Interesting article from Backwoodsman 2020

[ronaldrothb49]

while there were some flintlocks that got converted to percussion I don't buy that everyone rushed out to do that. If that had happened there would be very few original flintlocks that survived. According to info in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden age Kindig lists info from Leonard Reedy's Journals which covers the period from 1819 to 1838. There are no entries that would indicate he ever made a caplock or even converted one. There are only 2 entries that would indicate he repaired a percussion gun. There was no mass marketing back then so I seriously doubt there was any mad rush to convert their rifles. As others have pointed out there was no standard back then. If you look at technology today most of the people who jump on the latest new tech are buying problems because the bugs haven't been worked out yet.

J Henry and Sons were a major supplier to the fur companies. According to Charles Hanson III they didn't come out with a percussion rifle until 1840 and that was their Lancaster pattern which was a full stock. They didn't come out with a half stock until 1856 and even then it was half the price of a Hawken and they still were making flintlocks.

It gets me how so many claim every one wanted a Hawken like they were some kind of magical rifle. There was no mass marketing back then. I doubt seriously that unless you lived within 100 miles of Saint Louis or had gone through there on your way west you probably didn't even know a Hawken Rifle existed. Reality during that time period anywhere rifles were being made you see half stocks being made for a fraction of what they charged for a Hawken.

 

[Nav]

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

 

[Omahkapi'si]

Everybody breathe.

 

[Eterry]

I enjoyed the article, but I feel it was one sided.
But, in all fairness, most articles ARE one sided, an attempt to assert their view and belief.
I just think the transition was gradual and not a sudden rush.

 

[Eterry]

while there were some flintlocks that got converted to percussion I don't buy that everyone rushed out to do that. If that had happened there would be very few original flintlocks that survived. According to info in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden age Kindig lists info from Leonard Reedy's Journals which covers the period from 1819 to 1838. There are no entries that would indicate he ever made a caplock or even converted one. There are only 2 entries that would indicate he repaired a percussion gun. There was no mass marketing back then so I seriously doubt there was any mad rush to convert their rifles. As others have pointed out there was no standard back then. If you look at technology today most of the people who jump on the latest new tech are buying problems because the bugs haven't been worked out yet.

J Henry and Sons were a major supplier to the fur companies. According to Charles Hanson III they didn't come out with a percussion rifle until 1840 and that was their Lancaster pattern which was a full stock. They didn't come out with a half stock until 1856 and even then it was half the price of a Hawken and they still were making flintlocks.

It gets me how so many claim every one wanted a Hawken like they were some kind of magical rifle. There was no mass marketing back then. I doubt seriously that unless you lived within 100 miles of Saint Louis or had gone through there on your way west you probably didn't even know a Hawken Rifle existed. Reality during that time period anywhere rifles were being made you see half stocks being made for a fraction of what they charged for a Hawken.

The 2 books I've read on the Hawken states that many Hawkins were bought at St Louis in bulk and taken to the west for the fur trade. And the price was doubled along the way.
Which makes sense; we see it everytime a new I Phone comes out and at every Superbowl. Scalpers.

 

[Antelope Pete]

I reread the article and I don't think he's saying percussions took over the scene and did away with all the flintlocks, especially right away. To use his own line he says "And so it's highly likely that more percussion firearms were in use on the frontier than "flintlock oriented historians " would have us believe". I don't think that's an unrealistic opinion.

 

[Notchy Bob]

I reread the article and I don't think he's saying percussions took over the scene and did away with all the flintlocks, especially right away. To use his own line he says "And so it's highly likely that more percussion firearms were in use on the frontier than "flintlock oriented historians " would have us believe". I don't think that's an unrealistic opinion.

Not unrealistic at all. I think there was considerable "overlap," when both flintlock and percussion guns were in use. This quote from George Kendall's Narrative of the Texan Santa Fe Expedition of 1841 makes that clear:



The weaponry carried on that expedition was clearly a mix of percussion and flint guns.

Sometimes, one might be preferred over the other, depending on the situation. This is from Granville Stuart's Forty Years on the Frontier:



Stuart's comments in that excerpt were referring to the 1840s, in Iowa. Maybe the flintlock was of a larger bore... a better game-getter than the percussion rifle, but susceptible to the wind. On the other hand, the flintlock had a practical advantage in that it could be used to start a fire in really cold weather.

The thesis of that article, as I understood it, was that there were more mountain men using percussion guns than flintlock enthusiasts might realize or admit. I just thought he was pushing the dates for that a little earlier than would be realistic, and I would like to read some of his references, but he didn't list them. There were lots of people besides mountain men in the west by the 1840s, and I think he may have been including them, although I did too, in some of my own comments.

Then, there were a few individuals who just didn't want to change, and stuck with their flinters. This is another excerpt from George Kendall's 1841 Narrative, describing a seasoned plainsman named Tom Hancock:



Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[Eterry]

I also think the invention of Colt's Revolving Rifles and Pistols ushered in the acceptance of those new fangled caps.
If you owned a Colt Revolver you might as well have your rifle converted as well.

 

[Leatherbark]

Percussion rifles probably took ahold of shooters interest when they started beating the flintlocks at shooting matches. I shoot flint mostly, but still shoot percussion rifles when my interested period in history changes. Percussion scores (on paper targets) are most always higher than flint scores at the national level even with the same shooter. Practical field accuracy not so much.

Bob

 

[Tim_IA]

Interesting read. I don't know enough about the history of muzzleloaders to know if the article is historically correct or not. My heart would say no, but that is only a guess on my part. References would be helpful.

But, I do know that free spirited business men or folk who are relying on guns to feed or make a living were offered a better tool to get the job done more efficiently and reliably, they would pounce, at least in my opinion and less the romanticism I have.