J&S Hawken dueling pistols

[Wes/Tex]

Yeah, I know but looks like they did make a pair of .66 caliber smooth bore pistols that certainly fit the profile of dueling pistols...at least for those who didn't follow the "Code Duello" too closely. Those who did only allowed flintlocks to be used...no rifling and no sights. Got to have some rules, although the Code Duello was jam packed with them...all 25 of them.
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/8515/9858922_1.jpg?v=8CD28A372B12420
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/8515/9858922_2.jpg?v=8CD28A372B12420
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/8515/9858922_3.jpg?v=8CD28A372B12420
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/8515/9858922_4.jpg?v=8CD28A372B12420

10-1/8" heavy octagon barrels and checkered maple grips. The set was boxed but these yahoos didn't see fit to include it in the photos! They did say the lid was engraved FNS.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
I would say they may have been built for duelling. They have single set triggers and the heavy barrels were the fashion at that time for duellers. With those barrels and the cane handle stocks, you really need those trigger guard spurs to control the pistols. I don't like the way these heavy duelling pistols handled having experience with a pair by Joe Manton and another by Innes. I much prefer the lighter and much better balanced pistols of the late 18th century by makers like Wogdon. However, I also believe that by the time the Hawken pistols were made, their purpose was as much target shooting as duelling and most target shooters prefer heavy barrels. By the way Wes/Tex, all English duelling pistols and most European ones had front and rear sights. Perhaps there was some tradition in America that precluded sights but that was not the case elsewhere. In addition, there was no rule precluding rifling, that was a tradition in Britain but not in most of Europe. Even in England, makers such as John and Joe Manton began cutting shallow "scratch" rifling in their barrels.

dave

 

[MSW]

way cool!
thanks for the post :grin:

 

[denster]

Doubt seriously if the intended purpose of the pistols was for dueling. The large caliber would suggest they were made to match the caliber of the owners rifle and one or both tucked into the sash would have been comforting out West in confronting two or four legged hostiles.

 

[BSchroe]

I think you are right . Wes/Tex pictures were good looking sturdy pistols.

 

[Wes/Tex]

You very well may be right...even if so intended there's no way to prove they were ever used for dueling and would certainly make good sash or holster pistols. Except for , though, for being American made and having captured ramrods, their really little different from these by Manton...
http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/product_images/w/997/AH3353A__25963.JPG

Excepting the same plus trigger guard shape and sliding safety, these by W&G Chance, London
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/8515/9859303_1.jpg?v=8CD28A55848F840

Or even these by Dublin maker McDermott
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aIjq0hv...AAAABp0/LeM-IXSo1LM/s1600/apairmcdermotts.jpg

Even a fitted case with loading, ball casting and cleaning accessories doesn't specifically mean a "dueling" set. Many sets of "officer's pistols" came just that way. The very popular "Hawken" pistols from the 1980's and 90's from P. Bondini was simply a copy of the Hawken pair with a slightly shorter barrel. And just to prove the style wasn't unique to the Hawken boys here in America, a single by Deringer... :wink:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...sukRb5_W45K2MSaoWqP2SyHyMznMg1tmA86NEGE41HYz8

 

[BSchroe]

Very interesting pictures and commentary.

 

[Wes/Tex]

It's what comes from harnessing many years of useless knowledge! :thumbsup: :rotf:

 

[denster]

I completely agree with and resemble those remarks. :grin:

 

[Rifleman1776]

Doubt seriously if the intended purpose of the pistols was for dueling. The large caliber would suggest they were made to match the caliber of the owners rifle and one or both tucked into the sash would have been comforting out West in confronting two or four legged hostiles.

Mebbe not. :hmm: For a firearm that is shot rarely it would be convenient to use the same size ball as one's rifle. No second mold. Just a thought. BTW, according to the book "Hamilton" no practice was allowed for a period of weeks leading up to the scheduled duel. And, it wasn't considered gentlemanly to shoot to kill. Stuff that. If I were in a duel I would shoot to kill. After all that's what yer opponent is trying to do. The old saying: Do unto others before they do it to you. :shocked2:

 

[Artificer]

Wes/Tex,

Thanks for the pics of the Hawken and other pistols. Really enjoyed them.

Dave Person,

The funny thing about many of the cane handle and spur trigger original pistols I have handled was they REALLY stretched even my Huge Paws to grip them when using the spur. This always surprised me as I think my hand/s would have been very large for the period.

I can't help but think such pistols would have been better without the spur and with the bottom of the grip flaring out to help hold the hand from slipping?

Gus

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

I'd tuck those in my belt. BEAUTS. I want a repro for xmas santa! :rotf:

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
Who made the pistols you handled?

dave

 

[Artificer]

Hi Gus,
Who made the pistols you handled?

dave

Hi Dave,

Well, that's an extremely good question, but on the pistols with the cane handles and spurs that I did not like, I can't remember the makers other than some were American and some British.

The three original dueling/target pistols that really stand out in my mind as having fit not only my hand, but others were: 1. An English Flintlock with a butt that swelled at the bottom, 2. An English Bag handled flintlock pistol without a spur 3. An original Flinlock Saw Handled Ca. 1810 pistol by Nicolas Boutet. That one was owned by the Captain of the French International Team at the 1996 World Championships when I repaired it. OH, I also have felt some flintlock Georgian Pistols with the somewhat "globular" flared butts and butt caps and large barrels that fit great. Those were English as well.

Gus

 

[nkbj]

No rifling, no sights. You know, somebody could have killed you by mistake using pistols like that.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
The reason I asked is that real duelling pistols were fitted to the owner's hands. The British duelling pistols I handled were made for duelling or target shooting, not traveling or horse pistols that may have been occasionally used in a duel. These pistols fit very well with no stretching to grab the trigger. On the heavy barreled versions, the spur allowed me to squeeze the spur and back of the cane handle preventing the heavy barrel from feeling like it was tipping the cane handle out of my hand. That relaxes the hold and takes all stress off the trigger finger. You feel more like you are holding a modern target pistol with large grips (minus the thumb rest). However, none of them handle like Wogdons, which don't need spurs and feel like they are part of your arm and hand.

dave

 

[Artificer]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your informative reply. Always a pleasure to read your posts and get your incite.

I don't believe the cane handle w/spur gripped pistols I've handled were made to the quality of Target Pistols, let alone dueling pistols.

As I'm sure you know, even cased sets of pistols do not automatically mean the pistols were made with really good ergonomics to fit the hand well in the old days, except when made by the best makers.


Gus

 

[F.G. Ford]

No rifling, no sights. You know, somebody could have killed you by mistake using pistols like that.

The way I shoot smooth bore, the second should step aside.......waaaaay aside! Specially if he really wanted to be a " second "
I have a pair of Pedersoli dueling pistols ( can't say dueling really, one is percussion .45, the other is a smooth .45 flint )
They are really fine looking pistols.
As soon as the weather warms up a little. I'll see what they can do.
Fred

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
I don't know where this idea that dueling pistols do not have sights comes from. It certainly cannot be from anyone who has actually handled pistols built for dueling. British and European pistols built for dueling have front and rear sights. On British pistols, the rear sights have wide "U" shaped notches for quick shooting. It was traditional for British duelers to be smoothbored, however, there was no rule that said so and many makers cut shallow rifling in their barrels. The smooth barrels were highly polished internally and often were iron stub twist, which made some of the finest barrels in the world. Indeed, a stub twist pistol barrel polished, fitted with plug and gold touch hole liner cost as much as a good quality fowling gun. They were sighted in so point of aim was dead on at 12-15yds. At that distance a practiced shooter could expect his pistols to hit a playing card every time. The locks were the finest and fastest of their day. A cased set from a good maker might cost as much as 20 pounds at a time when 80% of Londoners earned less than 40 pounds a year.

dave

 

[Wes/Tex]

Actually, the description of "acceptable" dueling pistols was written by John Lyde Wilson, who was even one time Governor of South Carolina. Chapter VII, Paragraph 1 states especially, "The arms should be smoothbore pistols, not exceeding nine inches in (barrel) length, with flint and steel. Percussion pistols may be mutually used if agreed on, but to object on that account is lawful."

I was incorrect in the first comment, front sight was permitted but rear sights considered 'unsporting'...glad they were light hearted about that! :shocked2:

More imposing were the 25 rules and 2 "additional rules" involved in the what and how all the adventure was to be carried out and why! It even took the Clonmel Assizes in Ireland to codify teh whole business!!