Jim Bridger Hawken- my copy

[Herb]

The Jim Bridger Hawken as photographed at the Green River Rifle Works in November, 1975. It has a 1 1/8" x 33 1/8" barrel (including plug), actually 1.175 at breech and 1.150 at muzzle. This is not a tapered barrel. Carl Walker, their gunsmith, said you can make this much difference with a file. That is only half the thickness of a dime per side in 33 inches. It weighs 11 lbs 4 oz.

My copy of it, made from black and white photos enlarged to full scale from the color prints, plus GRRW's tracing of the rifle and dimensions and 24 3x5" B&W photos taken at the time. Mine has a 1 1/8 x 31 5/8" barrel with a premium bore (as examined by a Hawkeye Borescope). I got the barrel already cut to that length. My rifle weighs 10 lbs 12 oz and has a 13 3/8" length of pull, about like the original.

 

[Herb]

Because Photobucket is so slow, I'll make separate photo posts. I browned the barrel with Laurel Mtn Forge Barrel Brown and Degreaser to copy the original but heat blued the breech plug and tang and everything else except the nose cap, entry pipe and escutcheons, which have the color worn off.

To get the color I wanted, I used Fiebing's dark brown oil leather dye, skippiing the worn places to match the original. Those I treated with Track's Original Oil Finish, which Doc Gary White of GRRW told me he likes. I need to get a more yellow color.

 

[Herb]

The ramrod I made from Hickory, 1/2" diameter full length like the original, with a poured pewter front (around an inserted 5/16" steel bolt, drilled and tapped for a 10x32 jag), and a steel 1/2" rod tip inside the stock.

I made the front sight from sterling silver set in nickle silver base. I filed a rear sight out of steel, the commercial one by Track is too small. Now if I can kill a couple thousand buffalo with it, it might look properly aged. It is .54 caliber, the original is about .52 or .53.

 

[kaintuck]

nice riflerifleriflerifle :haha:

I wonder how many of these are still out there in the mountains.......with the skeletons of the owners? :hmm:

 

[50cal.cliff]

Very nice Herb, your work always amazes and intrigues me! :bow: :hatsoff:

I like how you did the stock on your copy to match the original! :thumbsup:

 

[Rifleman1776]

Not much left to say except well done. Ye recreated an original and yerself a one of a kind personal rifle. :thumbsup:

 

[Vaino]

Although you replicated an "actual Hawken" w/ a lot of "saddle wear" and not to belittle your astounding accomplishment, the question arises....what did this rifle look like when new?

Of course I'm displaying my "bias" in that I don't "care for" over used, rusted, beat up "originals"....to me they're very depressing. Not the credentials of a collector.

You have built many Hawkens of superb replication of "Hawkens of yore" and although this Hawken doesn't appeal to me as much as if it was built as a new Hawken, you're to be complimented on your dedication to all facets of the "Hawken" legacy. Continue on your present course and post your new builds......Fred

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

WOW! :shocked2: How long did this project take to build?

 

[BrownBear]

Doesn't get much better than this. It's really fun to me to speculate how the wear got there on the original, which brings to mind all kinds of stories. It's well worth emulating that, more about the life of the rifle after a long life in the hills than what it looked like when it left the factory.

I need to get a more yellow color.

I wonder about "griming" it, as in putting whatever on your hands and rubbing it down real good. Rather than dyes or stains, common stuff comes to mind- dirt, grease, blood. If it lost most of the forend finish to pommel wear, you might get real close simply by a long "polishing" session with a hunk of oiled leather. I'm betting some such variation would look a whole lot more "natural" than any application of dye or finish.

Just idle mind roving, but I'm with you on the instinct to make it as you have. :hatsoff:

 

[Herb]

Flehto- I have never built a distressed rifle before, but I had the right barrel for this one and I wanted to copy the original as closely as I could. I only know what it looks like now, so that is what I copied. Here it is on the left. You probably prefer the second one I recently finished, also with a .54 GRRW barrel. Everything nice and shiny and new looking. The third one I built and it has over a thousand rounds through it, plus several hunts. No fake distressing and few real handling marks. The one on the right I am just finishing up.

Closer looks at the locks of three of them.

DoubleDeuce 1, the Bridger took me all winter and then some. Brown Bear. The original has pommel wear between the keys on the left side according to Dave Boender, who took the color photos. I considered putting that in there, but Doc White didn't remember it, so I didn't do it. I want to put my wear on it with a lot of shooting, but I'll use your idea of rubbing it with leather. I don't want to stain it.

 

[BrownBear]

I want to put my wear on it with a lot of shooting, but I'll use your idea of rubbing it with leather. I don't want to stain it.

I really look forward to seeing in a few years. Keep us posted! :thumbsup:

 

[FishDFly]

Although you replicated an "actual Hawken" w/ a lot of "saddle wear" and not to belittle your astounding accomplishment, the question arises....what did this rifle look like when new?

Of course I'm displaying my "bias" in that I don't "care for" over used, rusted, beat up "originals"....to me they're very depressing. Not the credentials of a collector.

You have built many Hawkens of superb replication of "Hawkens of yore" and although this Hawken doesn't appeal to me as much as if it was built as a new Hawken, you're to be complimented on your dedication to all facets of the "Hawken" legacy. Continue on your present course and post your new builds......Fred

Fred,

I have to agree, I do not like to see a new gun created and then made to look old and abused.

What person went into a gun makers shop in the 1500's to 1850's, and asked, please make me a rifle like it came from 1492 on the Mayflower, oh it needs some salt water spray on it from the trip over and left on the bottom of the ship and it was never cleaned?

Distressing a new rifle makes as much sense as a person not brushing their "tooth" for 30 years to look PC at "rondy", does it not?

 

[Vaino]

They all show dedication by the builder...but, you're right....I prefer any of the other three which are just beautiful and have a great deal of appeal. A little "wear and tear" adds to a MLer, but how much is a personal preference. Looking forward to pics of your next Hawken....Fred

 

[BrownBear]

I do not like to see a new gun created and then made to look old and abused.

But that's the point. He was not recreating a new gun, rather a specific old and abused gun.

That's as honest and true to history as a modern builder can get, rather than imagining what the gun must have looked like when Bridger first bought it.

 

[FishDFly]

To me that is like taking a 1957 Chevy. in new condition and making it look like it came from the Texas Gulf Coast in the 80s from the salt water, complete with tattered seats and rust holes behind the wheel wells.

Faking condition is not correct.

 

[sleeperNY]

The distressed look is big business in the guitar world. Almost every company is copying a famous persons guitar that was there make right down to any marks that are on it. They go for BIG money.

I like the rifle for what it is.

 

i don't have a problem with the gun at all

however i would have a problem with a gun which was bought in pristine new condition being made to look old by fake means of distressing it.

that is quite a different thing from purpose building a gun to end up looking distressed or aged. that i have no problem with at all.

i think there is a distinction to be made.

there are guys that paint and make copies of master works, and age them to look appropriate for the time period... and no one has a problem with that unless they are being sold as an original... that is not the case here at all.

i think there is a place for this sort of build, and i think the builder ought to be commended on his work.

it is no more a fake than a gun built to look like a new 1850's era gun produced yesterday.

in my opinion and your mileage may very well vary

bob g

bob g

 

[Col. Batguano]

Tend to agree. This is like prototypical modeling in the model railroad world. Modelers age the buildings and rolling stock to give it the age and patina that it would have experienced in the real world, by using artificial materials, paint, and stuff like that.

In this case, his scale is 1:1, and he's recreated a specific prototype, which is MUCH more challenging than a new build. I've done model railroading for 20 years, and speak from experience there.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Each of us has their own opinions as to what is "right" and what is "wrong". I say let the builder be the one to determine what he wants. To me it looks like he spent a long time getting what he wanted and I admire his work! :hmm:

 

[bpd303]

I see nothing wrong with it at all. Great gun.

When I was a puppy and acquired an "old Gun" I would try my best to make it look new. As I have aged and become acquainted with guns that have also aged, I have come to appreciate what that gun has gone through and now I just clean and oil them and make shooters out of them so their voices can once again be heard.