Is the Recently-Discovered Beckwourth Rifle the One Jim Is Holding in His Portrait?

[Notchy Bob]

Several years ago, a rifle came to light that the owner believes once belonged to James Beckwourth, the mountain man. This rifle has been discussed several times on this and other forums, and Muzzleloader magazine had a nice full-page write-up in their May/June 2015 issue. The information they showed has been expanded, and is accessible on a webpage sponsored by that publication. You can view it here: The James Beckwourth Rifle

Here is a full-length photo of the rifle from that webpage:



For purposes of discussion, I'll refer to that as the "rifle photo."

They also show a portrait of Beckwourth himself, holding a long rifle:



For this discussion, I'll call that "the Beckwourth photo."

My question for you is, do you think the rifles shown in the photos above are the same gun? I would be interested in your opinion. I would like to state that this is just for fun. It's Sunday afternoon, I've had a busy weekend, and it's too hot to go outside. I'm also interested in how other folks view and interpret these old photos. I have no agenda or vested interest. Just curiosity.

Anyway, the recently discovered rifle has a rawhide wrap on the wrist and some tasteful brass tack work which is not visible in the photo of Beckwourth holding the rifle. However, the rawhide and tacks could have been added at any time, even by a subsequent owner. Both rifles are heavy, fullstocked percussion guns with double-set triggers.

The Beckwourth photo appears to show a left-handed rifle, with the lock on the left-hand side. Note that Jim's butcher knife is also in his belt for a left-hand cross-draw. It is my understanding that the images were reversed in these early photographs, and that is obvious when there are belt buckles with "US" on them, or Winchester repeating rifles with the loading gate visible, but I don't see any clues like that in this photo. Left-handed guns (and people) did exist back then, although guns with the lock on the left side were comparatively rare. I'm not aware of any documentation to indicate Jim was left-handed. I'm just going on the assumption that the rifle in the Beckwourth photo is shown in reverse, and it was in fact a right-handed rifle. If any of you good folks can make relevant comments on early photographic techniques and technology, I would be interested. I don't know much about it, and I' always open to learning something.

I examined the rifle in the Beckwourth photo as well as I could, but one problem is that the image of the muzzle is fuzzy and the buttstock sort of disappears in a haze. In addition, the rifle may be leaning back a little, but it's hard to confirm that. This complicated getting accurate full-length measurements of the rifle and the LOP. With careful measurements and calculations of proportion, I was able to determine that the distance from the rear sight to the drum (bolster) in the rifle photo is about 27% of the barrel length, while the distance from the rear sight to the drum on the rifle in the Beckwourth photo appears to be about 32% of the barrel length. The overall length (OAL) of the gun in the rifle photo is 142% of the barrel length, while the OAL of the rifle in the Beckwourth photo appears to be 138% of the barrel length.

Notes on the Muzzleloader magazine webpage indicate the barrel on the rifle is 40.625"long, from the muzzle to the point where the tang meets the barrel. Using this as a mathematical constant and taking measurements from the image on my computer screen, I was able to calculate a length of pull (LOP) of 14.59", which is pretty long for a rifle of that vintage, and an overall length (OAL) of 57.78". That's almost five feet. If the rifle in the Beckwourth photo is that long, Jim must have been a pretty tall fellow.

One other detail to note is that the rifle that was featured in Muzzleloader magazine has a little spur or finger rest riveted to the bow of the triggerguard immediately below the rear trigger. There is "something" there, in that same spot, on the rifle in the Beckwourth photo.

So, all things considered, I think these images probably show the same rifle. Please submit your own opinion by clicking the appropriate bubble, and comment (or not) as you feel appropriate. I'm pretty sure you can go back and change your "vote" if you change your mind. The poll will close in seven days.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[64Springer]

My immediate thought is it's not the same rifle. Always trust yer gut.

The color photo shows a beat-up rifle with tacks everywhere.

The black and white shows a rifle with very nice grain and no tacks visible.

The rear sights look different too.

The hook at the tail of the trigger guard is also different between the two rifles.

 

[Notchy Bob]

My immediate thought is it's not the same rifle. Always trust yer gut.

The color photo shows a beat-up rifle with tacks everywhere. The tacks and rawhide could have been added at any time in the rifle's history, even after the original owner passed it on.

The black and white shows a rifle with very nice grain and no tacks visible. The color photo shows a very old rifle. The photo of Beckwourth likely shows him holding a rifle that was newer.

The rear sights look different too. I can't see it well enough to make that determination.

The hook at the tail of the trigger guard is also different between the two rifles. Again, it's hard for me to see.

Your points are well taken.

Please submit your vote.

Thanks,

Notchy Bob

 

[64Springer]

And on a positive note, we now know where Traditions got the idea for their Kentuckyish rifle. That barrel looks to be exactly 33.5 inches long.


PS: As for being a left handed lock. Could be period photography as you mentioned.

The famous Billy the Kid rifle pose was proven to be reversed. No Winchester lever action had a loading gate on the left side of the receiver.

Only took a hundred years for someone to notice.

 

[64Springer]

Another view.

 

[leadhoarder]

I know nothing of identifying long rifles but the trigger guard gives it away. Not the same.

 

[longcruise]

I went with "probably not". My primary reason being that the photo of the rifle looks to be plane wood and possibly Walnut. The rifle held by Beckwourth looks to have curl in it. I can't make out the TG well enough in the Beckwourth photo to make a call on that.

Something about the rifle photo makes me think it's a 20th century build. But can't put my finger on it.

 

[Notchy Bob]

Another view of the triggerguard:


Not to argue one way or the other... there it is. It's up to each of us to compare the images and interpret what we see.

Thanks for the input so far!

Notchy Bob

 

[Banjoman]

The stock in the Beckwourth photo appears to have more figure than the stock in the rifle photo. I would guess they are not the same gun.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

View attachment 252036

The problem with the photo of Mr. Beckwourth is that the photography has not survived well, and it cannot be seen if the figure on the stock was faux paint, faux figure burned in, or real. Thus the fact that the color photo of the rifle seems to show some faux figure, but we cannot compare the pattern, or tell if it's the same. IF one argued that the rifle in question was made by the same maker as Mr. Beckwourth's rifle, I'd change my vote from probably not to possibly the same maker...

LD

 

[Phil Coffins]

It would be interesting to see a high quality image of the photograph of Jim and the rifle. The picture here is too grainy for me to make out enough detail to make an accurate impression. Perhaps someone can direct us to a high resolution image on the internet.

 

[Notchy Bob]

The problem with the photo of Mr. Beckwourth is that the photography has not survived well, and it cannot be seen if the figure on the stock was faux paint, faux figure burned in, or real. Thus the fact that the color photo of the rifle seems to show some faux figure, but we cannot compare the pattern, or tell if it's the same. IF one argued that the rifle in question was made by the same maker as Mr. Beckwourth's rifle, I'd change my vote from probably not to possibly the same maker...

LD

Your opinion counts!

People who have examined the presumed Beckwourth rifle appear to agree that it is a genuine antique, and I believe we can rule out the possibility of it being a recent fake, whether it was actually Beckwourth's rifle or not. It has acquired some grime and superficial damage, and likely a broken or cracked wrist under the rawhide wrap. I can't even say for sure what kind of wood it is, although I believe it is most likely maple with dark coloration. Again, the rifle in the portrait is certainly a newer gun, in better condition than the antique we have for comparison.

I would agree that the photo has some flaws, some from damage acquired over time and some from the limitations of the technology of the day. The photographer likely wanted to get the subject's face as clearly as possible, and was not as concerned with other things in the image. In any event, I find it hard to see a lot of the rifle's detail I would like to find in the portrait. I can't even make out the buttplate. If we could see it more clearly, I could get a more accurate measure of the rifle's length and we could also compare the curvature of the buttplate to the existing rifle.

There was a thread discussing the presumed Beckwourth rifle on the ALR forum a while back, and it was revealed that there is another very similar rifle in existence. My memory is frequently flawed, but I seem to recall it was in a collection in Missouri, and showed several features that were very similar to those of Mr. Hengesbaugh's presumed Beckwourth rifle. I think it is likely a builder who could produce a rifle of that quality would have built more than one.

Thank you for your comments.

Notchy Bob

 

[Notchy Bob]

It would be interesting to see a high quality image of the photograph of Jim and the rifle. The picture here is too grainy for me to make out enough detail to make an accurate impression. Perhaps someone can direct us to a high resolution image on the internet.

Agreed. I'm hoping a forum member with the requisite skills might be able to enhance that old photo somehow, and bring out more of that sort of detail.

Thank you for your comments.

Notchy Bob

 

[brushblind]

I think the rifles are two different guns but maybe both belonged to Mr. Beckwourth. People traded guns back then just as they do today and some owned multiple rifles throughout their lives. Mr. Beckwourth seemed to be an educated man and the means to get what he needed to make a better living.

 

[SDSmlf]

Just can not find enough similarities to convince me it is the same rifle. Played with the exposure a little, but nothing pulled out sufficient detail, at least for me. Maybe there is a better copy of the photograph that could help, could not clean this one up much.

 

[Steve Wagner]

Notchy, I am too much of a greenhorn at the identification game to have a credible vote, but this is one cool thread. Thanks for getting it going. SW

 

[necchi]

Notchy Bob

It's not even close to winter,,?
What are ya shooting for? Validation or other,,?
I voted "Possibly not,,"
there is simply no way to tell,, no way to do anything beyond speculation.
A random, endless quest of scholars (?)
It is 2023, I'm guessing about 1/2 a million dollars in DNA research could probably do it,, but they'd have to exhume the body and destroy the rifle,,
,semper admirari, is easier,,

 

[TDM]

Notchy, I am too much of a greenhorn at the identification game to have a credible vote, but this is one cool thread. Thanks for getting it going. SW

Agree, same here.

But thanks @Notchy Bob.

 

[D.Summers]

Yeah, it doesn't seem to be the same rifle. But I bet a lot of these cats had more than one rifle. Certainly in their time in the mountains. By his own hand, J Beckwourth describes a life full of adventure and chaos, full of ups and way downs! I bet he had and lost multiple rifles, smoothbores, etc!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

There was a thread discussing the presumed Beckwourth rifle on the ALR forum a while back, and it was revealed that there is another very similar rifle in existence. My memory is frequently flawed, but I seem to recall it was in a collection in Missouri, and showed several features that were very similar to those of Mr. Hengesbaugh's presumed Beckwourth rifle. I think it is likely a builder who could produce a rifle of that quality would have built more than one.

Thank you for your comments.

Notchy Bob

Just can find enough similarities to convince me it is the same rifle. Played with the exposure a little, but nothing pulled out sufficient detail, at least for me. Maybe there is a better copy of the photograph that could help, could not clean this one up much.

Hey guys, forgive me if I restate what somebody else has mentioned...,
..., here is another "fly in in oatmeal"..., just because it's in the photo with Mr. Beckwourth, does that mean it's his rifle? A lot of the early photograph/portraits were done with props. So, perhaps the question is, whether or not the rifle is the same one in both photos. IF there are two very similar rifles known today, perhaps there was once a third, and it was used in the portrait?

LD