• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery firarms.

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I just finished Stephen Ambrose “Undaunted Courage”.
Call me lazy but here is what he said,

View attachment 110109View attachment 110110View attachment 110111
It’s just faster to take a pic.

RM
Only Lewis had already picked up (March 1803) his arms and was gone to meet Lewis before the 1803 rifles had been approved and ordered by the military in Nov 1803.

Yes, 15 of the rifles Lewis used came from and were modified at Harper's Ferry in 1803, but they were not part of the Model 1803 rifle order.
 
Last edited:
Learning is what this forum is about and I stand corrected. I read they received the Harper’s Ferry rifle’s but using the info listed by another source, it verifies your source for the 1792’s. My original source must have been in error. Thanks for your update.

Too often "experts" merely repeat what others have said or make assumptions, as in Lewis obtained rifles from Harper's Ferry in 1803 so the must have been the model 1803 Harper Ferry rifles.
 
I'll just stick to actual historic fact and let you hold on to your own notions.

With respect, everyone is guessing about what rifles were used on the expedition as NONE of the 15 rifles has ever been identified.

We had a very long discussion on this some time ago and quite frankly, there is no more certain evidence for the 1792 contract rifles than there is for specially and newly made rifles from Harpers Ferry.

Perhaps one day one of the 15 rifles will be identified and then we will all know for sure.

Gus
 
Yes, it was an Austrian made air gun and would shoot 40 round balls before reloading and recompressing air tank. There are articles out there about it, I believe the gun is either in the Smithsonian or NRA museum. Google Lewis and Clark air rifle. They only took one with them I believe.
has any one replackated on of them and shot it?
 
has any one replackated on of them and shot it?
My late friend, Ernie Cowan reproduced four of them several years back .. there are several YouTube videos of him and others shooting it. I was lucky enough to get to shoot it in his basement shop , it is an awesome rifle.
 
AC, if I remember correctly their primary weapon was the then new flintlock 1803 Harper’s Ferry rifle of 54 caliber bore with a 33 inch barrel. Lewis and Clark also brought some personal weapons. Like shotguns and pistols. I stood at a place on the Missouri river where L & C carved their names and date into the cliff. It was awesome to think about their presence standing exactly where I stood. Google their diary for a more complete list of their weapons.
good luck and have fun

Note 1. The evidence is that these rifles were the "1792 Contract Rifle" (Tait, 1999a; Tait 1999b). There has long been an assumption that the expedition was equipped with the Harpers Ferry Model 1803 rifle, because Lewis obtained his rifles at Harpers Ferry in 1803, the Model rifle 1803 has a date of, well, 1803, and the expedition got underway in May 1804. But no Model 1803 rifles were made prior to late 1803 or early 1804 (Moller 1993). (A parallel case is the "1795 Springfield musket" which appears to have been first made in 1799.) Lewis had selected his supplies and had them "in a state of preparation" at Harpers Ferry by April 1803, and had them shipped west in early July 1803. By the time the first Model 1803 rifle was made at Harpers Ferry Virginia, the expedition and its supplies were near Saint Louis, preparing to depart. The locks for the new model rifle were available in early 1803 when Lewis was at Harpers Ferry. Lewis enthusiastically detailed his preparations at Harpers Ferry in letters to Thomas Jefferson, such as work on his portable iron boat frame, but makes no mention of a new kind of rifle in any of his letters, despite his clear delight in new technical developments.

Perhaps the expedition rifles served some role in the development of the Model 1803 rifle. The specifications of what became the 1803 rifle were first detailed in a letter to the superintendent at Harper's Ferry from the Secretary of War in Washington D.C., in May 1803, obviously before any of that rifle were made at Harper's Ferry. If one wants to conjecture, perhaps Lewis, who was well acquainted with the Washington establishment, provided some ideas or guidance to the Secretary of War about a new rifle design, after he returned east from Harpers Ferry that spring. During his visit to Harper's Ferry he could well have considered firearm improvements, and had discussions with the staff there who would have been interested and knowledgeable. But there is no evidence for him having new rifles made at Harpers Ferry, or obtaining new rifles there .

There are some who would prefer the expedtion to have used the Model 1803 rifle for a number of reasons. The Model 1803 rifle is more flashy than the plain contract rifles. But there just is no sound evidence for that case, and very credible evidence otherwise. You don't need to take my word for it: see the sources listed below for more details about this matter. Harpers Ferry National Historical Park supports the contract rifle.

This is from "Firearms of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: a Summary" by S. K. Wier
 
Note 1. The evidence is that these rifles were the "1792 Contract Rifle" (Tait, 1999a; Tait 1999b). There has long been an assumption that the expedition was equipped with the Harpers Ferry Model 1803 rifle, because Lewis obtained his rifles at Harpers Ferry in 1803, the Model rifle 1803 has a date of, well, 1803, and the expedition got underway in May 1804. But no Model 1803 rifles were made prior to late 1803 or early 1804 (Moller 1993). (A parallel case is the "1795 Springfield musket" which appears to have been first made in 1799.) Lewis had selected his supplies and had them "in a state of preparation" at Harpers Ferry by April 1803, and had them shipped west in early July 1803. By the time the first Model 1803 rifle was made at Harpers Ferry Virginia, the expedition and its supplies were near Saint Louis, preparing to depart. The locks for the new model rifle were available in early 1803 when Lewis was at Harpers Ferry. Lewis enthusiastically detailed his preparations at Harpers Ferry in letters to Thomas Jefferson, such as work on his portable iron boat frame, but makes no mention of a new kind of rifle in any of his letters, despite his clear delight in new technical developments.

Perhaps the expedition rifles served some role in the development of the Model 1803 rifle. The specifications of what became the 1803 rifle were first detailed in a letter to the superintendent at Harper's Ferry from the Secretary of War in Washington D.C., in May 1803, obviously before any of that rifle were made at Harper's Ferry. If one wants to conjecture, perhaps Lewis, who was well acquainted with the Washington establishment, provided some ideas or guidance to the Secretary of War about a new rifle design, after he returned east from Harpers Ferry that spring. During his visit to Harper's Ferry he could well have considered firearm improvements, and had discussions with the staff there who would have been interested and knowledgeable. But there is no evidence for him having new rifles made at Harpers Ferry, or obtaining new rifles there .

There are some who would prefer the expedtion to have used the Model 1803 rifle for a number of reasons. The Model 1803 rifle is more flashy than the plain contract rifles. But there just is no sound evidence for that case, and very credible evidence otherwise. You don't need to take my word for it: see the sources listed below for more details about this matter. Harpers Ferry National Historical Park supports the contract rifle.

This is from "Firearms of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: a Summary" by S. K. Wier

I agree the evidence seems clear that the rifle NOW known as the Model 1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle was not used by the Corps of Discovery.

However, this by no means makes it a closed case that the rifles were converted 1792 Contract Rifles.

What I'm suggesting is it isn't just the case of the only possibilities being either the Models 1792 or M1803.

Actually, when critical examination is applied to the evidence, the evidence we actually have is not that good the rifles used were 1792 Contract rifles, in my opinion.

Gus
 
I agree the evidence seems clear that the rifle NOW known as the Model 1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle was not used by the Corps of Discovery.

However, this by no means makes it a closed case that the rifles were converted 1792 Contract Rifles.

What I'm suggesting is it isn't just the case of the only possibilities being either the Models 1792 or M1803.

Actually, when critical examination is applied to the evidence, the evidence we actually have is not that good the rifles used were 1792 Contract rifles, in my opinion.

Gus
Why were they not the 1792 contract rifle?

<---Knows almost nothing about this stuff....would love to know more.
 
Why were they not the 1792 contract rifle?

<---Knows almost nothing about this stuff....would love to know more.

First of all, my apologies to the forum for hitting the post button on my post above before I had a chance to type the following:

There is a third possibility and that is Harpers Ferry made brand new rifles that may have been working or pre-production models in their efforts to come up with what later became the M 1803.

Gus
 
Note 1. The evidence is that these rifles were the "1792 Contract Rifle" (Tait, 1999a; Tait 1999b). There has long been an assumption that the expedition was equipped with the Harpers Ferry Model 1803 rifle, because Lewis obtained his rifles at Harpers Ferry in 1803, the Model rifle 1803 has a date of, well, 1803, and the expedition got underway in May 1804. But no Model 1803 rifles were made prior to late 1803 or early 1804 (Moller 1993). (A parallel case is the "1795 Springfield musket" which appears to have been first made in 1799.) Lewis had selected his supplies and had them "in a state of preparation" at Harpers Ferry by April 1803, and had them shipped west in early July 1803. By the time the first Model 1803 rifle was made at Harpers Ferry Virginia, the expedition and its supplies were near Saint Louis, preparing to depart. The locks for the new model rifle were available in early 1803 when Lewis was at Harpers Ferry. Lewis enthusiastically detailed his preparations at Harpers Ferry in letters to Thomas Jefferson, such as work on his portable iron boat frame, but makes no mention of a new kind of rifle in any of his letters, despite his clear delight in new technical developments.

Perhaps the expedition rifles served some role in the development of the Model 1803 rifle. The specifications of what became the 1803 rifle were first detailed in a letter to the superintendent at Harper's Ferry from the Secretary of War in Washington D.C., in May 1803, obviously before any of that rifle were made at Harper's Ferry. If one wants to conjecture, perhaps Lewis, who was well acquainted with the Washington establishment, provided some ideas or guidance to the Secretary of War about a new rifle design, after he returned east from Harpers Ferry that spring. During his visit to Harper's Ferry he could well have considered firearm improvements, and had discussions with the staff there who would have been interested and knowledgeable. But there is no evidence for him having new rifles made at Harpers Ferry, or obtaining new rifles there .

There are some who would prefer the expedtion to have used the Model 1803 rifle for a number of reasons. The Model 1803 rifle is more flashy than the plain contract rifles. But there just is no sound evidence for that case, and very credible evidence otherwise. You don't need to take my word for it: see the sources listed below for more details about this matter. Harpers Ferry National Historical Park supports the contract rifle.

This is from "Firearms of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: a Summary" by S. K. Wier

Crow-feather thanks for your input. On the first page of this thread, I acknowledged I was in error. But I think my mistake was made when one source mentioned L & C had 15 1803 Kentucky rifles. Other sources say they had 15 Pennsylvania style rifles. Why they were listed as 1803 Kentucky rifles is beyond me unless they were of new manufacture in that year. It is the only time I have seen a specific date attached to a non military long rifle. But on the positive side, my incorrect answer to the OP’s question has brought about more searching and conversation. That is the plus side of this forum. As I said in the aforementioned response, learning is what this forum is about.
Cf, thanks for your info.
 
Last edited:
Why were they not the 1792 contract rifle?

<---Knows almost nothing about this stuff....would love to know more.

OK to begin, I am not definitely advocating for one rifle or another as the "sure thing" on what the 15 rifles Lewis got from Harpers Ferry. I don't believe anyone can make a definitive statement on those rifles. Also, I am NO expert on either the M1803 rifles nor the 1792's.

I was a little surprised that of all the 1792 rifles made, there is not ONE extant original specimen that has been positively so identified, let alone any that could have been the rifles Lewis got from Harpers Ferry. So even those who nowadays make "copies" of those rifles are only doing so by their own study and best guesswork.

Also, I am NOT in any way being critical of the scholarly work done by Tait, Moller or others. They have brought great documentation to the discussion over the years. I DO question some of their conclusions that are not supported by historic documentation, though.

I got intrigued in this subject by earlier discussions on which rifle it may have been because one of my fields I've studied is Armories set up by the Colonies during the AWI, the Federal Government, the Confederate States and the Commonwealth of Virginia (State, if you will) Armory. I have studied period gunsmith, Artificer (Armorer) and Armory techniques, as a side interest of my own experience of doing custom gun work and development of small arms in the modern military and having been the Shop Chief (Shop Foreman in civilian terms) in the Marine Corps' RTE Shop, where such arms were made by us. I also worked for many years as a gunsmith at the NSSA Spring and Fall National Championships and was the Team Armourer for the U.S. International Muzzleloading Team for two World Championships.

What got me involved was when reading some of the speculation, it hit me "that doesn't sound right" from my own knowledge. So, I looked into some things I don't think the others thought about before, because they did not have the experience and it seems they did not think of some things to investigate. I did a little investigating and the more I found out, the more questions, more searching and finally more "Not Thought of" questions and some things that just were not correct.

Now, I also want to state I would have no problem if and when someone either identifies one of the original 15 Harpers Ferry Rifles or finds conclusive documentation on which type of rifle they were and even if my own thinking may be proved wrong.

Personally, I'm leaning towards the theory Harpers Ferry made brand new rifles for Lewis.

Gus
 
These are not original rifles but copies.

Remember Lewis visited Harper's Ferry in July 1803. So the rifles he collected there could not have been the Model 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle because the contract for rhe first 2,000 was not let until November 1803.

The rifles Lewis had shortened may well have been protypes, but they were not 1803 rifles as contracted by military.
Yup. Prototype.
 
First of all, my apologies to the forum for hitting the post button on my post above before I had a chance to type the following:

There is a third possibility and that is Harpers Ferry made brand new rifles that may have been working or pre-production models in their efforts to come up with what later became the M 1803.

Gus
Yup. I agree.
 
The following will be Part 1.

So, let’s get down to brass tacks on why I don’t think 1792 Contract Rifles were the ones used by the Lewis and Clark expedition. I’m going to do my best to keep this in an orderly progression. I may not get it all in one post, though, so there may be a “Part 2” to follow, if it runs too long.

I just can’t get around beginning with some background on the 1792 Contract Rifles and their use, because it will help explain some things. Their primary use in the military, and those are the ones that actually came back into storage after use, was with “Mad” Anthony Wayne’s Legion of the United States. (Both Lewis and Clark were Officers in the Rifle “Battalions” [actually Companies by actual numbers of troops] of that Legion. So both Lewis and Clark had extensive experience with those rifles.) Other 1792 Contract Rifles were given away and some were stored without being used. The latter because when Wayne’s Legion was disbanded/changed over to Regular U.S. Regiments, the Rifle Bn’s/Companies were done away with for a while and the rifles returned to government storage.

Generally speaking, the government Arsenal at Philadephia was where 1792 rifles were initially stored after they were purchased from contractors. (A note here that will be important later: A government Arsenal is where arms were/are stored and only had extremely limited repair capability of normally only one or at most two Armorers on the staff. This was/is completely different than a government Armory where arms were manufactured and major repair work done later on as needed.) Under Orders from the Secretary of War, the Philadelphia Arsenal issued the rifles as directed. When Wayne’s Legion was disbanded, the 1792 rifles were returned and again under the control of the Philadelphia Arsenal. A small number of serviceable rifles MAY have been returned to and kept at a much smaller government storage facility in western Virginia for later issue to the Militia, but the majority of the rifles came back to the Philadelphia Arsenal.

OK, here is the first thing I don’t know if authors of articles or books on the subject considered or even knew about, but none of them seem to have addressed in print. When the 1792 rifles were returned to the Philadelphia Arsenal for storage and possible later issue, the one or two Armorers on the staff would have been tasked to first clean and inspect the rifles and placed into one of three categories. The first category was serviceable rifles and those would have been kept for long term storage. The second category were those rifles that only needed MINOR repairs. Those repairs would have been done by the Arsenal’s Staff Armorers OR farmed out to local gunsmiths to repair. The THIRD category of rifles was the one that is really important to this discussion and the rifles in THAT category were the ones that either needed MAJOR repairs or were in such bad shape they were to be either stripped for useable parts and materials or sold for scrap. OK, so what happened to those rifles?

Well, we know the 1792 rifles in the third/worst condition category were NOT sent to Springfield Armory in MA, because they didn’t have anything to do with rifles until much later and there is no evidence whatsoever that worn out/broken/busted 1792 rifles were sent there. I can’t document this, but procedures at the time were that the Philadelphia Arsenal would have stored the rifles in the WORST category until they could be sent to Harpers Ferry Armory, once that Armory was “stood up.” However, what is important to this discussion is the fact the 1792 rifles in storage at Harpers Ferry Armory when Lewis showed up, were in the MOST worn out and badly broken condition. There were NO worn but basically good 1792 rifles in storage, because when Harpers Ferry repaired them, they were sent BACK to the Philadelphia Arsenal along with other Arms they made OR shipped to Militia units as directed.

Here is the second point none of the authors addressed, if they even considered or knew about it. Harpers Ferry Armory only had an EXTREMELY limited storage facility when Lewis showed up at Harpers Ferry. I may be mistaken, but I got the impression the authors thought there was a larger storage area at Harpers Ferry than what there actually was when Lewis showed up. (BTW, this is the first thing that got me thinking, “That’s not right.” It piqued my curiosity and what got me interested in this discussion to do some investigation on my own.) I have been to Harpers Ferry twice before getting involved in this discussion, so I checked and sure enough there was only ONE government building at Harpers Ferry when Lewis showed up and that was what was then known locally and in official reports as “The Gun Factory.” There was NO second building built for storing arms until two years AFTER Lewis and Clark LEFT to go on their expedition. Also, there is NO evidence the Armory or the government rented or used any locally owned building for storage of Arms. Now, what does that mean to our discussion?

Here is the third point none of the authors addressed, if they even considered or knew about it. Most modern people are surprised when and if they actually see a period Armory, because it is almost always MUCH smaller than most of us would think ahead of time. The original Arsenal or “Gun Factory,” as they called it, was burnt down during the Civil War and almost nothing remains when one goes to Harpers Ferry today. I made a point to see where the original building “foot print” had been and even I was a bit surprised how SMALL it was, on my first trip to Harpers Ferry. So, I decided to check how big that building was, as part of my “detective work.” Grin.

I admit I didn’t keep the actual building foot print measurements at hand, but it was not huge, even though it was a full three stories tall. However, it may give you some idea of the size when you consider the building was planned for a total of only about 25 people total. The first or ground floor was where the forges and blacksmithing was done. The second floor was where Arms were filed/finished/assembled. The third floor was where walnut planks for making gun stocks were stored as well as other materials were stored to use to make and repair the arms, and also storing the arms they made or repaired until those arms were shipped out. Some of that room on the third floor would have included upright racks to store the arms until they were boxed up. Also, lumber to actually make shipping boxes and some space to store boxed weapons (or at least the boxes) until they could be shipped. IOW, there was NOT much space at all to store weapons needing to be repaired along with everything else. The PLAN must have been the second building, later known as the “Large Arsenal,” was where Arms needing repair and completed Arms would be stored temporarily ONCE it was built two years AFTER Lewis had left on the expedition. OK, so why is THAT important to our discussion?

Here is the fourth point none of the authors addressed much if any at all, if they even considered it much in the articles/books. The Corps of Discovery Expedition was the PET project of the President and Captain Lewis was his “Fair Haired Lad” in charge of it. That meant Lewis got “Carte Blanche” for anything he wanted and with such a high priority, everyone involved in supplying Lewis did so as quickly and as best as possible. This is obvious from the unusual things the “Gun Factory” had to design and work on, like the collapsible boat frame as one example of many things they otherwise didn’t normally make. So why is that important to our discussion?

OK, I’m going to ask you to think about what probably happened when Captain Lewis first showed up at Harpers Ferry with a letter from the President authorizing Harpers Ferry Armory to make things for him. I imagine “word” had already been received by them from the Secretary of War to do their best to support Lewis, and even if not, that Presidential Letter would have made everyone jump to do their best for Captain Lewis.

NOW, can you imagine them taking him to the third floor to view the severely worn out/broken/extremely damaged 1792 rifles stored there maybe in a pile or stacked closely together?!! Remember, Captain Lewis was extremely experienced with those rifles in the field and in combat. I imagine the Arsenal Staff would have been embarrassed to even show them to Lewis in that condition, as those were THE ONLY RIFLES IN THE ARMORY. I don’t know about you, but if I were Capt Lewis, I (even with my Ordnance experience) would have been thinking, “Holy Smoke, those are all JUNK! If this is all they have, then I better see about getting NEW and UNISSUED rifles from the Philadelphia Arsenal!!” Mind you, it was already planned Lewis would go to the Philadelphia Arsenal as his NEXT stop to get gear and supplies for the expedition and Capt Lewis KNEW he had “Carte Blanche” to get whatever he wanted.

Now I have no documentation to back this up, but I have actually been in almost the exact same position as the Harpers Ferry Arsenal Staff were in at that time, on more than one occasion in the modern military. So, I admit I’m putting my actual experience to work when I suggest what probably happened next. I would have said, “Captain Lewis, allow me to show you some things we are working on and discuss what you want and need, as to your rifles.”

OK, this is a good place to stop as the arthritis in my fingers is acting up and will type more later as Part 2.

Gus
 
Last edited:
The following will be Part 1.

So, let’s get down to brass tacks on why I don’t think 1792 Contract Rifles were the ones used by the Lewis and Clark expedition may not get it all in one post, though, so there may be a “Part 2” to follow if it runs too long.

Gus


It seems to me that we are missing a few points in this debate. Gus, I love your research and it is very educational. That said, I find a reason to believe that the design of the 1803 rifle was greatly influenced by the rifles Lewis HAD built while he at Haper's Ferry.

The following is from the Corps of Discovery website sponsored by the U.S. Army Center for Military History (link at bottom)

At Harpers Ferry, Captain Meriwether Lewis obtained 15 rifles built under contract for the United States Army in 1792 and 1794. Gunsmiths from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, produced these rifles. According to the records in Lancaster, these were .49 caliber weapons, with a 42-inch barrel that featured a patch-box with a push-button release. Over 300 of these rifles were stored at the Harpers Ferry arsenal when Lewis arrived in April 1803.

[Lewis’ list of requirements included rifles, tomahawks, knives, powder horns, bullet molds, gun slings, fishing hooks, a small grindstone, and the collapsible iron frame boat. Anticipating the need for firearms that could be easily repaired by the members of the expedition rather than a skilled gunsmith, he asked for thirty sets of interchangeable trigger mechanisms and firing locks made from standard patterns for the fifteen Model 1792 pattern rifles he had acquired. This was an unheard of technological development in the United States, where most gunsmiths crafted each weapon in a unique and individual manner.]

From the 18 May 1803 requisition receipt Lewis received from the arsenal, the 25 May 1803 letter from Secretary of War Henry Dearborn to the Superintendent of the Harpers Ferry Arsenal Joseph Perkin, and the 8 July 1803 letter from Lewis to Jefferson, it appears that Lewis had the arsenal shorten the barrels of 15 of the 1792 / 1794 rifles to between 33 and 36 inches and re-bored. He also had the gunsmiths add swivels to these weapons, and fit them with new locks. Additionally, Lewis purchased replacement locks and spare lock parts for each rifle.

Significantly, the requisition paperwork from Harpers Ferry does not mention the specific type of weapon Lewis obtained. This is certainly not consistent with Army regulations unless the arsenal had only one type of weapon in stock, in which case it was not necessary to specify the type procured. This leads to the conclusion that the arsenal had only one rifle in stock – the 1792 / 1794 model. Moreover, Dearborn's letter to Perkin supports this, especially when Dearborn states that he prefers the short rifle Lewis had shown him "over the long ones (commonly used) in actual service". From reading Dearborn's letter, it becomes clear that the Secretary of War was convinced that the Army needed rifles like the one Lewis had procured for the expedition, and Dearborn orders Perkin to begin manufacturing "a suitable number."

From the available evidence, it seems that Dearborn was so impressed with the short rifles Lewis had the armory make for the expedition that he ordered Perkin to produce similar ones for the entire Army. In fact, Dearborn's letter specifies in great detail the type of rifle the armory is to manufacture. But it wasn't until October 1803 that the first of these 1803 rifles was finished. By that time, Lewis and Clark were leaving the Falls of the Ohio River, near Louisville, Kentucky.

Some believe that the contract rifles Lewis had modified for the expedition were the prototype for the M1803 rifle. While this may be true, the available evidence demonstrates that the expedition members carried modified 1792 / 1794 rifles, not the M1803 ones.

Rifles of the Expedition
 
Last edited:
Back
Top