• 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.
There is a "Lewis and Clark Cave" with names of some of the members of the Corps of Discovery scratched into the stone. Along the Missouri River. I have been there and photographed it so it was another evidence of their journey. The traveling bicentennial exhibit of the Corps of Discovery had many artifacts including an air rifle. Many were collected from the two year trip.
 
Personally, I'm leaning towards the theory Harpers Ferry made brand new rifles for Lewis.
Gus

I agree 100% albeit with some parts from the contract rifles.

When Captain Lewis visited Harpers Ferry Armory in March 1803, he acquired many arms, ammunition, and other basic supplies for the Expedition, including 15 rifles. Many assume these weapons were the 1803 rifles produced at Harpers Ferry, but this is not true. The Secretary of War did not authorize the production of the 1803 rifle until May 1803. The rifles Lewis took with him were built under Army contract in 1792 and 1794. Pennsylvania gunsmiths produced these weapons, which were .49 caliber with a 42-inch barrel. These weapons also featured a patch-box with a push-button release. More than 300 of these rifles were stored at Harpers Ferry when Lewis arrived in March. To prepare the weapons for the Expedition, the barrels were shortened to between 33 and 36 inches, and swivels were added to make it possible to carry them with a leather sling. Additionally, the Armory, which had produced the original locks, fitted the rifles with new locks and provided both replacement locks and spare lock parts for each rifle. The converted rifles were similar in appearance to the M1803 rifles, and this is probably the reason many believe the Corps of Discovery carried 1803 rifles. Others argue that the modified 1792 and 1794 contract rifles were the prototype of the 1803 rifles. But the fact is that is was more than six months after Lewis had left the Harpers Ferry Armory (about the time Lewis and Clark were leaving Clarksville, Indiana Territory) that the Armory completed the first M1803 rifle.

Rifles of the Expedition
 
Last edited:
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.

Hi Brant,

Thank you for the kind words.

Yes, I'm aware of that link you posted, as I've read it at least six times already. I will be adding information on what I consider the holes in that article, as well.

From the post you just wrote above, it seems you have added a third option to the possible rifles made at Harpers Ferry and I found that interesting, I.E. New rifles built up using some parts of the badly worn out busted 1792's and some musket parts.

After typing all of my first post out, it now seems like I will be typing at least two more posts continuing in what at least I consider a logical progression and I will cover those things.

However, I will have to ask your and other forum members indulgence, as the weather outside is cold and rainy and is playing heck with the arthritis in my fingers. I've pretty much "typed my course" for a while in this reply.

Looking forward to adding more later.

Gus
 
Gus, don't you worry about how long it takes. Just keep feeding those of us who are starving for information. What great fun this is!
 
To muddy the discussion, there were some Kentucky rifles taken as well, not sure how many, but they were there.
 
To muddy the discussion, there were some Kentucky rifles taken as well, not sure how many, but they were there.

Some historians believe that those claiming KY rifles were taken were mistakenly calling the Contract Rifles Kentucky Rifles>

The rifles Lewis took with him were built under Army contract in 1792 and 1794. Pennsylvania gunsmiths produced these weapons, which were .49 caliber with a 42-inch barrel. These weapons also featured a patch-box with a push-button release. More than 300 of these rifles were stored at Harpers Ferry when Lewis arrived in March.
 
How do y'all interpret the "small" rifle that I believe Lewis had...Some think the maker's last name was Small and some think it was his smaller caliber rifle...... :)
 
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
Great post...thanks for sharing all your research!
 
This is Volume 2 of a series by George Moller on U.S. Military firearms, it dears with the 1794 and the 1803, and the other flintlocks used by the U.S. military.
I was visiting with George at the Colorado Gun Collectors Assoc. show several years ago
about the 1803. As I recall the conversation he said that he spent 6 weeks at Harpers Ferry going through there archives and records. He stated that the stock wood did not arrive at Harpers Ferry until after Lewis had left to meet Clark, approximately 5 months.

Carney
 
There is a "Lewis and Clark Cave" with names of some of the members of the Corps of Discovery scratched into the stone. Along the Missouri River. I have been there and photographed it so it was another evidence of their journey. The traveling bicentennial exhibit of the Corps of Discovery had many artifacts including an air rifle. Many were collected from the two year trip.
Wouldn't Sergeant Floyd's grave near Sergeant Bluff, Iowa also be evidence of the journey or is the gravesite just an approximation of where he was buried & the actual grave never found? I live about 1&1/2 hours from there, so may have to drive up there & see if I can confirm anything. Council Bluffs, where I was born, was named for the meeting site they had with the natives, but the actual site is supposedly up river a ways & on the Nebraska side.
 
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.
I was told that Lewis and Clark ordered the alterations which were incorporated into the 1803. Thus, they did carry 1803s sort of.
 
Part 2.

OK, here is the fifth point that as far as I now know, the authors only lightly addressed. I’m referring to how the caliber of the rifles built at Harpers Ferry was chosen. I may be missing something and if I am, I hope someone chimes in to add further documentation on this subject.

For some time, something just didn’t seem right to me about the fact it seems to be casually taken for granted the caliber was solely from the recommendation of Lewis. Don’t get me wrong, the answer MAY be as simple as that, but I don’t think so.

First, going back to the 1792 Contract Rifles it has often been reported the first ones were made in .47 caliber, but the contract was changed to .49 caliber and I think that was changed with the 1794 contract? If so, then the rifles used by “Mad” Anthony Wayne’s Legion of the United States were the original .47 Caliber. Also, that means the rifles Lewis and Clark had their field/combat experience with were the original .47 caliber.

What I don’t know is WHY the caliber of the 1792 Contract Rifles was changed from .47 to .49 caliber. Does anyone have any documentation on that? I suspect the answer to that question could be important to the reason why they chose .54 caliber for the rifles built for Lewis at Harpers Ferry and that could have even more consequences on what the Harpers Ferry Rifles looked like.

Now before I go further, I want to state I’m going way out on limb here with little to NO period documentation to back up what I’m discussing next. So, I may be really out in Left Field on this one. LOL! But then again, it could be very important.

So, why DID they change the caliber of the 1792 Contract Rifles from .47 to .49 caliber? I don’t think a good case can be made about increasing wounding/killing power, as there is almost no difference in that between the calibers. I suspect the real reason was even the slightly heavier .49 caliber round ball gave them an advantage at “bucking the wind” at 150 to 200 yards. They knew heavier round balls traveled farther with better accuracy. However, and for whatever reason, they did increase the caliber of 1792 Contract Rifles pretty early in their service life and long before Lewis showed up at Harpers Ferry Armory to get his rifles.

OK, I’m going to go off on a tangent next, so I will beg your pardon to indulge me for a little while, but I think it is important to this discussion.

At the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century; not only we, but also Britain and some other countries as well, were working on the earliest stages of military rifle development. This in part because of our and Britain’s use of rifles in the American War for Independence (AWI). Have you ever heard the old saying that “We learn more from our mistakes than we do from our accomplishments?” Well, in the case of lessons learned from the AWI and even though we Americans might not LIKE to admit it, Britain did indeed learn more about the use of military rifles than we did.

Britain already HAD a better military rifle, in the Pattern 1800 Baker Rifle, than anything we came up with in our Model 1803 and later models, for decades later. With the .625 caliber ball and rear sight with folding leaves, that rifle was effective out to 300 yards in general combat and further in sharpshooting (sniper) usage. We stuck with a Non-Adjustable rear sight for decades more, even after our Military was much more involved out West at longer ranges, so our effective range was only at most 150 to 200 yards, though also slightly better in a sharpshooting role. Now some folks point out the Baker Rifle came to be used in that caliber because it was the size they used in their Carbines and that’s true, BUT they also realized the larger caliber/heavier ball gave it longer range. British newspapers reported the development of the Baker and there is no doubt in my mind, our Ordnance people knew of it as well. OK, with the thought of bigger ball/better accuracy, now back on subject.

I would not be at all surprised to find documentation (which I have not as yet found) that they were already thinking of enlarging the caliber of what would be our next military rifle after the 1792, before Lewis showed up at Harpers Ferry. IOW, I think instead of Lewis being the one to suggest the larger caliber, they already were working/doing what we would call “research and development” on it and the larger caliber better suited Lewis’s projected needs for the expedition, so he agreed.

Consider this, if you will. The 15 rifles they made at Harpers Ferry for Lewis was part of a “one time thing” for a special mission and would not by itself mean much for the different application as a future military rifle. However, when they rather quickly came up with the M1803 rifle prototypes to show Secretary of War Dearborn only a few months later, there was no question about that rifle’s caliber, even though the SOW made some other suggestions for minor modifications. Further, we STAYED with .54 caliber for our military rifles from the M1803 all the way through the M1841 Rifle and did not change until the minie’ bullet was adopted for the M1855 rifle. To me, that means they were already thinking of going with .54 caliber before Lewis showed up at Harpers Ferry.

I have more info, so there will be at least a "Part 3" in this series coming up.

Gus
 
Last edited:
Part 2.

OK, here is the fifth point that as far as I now know, the authors only lightly addressed. I’m referring to how the caliber of the rifles built at Harpers Ferry was chosen. I may be missing something and if I am, I hope someone chimes in to add further documentation on this subject.

For some time, something just didn’t seem right to me about the fact it seems to be casually taken for granted the caliber was solely from the recommendation of Lewis. Don’t get me wrong, the answer MAY be as simple as that, but I don’t think so.

First, going back to the 1792 Contract Rifles it has often been reported the first ones were made in .47 caliber, but the contract was changed to .49 caliber and I think that was changed with the 1794 contract? If so, then the rifles used by “Mad” Anthony Wayne’s Legion of the United States were the original .47 Caliber. Also, that means the rifles Lewis and Clark had their field/combat experience with were the original .47 caliber.

What I don’t know is WHY the caliber of the 1792 Contract Rifles was changed from .47 to .49 caliber. Does anyone have any documentation on that? I suspect the answer to that question could be important to the reason why they chose .54 caliber for the rifles built for Lewis at Harpers Ferry and that could have even more consequences on what the Harpers Ferry Rifles looked like.

Now before I go further, I want to state I’m going way out on limb here with little to NO period documentation to back up what I’m discussing next. So, I may be really out in Left Field on this one. LOL! But then again, it could be very important.

So, why DID they change the caliber of the 1792 Contract Rifles from .47 to .49 caliber? I don’t think a good case can be made about increasing wounding/killing power, as there is almost no difference in that between the calibers. I suspect the real reason was even the slightly heavier .49 caliber round ball gave them an advantage at “bucking the wind” at 150 to 200 yards. They knew heavier round balls traveled farther with better accuracy. However, and for whatever reason, they did increase the caliber of 1792 Contract Rifles pretty early in their service life and long before Lewis showed up at Harpers Ferry Armory to get his rifles.

OK, I’m going to go off on a tangent next, so I will beg your pardon to indulge me for a little while, but I think it is important to this discussion.

At the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century; not only we, but also Britain and some other countries as well, were working on the earliest stages of military rifle development. This in part because of our and Britain’s use of rifles in the American War for Independence (AWI). Have you ever heard the old saying that “We learn more from our mistakes than we do from our accomplishments?” Well, in the case of lessons learned from the AWI and even though we Americans might not LIKE to admit it, Britain did indeed learn more about the use of military rifles than we did.

Britain already HAD a better military rifle, in the Pattern 1800 Baker Rifle, than anything we came up with in our Model 1803 and later models, for decades later. With the .625 caliber ball and rear sight with folding leaves, that rifle was effective out to 300 yards in general combat and further in sharpshooting (sniper) usage. We stuck with a Non-Adjustable rear sight for decades more, even after our Military was much more involved out West at longer ranges, so our effective range was only at most 150 to 200 yards, though also slightly better in a sharpshooting role. Now some folks point out the Baker Rifle came to be used in that caliber because it was the size they used in their Carbines and that’s true, BUT they also realized the larger caliber/heavier ball gave it longer range. British newspapers reported the development of the Baker and there is no doubt in my mind, our Ordnance people knew of it as well. OK, with the thought of bigger ball/better accuracy, now back on subject.

I would not be at all surprised to find documentation (which I have not as yet found) that they were already thinking of enlarging the caliber of what would be our next military rifle after the 1792, before Lewis showed up at Harpers Ferry. IOW, I think instead of Lewis being the one to suggest the larger caliber, they already were working/doing what we would call “research and development” on it and the larger caliber better suited Lewis’s projected needs for the expedition, so he agreed.

Consider this, if you will. The 15 rifles they made at Harpers Ferry for Lewis was part of a “one time thing” for a special mission and would not by itself mean much for the different application as a future military rifle. However, when they rather quickly came up with the M1803 rifle prototypes to show Secretary of War Dearborn only a few months later, there was no question about that rifle’s caliber, even though the SOW made some other suggestions for minor modifications. Further, we STAYED with .54 caliber for our military rifles from the M1803 all the way through the M1841 Rifle and did not change until the minie’ bullet was adopted for the M1855 rifle. To me, that means they were already thinking of going with .54 caliber before Lewis showed up at Harpers Ferry.

I have more info, so there will be at least a "Part 3" in this series coming up.

Gus

"So, why DID they change the caliber of the 1792 Contract Rifles from .47 to .49 caliber? "

I'm guessing (and its only a guess) that being already well used Barrels, they were freshed out to recondition them (common practice).

I cant understand why they'd only raise the calibre .02 for a more effective Range/ Hitting power, when by doing the same process and at the the same cost they could go to .50 or .54 calibre.
 
"So, why DID they change the caliber of the 1792 Contract Rifles from .47 to .49 caliber? "

I'm guessing (and its only a guess) that being already well used Barrels, they were freshed out to recondition them (common practice).

I cant understand why they'd only raise the calibre .02 for a more effective Range/ Hitting power, when by doing the same process and at the the same cost they could go to .50 or .54 calibre.

Hi Coinneach,

When they changed to .49 caliber, it was on the brand new rifles built for the new contract, so it would not have been due to a worn barrel.

Gus
 
Back
Top