I Find It Strange

[Dave K]

Actually I was reading last night and I think it was in "Muzzle Blasts" that 3 Samuel Hawkin's have been found that were orginally flint and still are. The author of the story, wrote that he wanted a flint Hawken, but he wanted to make it accurate to the Hawken style. When he built the gun back the the '70's there were no known original Hawken flint guns, so he made it in percussion. Now he said, there are three flint guns, that had been found.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I've been muzzleloading long enough to remember when the T/C first hit the market. There were not many factory built muzzleloaders available in those days so any new item was big news. I was glad to see it but very annoyed that they called it "Hawken". I thought it looked like Roy Weatherby's idea of a Hawken. Is that perhaps what you mean by "California style"? :rotf:

 

[rickystl]

I thought the main interest in in-line muzzeloaders was so modern gun shooters would have an extra hunting season? At least that's what I hear from inliners.

 

[Claude Mathis]

That folks want to put flintlocks on rifles that clearly would never have been flintlocks even if they were a copy of any original gun.

I would venture a guess - They already have a percussion gun, but want a flintlock. They think it's cheaper to change the lock, than to purchase a whole new gun. Since they don't care about being historically accurate, or what you and I think (and they shouldn't) they enjoy the freedom to do whatever they wish to their own property.

Or, maybe they do it for another reason?

 

[Jumpshot]

Or, maybe they do it for another reason?

Because we can. :thumbsup:

 

[roundball]

That folks want to put flintlocks on rifles that clearly would never have been flintlocks even if they were a copy of any original gun.

I would venture a guess - They already have a percussion gun, but want a flintlock. They think it's cheaper to change the lock, than to purchase a whole new gun. Since they don't care about being historically accurate, or what you and I think (and they shouldn't) they enjoy the freedom to do whatever they wish to their own property.

Or, maybe they do it for another reason?

Well put Claude...it's nobody elses business what anybody else does, period...much less rise to the level of someone claiming "I find it strange" that so and so does such and such.

Would be like someone saying they find it strange to see him use a photo of himself for his avatar...and further so all dressed up in old, out of date, out of fashion clothes...looks goofy to a lot of people...but...it's nobody elses business what somebody else wears....or what they shoot, or what they build from various rifle parts, etc.

But everybody bright enough to hold a valid driver's license already knows these things...and judging from all the responses, the real issue of why this thread was started in the first place is crystal clear to everyone.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Really? If "we" don't care what others do or how they do it then why are "we" so opposed to inlines?
I think this started out fair enough asking why would one put a flint lock on a rifle of obvious later style. Nothing unusual about a percussion lock on a rifle of earlier style, many, perhaps most flintlocks were converted. But original percussions were not converted to flint so it surely does look out of place, though I understand that many people don't care just so long as it goes bang. The original post merely presented an observation and was certainly not the first to do so.
I was going to say "at least this hasn't degenerated into personal attacks" but I see that has just changed with the previous post. :wink:

 

I've been muzzleloading long enough to remember when the T/C first hit the market. There were not many factory built muzzleloaders available in those days so any new item was big news. I was glad to see it but very annoyed that they called it "Hawken". I thought it looked like Roy Weatherby's idea of a Hawken. Is that perhaps what you mean by "California style"? :rotf:

actually, there was a style of rifles called California rifles, and the ones I have seen pictured look alot like the modern TC Hawken (or vice versa). They were percussion and dated ca. 1850s. ....as to the post that claims to have seen an article that claims that are three original flintlock Hawkens--all of us would like to see that. I take Muzzle Blasts and musta totally spaced out on that one, if true--on the other hand, the Hawkens DID make flintlocks and their family had for generations--only trouble is that they were not like the classic S. Hawken or its GPR sorta copy--the flintlock Hawkens were long rifles. Somewhere someone claims to have seen ONE old Hawken that he thought had been converted to percussion. Fact is the VAST MAJORITY of all Hawkens made in St Louis were percussion, maybe nearly all of them. All of this means nothing to those that just want to shoot "old timey" guns. But if you want to be historically accurate [not for everyone]your Hawken plains rifle ought to be percussion

 

[roundball]

"...actually, there was a style of rifles called California rifles, and the ones I have seen pictured look alot like the modern TC Hawken (or vice versa). They were percussion and dated ca. 1850s..."

Shoot...I can fix this easy...a state slogan for North Carolina is "the tarheel state"...I'll just start referring to my half stock TC Hawkens with Flintlock assemblies as:

"Tarheel Hawkens", circa 1970s

As long as 10 pointers and Turkeys keep going down in front of them I really don't care what I call them...
:rotf:

 

[Swampman]

and does?

 

[Claude Mathis]

Really? If "we" don't care what others do or how they do it then why are "we" so opposed to inlines?

I can't speak for everyone, but many of the Forum members are not opposed to the existence or use of in-lines. It's a question of where and when they are used. That is a political matter that is debated in many states. It has nothing to do with the gun itself and whether anyone owns or uses one. Many of the Forum members have both.

 

[LRB]

Acually Claude, I am opposed to their existance, and use, but it's still, somewhat, a free country, so their is nothing I can, or would, do about if I could. Inlines were an ingenous answer, to a nonexistant problem.

 

[Dave K]

Mike, I am the poster (Dave K), that posted this. I did read it, and as you see I wasn't sure where I read it exactly, but I didn't think it was worth throwing down the glove on it.I have no reason to dream about Hawken's, for the very reason they aren't in my dreams. But, if you are CERTAIN that there were NO flint Samuel Hawken's, please post where you found that FACT. The computer doesn't always reveal the intent of the authors intention, so I hope you didn't mean to belittle my post, unless you can prove that your facts are factual. :surrender: It is a fact that these guns were being made at the end of the flint period,(the calender tells us so)so there is no reason what so ever to beleive there were none made.


quote=Dave K]Actually I was reading last night and I think it was in "Muzzle Blasts" that 3 Samuel Hawkin's have been found that were orginally flint and still are. The author of the story, wrote that he wanted a flint Hawken, but he wanted to make it accurate to the Hawken style. When he built the gun back the the '70's there were no known original Hawken flint guns, so he made it in percussion. Now he said, there are three flint guns, that had been found.[/quote]

 

[Swampman]

I've probably read 2 dozen articles by well known Hawken authorities that stated there are no known (existing) flintlock Hawken rifles. There is one fullstock Hawken in the Smithsonian that might have been a flintlock at one time. Mike Nessbit believes that one of the existing halfstocks might be a conversion.

 

[JeffinNZ]

Providing folk are burning powder and making holes who cares what lock is on what rifle?

Life is too short.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Can't comment on the situation in New Zealand, but here in the States the in-line is used as an end run around our primitive hunting seasons. It is a way for folks who don't care about tradition or history to extend their hunting season and for Fish and Game Departments to raise revenues. There is nothing primitive about these guns but they've become a fact of life here and aren't likely to go away--especially since certain well paid shills are touting their attributes in various gun magazines. And some of the afore mentioned shills are attacking the traditional muzzleloaders as being ineffective as harvesters of game, despite hundreds of years of proof to the contrary. So some of us are less than thrilled with the in-lines and many of those who use them. I hope you have a happier state of affairs in your neck of the woods.

 

[roundball]

Analogy:

World War II Fighter Aircraft organization is established, it coordinates big international annual air shows and competitions for WWII Fighter Aircraft enthusiasts.

Along comes a modern F15 Strike Eagle jet aircraft and it participates in the WWII air show "because it has wings".

:wink:

 

[Dave K]

Like I posted earlier and if I find where I read it, I will post it. So where did you read your info? What book and author?

 

[Leonredbeard]

Mark,
for what it's worth. I took your question as merely musing about a situation. I delighted in opportunity to exress a possible answer. And an opportunity to be a smarty pants, snicker!

Even so, here is a practical answer. My second flinter was a Lyman Mountain-Plains rifle, you know the one with all the gaudy brass on it. My third was the Lyman trade rifle. In Pennsylvania I needed a flinter to hunt in the late season. I knew didly about historically correct firearms at the time. I just needed flinter and bought one. That helped lead me into historically correct firearms, and hs lead me much further back in history than I ever imagined.

Here is one answer for you. Many a wheellock had a slowmatch type lock made for it that fit the lock mortice. The slowmatch lock was used when the Wheellock was broken, or the shooter was out of pyrites.

humbly,
volatpluvia

 

[Zonie]

Although some folks don't always agree with John D. Baird, he did a great deal of research into the Hawken Rifles history.
In his book Hawken Rifles The Mountain Man's Choice on page 9 he wrote:
"While no specimen of a flintlock Hawken rifle is known to exist, there is every probability that the early Hawken rifles were flintlocks. Flintlock rifles were common in the mountains as late as 1850 so this type of ignition was certainly not considered outmoded..."

In his fine book THE HAWKEN RIFLE: ITS PLACE IN HISTORY Charles E. Hanson, Jr. shows a photo of a fullstock rifle on page 9. The caption reads:
"Figure 2A The only specimen known at this time of a pre-1825 S. Hawken flintlock rifle, probably made in either Hagerstown, Maryland or Xenia, Ohio. Signed "S. Hawken" in script on the barrel. From the collection of William H. Reisner, Jr. "

Quoting from page 10 of this book, "...These facts most strongly indicate that Jacob and Samual each began independently in St. Louis and formed their famous partnership in the summer of 1825 about the time of Lakenen's death...This certainly decreases the chance of finding many J & S Hawken flintlocks."

I notice he did not rule out the possibility of a flintlock existing somewhere, and indeed the Percussion system in 1825 was still in it's infancy in the United States.

If Sam Hawkens had not made a few flintlock rifles I for one would be surprised.
zonie