Lewis & Clark Expedition Rifles

[Russ T Frizzen]

But would they have wanted to launch themselves off into the unknown with a new and unproven rifle? Or one that was a known and proven commodity?

 

[Grenadier1758]

I tend to agree that the 1803 was in a state of development while Lewis was at Harper's Ferry. I do think that if Lewis was getting the latest development rifle for the Corps, there would have been more comments on the gun. There is interesting hints that improved technology was used. The 1792 contract guns were in storage there and were in need of refurbishment. As part of the authorized refurbishment, they would have been bored out to 0.54 caliber and freshly rifled. The patch box would have been updated to then current specifications and the locks would have been updated to the mass produced locks of 1803. That the locks were interchangeable is indicated by the fact that Lewis had 15 spare locks made up. According to the journals the spare locks were used. Also interesting is that none of the journals indicate anything unusual about the rifles. One would have thought that a half stock with a steel ramrod would be noted by ohter members of the expedition that kept a journal. However, for the hunters that were hired on and brought their own rifles there are no descriptions of those guns either.

In my humble opinion, the refurbished 1792 contract guns were the most technically advanced guns available for Lewis. Wooden ramrods could be replaced on the trail, while steel ramrods could not. Any prototype 1803 rifles would have not been available in quantity sufficient to be issued to Lewis.

Sadly there simply isn't any proof either way that will determine what rifle was carried.

 

Grenadier,

You are right on :thumbsup: Lewis mentioned the spare parts, which was, at the time, novel; as everything was built per need. There was not the assy. line approach to products in general. And yes, i believe that Lewis had the '92 contract rifle built to specs. that would serve him and the Corps. Those modifications IMHO were actually used when drawing up the specs for the 1803.
IIRC, the gov't work order for the new 1803 was issued in late Fall of '03. Lewis actually left Harper's Ferry in later summer, beginning of Fall.
:v

 

[crockett]

Those are good points. In all probability some mention would have been made about how the new rifles were preforming, tends to support refurbished 1792's.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Back in 2003 on the two hudred aniversary of the corps departure. There were several companies selling limited edition replicas of the corps guns for high dollars. Yet some were selling 1803's, some the 1792 contract rifles, and some the contract rifles with 1803 locks! The fact is after returning the origional guns were auctioned to help cover expenses so we will never be sure about which guns were taken from Harpers Ferry. Also the journals state that additional rifles were purchased along route to St. Louis. :bow:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

The companies selling the commemorative 1803 rifles were companies that sold Italian repos and had nothing else to sell. They stamped a bogus inscription on the patchbox door, raised the price and put the gun out there as a genuine commemorative. They may actually sold a few to the unwary.

 

[Zonie]

If the rifles taken by L&C were simply refurbished 1792 Contract Rifles it makes one wonder why on several different occasions L&C and several others specifically used the expression "Short Rifles".

Short compared to what? 1792 Contract Rifles?
If all of the rifles procured at Harper's Ferry were the same, why even mention the term Short Rifles?

The 1792 Contract Rifles seemed to have had a barrel length of about 42-44 inches (Ref Flaydermans Guide 9th ed p 606).
The Model 1803 had a barrel length of 31 3/4-33 1/2 (Ref Flaydermans Guide 9th ed p 546).

The use of the term Short Rifles leads me to believe that a 'special' rifle was also taken along and the only rifle being considered for production at Harper's Ferry at the time that we know of was the Model 1803.
:hmm:

 

Zonie,
One of those 'refurbishments' was to shorten the length of the barrel, based upon the consideration of Lewis. Another was for shoulder slings.
These changes may have been considered when the work order was drawn up for the actual '1803', which was dated two months after Lewis had left HF.
He left HF with shortened '92's. IMO :hmm:
:v

 

[Grenadier1758]

I think that the Journal reference to short rifles refers to rifles worked on during the journey and were shortened as needed by the blacksmith. For the most part, a rifle barrel of 42 inches was considered short. Think of the Short Land Pattern Brown Bess.

Also several times it was mentioned that the short rifles were given out as gifts on the return. If these were superior, then why are the shortened guns given away before the other guns?

 

[colmoultrie]

Just speculation, but perhaps because that's what the recipient wanted? :v

 

I think that the Journal reference to short rifles refers to rifles worked on during the journey and were shortened as needed by the blacksmith. For the most part, a rifle barrel of 42 inches was considered short. Think of the Short Land Pattern Brown Bess.

Also several times it was mentioned that the short rifles were given out as gifts on the return. If these were superior, then why are the shortened guns given away before the other guns?

Rifles were shortened at HF before Lewis left for St. Louis.

 

[Zonie]

Rifles were shortened at HF before Lewis left for St. Louis.


Most likely, assuming some prototype of the 1803 wasn't used, but this statement like any statement saying that the 1803 was used is an assumption.

After all, if we actually had documentation that the used 1792 rifles were refurbished by reboring to .54 calibler, relocked and shortened for the L&C expedition we wouldn't have a subject to talk about here.

 

Jim,

what is known is that they were shortened and had shoulder slings added at HF, specifically for the trip. THose were the specs that lewis gave to joseph perkins at HF. he also had made up, tomahawks, knives, fish.gigs etc.
The re-boring is speculation. But again, my take, is that they were not. And my only justification for stating this is that they had such a tough time killing the 'White Bear'(Grizzly). Firing, and hitting, one 8 and 9 times before it died tells me that, the bears were unusually large and tough (no doubt) but also that they were shooting a roughly .480 or .475 RB as opposed to a .530 or so.
just my two cents.
:v

 

[faw3]

I read in something the NRA puts out ( a mag) that they found the air gun ( while pulling one apart they found the sear had been rebuilt after busting by a hard core mountain man they picked up as guide ect I belive. Zonie ya remember the movie about the 2 lions and those words "you never take a untryed rifle into" ect I don't belive they would start across a trip not haveing a clue what they would run into with a "NEW" rifle better to take one they knew. ( how to fix ect) Fred :hatsoff:

 

[hawk]

fw

how much test time would you say a gun needs before you have one tested and true ?

 

[Many Klatch]

Tested is about a 1,000 shots in all kinds of weather. Then I'm sure it will hold together. I don't even bother getting attached to a gun until I have put a couple of hundred shots through it.

Many Klatch

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

How do we know that this gun wasn't well tested and used before they hit the trail?

 

[Dphar]

I am intriqued by Lewis and Clark's Expedition and curious about the type of rifles they used. I have read that Lewis picked up 15 US Model 1803 rifles at Harpers Ferry. These were .54 caliber rifles. He then stopped off in Lancaster, PA and bought additional rifles, but I don't know the specifics of the Lancaster rifles.
I would like to find out more about both of these rifles and if similar ones are being manufactured or custom made today. I would love to get one for hunting. If anyone has any info to offer, it would be greatly appreciated.

Scott Taylor

Nobody knows what caliber, barrel length or design the rifles Lewis had made or modified at HF were.
He had a letter directing HF to make what ever he wanted.
The ONLY thing mentioned about rifles is that they were short. That one of the officers personal rifle's was freshed on the return trip. I think Lewis was unable to kill a Bison with his personal rifle since the "ball was too small".
That 2 of the short rifles burst and were shortened. The shorter of the 2 was traded to an indian chief who took it over the full length "short rifle" they had originally given him.
If more rifles were purchased by Lewis during his trip to the Missouri River. We need more info.
Where and at what date. I have spent a lot of time going over my set of the journals for references to rifles and other things and have never seen this. It could be in the separate Journal Lewis wrote on the trip down the Ohio but its not in the expedition journals.
By the way one interesting thing that is mentioned in the Journals is that the baby apparently had a TEDDY BEAR (not called that though). He lost it at the Falls of the Missouri during a flash flood.
Nobody has ANY confirmation as to what the rifles were. There have been several contradictory magazine articles written on the subject but all are full of holes to a greater or lesser extent. There is at least one none standard 1803 in existence. Some claim this rifle is a L&C rifle. But no proof. Some swear the 1792 was used. But these were used and had been in long storage. Lewis also had replacement locks made for all the rifles plus spare parts. Thus we must assume the rifles had HF locks fitted since the 1792s were not standardized.
The Expedition was long in planning. It was VERY important. The long barreled 1792 was not considered "short" so if it was used it was shortened. It was also rather light in the bore but it was big enough. Some say it was cut out to larger calibers.
Lewis reports shooting "his rifles" and finding them satisfactory.
So far as "unproven" rifles. Its not like they were new technology or had broken firing pins as the rifle Patterson took out at one point after the Tsavo lions did. Thus a good sparking flintlock made by a competent maker is going to work about as well as any flintlock will. These rifles saw hard service and stood up well though lock repairs/replacements were needed.
So far as what the rifles actually were. Anything other than their being "short" is total supposition. Period. There is no information other than this. The only mention of ball size was when Cruzatte shot Lewis and Lewis knew it was Cruzatte by the ball size which was found in his breeches.
There is belief that they used new made rifles similar to the 1803. There are those who believe they used 1792s with barrels shortened. There are those who think they were not shortened.
The article I read championing the full length 1792 was not well researched (Tait 1999 "Man at Arms" Number 3, 1999). The people (Kirk Olson May 1985 "American Rifleman" is pretty much a "look what I found" thing), (Keller-Cowan May 2006 "We Proceeded On" see www.lewisandclark.org) who were championing the pre-production 1803 made a better case and were better informed about the expedition.
But its all supposition.
Find the three articles and read them if this interests you. But you MUST read them all. Tait also was called to task in subsequent "Man at Arms" (Number 6, 1999) so you might need to find that one as well to see the letter and his response.
There are snippets of information that seem to support all theorys.
All we *know* is that they had short rifles.

Dan

 

[Zonie]

Dan: Well said.

It is frustrating that more wasn't written about L&C's guns but similar things seem to have a habit of cropping up in many historical occasions.

If one of those lazy people would have just sit down on their butt and written a nice full description of the arms being used we would have a much better idea of those used in the F&I wars as well as the L&C expedition. :hmm:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Yep. If only Lewis or Clark had written in the journals that "this new 1803 rifle with its half stock and .54 caliber bore sure is a beauty!" Or "I'm sure glad we're carrying these rebuilt '92 rifles instead of some newfangled untested gadget. Kinda like the way they shortened up the barrels though. Makes 'em real handy."

You'd think folks that depended so much on their fire arms would have mentioned them more in their writings. I suppose that they kind of took them for granted the way we do a hammer or a coffee maker. Then too, a great many folks back then couldn't write anyway.