plmeek
40 Cal.
Notchy,
I agree with your observations and concerns. Unfortunately, there is just so much one can tell from photos and the likelihood of being able to examine the rifle in person seems very remote.
The person that wrote that piece isn't real knowledgeable about muzzleloaders which makes me wonder about some of the things he said. As an example he wrote, "Note the repaired wrist and the rounded lock plate inlet. The tail ends on some rifles were pointed at the rear [emphasis added]." I assume he is talking about the tail of the lock panels, but he could be talking about the lock plate itself. Unfortunately, we just have to take him at his word for most of the description.
He says the lock and hammer are replacements. I assume the owner told him this because I doubt he has the expertise to tell himself. I would agree the lock is probably a modern replacement. It looks like a Harold Robbins Hawken lock. Harold Robbins made several different styles of locks in the 1960's and 70's. He was handicaped and wheelchair bound, but was able to set up his shop to be able to work mills and lathes from his wheelchair. Below is a 1967 ad for some of his locks.
The writer also described the entry pipe as "cast". Assuming it is, then that means that it is also a modern replacement. Sam Hawken used cast parts late in his career, but not cast entry pipes. The casting back then was most likely sand casting. Making them from sheet iron would be much easier than trying to sand cast them.
Notchy, you point out the sights. These may well be modern replacements, too. They certainly don't resemble any sights on known Hawken rifles.
The author seemed surprised that the rifle has a patent breech but not a hooked breech. The majority of half stock Hawken rifles have hooked breeches, but not all. The majority of full stock Hawken rifles have fixed patent breeches, but there are exceptions.
The shape of the cheekpiece has been highlighted in that it is not a beaver tail but rather a "Tennessee" style with a straight line bottom. As you pointed out, Notchy, this might suggest the rifle was originally full stock and later cut back to half stock. The Hawken half stock rifles that I know of with a "Tennessee" style cheekpiece definitely were originally full stock and later cut back to half stock. The cheekpiece and the fixed patent breech strongly suggest the rifle was originally a full stock.
The author wrote, "In the second picture you can see the tang has a screw in its tail in addition to the two tang bolts which end in the trigger plate." This is typical for Hawken rifles. Thumbing through Jim Gordon's book, the rifles that have pictures showing the bottom of the butt stock have this third screw near the rear end of the trigger plate. There is only one picture showing the finial on the trigger plate with the finial on the toe plate and it was shot at an angle. Sitll, the trigger plate finial looks like a typical "beaver tail" while the finial on the toe plate comes to a sharp point. These should match. Are the triggers and plate replacements, too?
The "flat-to-the-wrist" trigger guard is interesting--not that it is on a half stock rifle, though. Other half stocks have that style of trigger guard such as the Medina Hawken, but this one looks so much like the modern guard commonly available from most suppliers today. I don't know of any discussion in the literature about Sam Hawken casting "flat-to-the-wrist" trigger guards, though he clearly cast his trade mark scroll guard late in his career. In the period that we see most "flat-to-the-wrist" guards, they were hand forged individually and we see variation from one to the other. It makes me suspicious that this one looks so much like a modern guard.
The barrel is a real anomaly for a Hawken rifle. If it were a larger caliber such as .58, I would suspect it had been bored out in modern times and re-cut with the 6-land, gain twist rifling. Since we don't have a picture of the barrel stamp and the author seemed unsure it was even stamped, I'm suspicious about it being a Hawken barrel.
It's interesting that the author was very knowledgeable about how the Hawken brothers made their two-piece butt plate, but he got the date wrong for "S. HAWKEN" rifle production. He said "after 1842 and before 1862" when in reality, Jacob died in 1849. He apparently isn't familiar with the term "lock panel". I never really got his point about the "flat trapezoidal area at the bottom" of the cheekpiece. I don't see anything unusual or exceptional about it.
As I stated at the beginning, there is only so much one can tell from photos. This piece raises more questions than it answers. It has obviously been messed with. Exactly to what extent is hard to say. It may have more modern parts than antique parts. The repairs to the stock certainly didn't enhance the rifle's value any. A proper restorer would have used wood plugs that matched the grain in direction and size and blended it in with the rest of the wrist with a proper patina.
But the real question is, "How much, if any, of this rifle is original Hawken?"
I agree with your observations and concerns. Unfortunately, there is just so much one can tell from photos and the likelihood of being able to examine the rifle in person seems very remote.
The person that wrote that piece isn't real knowledgeable about muzzleloaders which makes me wonder about some of the things he said. As an example he wrote, "Note the repaired wrist and the rounded lock plate inlet. The tail ends on some rifles were pointed at the rear [emphasis added]." I assume he is talking about the tail of the lock panels, but he could be talking about the lock plate itself. Unfortunately, we just have to take him at his word for most of the description.
He says the lock and hammer are replacements. I assume the owner told him this because I doubt he has the expertise to tell himself. I would agree the lock is probably a modern replacement. It looks like a Harold Robbins Hawken lock. Harold Robbins made several different styles of locks in the 1960's and 70's. He was handicaped and wheelchair bound, but was able to set up his shop to be able to work mills and lathes from his wheelchair. Below is a 1967 ad for some of his locks.
The writer also described the entry pipe as "cast". Assuming it is, then that means that it is also a modern replacement. Sam Hawken used cast parts late in his career, but not cast entry pipes. The casting back then was most likely sand casting. Making them from sheet iron would be much easier than trying to sand cast them.
Notchy, you point out the sights. These may well be modern replacements, too. They certainly don't resemble any sights on known Hawken rifles.
The author seemed surprised that the rifle has a patent breech but not a hooked breech. The majority of half stock Hawken rifles have hooked breeches, but not all. The majority of full stock Hawken rifles have fixed patent breeches, but there are exceptions.
The shape of the cheekpiece has been highlighted in that it is not a beaver tail but rather a "Tennessee" style with a straight line bottom. As you pointed out, Notchy, this might suggest the rifle was originally full stock and later cut back to half stock. The Hawken half stock rifles that I know of with a "Tennessee" style cheekpiece definitely were originally full stock and later cut back to half stock. The cheekpiece and the fixed patent breech strongly suggest the rifle was originally a full stock.
The author wrote, "In the second picture you can see the tang has a screw in its tail in addition to the two tang bolts which end in the trigger plate." This is typical for Hawken rifles. Thumbing through Jim Gordon's book, the rifles that have pictures showing the bottom of the butt stock have this third screw near the rear end of the trigger plate. There is only one picture showing the finial on the trigger plate with the finial on the toe plate and it was shot at an angle. Sitll, the trigger plate finial looks like a typical "beaver tail" while the finial on the toe plate comes to a sharp point. These should match. Are the triggers and plate replacements, too?
The "flat-to-the-wrist" trigger guard is interesting--not that it is on a half stock rifle, though. Other half stocks have that style of trigger guard such as the Medina Hawken, but this one looks so much like the modern guard commonly available from most suppliers today. I don't know of any discussion in the literature about Sam Hawken casting "flat-to-the-wrist" trigger guards, though he clearly cast his trade mark scroll guard late in his career. In the period that we see most "flat-to-the-wrist" guards, they were hand forged individually and we see variation from one to the other. It makes me suspicious that this one looks so much like a modern guard.
The barrel is a real anomaly for a Hawken rifle. If it were a larger caliber such as .58, I would suspect it had been bored out in modern times and re-cut with the 6-land, gain twist rifling. Since we don't have a picture of the barrel stamp and the author seemed unsure it was even stamped, I'm suspicious about it being a Hawken barrel.
It's interesting that the author was very knowledgeable about how the Hawken brothers made their two-piece butt plate, but he got the date wrong for "S. HAWKEN" rifle production. He said "after 1842 and before 1862" when in reality, Jacob died in 1849. He apparently isn't familiar with the term "lock panel". I never really got his point about the "flat trapezoidal area at the bottom" of the cheekpiece. I don't see anything unusual or exceptional about it.
As I stated at the beginning, there is only so much one can tell from photos. This piece raises more questions than it answers. It has obviously been messed with. Exactly to what extent is hard to say. It may have more modern parts than antique parts. The repairs to the stock certainly didn't enhance the rifle's value any. A proper restorer would have used wood plugs that matched the grain in direction and size and blended it in with the rest of the wrist with a proper patina.
But the real question is, "How much, if any, of this rifle is original Hawken?"
