- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 15,602
- Reaction score
- 20
Thats exactly what I did when I did my Corps of Discovery tribute, when I hunted with these rifles 2004 - 2006. Built a 1792 and a 1803 and used em both. :thumbsup:
Lewis & Clark Rifle Found?
- Thread starter tsmgguy
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Swamp Rat said:
By golly, THAT'S the answer!
I've recently seen photos of rifle #15, thanks to boardmember Sean, in a well illustrated article that he sent to me. The photos above are of a TRS replica.
The "Salt Lake City Rifle" has been througly used and abused. The proofs and serial are crystal clear, though. It is something very special, indeed. Authors Keller and Cowan are absolutely convinced that #15 was carried on the expedition, as am I.
What convinced me were the numerous references to burst barrels in the journals of both Lewis & Clark. Burst barrels were a characteristic of both the M1803, and the "1800" rifles that Jess mentions, due to weak forward barrel sections, high operating pressures, and the characteristic high muzzle velocities of some 2,000 FPS.
The "Salt Lake City Rifle" has been througly used and abused. The proofs and serial are crystal clear, though. It is something very special, indeed. Authors Keller and Cowan are absolutely convinced that #15 was carried on the expedition, as am I.
What convinced me were the numerous references to burst barrels in the journals of both Lewis & Clark. Burst barrels were a characteristic of both the M1803, and the "1800" rifles that Jess mentions, due to weak forward barrel sections, high operating pressures, and the characteristic high muzzle velocities of some 2,000 FPS.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 423
The rifle has proof marks on it?
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Russ T Frizzen said:
Hmmm. If it is what they say it is and truly made at Harpers Ferry, then yes, it would have proof marks, the 1792 Contract Rifles may have been simply marked "P" or not show any proof marks at all. If Ernie and Rick are behind this one, then it may be what they say.
Oh, I forgot to give the link to Brown's "The Guns of Harpers Ferry" that I quoted yesterday. This is a reasonably good book, somewhat dated since much new info has come out since it was published in the very early 1970s but it does make mention, even then, of a possible "M1800 Rifle", see page 28. It is partially available on Google Books at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=V...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
Long link! :shocked2: Hope it works.
Last edited by a moderator:
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 423
I've never heard of a muzzle velocity being attributed to the 1803 rifle before much less to the "1800" which wasn't even heard of until recently. 2000 fps seems high.
How a distinct model of rifle could be designed, approved for production, tooled up for, produced, proofed, examined and accepted for service and assigned a model number and never have been mentioned in dispatches or memos or even the press is quite a mystery. Particularly when that rifle is a complete departure from all that came before it.
How a distinct model of rifle could be designed, approved for production, tooled up for, produced, proofed, examined and accepted for service and assigned a model number and never have been mentioned in dispatches or memos or even the press is quite a mystery. Particularly when that rifle is a complete departure from all that came before it.
2000fps? I wonder where that came from. The muzzle velocity of the M1817 Common rifle, .54 caliber with a round ball and government charge is about 900 fps. I don't think that velocities reached 2000 until the very end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century.
I'll add that all these highly speculative arguments about a previously unknown "model" rifle leave me cold. The Harpers Ferry documents may have been destroyed but there would have been correspondence with the War Department and the Chief of Ordnance if such a gun existed. Of course, it does exist but it doesn't prove what some folks feel it should, hence this history reconstructed through wishfull thinking.
There probably was a "prototype" M1803 but just as likely only one of them. It would have been circulated among the officers of the Ordnance either by shipping it to them or by them visiting Harper's Ferry but the practice of making numerous samples was well in the future. As to the rifles having interchangeable parts...this was beyond the capacity of any armory in 1803, at least in the sense we understand it today. Perhaps the whole lock could interchange but this would have been about the limit of their capacity that early.
Harpers Ferry was a real leader in the effort to achieve interchangeability and weren't able to do so until much later in the manufacture of Hall breechloaders. Serial numbers were not used either until much later. The numbers on the M1803 pistols are there to identify pairs which is how they were issued. Off the top of my head I can't think of any armory-made firearm with a serial number until the trapdoor Springfield. I've seen any number of early rifles with numbers on them but always as a means of identifying the rifle in a particular unit.
Oh...in what way is the TRS catalog a primary research document? The idea of using a modern retail sales catalog as a research tool is very strange.
I'll add that all these highly speculative arguments about a previously unknown "model" rifle leave me cold. The Harpers Ferry documents may have been destroyed but there would have been correspondence with the War Department and the Chief of Ordnance if such a gun existed. Of course, it does exist but it doesn't prove what some folks feel it should, hence this history reconstructed through wishfull thinking.
There probably was a "prototype" M1803 but just as likely only one of them. It would have been circulated among the officers of the Ordnance either by shipping it to them or by them visiting Harper's Ferry but the practice of making numerous samples was well in the future. As to the rifles having interchangeable parts...this was beyond the capacity of any armory in 1803, at least in the sense we understand it today. Perhaps the whole lock could interchange but this would have been about the limit of their capacity that early.
Harpers Ferry was a real leader in the effort to achieve interchangeability and weren't able to do so until much later in the manufacture of Hall breechloaders. Serial numbers were not used either until much later. The numbers on the M1803 pistols are there to identify pairs which is how they were issued. Off the top of my head I can't think of any armory-made firearm with a serial number until the trapdoor Springfield. I've seen any number of early rifles with numbers on them but always as a means of identifying the rifle in a particular unit.
Oh...in what way is the TRS catalog a primary research document? The idea of using a modern retail sales catalog as a research tool is very strange.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guest
tsmgguy said:
still dreaming? :yakyak:
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
JV Puleo said:
I'm sorry, the top of your head is mistaken, you need to check acceptable, well researched documentation before making such a statement. Harpers Ferry serial numbered all early production - muskets and rifles as well as pistols. Aside from the above mentioned "The Guns of Harpers Ferry" by Stuart E. Brown, look for factual documentation in:
(1) "The Southern Arsenal" - Daniel D. Hartzler & James B. Whisker and
(2) "United States Martial Flintlocks" by Robert Reilly and
(3) "U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets, and Their Bayonets, the Early Years, 1790-1815", by Peter A. Schmidt and
(4) "American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol. 2: From the 1790s to the End of the Flintlock Period" by George D. Moller.
#4 by Moller is THE book on the period, exceeding all others and makes VERY clear mention of serial numbers on early Harpers Ferry muskets and rifles.
Well, I'm fully prepared to stand corrected. As I did say, I didn't remember anything off the top of my head but I confess that Harpers Ferry Arsenal has never been a particular interest of mine. I have most of those books but I'm more than willing to take your word for it.
However...even if it is a serial number, it only establishes it as an early one and says nothing about the actual date it was made.
However...even if it is a serial number, it only establishes it as an early one and says nothing about the actual date it was made.
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
JV Puleo said:
Agreed, the "15" could represent a very early production date in 1803, casting doubt on the possibility of No. 15 being a L & C gun since production of actual rifles did not commence until after the Corps of Discovery left on their journey.
I'll forward the email containing the complete Cowan & Keller article to any board member with the computer skills necessary to post it here, and who will agree to do so. The article has excellent photos of the rifle in question. It's a real eye opener. Email me at [email protected]. Remove NOSPAM.
tsmgguy said:
We cannot post copyrighted material on the Forum. Only short excerpts are allowed.
You can, however, email the article between individuals for them to read.
The Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation's quarterly, "We Proceeded On" (May 2006, Vol. 32, No.2) has an article about the rifle in question here. Good photos, and an interesting story about the #15 firearm (by Richard Keller and Ernest Cowan). There's also an article about the guns of Lewis and Clark, and another about Lewis' "Girandoni" air rifle. This would be a good addition to anyone's gun library, and I'm sure a copy would be readily available to anyone who would want to purchase one. The Foundation can be reached at:
Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation
P.O. Box 3434
Great Falls MT 59403
(888) 701-3434
Keep 'em center
Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation
P.O. Box 3434
Great Falls MT 59403
(888) 701-3434
Keep 'em center
I think that's the article that I have. (Thanks, Sean!) Email me at the address above if you'd like to see it.
The article tends tends to remove doubt about the timeline, making the equipping of the Expedition with M1803 rifles more than plausable. Lewis made more than one trip to the Arsenal, the last in July, 1803, during which he shot his rifles and tested the gear produced there, pronouncing everything acceptable in a letter to Jefferson shortly thereafter.
The article tends tends to remove doubt about the timeline, making the equipping of the Expedition with M1803 rifles more than plausable. Lewis made more than one trip to the Arsenal, the last in July, 1803, during which he shot his rifles and tested the gear produced there, pronouncing everything acceptable in a letter to Jefferson shortly thereafter.
Here's the background and description of rifle #15 from The rifle Shoppe's on-line catalog:
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/us_arms/(935).htm
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/us_arms/(935).htm
Last edited by a moderator:
But there HAD to be prototypes there since Deerborne obviously had one he was examining before making the final recommendations for the 1803.
These things were not done from drawings. There was surely a finished rifle in Dearborne's hands when he made the recommendations for design changes.
With this is mind Lewis could EASILY have seen pattern guns. He had a order telling HF to make anything he wanted.
Even more interesting is that there are 15 extra guns on the initial 1803 run.
Then there are events that took place during the expedition that point to the 1803. Pike had 1803s and they tended to burst in the round section of the barrel. L&C had two rifles burst in the upper part of the barrel.
If I absolutely HAD TO COMMIT to a rifle for the expedition it would be for the 1803 since I figure the chances are probably at least 70-30 in favor.
But I could not say with complete confidence that it was not the Contract Rifle. Though these things were pretty junky and even with little use were getting relocked with HF locks.
Poor quality Contract rifles.
15 extra 1803s
Burst toward the muzzle
Pattern rifles and parts obviously there when Lewis was. The shop had to be buzzing with talk of the new rifle.
It was larger caliber and Lewis knew that larger game was waiting up the Missouri.
It all points to an 1803 style rifle/proto type
Dan
These things were not done from drawings. There was surely a finished rifle in Dearborne's hands when he made the recommendations for design changes.
With this is mind Lewis could EASILY have seen pattern guns. He had a order telling HF to make anything he wanted.
Even more interesting is that there are 15 extra guns on the initial 1803 run.
Then there are events that took place during the expedition that point to the 1803. Pike had 1803s and they tended to burst in the round section of the barrel. L&C had two rifles burst in the upper part of the barrel.
If I absolutely HAD TO COMMIT to a rifle for the expedition it would be for the 1803 since I figure the chances are probably at least 70-30 in favor.
But I could not say with complete confidence that it was not the Contract Rifle. Though these things were pretty junky and even with little use were getting relocked with HF locks.
Poor quality Contract rifles.
15 extra 1803s
Burst toward the muzzle
Pattern rifles and parts obviously there when Lewis was. The shop had to be buzzing with talk of the new rifle.
It was larger caliber and Lewis knew that larger game was waiting up the Missouri.
It all points to an 1803 style rifle/proto type
Dan
timothy.manngmail.com
32 Cal.
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 0
I have heard it said that when Lewis went to Harpers Ferry, he picked up one of the rifles, steppeed out the back door of the facility, and killed a buck at 100 yards.
Has anyone else heard this story.... I am looking for documentation ..... its a neat story to tell when I pull the rifle out.
Has anyone else heard this story.... I am looking for documentation ..... its a neat story to tell when I pull the rifle out.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 15,602
- Reaction score
- 20
Makes good folklore don't it...
Theres many who know a hell of lot more than me but when I did my hunting tribute to them during 2004-2006 and researched the Corps of Discovery, I never saw this little story written anywhere. :hmm:
Theres many who know a hell of lot more than me but when I did my hunting tribute to them during 2004-2006 and researched the Corps of Discovery, I never saw this little story written anywhere. :hmm:
Similar threads
