Lewis & Clark "Short" 1792

[dan97526]

I've been consuming everything I can find about the Corps of Discovery of late, and like everybody else, have my own theory on what rifles were used. I am in the unmodified (locks and slings excepted) 1792 camp, though not strongly.

The line of discussion I'd like to open up is regarding the shortened (from 42" to 33-36") and rebored to ~.54 1792 rifles. Although I find several sources that indicate these modified rifles were indeed the ones that went on the mission, I find little to back up this assertion. As near as I can tell, the justifications for this line of reasoning are threefold:

1) The journals often referenced "short rifles;"
2) Capt. Lewis anticipated that the handling characteristics of the shortened rifles would be more suitable to use while embarked in the canoes/pirogues;
3) The .54 caliber would be more appropriate to Western game.

2.) and 3.) don't strike me as compelling. I expect the soldier of the day was well-used to the handling characteristics of a longrifle or lengthy musket. The idea of a heavier caliber sounds like hindsight to me. The .49 was no doubt considered adequate for anti-personnel use, which seems to have been the first priority.

To my mind, one interesting piece of evidence in favor of the shortened rifles are the drawings of Sgt. Gass. To my eye, the rifles he drew look far shorter than I would imagine a 42"-barreled rifle would. That's far, far from definitive, though.

On the other hand, one or two authors I've read imply that the unmodified 1792 rifles could have been called "short" simply because they were short relative to the muskets and other Pennsylvania rifles.

I realize we're not going to settle this, but I'd still like to hear your thoughts.

Best,

Dan

 

Dan,

This is one of those issues that relatively few people are lacking in strong opinions. Like you I am not really in either camp, although I lean to the 1792 based on Occam's Razor as it is the simplest of the options.

Of your 3 justifications for shortening, #1 is well documented, but no one has ever been able to make a strong case for what in the heck he meant by it. Respectfully, I would suggest that #2 & 3 are modern speculations for which, as far as I have read, no case can really be made. The average rifle of the day likely averaged about .47 cal and about a 45" barrel with a rough range of .42-.50 and 42"-48". People had been traveling in canoes and pirouges with long rifles and muskets for centuries at that point, and I am not aware of any time where Lewis speculated in advance on the need for a larger bore for western game. He took a lot of care in the preparation of his ammunition supply in his design of lead containers for his powder, suggesting he had at least an idea what bore range he was using well in advance of his departure. However, there were likely other personal guns on the trip that were of other bores.

Barrels were regularly shortened during the period, but it is rare they were bobbed 6-10" off the muzzle all at once. Shortening happened because of damage at the muzzle or at the breech due to burned out touch holes. You sometimes see original pieces that have been bobbed at both ends. I believe Lewis mentions that some of their guns were shortened in the field, but I cannot quote the exact page. Trade guns were regularly shortened because the barrels were quite thin and they were often used with unpatched and or undersized balls. Both 1792s and 1803s have fairly substantial barrels by comparison, but may still require shortening if ringed by short starting or improper loading techniques.

I have no real answers here to the question of Lewis' use of the term 'short rifle'. Its one of those things that we can speculate about and have fun doing that, but that's about all we can really do given what Lewis left us to go on.

Sean

 

[CoyoteJoe]

It was long believed that the term "short rifle", as used by Lewis & Clark must refer to the 1803 Harpers Ferry. It now seems clear that no 1803s were produced in time to equip the expedition. It is possible they were prototype 1803s hand made by the Harpers Ferry gunsmiths but, at this time, there is really no way to know.

 

[Dphar]

Dan,

This is one of those issues that relatively few people are lacking in strong opinions. Like you I am not really in either camp, although I lean to the 1792 based on Occam's Razor as it is the simplest of the options.

Of your 3 justifications for shortening, #1 is well documented, but no one has ever been able to make a strong case for what in the heck he meant by it. Respectfully, I would suggest that #2 & 3 are modern speculations for which, as far as I have read, no case can really be made. The average rifle of the day likely averaged about .47 cal and about a 45" barrel with a rough range of .42-.50 and 42"-48". People had been traveling in canoes and pirouges with long rifles and muskets for centuries at that point, and I am not aware of any time where Lewis speculated in advance on the need for a larger bore for western game. He took a lot of care in the preparation of his ammunition supply in his design of lead containers for his powder, suggesting he had at least an idea what bore range he was using well in advance of his departure. However, there were likely other personal guns on the trip that were of other bores.

Barrels were regularly shortened during the period, but it is rare they were bobbed 6-10" off the muzzle all at once. Shortening happened because of damage at the muzzle or at the breech due to burned out touch holes. You sometimes see original pieces that have been bobbed at both ends. I believe Lewis mentions that some of their guns were shortened in the field, but I cannot quote the exact page. Trade guns were regularly shortened because the barrels were quite thin and they were often used with unpatched and or undersized balls. Both 1792s and 1803s have fairly substantial barrels by comparison, but may still require shortening if ringed by short starting or improper loading techniques.

I have no real answers here to the question of Lewis' use of the term 'short rifle'. Its one of those things that we can speculate about and have fun doing that, but that's about all we can really do given what Lewis left us to go on.

Sean

Short rifles were mentioned by others besides Lewis.

I have read 3 different articles concerning the subject of what rifles Lewis picked up at HF. The weakest hands down were 2 supporting the 1792.

The best was one assuming (all three articles were assumptions) that they had prototypical 1803 type rifles. Dearborne did not order making the rifles until too late to Lewis to pickup.
HOWEVER, they HAD to have made pattern pieces for him to examine and comment on. As he did.
Lewis carried an order to HF from Dearborn to MAKE what ever Lewis needed. It is thought that as early as 1800 (the year the English adopted the BAker military rifle) that the US was looking into making a standard rifle.
HF made 4015 1803s by there own accounting. Only 4000 were actually ordered. Lewis took 15 rifles west.
There is one surviving low number 1803 that is non-standard. 1803 lock date but different rib (made of parts not one piece) and other minor differences. Close but not the same as the later guns.
If you can find the article "The SHORT RIFLE of Lewis and Clark" by Richard Keller and Ernest Cowan in "We proceeded On" published by http://www.lewisandclark.org/. It is the best thought out and researched and most convincing, to me anyway, of the speculation on the "short rifles".

It makes the best case for what Lewis took away from HF. This was an important mission, critical to Jefferson, years in the works. I am not sure the Lewis would have gone off to the west with used rifles that had been in use then stored for years, then repaired and apparently cut down for the mission. Now when he could have had new stuff made by order of the Sec of War. Especially if they were making pattern rifles for Dearborn to look at anyway.
Another point is that 2 "short rifles" burst one near the muzzle and the other somewhat farther back (making it very short) both were repaired and the shortest was traded to an indian chief for a full length "short rifle" he had been given earlier. He was very pleased with the shorter rifle.
Bursting of the round portion of the 1803 barrels was apparently a problem. I believe Zebulon Pike had problems with this during his exploration.
But NOBODY knows what they had. Except they were short...
HF being burned during the Civil War may have destroyed the piece of paper we need to resolve this.

Dan
Oops.
The article in "We Proceeded On" is in the May 2006 issue.

 

Dan,

To each his own interpretation. At least you read the papers.

Sean

 

[Dphar]

Dan,

To each his own interpretation. At least you read the papers.

Sean

Its a tough question, one that simply cannot be resolved since there is no iron clad documentation. Like many I had assumed for years the short rifles were 1803s. Read it when I was a kid.
But I was perfectly willing to accept the logical 1792 theory, until I read the material some folks were using to bolster this position which I found completely useless. One, who bases his position on Tait in "Man at Arms" and recommended I read this to learn the "truth" will not even accept the idea of their having short rifles.
Just because they had 1792s in HF at the time is no reason to assume that this is what L&C used. Its certainly possible but not certain. Lewis had funding, backing and orders requiring things he needed be built. Had he walked into HF and said he needed 15 new rifles they would have built them. If I were him I would not have used the contract rifles that had seen use and long storage. Why would I if I could order new rifles with the paperwork he carried.
Olson describes the same #15 rifle of Keller/Cowan I assume.
Keller/Cowan brings up some interesting international pressures that apparently had the US looking into a better military rifle than the 1792 by about 1800. Its a must read for anyone looking into this question.

But in the end its all supposition. Informed to a greater or lesser extent.

Dan

 

The average rifle of the day likely averaged about .47 cal and about a 45" barrel with a rough range of .42-.50 and 42"-48".

Sean FYI - While the following info is based on still existing pre-1800 rifles, most are post 1770-80's period it still gives a good over view of barrel lengths and calibers (which got some what smaller after 1800 and again after 1840) for about the L & C period. On the other hand Pike on his 1805 expedition, another military expedtion, seeking the source of the Miss River noted the calibers they used were too small and recommended they be 54 caliber. Another period source for suggested barrel lengths is an 1807 letter from Trench Coxe, head of the govt's Indian Factory Sytem, to gun makers Jacob Dickert and Henry Huff, that the barrels be half round/octagon, 3 feet and two inches (38") and carry a half ounce ball which s equivalent to .54 caliber.

In a survey of a grouping of pre 1800 longrifles, the following barrel lengths and bore sizes were recorded - the first number is the length and the second the caliber:

48-.56, 45 5/16-.60, 40-.60, 40 3/16-.61, 44 5/8-.56, 43 5/16-.47, 50 3/4-.57, 43 7/16-.54, 43 5/8-.59, 41 7/8-.51, 42 3/8-.50, 39 1/4-.52, 47 1/4-.56, 39 3/4-.44, 44 1/4-.47, 42 9/16-.62, 43 9/16-.60, 45 7/16-.43, 43 5/16-.53, 46 1/2-.72, 38 3/8-.57, 37 3/16-.58, 45 9/16-.50, 45 1/4-.44,
42 3/8-.48, 48 3/16-.51, 47 5/32-.57, 39 5/8-.52, 52 11/16-.43, 42 3/8-.48, 42 11/16-.54, 41 7/8-.47, 43 7/8-.48, 44 3/4-.51, 43 3/4-.50, 39-.50,
42 1/4-.54, 43-.50, 42-.64, 43 7/8-.64, 47 3/8-.48, 39 7/8-.51, 42 5/16-.45, 42 1/2-.53, 47 1/2-.61, 47 11/16-.58, 46 1/4-.51, 42 5/16-.53, 44 7/16-.54, 46 1/2-.46, 44 3/4-.52, 45 9/16-.58, 45 3/8-.45, 51 9/16-.47 51 3/4-.58, 44 11/16-.50, 49 1/2-.51, 44 7/8-.48, 39 9/16-.58, 44 1/16-.56,
39-.50, 47 9/16-.58, 41 5/8.51, 44 5/8-.59, 44 7/8-.54, 38 5/16-.46, 44-.42, 47 1/4-.57, 40 3/4-.67, 44 3/16-.75, 45 3/10-.45, 45 7/16-.58, 41 1/8-.60, 41 5/16-.42, 43 1/2-.52, 43-.59, 42-.58, 44 1/2-.49, 41-.52, 37 3/16-.55, 40 3/8-.60, 40 1/4-.55, 47 3/8-.50, 43 3/16-.72, 38 1/2-.44, 46 1/2-.49, 42-.71, 39 1/4-.48, 38 1/2-.45, 56-.62, 42 1/2-.59, 44 3/4-.52, 43 1/4-.55, 45 3/4-.52, 36 1/4-.62, 46 1/4-.49, 47 1/2-.49, 46-.52, 42 9/16-.62
44-.51, 42 11/16-.48, 42 5/8-.55, 43 3/4-.47, 44-.52, 46 1/8-.51, 41 3/4-.54, 43 1/16-.47, 54-.53, 43 1/2-.40, 44 1/8-.44, 41 3/4-.62, 43-.68, 46-.50, 42-.47, 40 1/4-.59, 43 1/4-.51, 43 1/4-.53, 43-.50, 44 1/4-.41, 45-.50, 40 1/4-.52, 46 3/4-.49, 49 1/2-.51, 44 1/2-.41, 46 3/4-.49, 45 1/2-.55

The average barrel length in this 134 sample was 43 inches, and the average "bore size" .53. So, one could say the "average pre 1800" rilfe had a barrel of 43 inches and a bore of .53.

The longest barrel was 56 inches. The shortest 37 3/16 inches.

 

[Dphar]

The average rifle of the day likely averaged about .47 cal and about a 45" barrel with a rough range of .42-.50 and 42"-48".

Sean FYI - While the following info is based on still existing pre-1800 rifles, most are post 1770-80's period it still gives a good over view of barrel lengths and calibers (which got some what smaller after 1800 and again after 1840) for about the L & C period. On the other hand Pike on his 1805 expedition, another military expedtion, seeking the source of the Miss River noted the calibers they used were too small and recommended they be 54 caliber. Another period source for suggested barrel lengths is an 1807 letter from Trench Coxe, head of the govt's Indian Factory Sytem, to gun makers Jacob Dickert and Henry Huff, that the barrels be half round/octagon, 3 feet and two inches (38") and carry a half ounce ball which s equivalent to .54 caliber.

In a survey of a grouping of pre 1800 longrifles, the following barrel lengths and bore sizes were recorded - the first number is the length and the second the caliber:

48-.56, 45 5/16-.60, 40-.60, 40 3/16-.61, 44 5/8-.56, 43 5/16-.47, 50 3/4-.57, 43 7/16-.54, 43 5/8-.59, 41 7/8-.51, 42 3/8-.50, 39 1/4-.52, 47 1/4-.56, 39 3/4-.44, 44 1/4-.47, 42 9/16-.62, 43 9/16-.60, 45 7/16-.43, 43 5/16-.53, 46 1/2-.72, 38 3/8-.57, 37 3/16-.58, 45 9/16-.50, 45 1/4-.44,
42 3/8-.48, 48 3/16-.51, 47 5/32-.57, 39 5/8-.52, 52 11/16-.43, 42 3/8-.48, 42 11/16-.54, 41 7/8-.47, 43 7/8-.48, 44 3/4-.51, 43 3/4-.50, 39-.50,
42 1/4-.54, 43-.50, 42-.64, 43 7/8-.64, 47 3/8-.48, 39 7/8-.51, 42 5/16-.45, 42 1/2-.53, 47 1/2-.61, 47 11/16-.58, 46 1/4-.51, 42 5/16-.53, 44 7/16-.54, 46 1/2-.46, 44 3/4-.52, 45 9/16-.58, 45 3/8-.45, 51 9/16-.47 51 3/4-.58, 44 11/16-.50, 49 1/2-.51, 44 7/8-.48, 39 9/16-.58, 44 1/16-.56,
39-.50, 47 9/16-.58, 41 5/8.51, 44 5/8-.59, 44 7/8-.54, 38 5/16-.46, 44-.42, 47 1/4-.57, 40 3/4-.67, 44 3/16-.75, 45 3/10-.45, 45 7/16-.58, 41 1/8-.60, 41 5/16-.42, 43 1/2-.52, 43-.59, 42-.58, 44 1/2-.49, 41-.52, 37 3/16-.55, 40 3/8-.60, 40 1/4-.55, 47 3/8-.50, 43 3/16-.72, 38 1/2-.44, 46 1/2-.49, 42-.71, 39 1/4-.48, 38 1/2-.45, 56-.62, 42 1/2-.59, 44 3/4-.52, 43 1/4-.55, 45 3/4-.52, 36 1/4-.62, 46 1/4-.49, 47 1/2-.49, 46-.52, 42 9/16-.62
44-.51, 42 11/16-.48, 42 5/8-.55, 43 3/4-.47, 44-.52, 46 1/8-.51, 41 3/4-.54, 43 1/16-.47, 54-.53, 43 1/2-.40, 44 1/8-.44, 41 3/4-.62, 43-.68, 46-.50, 42-.47, 40 1/4-.59, 43 1/4-.51, 43 1/4-.53, 43-.50, 44 1/4-.41, 45-.50, 40 1/4-.52, 46 3/4-.49, 49 1/2-.51, 44 1/2-.41, 46 3/4-.49, 45 1/2-.55

The average barrel length in this 134 sample was 43 inches, and the average "bore size" .53. So, one could say the "average pre 1800" rilfe had a barrel of 43 inches and a bore of .53.

The longest barrel was 56 inches. The shortest 37 3/16 inches.

The bore size will vary with the sample. If you look at guns that show little use the bore sizes will go down dramatically. The best place to look for really representative rifles (as they were when made) is England where Rev. War battlefield capture American rifles exist in the condition they were picked up.
I think you will find that bores over 54 were rare at the time of the American Revolution, both from the stand point of surviving rifles with little use and from the actual writings of the time.
Most rifles that saw any use were recut (freshed), often several times. Recutting usually adds 2 calibers, a 50 becomes a 52.
Thus many of the large bore early rifles are large as a result of use and recutting. The same can be said of rifles bored smooth. Once a barrel was recut past a certain point cutting grooves was not possible or at least advisable, but it WAS possible to carefully ream off the lands and make a smooth bore. Or the bore became so large that the owner decided it was not practical as a rifle anymore. Some rifles were in use for 50 years or more.
Before some chimes in with his hard to swallow "I shot 50000 rounds though my rifle and it still shoots great" one must consider the difference between now and 1775. The rifles were left loaded. Even pulling a load to clean it was a risk if it was the only firearm in the household. One certainly would not shoot something for food then leave the rifle unloaded till he got home so he could clean it. Not if he lived very close to the frontier. They often wiped with with tow and something like perhaps lard, water would wet the gun and prevent a quick reload. Thus most rifles had ongoing corrosion issues. When this started to effect accuracy they had to be recut. See Kindig's chapter describing the work done by Leonard Reedy. Reedy recut far more rifles than he made by his surviving records. DeWitt Bailey's "British Flintlock Military Rifles" has a chapter on Indian rifles and mentions "freshing" as well.
There are several surviving rifles in near mint condition that date to the 1770s that are under 50. One that could date to the 1760s made by Peter Resor is pictured in "Steel Canvas" by R.L. Wilson its a .42. In fact the rifles that are in really nice shape,showing little use, that I find in the books are under 50. All but one of these is Rev war or earlier and that one could be 1780 easily.
Writings of the time (Rev. War) indicate that some like rifles that used an ball the size of a pea and others liked a ball the size of a cranberry.
With this in mind a Rev. War rifle is perfectly correct at 45 and possibly even at 40.
Meriweather Lewis carried his personal rifle on the L&C expedition it was 100 to the pound, this is a .360 ball. This rifle was likely made between 1795 and 1802.
In a survey of over 200 rifles originally flintlock I found large spikes at 44 and 50 caliber and very few rifles over 52-54. This falls into line with journal entries from the 1770s-80s. I recently did the same thing with Kindig's book but have not graphed the information.
There WERE larger bores made. Some very large, however, rifles made for specific military use may easily have far larger bores than civilian or even Militia rifles. From what I seen few rifles were actually made as calibers over 54.
Couple of reasons. First the 54 is pretty capable. It will handle about any hunting situation. Second economics. The 44 or 50 is much cheaper to shoot and will kill about any game found in the east. It also will allow several freshings before the bore gets to large to be practical or expensive to shoot.
A hunter like Boone going to Kentucky hunting hides for an extended time could get 25+- more shots per pound of lead by using a 44 over a 54. The powder savings would be considerable as well. Difference in killing power would not be that apparent, especially on deer.
This is another one of those things that is hard to determine by looking at surviving rifles, few are like they were originally built.

Dan

 

Short rifles were mentioned by others besides Lewis.

I have read 3 different articles concerning the subject of what rifles Lewis picked up at HF. The weakest hands down were 2 supporting the 1792.

The best was one assuming (all three articles were assumptions) that they had prototypical 1803 type rifles. Dearborne did not order making the rifles until too late to Lewis to pickup.
HOWEVER, they HAD to have made pattern pieces for him to examine and comment on. As he did.
Lewis carried an order to HF from Dearborn to MAKE what ever Lewis needed. It is thought that as early as 1800 (the year the English adopted the BAker military rifle) that the US was looking into making a standard rifle.
HF made 4015 1803s by there own accounting. Only 4000 were actually ordered. Lewis took 15 rifles west.
There is one surviving low number 1803 that is non-standard. 1803 lock date but different rib (made of parts not one piece) and other minor differences. Close but not the same as the later guns.
If you can find the article "The SHORT RIFLE of Lewis and Clark" by Richard Keller and Ernest Cowan in "We proceeded On" published by http://www.lewisandclark.org/. It is the best thought out and researched and most convincing, to me anyway, of the speculation on the "short rifles".

It makes the best case for what Lewis took away from HF. This was an important mission, critical to Jefferson, years in the works. I am not sure the Lewis would have gone off to the west with used rifles that had been in use then stored for years, then repaired and apparently cut down for the mission. Now when he could have had new stuff made by order of the Sec of War. Especially if they were making pattern rifles for Dearborn to look at anyway.
Another point is that 2 "short rifles" burst one near the muzzle and the other somewhat farther back (making it very short) both were repaired and the shortest was traded to an indian chief for a full length "short rifle" he had been given earlier. He was very pleased with the shorter rifle.
Bursting of the round portion of the 1803 barrels was apparently a problem. I believe Zebulon Pike had problems with this during his exploration.
But NOBODY knows what they had. Except they were short...
HF being burned during the Civil War may have destroyed the piece of paper we need to resolve this.

Dan
Oops.
The article in "We Proceeded On" is in the May 2006 issue.

Edited by Dan Phariss on 04/08/08 05:28 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

Dan,

I would normally refrain from discussing my take on this article in public and would have kept it to our private correspondence, but since you brought it up. As I said, I side with Occam's Razor on this argument. In my opinion, the simplest and strongest case lies with the 1792 because they were there based on period records and they were proven arms of the sort that men were accustomed to. The rest is up for debate.

I'm a stickler for citations and I'll be honest with you that I find this article to be the weakest of the three mentioned as it tries to say the most with the least. They do not really add a single thing to the chronology of the the first production of the 1803 or as they call it the model 1800. They cite the same stuff that Tait cites because nothing else known exists, but they speculate that records supporting their position must have been destroyed. They also speculate as to the knowledge of Dearborn, referring to him as a bureaucrat without knowledge of rifles when in fact he was a career military man who earned his opinions about firearms from experience and was not handed from someone else. Furthermore, most of the rest of the sources they cite are from the early 20th century not the 19th. I also find the discussion of the woodcut from Gass' journal as a source for supporting the 'short rifle' to have even less merit than Tait's discussion of the painting of Lewis.

Finally, if you take away the gun they present as a model 1800, their case virtually falls on its face. I have not seen this gun in person and I base my thoughts on it only on the photos. However, I am a pragmatist and a pessimist when it comes to rare items suddenly surfacing with unclear pasts. This gun reportedly was purchased in St. Louis some 30 years ago, but nothing is really documented. The piece they present would have endured daily use under the harshest conditions for nearly 4 years with L&C and then it was presumably sold at auction and used for some undetermined time afterwards for whatever use. Yet the lock plate markings appear nearly flawless, as do the stampings on the barrel. In addition the flats of the barrel appear remarkably sharp and there appears to be very little corrosion around the breech given that most guns of the day that were 'retired' from military service ended up converted to percussion. The barrel is also of original length when even L&C note that many of their guns burst and were shortened. My point is that I have more than a few questions about the piece before I would consider it solid evidence for their argument, but I do no necessarily point any fingers at the authors. We have all heard stories of unscrupulous people altering original firearms for profit in the past. After the gun passes down the line a few owners, those changes may actually become accepted as original. There are stories of people using original J&S Hawken stamps and of early modern smiths reportedly producing 'more Bean rifles than the entire family ever did.'

So, I will retain my skepticism and await more information coming to the forefront.

Respectfully,

Sean

 

[rifleshooter2]

Another thing to consider is Clark would have been very familiar with the 1792 rifle, having commanded rifleman carrying it under General Wayne in the Legion of the United States 1792-1796.

Andy
Legion Ville Historical Society www.legionville.com

 

[faw3]

" I believe Lewis mentions that some of their guns were shortened in the field, but I cannot quote the exact page." Sean I remember reading his "hired" meat hunters weren't much good and always had some "the gun did this or that everything but fly. :rotf: Who knows?? Fred :hatsoff:

 

[Dphar]

Another thing to consider is Clark would have been very familiar with the 1792 rifle, having commanded rifleman carrying it under General Wayne in the Legion of the United States 1792-1796.

Andy
Legion Ville Historical Society www.legionville.com

Since we are supposing.
He might well have known them very well and hated the things. Rifles of this type had a pretty dismal record with the military.

They were used guns and you can bet they looked used to some extent and they had been in long storage. I suppose if carefully cleaned and the bores oiled with Sperm Whale oil the barrels might have been good after years in the rack. But given the rust preventatives available and the location I would imagine to keep them rifles all serviceable would have been a full time job for one man. Unless plugged bugs like to get in them. The plugs themselves are a source of corrosion.
Its simply not resolvable at this time and will likely never be. You can arrive at as good a conclusion by flipping a coin as by reading what is written.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Short rifles were mentioned by others besides Lewis.

I have read 3 different articles concerning the subject of what rifles Lewis picked up at HF. The weakest hands down were 2 supporting the 1792.

The best was one assuming (all three articles were assumptions) that they had prototypical 1803 type rifles. Dearborne did not order making the rifles until too late to Lewis to pickup.
HOWEVER, they HAD to have made pattern pieces for him to examine and comment on. As he did.
Lewis carried an order to HF from Dearborn to MAKE what ever Lewis needed. It is thought that as early as 1800 (the year the English adopted the BAker military rifle) that the US was looking into making a standard rifle.
HF made 4015 1803s by there own accounting. Only 4000 were actually ordered. Lewis took 15 rifles west.
There is one surviving low number 1803 that is non-standard. 1803 lock date but different rib (made of parts not one piece) and other minor differences. Close but not the same as the later guns.
If you can find the article "The SHORT RIFLE of Lewis and Clark" by Richard Keller and Ernest Cowan in "We proceeded On" published by http://www.lewisandclark.org/. It is the best thought out and researched and most convincing, to me anyway, of the speculation on the "short rifles".

It makes the best case for what Lewis took away from HF. This was an important mission, critical to Jefferson, years in the works. I am not sure the Lewis would have gone off to the west with used rifles that had been in use then stored for years, then repaired and apparently cut down for the mission. Now when he could have had new stuff made by order of the Sec of War. Especially if they were making pattern rifles for Dearborn to look at anyway.
Another point is that 2 "short rifles" burst one near the muzzle and the other somewhat farther back (making it very short) both were repaired and the shortest was traded to an indian chief for a full length "short rifle" he had been given earlier. He was very pleased with the shorter rifle.
Bursting of the round portion of the 1803 barrels was apparently a problem. I believe Zebulon Pike had problems with this during his exploration.
But NOBODY knows what they had. Except they were short...
HF being burned during the Civil War may have destroyed the piece of paper we need to resolve this.

Dan
Oops.
The article in "We Proceeded On" is in the May 2006 issue.

Edited by Dan Phariss on 04/08/08 05:28 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

Dan,

I would normally refrain from discussing my take on this article in public and would have kept it to our private correspondence, but since you brought it up. As I said, I side with Occam's Razor on this argument. In my opinion, the simplest and strongest case lies with the 1792 because they were there based on period records and they were proven arms of the sort that men were accustomed to. The rest is up for debate.

I'm a stickler for citations and I'll be honest with you that I find this article to be the weakest of the three mentioned as it tries to say the most with the least. They do not really add a single thing to the chronology of the the first production of the 1803 or as they call it the model 1800. They cite the same stuff that Tait cites because nothing else known exists, but they speculate that records supporting their position must have been destroyed. They also speculate as to the knowledge of Dearborn, referring to him as a bureaucrat without knowledge of rifles when in fact he was a career military man who earned his opinions about firearms from experience and was not handed from someone else. Furthermore, most of the rest of the sources they cite are from the early 20th century not the 19th. I also find the discussion of the woodcut from Gass' journal as a source for supporting the 'short rifle' to have even less merit than Tait's discussion of the painting of Lewis.

Finally, if you take away the gun they present as a model 1800, their case virtually falls on its face. I have not seen this gun in person and I base my thoughts on it only on the photos. However, I am a pragmatist and a pessimist when it comes to rare items suddenly surfacing with unclear pasts. This gun reportedly was purchased in St. Louis some 30 years ago, but nothing is really documented. The piece they present would have endured daily use under the harshest conditions for nearly 4 years with L&C and then it was presumably sold at auction and used for some undetermined time afterwards for whatever use. Yet the lock plate markings appear nearly flawless, as do the stampings on the barrel. In addition the flats of the barrel appear remarkably sharp and there appears to be very little corrosion around the breech given that most guns of the day that were 'retired' from military service ended up converted to percussion. The barrel is also of original length when even L&C note that many of their guns burst and were shortened. My point is that I have more than a few questions about the piece before I would consider it solid evidence for their argument, but I do no necessarily point any fingers at the authors. We have all heard stories of unscrupulous people altering original firearms for profit in the past. After the gun passes down the line a few owners, those changes may actually become accepted as original. There are stories of people using original J&S Hawken stamps and of early modern smiths reportedly producing 'more Bean rifles than the entire family ever did.'

So, I will retain my skepticism and await more information coming to the forefront.

Respectfully,

Sean

Its just impossible to resolve.
There 2 viable "could be" possibilities. New short rifles or reworked 1792s. I would not be surprised if either one were correct
I guess my back got up when I was told that "Tait" was the final word on this. But he would not even except the "short rifle" as existing, insisting that Lewis was shot with some short "boatman's rifle". Ignoring the other mentions of short rifles.
Complete drivel since it does not agree with what was written by Expedition members. The only actual source.
Keller and Cowan could be just as bad as Tait. I can't find any references to Pike having 1803s but I only have one book to look at....
Did the 1803s have problems with bursting in the round portion of the barrel? I can't find any mention. Pike complained his men had trouble killing animals but it sounded to me like they just could not shoot worth a damn. Even the 49 cal 1792 would easily kill deer and elk. L&C didn't have any trouble if they had game to shoot.

The order to make Lewis what "arms" he needed *seems* to indicate Lewis could have ordered new rifles made. They would have had a hard time refusing. The entire armory was put at his disposal by that order.
Keller and Cowan making an 1800 is a stretch as well.
But how were 4015 made when 4000 were ordered? Why not 4022 or 4012? Parts overruns? Or rifles for Lewis?

Its just not resolvable, never will be. Like I said all I know is they carried short rifles. Who made them is simply a matter of by guess and by golly. Lewis could have picked 15 good rifles from the 1792s, had them shorted and relocked with spares. He could have ordered new rifles. Neither can be proved.

Dan

 

[rifleshooter2]

Possable, But in lack of a written record of his feeling on way or the other we have a little wiggle room. It is a fact that Wayne drilled both his riflemen and regular troops quite a bit on marksmanship and it is recorded that they were excellent shots.

Andy

P.S. here is a link to my photobucket I have a copy of the Man at Arms article if anybody would like to read it.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v218/rifleshooter2/1792 Article/

 

[dave_person]

Hi Sean,
You raise a good point about Henry Dearborn. Folks need to remember that his light infantry was assigned to backup Morgan's riflemen at the battle of Saratoga. It is a good bet that he understood the advantages and limitations of rifles. The claim he was an ignorant bureaucrat is pretty absurd.

dave

 

[Dphar]

Hi Sean,
You raise a good point about Henry Dearborn. Folks need to remember that his light infantry was assigned to backup Morgan's riflemen at the battle of Saratoga. It is a good bet that he understood the advantages and limitations of rifles. The claim he was an ignorant bureaucrat is pretty absurd.

dave

I don't think Dearborn was dumb.
BUT... He had a rifle in his hands he was telling them to make changes to. He had to have a rifle in his hands that only needed fine tuning. Likely there was more than one. Making one of anything in a situation such as this is foolish.

What is constantly seen here is people looking at the past through 20th/21st century perspective. In the 20th century someone would create a blue print, a skilled machinist would make a prototype to prove the design then a tool and die maker would make the tooling to make it. Today it would be computerized in most cases.
In the 18th century someone would be told to make a rifle with a certain barrel length and caliber, 1/2 stocked with this and that feature. Once made it could be examined and detailed changes specified; put on a re-enforcement at the forend, put more flair in the front rod pipe, etc. Just as Dearborn did. Thinking they had some detailed drawing that someone like Dearborn could examine and then make changes to is simply not the case. I don't think any such drawings survive assuming there ever were any which I personally doubt. If there are someone here will correct me.
The use of gauges and patterns carried over well into the 19th century. They had no high precision measuring tools for the workman making parts. Thus a gauge would be made for a part and the part would be made to the gauge/gauges. Milling machines and "tooling" as known even in the 1850s simply did not exist. They were invented to make early, circa 1850, breech loaders.
Thus it is virtually certain Dearborn had a rifle, at least one, in his hands when he sent the letter back with the recommendations for changes.

If this is the case then HF was already set up to make a variant rifle or at least had one one or more on hand, when Lewis was there. Remember that if enlarging the rifle force was considered in the last years of the 18th century there had to be some plan to arm them as Keller/Cowan point out. Thus there had to be some R&D into rifles, unless we want to assume they were going to simply put out contracts again and get another array of rifles that were not standardized. Considering the thinking of the time this was not likely. Standardized parts were desired.

As I have repeatedly stated. There is no known reference to what rifles L&C carried other than they were short. Something that appears several times in at least 3 journals. But not everyone on the expedition had one.
I have no axe to grind, however, some who get into this discussion on other boards who have a financial stake in L&C using full length 1792s will not even admit to the rifles being short. If they must resort to ignoring or failing to properly examine the primary references for the subject how can they be believed?
Tait states that the rifle pictured in Lewis' portrait is proof that the rifles used by L&C were long and had sling swivels. Never mind that the public rifles were likely in store by this time or already sold at auction. The rifle shown is surely his personal rifle which he carried on the expedition so his portrait would be a perfectly accurate depiction of him on the expedition.
Tait makes several fundamental errors in Man at Arms. It seems he is intent on proving the 1792 was used regardless. His comments of Cruzatte's "boatmans rifle" is pure fabrication and ignores Lewis' wording in describing the rifle he was shot with and Cruzatte's position in the expedition.
It is impossible to regard either Tait, Olson or Keller/Cowan as the final word. I found Tait unbelievable. I found Keller/Cowan more interesting and more believable assuming there is no fabrication. They seem to have done more research than Tait.
It is easy to state that since they had a bunch of used rifles at HF that Lewis would use these,and he very well might have after they were modified.
But if he came to HF and found a prototype he liked he could have had enough made for his needs. One could say there is no documentation for this. But there is no "smoking gun" for the 1792 either.
The part most likely to fail on the guns would have been the same if HF re-locked the 1792s. So risking using a "prototype" would not be a factor.
Either scenario is possible. The 1792s WERE there. But they were used guns with various amounts of were and tear.
This question requires a lot of thinking. The expedition was "secret". It had secret funding. It had a very high priority from the president.
Lewis apparently could have had anything he needed from HF. Did Lewis decide he wanted short rifles before or after he arrived in HF? This is a very interesting question.

Dan

 

[rabjr]

But if he came to HF and found a prototype he liked he could have had enough made for his needs. One could say there is no documentation for this.

I find it odd that if he did take a "Prototype" rifle, there is no mention of it, no mention of a new state of the art weapon taken on the trip, other than a "short rifle".

 

[Zonie]

To me, the fact that numerous times more than one member of the party specifically used the term "short rifle" indicates that some "long rifles" must also have been taken and the "short rifle" was used when the feat being discussed was done.

These "long rifles" very well could have been the 1792 guns but if so, why not simply equip the party with these rather than a "short rifle"?

Ease of packing and weight come to mind as being selling points for taking "short rifles" and if I had been in command I would want the newest short, light weight design available.
"Pre-production" 1803 style guns would fit the ticket very nicely and as Harpers Ferry was working in the "development" phase of perfecting these guns for general issue they would have easily been made available on a very limited basis.

Speculation, all of it but until the day that someone discovers some written document which clearly tells us what was ordered we will just have to continue our guessing.

 

[rabjr]

The problem I have with Pre-production" 1803 style guns being used, besides absolutely no proof what so ever is the fact theres no mention by anyone anywhere about this new state of the art gun being taken along. I would think someone somewhere would have written something about them. I know I would have wanted an evaluation of it as it was to be our first armory produced rifle.

 

[Dphar]

But if he came to HF and found a prototype he liked he could have had enough made for his needs. One could say there is no documentation for this.

I find it odd that if he did take a "Prototype" rifle, there is no mention of it, no mention of a new state of the art weapon taken on the trip, other than a "short rifle".

Specifics on rifles or other firearms are seldom mentioned in any journals.
One of the few that gave an specifics was a man who went to Quebec with Arnold. He lost his rifle and bought one from a man being returned as an invalid. It was a .48 caliber with a short barrel. He stated that the short barreled rifle should be considered by the military since he had been so pleased with it. But seldom do you get this much.
So while its frustrating its certainly not unusual.
Nor do we know what was sent back to the east from Ft Mandan. There were communications besides the journals.
As I said its frustrating.

Dan