if the customer was adamant .
The absolute durth of documented UNALTERED Hawken flints is what the problem is .War time scrap drives, hard use ,disinterest,time ,even just bad luck have killed off most antique guns everywhere.The death rate certainly higher in the west.
So we are left with what the standards of evidence will you accept ? Beyond a reasonable doubt or the proponderance of evidence?
I would prefer seeing an unconverted gun period .But so far on this thread I have seen two good photos spreads of two different guns showing,what is most probably, to be conversions from flint to percussion.
If the rework on the lock on Smithsonian gun was as neatly done as the other quality metal work Hawken had done on so many other guns,I might still buy scenario two.That is what tipped my opinion from there were no flint Hawkens to there is very good evidence that there were flint Hawkens but none currently survive in unaltered state due to a high mortality rate .
(IMHO anyway )
Regards Stuart
Yes the debate will go on .But it is quite interesting .I have pondered this a lot over the years .
Looking at the photos from the 1977 article,the conversion work on the lock was crude just not up to Hawken shop standards.Based on existing examples ,the Hawken shop may not have been greatest woodworkers,(no one has faulted their inletting or the sturdiness of their wood selection ) but their metal work was always of a high order.
I can imagine to two possibilities......
Scenario 1) ...Maybe he had a customer come in and say ''Hey Ive got this old lock can you build one of your 18.00 guns around it and save me a buck or two ? ''
The Hawken shop build and sold guns far more expensive and more strongly built than the eastern trade rifles most people carried in the 8 to 10 dollar range.
Scenario 2)....Guy decides its time to convert to percussion or busts the hammer to his flinter ,doesn't live in St Louis .He's out in the sticks ,goes to a post where the second string gunsmiths ply their trade fixing Indian trade guns.Maybe he's a blacksmith too does a bit of shoeing on the side .
''Sure I can fix this. I've converted lots of flinters .50 cents ''
For many years I've looked at the Smithsonian Hawken and imagined scenario one but really wanted to see what the lock looked like on the inside .The crudeness of the conversion to me is convincing evidence.It's a dirt common ,typical conversion to percussion using a drum.
We know Hawken production was in the transition period between flint and percussion and that of early persussion guns.Lots of trade guns were made in flint well into the percussion period .Flinters remained popular out west long after percussion guns became common in the east .
Hawken would make guns to order.Presumably that could mean they would make a flinter or even use some crappy lock if the customer was adamant .
The absolute durth of documented UNALTERED Hawken flints is what the problem is .War time scrap drives, hard use ,disinterest,time ,even just bad luck have killed off most antique guns everywhere.The death rate certainly higher in the west.
So we are left with what the standards of evidence will you accept ? Beyond a reasonable doubt or the proponderance of evidence?
I would prefer seeing an unconverted gun period .But so far on this thread I have seen two good photos spreads of two different guns showing,what is most probably, to be conversions from flint to percussion.
If the rework on the lock on Smithsonian gun was as neatly done as the other quality metal work Hawken had done on so many other guns,I might still buy scenario two.That is what tipped my opinion from there were no flint Hawkens to there is very good evidence that there were flint Hawkens but none currently survive in unaltered state due to a high mortality rate .
(IMHO anyway )
Regards Stuart
