I hope y’all can read this, took pics with cell phone. I thought this article might spark some conversation. If you can’t read it, sorry. 
Interesting article from Backwoodsman 2020
- Thread starter Omahkapi'si
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
A good article, but I still think that flintlocks were more popular until the late 1830s.I believe the fur trade records back that up.
Ya, don’t know who this guy is or where he got his info. I’m sure others will chime in.
that would be good
Which issue was this?I hope y’all can read this, took pics with cell phone. I thought this article might spark some conversation. If you can’t read it, sorry.
View attachment 326084
View attachment 326083
View attachment 326082
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 3,975
I dunno, but he's got me all fired up (pun intended).
Banjoman
Hillbilly
Very interesting article. Thanks!
It’s hard to know exactly what was carried by every mountain man because so much was not written down or recorded in some other manner and the period documentation we have does not always show the whole picture. We have only limited information to use.
I think about my grandfather and great grandfather’s guns. I remember what my grandfather’s gun was because I shot it when I was a boy, but fine details of the gun I cannot recall. There was nothing written down about it and I don’t think there were photographs of it. Anybody else in the family who might have known are already gone.
I only recall stories about my great grandfather’s gun and I never saw it. There are no known photographs of it, nothing written down about it and again, the rest of the people who did know about it are gone. My vague memories of old stories are the only information left of that old gun.
It’s hard to know exactly what was carried by every mountain man because so much was not written down or recorded in some other manner and the period documentation we have does not always show the whole picture. We have only limited information to use.
I think about my grandfather and great grandfather’s guns. I remember what my grandfather’s gun was because I shot it when I was a boy, but fine details of the gun I cannot recall. There was nothing written down about it and I don’t think there were photographs of it. Anybody else in the family who might have known are already gone.
I only recall stories about my great grandfather’s gun and I never saw it. There are no known photographs of it, nothing written down about it and again, the rest of the people who did know about it are gone. My vague memories of old stories are the only information left of that old gun.
He makes an interesting comment about young people and “technology”. I guess the caveat would be less people over very large geography so not sure how much of a buzz percussion tech could create.
Banjoman
Hillbilly
And how was word of the new technology spread? There was no radio, television or internet and the mail system was almost as slow then as it is now. Were salesmen sent out to different regions with samples to demonstrate? Were articles sent to newspapers to print? Maybe representatives were sent to fairs and special events? Just wondering.
Antelope Pete
40 Cal
Good article. I have some period comments on the subject in a book that I'll post later.
Isn't that frustrating? Lots of stuff from guns to gardening on my Pop's side of the family I wonder about all the time. Like what is that obscure rifle someone is holding in a moldy old picture you can't quite make out. Or what my grand parents did on our farm to have such productive gardens. How did they do this or that. But sadly they're all gone so there is nobody to ask. Really aggravating.
First of all, thanks to brother @Omahkapi'si for posting this interesting article as a conversation piece. I have a couple of preliminary comments, but may post a little more after I’ve reviewed a couple of references.
Not everybody wants new technology just because it’s new. My wife drives a 2000 Ford pickup with a manual transmission and hand cranked windows. She loves to drive it, knows how to handle it, and despises our 2019 Honda FIT with its digital technology. She is determined to keep her pickup running long enough to “see her out,” which may be a while, as tough as she is. The point being that some of the old-time mountaineers felt the same way about their guns. I have a couple of quotes to that effect that I can post later.
I would respectfully disagree with the author regarding waterproof caps, also. Percussion caps did not arrive on the scene fully developed and thoroughly tested. I’ve seen at least a couple of period sources indicating that early percussion caps were unreliable, and when they got wet, as in a simple river crossing, they were permanently spoiled and unsalvageable. Waterproofing came later. When Lewis Garrard, author of Wah-to-yah and the Taos Trail, left the plains and headed back east, he made up a gift box for one of his mentors, and he specifically mentioned putting “waterproof caps” in it. I don’t think he would have been that specific if all percussion caps were waterproof. That would have been in 1846.
Flint locks are more complicated than percussion locks because they have more moving parts. However, the flintlock ignition system is ingeniously simple. I don’t really buy into the idea of picking up any old rock to use as a flint, but we do know that some people were able to make their own, and you could count on finding gunflints at the trading posts. Not so with percussion caps. John Palliser (I think in the early 1860s) was actually staying at a major trading post (maybe Fort Union?) when he got dangerously low on caps. There were none to be had. He had to travel 60-80 miles, I believe, to a rival outfit to obtain caps. Also, percussion caps now are pretty well standardized to #10, #11, and musket sizes. Back in the day, they had a lot more choices with regard to size, which might have complicated things to a degree.
Back to the simplicity of the system, I have a hypothesis of my own regarding the persistence or continued use of the flintlock. Nowadays, if the touch-hole or vent is big enough to leak powder, we consider it a defect… you lose pressure and “performance,” and there may be some safety issues. Old-timers didn’t necessarily see it that way. If you close the frizzen before charging your gun and allow a little powder from the main charge to leak into the pan, you have a self-priming flintlock, which eliminates one step in the loading process. This could be a pretty big deal in a close range firefight or loading from the back of a galloping buffalo pony, or even just in extreme cold. Tiny little percussion caps can be tricky to handle with numb, wet, greasy, or arthritic fingers. The Maynard tape primer system was an effort to make percussion guns self-priming, but it had problems of its own, and I’m not aware of any self-priming mechanism compatible with standard percussion caps.
Then you consider the size of a flintlock vent, say 0.0625” to maybe 0.080”, compared to 0.028” - 0.035” in the base of a nipple. Which one would more likely clog? I specifically recall two period references to repeated misfires due to clogged nipples. In fairness, there are mentions of flintlocks misfiring, too. No argument there. It’s just that this author seems to imply that the percussion system was light years beyond the flintlock in reliability and eliminated the misfire problem. It wasn’t, and it didn’t.
I take issue with the author’s assertion that Hawken rifles were all percussion as early as 1823. I don’t believe it. While it might be hard to produce a genuine Jacob Hawken flintlock rifle made in the 1820’s, I’m not aware of an original percussion Hawken that can be positively dated that early, either. So I guess we’ll just be at loggerheads over that one.
So, the article was interesting, and the fellow writes pretty well, but I would say the author had an axe to grind and his research was incomplete. I have a background in science and appreciate an objective point of view and careful research. I also like to see references. This sort of thing rankles me a little, because some pilgrim is going to read that article, believe every word because he saw it in print, and repeat what he can remember of it as gospel truth and “the last word” on the topic. Which it ain’t.
I’ll look forward to reading what other forum members have to say.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob
Not everybody wants new technology just because it’s new. My wife drives a 2000 Ford pickup with a manual transmission and hand cranked windows. She loves to drive it, knows how to handle it, and despises our 2019 Honda FIT with its digital technology. She is determined to keep her pickup running long enough to “see her out,” which may be a while, as tough as she is. The point being that some of the old-time mountaineers felt the same way about their guns. I have a couple of quotes to that effect that I can post later.
I would respectfully disagree with the author regarding waterproof caps, also. Percussion caps did not arrive on the scene fully developed and thoroughly tested. I’ve seen at least a couple of period sources indicating that early percussion caps were unreliable, and when they got wet, as in a simple river crossing, they were permanently spoiled and unsalvageable. Waterproofing came later. When Lewis Garrard, author of Wah-to-yah and the Taos Trail, left the plains and headed back east, he made up a gift box for one of his mentors, and he specifically mentioned putting “waterproof caps” in it. I don’t think he would have been that specific if all percussion caps were waterproof. That would have been in 1846.
Flint locks are more complicated than percussion locks because they have more moving parts. However, the flintlock ignition system is ingeniously simple. I don’t really buy into the idea of picking up any old rock to use as a flint, but we do know that some people were able to make their own, and you could count on finding gunflints at the trading posts. Not so with percussion caps. John Palliser (I think in the early 1860s) was actually staying at a major trading post (maybe Fort Union?) when he got dangerously low on caps. There were none to be had. He had to travel 60-80 miles, I believe, to a rival outfit to obtain caps. Also, percussion caps now are pretty well standardized to #10, #11, and musket sizes. Back in the day, they had a lot more choices with regard to size, which might have complicated things to a degree.
Back to the simplicity of the system, I have a hypothesis of my own regarding the persistence or continued use of the flintlock. Nowadays, if the touch-hole or vent is big enough to leak powder, we consider it a defect… you lose pressure and “performance,” and there may be some safety issues. Old-timers didn’t necessarily see it that way. If you close the frizzen before charging your gun and allow a little powder from the main charge to leak into the pan, you have a self-priming flintlock, which eliminates one step in the loading process. This could be a pretty big deal in a close range firefight or loading from the back of a galloping buffalo pony, or even just in extreme cold. Tiny little percussion caps can be tricky to handle with numb, wet, greasy, or arthritic fingers. The Maynard tape primer system was an effort to make percussion guns self-priming, but it had problems of its own, and I’m not aware of any self-priming mechanism compatible with standard percussion caps.
Then you consider the size of a flintlock vent, say 0.0625” to maybe 0.080”, compared to 0.028” - 0.035” in the base of a nipple. Which one would more likely clog? I specifically recall two period references to repeated misfires due to clogged nipples. In fairness, there are mentions of flintlocks misfiring, too. No argument there. It’s just that this author seems to imply that the percussion system was light years beyond the flintlock in reliability and eliminated the misfire problem. It wasn’t, and it didn’t.
I take issue with the author’s assertion that Hawken rifles were all percussion as early as 1823. I don’t believe it. While it might be hard to produce a genuine Jacob Hawken flintlock rifle made in the 1820’s, I’m not aware of an original percussion Hawken that can be positively dated that early, either. So I guess we’ll just be at loggerheads over that one.
So, the article was interesting, and the fellow writes pretty well, but I would say the author had an axe to grind and his research was incomplete. I have a background in science and appreciate an objective point of view and careful research. I also like to see references. This sort of thing rankles me a little, because some pilgrim is going to read that article, believe every word because he saw it in print, and repeat what he can remember of it as gospel truth and “the last word” on the topic. Which it ain’t.
I’ll look forward to reading what other forum members have to say.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob
Last edited:
I enjoyed the article. Thanks for posting it.I hope y’all can read this, took pics with cell phone. I thought this article might spark some conversation. If you can’t read it, sorry.
View attachment 326084
View attachment 326083
View attachment 326082
a great post Notchy Bob.thx.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,353
- Reaction score
- 5,104
Am interesting read, but I find much fault with the author.I hope y’all can read this, took pics with cell phone. I thought this article might spark some conversation. If you can’t read it, sorry.
View attachment 326084
View attachment 326083
View attachment 326082
He uses entirely too many definatives as " Always, must, had to, they did, etc". In Studying Research Methods those are considered Red Flags, and should cause pause in accepting the info as valid.
I only know of one movie where the Hawken name was Bandied about, a movie made in the early 70s with little historical truth.
IIRC, Rev. Forsyth lived in Scotland, a wee bit of a hike from the Rocky mountains. The only way for word or supplies from other countries was by Ocean going sail boat, a 6-10 week journey.
Think about this. How many threads have we seen in the last years about shortage of caps NOW DAYS! And we live in a highly global market where items can be shipped 24 hours a day.
I'm pretty sure some trappers bought EVERY cap they could buy, just as folks do today.
To put it in perspective; the first all electric car I saw was in 1981. It had a range of 50 miles. Few wanted or trusted one.
Last year, 42 years later, we bought a hybrid electric car. No plug in, no range limitations. Many others are doing likewise.
It took 40 odd years, with all the improvements and modern means of manufacture and communication which they didn't have 200 years ago, for the idea to become accepted and popular.
Imagine living in 1830s. No telegraph, telephone, television, radio, internet, etc. to communicate ideas. Only the written word and voice to spread ideas.
In 1835 when David Crockett left for Texas he left at home his most recent gift, a percussion 40 caliber long rifle. His family stated he did this for fear of unobtainable caps along the route.
Antelope Pete
40 Cal
I got to thinking if we're talking about pre 1840 trappers only then these references may not apply but if we're talking a general attitude about flint vs. cap then maybe so. These come from "HUNTING THE AMERICAN WEST The Pursuit of Big Game for Life, Profit, and Sport, 1800 - 1900"
Josiah Gregg who was a trader on the Santa Fe trail.
"Severe winds are very prevalent upon the western prairies .....It is for this reason as well as on account of rains, that percussion guns are preferred upon the Prairie, particularly for those who understand their use. The winds are frequently so severe as to sweep away both sparks and priming from a flintlock, and render it wholly ineffective".
H. H. Sibley having failed to kill a bear after repeated "snaps" with his flintlock during an 1839 hunt observed with some acid that ".....any man calling himself a sportsman who will not use a percussion (gun) when he can procure one, in lieu of a flintlock gun, should be furnished with a straight jacket at the public expense.
Sir William Drummond Stewart a gentleman hunter
"the difference of the going off of a cap and a flintlock"....."how much easier it would be to shoot at a mark with the more immediate ignition (of the former).
Contrary to the above - Emigrant John Bidwell stated - "Old hunters told me to have nothing to do with cap or percussion locks, that they were unreliable and that if I got my cap wet I couldn't shoot, while if I lost my flint I could pick up another on the plains".
This is from the book "Rifles of the American Indian". James Henry wrote to the American Fur Company in October of 1836.
" The rifles we are in the habit of making for you, being of an earlier kind, we cannot make use of the locks for any other purpose, as we have to go to considerable expense to get them made & keep a certain stock on hand."
I guess there are diverse group here with their opinions.
Josiah Gregg who was a trader on the Santa Fe trail.
"Severe winds are very prevalent upon the western prairies .....It is for this reason as well as on account of rains, that percussion guns are preferred upon the Prairie, particularly for those who understand their use. The winds are frequently so severe as to sweep away both sparks and priming from a flintlock, and render it wholly ineffective".
H. H. Sibley having failed to kill a bear after repeated "snaps" with his flintlock during an 1839 hunt observed with some acid that ".....any man calling himself a sportsman who will not use a percussion (gun) when he can procure one, in lieu of a flintlock gun, should be furnished with a straight jacket at the public expense.
Sir William Drummond Stewart a gentleman hunter
"the difference of the going off of a cap and a flintlock"....."how much easier it would be to shoot at a mark with the more immediate ignition (of the former).
Contrary to the above - Emigrant John Bidwell stated - "Old hunters told me to have nothing to do with cap or percussion locks, that they were unreliable and that if I got my cap wet I couldn't shoot, while if I lost my flint I could pick up another on the plains".
This is from the book "Rifles of the American Indian". James Henry wrote to the American Fur Company in October of 1836.
" The rifles we are in the habit of making for you, being of an earlier kind, we cannot make use of the locks for any other purpose, as we have to go to considerable expense to get them made & keep a certain stock on hand."
I guess there are diverse group here with their opinions.
July/Aug 2020
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2021
- Messages
- 2,659
- Reaction score
- 4,934
- Location
- Far Away Downs Queensland Australia.
I agree, as the article mentions the Percussion cap wasnt perfected until 1815 and although the Percussion guns may have been "quite popular" that doesnt mean the majority had them by circa 1825 -1840. Understandably actual supply and delivery delays of percussion guns and upgraded existing Flintlocks for conversion in a timely manner would have been considerable inconvenience to a Mountain Man well away from St Louis and other locations where capable Gunsmiths plied their trade. From everything I've read since the mid 70's, I've come to believe that the transition to Percussion guns would have been a gradual one rather than a 5 year transformation among the geeral public of the time; lets remind ourselves that cash money was relatively scarce and Mountainmen trappers relied largely on the Beaver plew trade at rendezvous (with its exhorbitant mark up prices for necessaries) to carry them through another year of mountain dwelling trapping. They probably had little money left over to upgrade or buy a replacement gun until it was well over time and desperate.
So nothing has changed in almost 190 years ?
Similar threads
