Lewis & Clark Expedition Rifles

[Dphar]

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.

Or taken more photos :grin:

Dan

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

True. A picture is worth a thousand words! :haha:

 

[Zonie]

Which gets us to drawings.

IMO, a lot of the artists that drew some of those pictures of historical moments didn't have much of a clue about the guns they drew.

I've seen so many different obvious errors in some drawings that I've learned to just take their picture with a grain of salt.
About the only thing the drawings say is some of the people in them had rifles and/or pistols.

I think generally speaking their drawings did a better job of depicting the clothing the people wore and the pots and pans they used.

 

I'm always amazed at how many people make definitive statements about what the corps carried when there are no documented rifles from their trip and only very sparse information from the journals. So you can pretty much disregard anyone who says 'they certainly carried such and such'.

There are a variety of theories on the issue each have their champions, and each theory has folks who will sell you stuff from that theory. I tend to follow the 1792/4 theory because it is the simplest and least tortured. I suspect Lewis had the locks updated based on his comments about replacement parts in his journals. 1792/4 contract rifles were made by a variety of primarily Lancaster smiths and replacement parts would have been impossible given the nature of their trade. These probable replacement locks may or may not have been a precursor to the 1803 lock.

The 'short rifle' appellation in the journal has always been suspect and confusing and made some early researchers believe they were carrying 1803 prototypes. I have not seen reliable evidence to suggest that such rifles were made prior to their departure. If I were to venture a guess on a Harper's Ferry 'short rifle' for the corps, I'd say that some of the 1792s may have had their barrels set back, i.e shortened from the breech and re-breeched to account for a burned out touchhole. I think this practice was much more common at the time than using liners. It seems to me much more likely than Lewis having perfectly good rifles bobbed off for no other reason.

Sean

 

I tend to agree with Sean on this. Occam's razor, my friends.
:v

 

[John Strong]

This is a subject that I have always been interested in. There are lots of opinions and little proof. I did find this bit of info which I figure may be close. Sorry about the length.

By Stuart Wier

Two kinds of guns were the main reliance of the explorers. Lewis obtained fifteen rifles at Harpers Ferry Arsenal in the spring of 1803. Apparently these were the “1792 Contract Rifle,” modified for the expedition with Harpers Ferry model 1803 locks and patchboxes. They were plain, Pennsylvania-style rifles, with no ornamentation, hand-made by gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Full stocked, they had an original barrel length of 42 inches, which was likely shortened a bit for the expedition, and caliber at least 49 and perhaps as large as 54.

The other gun of daily use was the “Charleville pattern” musket, the standard firearm of US soldiers of the period. It is a 69 caliber smoothbore, and is now called the “Model 1795 Springfield”

Clark brought a small 36 caliber “squirrel rifle,” and an “elegant fusil,” a light-weight gentleman's sporting smoothbore. Lewis brought a case of matched pistols, one of which he traded for a horse, and a "fowler," an extra-long smoothbore, also traded to the Indians for supplies. Both captains carried a “horseman's pistol” either the “US 1799 North and Cheney” model, similar to the French Charleville 1763 pistol, or the “US 1799 Contract” pistol (McCormick model), both now great rarities.

There are no known surviving guns from the expedition. Claims are made for three guns, but the claims are doubtful, lacking any definitive proof. None of the supposed expedition guns show the degree of wear expected from a two-year, 8000 mile, wilderness trip in small boats and horseback, and the arguments for their presence on the expedition come down to the enthusiast's "but could it have been" sort.

For more see Guns of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Stuart Wier, published in "We Proceeded On," the journal of the Lewis and Clark Trail Historic Foundation, May 2006, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 10-17, and see Letters, August 2006, vol. 32, no 3.

 

This is a subject that I have always been interested in. There are lots of opinions and little proof. I did find this bit of info which I figure may be close. Sorry about the length.

By Stuart Wier

Two kinds of guns were the main reliance of the explorers. Lewis obtained fifteen rifles at Harpers Ferry Arsenal in the spring of 1803. Apparently these were the “1792 Contract Rifle,” modified for the expedition with Harpers Ferry model 1803 locks and patchboxes. They were plain, Pennsylvania-style rifles, with no ornamentation, hand-made by gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Full stocked, they had an original barrel length of 42 inches, which was likely shortened a bit for the expedition, and caliber at least 49 and perhaps as large as 54.

The other gun of daily use was the “Charleville pattern” musket, the standard firearm of US soldiers of the period. It is a 69 caliber smoothbore, and is now called the “Model 1795 Springfield”

Clark brought a small 36 caliber “squirrel rifle,” and an “elegant fusil,” a light-weight gentleman's sporting smoothbore. Lewis brought a case of matched pistols, one of which he traded for a horse, and a "fowler," an extra-long smoothbore, also traded to the Indians for supplies. Both captains carried a “horseman's pistol” either the “US 1799 North and Cheney” model, similar to the French Charleville 1763 pistol, or the “US 1799 Contract” pistol (McCormick model), both now great rarities.

There are no known surviving guns from the expedition. Claims are made for three guns, but the claims are doubtful, lacking any definitive proof. None of the supposed expedition guns show the degree of wear expected from a two-year, 8000 mile, wilderness trip in small boats and horseback, and the arguments for their presence on the expedition come down to the enthusiast's "but could it have been" sort.

For more see Guns of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Stuart Wier, published in "We Proceeded On," the journal of the Lewis and Clark Trail Historic Foundation, May 2006, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 10-17, and see Letters, August 2006, vol. 32, no 3.

Hmm, that's interesting because the 'We proceed on' article mentioned in that quote champions one of those 'doubtful guns' that is 1803-like. The idea of the 1803 Corps of Discovery gun is one of those things that pops up occasionally, and usually settles out with little supporting evidence. Also FWIW, the 1792 and 1803 patchboxes are pretty much the same critter in terms of shape, etc. They were not likely to retrofit a new patchbox to these guns because the old one was perfectly servicable. There is some evidence to suggest new locks from the diaries. It is assumed that these were 1803-esque, but no one really knows.

Sean