Lewis & Clark "Short" 1792

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.

Dan,

You have to admit this is shear speculation. Dearborn's comments are no more specific than any other War Department contract of the time. Dearborne had plenty of knowledge of rifles and certainly plenty of opinions. K&C argue that as a career bureaucrat, he could not have specified that much detail and that is unadulterated balderdash as every specification mentioned in his letter can be found on guns predating the '1803'. As far as I can tell the K&C article's total of 4015 guns is not based on any single period document, but comes merely from the addition of the 15 unspecified L&C guns to the total of rifles produced by HF after Lewis left for the hinterlands. It is a major stretch laid out as fact without citation.

As for your comment about the foolishness of making one of anything. It was in fact a common practice of the time to make a 'pattern gun' that was provided free of charge to the Department in order to compete with other smiths for contracts. They didn't always do this. Occasionally contracts were specified only based on very detailed specs laid out in a contract, but 'spec guns' were often built to sell new ideas or in an effort for new smiths to demonstrate the quality of their product in an effort to drum up business.

I admit there are folks in this argument who have a dog in the hunt, but I think the real problem with this 'argument' is that folks come into it with strongly preconceived notions based on skinny evidence from vague first-hand accounts, scanty period records, and mostly on poorly written secondary literature that has been unfortunately accepted as dogma. In my opinion, all that can really be said with any certainty from the 3 articles is that 1) 1792's in some form are a likely candidate and 2) something similar to an 1803 (as its called today) is a remote possibility but there is not sufficient documentation yet to put them at the scene. Its fun to speculate further, but in the end its still speculation. A lot of that speculation over the years has made it to print eventually come down to the point where people buy it as fact.

Sean

 

[paulvallandigham]

The only convincing, and interesting record that apparently exists, is the one that indicates that 4,000 rifles of the 1803 model were ordered, but the Arsenal made 4015, the extra number being just exactly the same number of guns ordered for the Expedition in secret. The fact that the expedition was done in secret- both the planning, and the leaving, further suggests why no written records were made.

I suspect that even President Jefferson was seeking " Credible Deniablity " if the expedition failed, or caused a diplomatic crisis with either the British or the Russians. By having little or no paper trail concerning the arms, the President was protected from being accused of being directly involved if problems arose. Had this been an official U.S. Army expedition, and they ran afoul of British or Russian forces on the west Coast, in what was then disputed territory, the other governments could accuse Washington of attempting to seize control by force of arms, an Act of War.

What Jefferson wanted was good information on What the Lousianna Purchase had bought for the United States, not a war. That is why the expedition was to not only map waterways, and search for a cross continent water route for trade, but also to note the trees, and animals found along the way, to get some idea of the wealth of the country for exploitation. Jefferson needed to know if there were enough wealth to justify encourage western expansion, and trade with the Indian tribes. He was ahead of his time, as most East Coast US residents considered anything west of the Mississippi, as unfit for civilization, " Indian Territory". Remember that while the Louisanna Purchase gave us much of the central high plains, the current states of Texas, Oklahoma, Ariona, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, and part of Colorado were not acquired until 1845-48, during and after the Mexican War. What we knew about the Lousianna purchase was that it contained lots of high mountains, broad plains occupied by hostile, warlike Indians, and no recognizable means of getting wealthy quickly. Many of the state existing East of the Missippi were still Territories at the time of that expedition, also, so we were a long way from populating the huge expanse of what was recognizes the the USA then in existance, before we could think about expanding further West.

Finally, the chief way the Federal Government raised money, other than Tariff taxes on imported goods, was by selling publicly owned lands to the public. The Lousianna Purchased doubled the known size of the United States, and all of it was owned(?) by the U.S. Government.( We always seemed to forget the treaty obligations we owed American Indians whenever it came to selling land.)

 

The only convincing, and interesting record that apparently exists, is the one that indicates that 4,000 rifles of the 1803 model were ordered, but the Arsenal made 4015, the extra number being just exactly the same number of guns ordered for the Expedition in secret. The fact that the expedition was done in secret- both the planning, and the leaving, further suggests why no written records were made.

Paul,

Unless you can provide a period citation for the 4015 number, I think its time we turned off the manure spreader on this topic. There's already more on the field right now than can be broken down prior to spring planting. The speculation meter is up to chest wader depth already.

Sean

Sean

 

[paulvallandigham]

Sean: I read it here in Dan Phariss' comments above.

" HF made 4015 1803s by there own accounting. Only 4000 were actually ordered. Lewis took 15 rifles west.".

If that information is " manure", then your argument is with Dan. I know the general history and background surrounding the Expedition, from my lengthy study of American History when I earned my Bachelor's Degree, many years ago. I, like so many other ML shooters, have always been fascinated with the Corps of Discover, and their incredibly successful trip. When the History channel highlighted the event, and a new printing of the expedition journals came out, I was thrilled to learn more of the details. The journal was " on loan " from the library when I was studying the period, and I was not able to read it back then. Its one of those things I have always wanted to get around to reading.

I was aware of the fire at Harper's Ferry, when all of the early records, such as they were, burned. At the time, knowing the diplomatic secrecy surrounding both the purchase and possession( and exploration) of the lands, I was not really concerned that the fire might have consumed the Only evidence of the exact rifles. I did not know then that none of the guns survived, nor did I know that no real detailed description of the guns was made in the Journals and letters. I was not into collecting guns, then, and the matter was not of great interest to me.

I have followed this thread with fascination, because its quite obvious that some members have spent a lot of time investigation not only the facts, but critiquing the few research papers that have ever been published on the subject.

My comment, which so offends you, was simply my observation that the most interesting information that stands UNREBUTTED, is this number of guns made, vs. number of guns ordered, which has too great a coincidence to not be of note. It sounds like the typical bean counting screw-up that lets out " government " secrets because some lowly clerk whose job it is to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" wasn't told that the early 15 rifle were NOT to appear in official records. Its has happened before and since. Its good historical research!

Now, my comments about the diplomatic niceties may be " Manure " to you, but, I suggest you begin studying diplomatic history. I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about on that subject.

 

[Dphar]

You have to admit this is shear speculation. Dearborn's comments are no more specific than any other War Department contract of the time. Dearborne had plenty of knowledge of rifles and certainly plenty of opinions. K&C argue that as a career bureaucrat, he could not have specified that much detail and that is unadulterated balderdash as every specification mentioned in his letter can be found on guns predating the '1803'. As far as I can tell the K&C article's total of 4015 guns is not based on any single period document, but comes merely from the addition of the 15 unspecified L&C guns to the total of rifles produced by HF after Lewis left for the hinterlands. It is a major stretch laid out as fact without citation.

As for your comment about the foolishness of making one of anything. It was in fact a common practice of the time to make a 'pattern gun' that was provided free of charge to the Department in order to compete with other smiths for contracts. They didn't always do this. Occasionally contracts were specified only based on very detailed specs laid out in a contract, but 'spec guns' were often built to sell new ideas or in an effort for new smiths to demonstrate the quality of their product in an effort to drum up business.

I admit there are folks in this argument who have a dog in the hunt, but I think the real problem with this 'argument' is that folks come into it with strongly preconceived notions based on skinny evidence from vague first-hand accounts, scanty period records, and mostly on poorly written secondary literature that has been unfortunately accepted as dogma. In my opinion, all that can really be said with any certainty from the 3 articles is that 1) 1792's in some form are a likely candidate and 2) something similar to an 1803 (as its called today) is a remote possibility but there is not sufficient documentation yet to put them at the scene. Its fun to speculate further, but in the end its still speculation. A lot of that speculation over the years has made it to print eventually come down to the point where people buy it as fact.

Sean

But Dearborn tells them it needs a re-enforcement for the end of the forend and a flaired upper rod pipe. Would the description, assuming he is reading one, mention that the upper pipe was unflared? This tells me he is looking at a prototype as was typical of the time.

I kinda fell into 20th century mode with the making more than one thing. Easy to do. But considering the state of metallurgy in 1803 it would have been prudent.

As I stated on a different site "its a shame L&C didn't take more photographs" :grin:
My real surprise concerning the "short rifles" was the lack of penetration shown when Lewis was shot.
This indicates a couple of possibilities the most likely is a large, probably gas cut, vent. The second is a small powder charge. The fact that the ball was recognizable as coming from "one of the short rifles" indicates minor deformation at 40 yards or so which indicates a low striking velocity, probably 1000 fps or less. In my experience a RB made of pure lead in 50-54 caliber is going to penetrate about the same. So the only thing we can gain from Lewis being shot is that the powder charge was light or the rifle inefficient due to an enlarged vent, worn bore or perhaps even powder that had been damp at sometime and thus damaged. Sure does not give a clue to the caliber except it was the size used by the "short rifles". THEN we must wonder because the typical trade gun used virtually the same ball as a 1803 and Lewis thought initially he had been shot by an indian. Is this more evidence of the 1792's smaller ball??
But perhaps the ball bore marks of the rifling...

Finally, I think all the writing on this subject, Olson, Keller/Cowan and Tait anyway are the result of people wanting something to be so. K/C and Olson both use the same "variant 1803" as their basis. While intriguing and "could be" its not definitive. Tait I suppose is as close to an uninterested party (?) but he did not make the case well, apparently assuming his version was the only one possible.
Does Pike wishing for a 30 to the pound ball mean he was carrying 1792s? Sure seems like it. I just ran across this in the past week or so in Firearms of the American West trying to find some reference to his having barrels burst.
Recall Keller/Cowan stating he used 1803s and had burst barrels as did L&C (would have to read it again to be sure and not really interested) But 1803s are very near 30 to the pound. So why would Pike need a rifle with a 30 to the pound?
More axe grinding perhaps?
My primary reason for even reading the three articles was because an axe grinder with commercial interest refusing to even admit L&C had short rifles (as does Tait) telling me I "had to read Tait". Apparently he he had cherry picked what he wanted from Tait...
The only thing I have learned over a considerable amount of time wasted reading, thinking and typing is there is no smoking gun, everyone is guessing and has apparently come to different conclusions to a greater or lesser extent based on reading the same material.

Dan

 

[redwing]

In the hip wound incident you assume that it was made by a US issue rifle. What about the Dozen or so Ky. Hunters? They would have brought their own rifles. They may have been using .40 Cal. rifles?

As for the argument over long and short. We can also guess that a contract rifle compared to a civilian long rifle with a 46" or 48" barrel would have been a short rifle. It is like the argument over the Clark Small rifle. It was built by a friend of the Clarks in Indiana. His name was Small but others argue it was due to its small caliber. :shake:

Why would you as a seasoned officer and a leader of men on the Frontier would choose a rifle that had not been proved in battle? The rifles that were in storage contract rifles, I have read an account which stated there were only 2. were mostly well cared for I would think. It may have been easy to order up a few Contract Rifles from those firms that had produced them in the past.

We have ignored for so long the Contract Rifle even existed. It is a crushing blow to many who now own Harper Ferry Rifles that Navy Arms or some one in Italy assured you that it was the correct L&C rifle.

 

Paul,

I say what I have to say in a concise manner and generally cite it. Feel free to try it sometime. Where I come from being a 'manure spreader' also means you are good at telling a tall one and it is not always an insult. I meant only to confirm the 4015 number as speculation without information. I did this in the post before you got back into this discussion, but you must have missed that.

Dan,

My point was that whether or not there was a pattern '1800' gun made that Dearborne was discussing, it does not provide any evidence that any of these guns were 15 made for L&C. I do not agree that his comments necessarily result from commenting on a specific gun in hand. In fact, his comment about flaring the pipe could refer to changing what was then and remains a pretty standard practice. In discussing the issue of the 'pattern rifle', I meant to point out the way the process was generally carried out and that K&C were really stretching the facts with the 4015 number to justify their interpretation.

The initial question asked at the beginning of this thread was in reference to the short rifle question, and I do not believe there is enough information from any side (Tait or K&C) to answer that question. All we can do it speculate as to why Lewis used the term half a dozen times or so. I think we've answered that and we're well off topic now.

Sean

 

[Dphar]

In the hip wound incident you assume that it was made by a US issue rifle. What about the Dozen or so Ky. Hunters? They would have brought their own rifles. They may have been using .40 Cal. rifles?

As for the argument over long and short. We can also guess that a contract rifle compared to a civilian long rifle with a 46" or 48" barrel would have been a short rifle. It is like the argument over the Clark Small rifle. It was built by a friend of the Clarks in Indiana. His name was Small but others argue it was due to its small caliber. :shake:

Why would you as a seasoned officer and a leader of men on the Frontier would choose a rifle that had not been proved in battle? The rifles that were in storage contract rifles, I have read an account which stated there were only 2. were mostly well cared for I would think. It may have been easy to order up a few Contract Rifles from those firms that had produced them in the past.

We have ignored for so long the Contract Rifle even existed. It is a crushing blow to many who now own Harper Ferry Rifles that Navy Arms or some one in Italy assured you that it was the correct L&C rifle.

This post is typical of people who have not read the material or do not want to accept what is written as how it was. The Journals are the ONLY thing that can be read as being a factual account of what took place over the course of the expedition. Period.

You really need to read the account written by Lewis on his being shot. You need to understand the Cruzatte was an enlisted private in the US Army and had been since the first week of the expedition and was armed with "one of the short rifles" according to Lewis who recognized the ball size and determined through this that he was shot by Cruzatte who had very poor vision. If you can twist this rifle into a privately owned "Kentucky" you are working at it too hard.

You need to understand that the 1803 was developed because the 1792 was not considered suitable as a military rifle, and it was not. Ordering new ones would have taken more time (new contracts etc etc) than making new rifles at HF and they would then have had to be relocked anyway unless these were furnished.
You need to understand that 42" is a typical rifle length of the "Golden Age". Thinking the 42" barreled 1792 would be considered short is grasping at straws.

The only thing really new in any rifle Lewis might have used would have been to lock (the most complex and most likely to fail part) and all the rifles had new design, "untried", HF locks anyway. So the "choosing a proven rifle" idea does not stand up. The 1792s had enough wear that the locks were all junked for HF made locks starting circa 1803. So you could consider a 1792 a proven design or a worn out rifle. I suspect it falls into neither category. In any case neither rifle would be called by its current designation.


I have posted a great deal on this subject here and elsewhere. Mostly always saying when I was speculating. In the process I have learned a great deal from other people prospectives.
I have stated several times that all we really know is that Lewis & Clark had "public rifles" that were short for the time. This would *probably* mean barrels 3ft or less.
Nobody-Nobody can say anymore at this point. It would solve a lot of problems if some native burial were found with things traceable to L&C and a very short barreled 1803 or 1792 rifle with a 1803 dated lock. Such a rifle WAS given to an indian as payment. It was burst toward the muzzle and when repaired was very short. But don't hold your breath.
So what were the "short rifles" They were either, shortened 1792s or they were rifles of some unknown sort built new at HF at the request of Lewis. Either is possible within the time frame I would think. Nothing else is really viable. Though I have no idea how many employees were there at the time would have to read one of the articles again.
There are compelling assumptions on this subject. But there is precious little REAL information on the expedition outside what was written by the people who were there so its just not possible to determine what the "short rifle" really was. Or many other things. We do know that "Pomp" had a Teddy Bear though. Which I had either not picked up on years ago or had forgotten (yeah its irrelevant but neat).
I likely could find other firearms related stuff I have spaced but I am not going through the 7 volumes again unless its something I really want to know.

Sean and I keep agreeing on practically everything but seeming to come at it from different sides or at least perspectives. Some of this could be simply from trying to converse via letters. In person we would likely find ourselves in complete agreement.

Dan

 

Sean and I keep agreeing on practically everything but seeming to come at it from different sides or at least perspectives. Some of this could be simply from trying to converse via letters. In person we would likely find ourselves in complete agreement.

Dan

I only got hot when Paul said I didn't know what I was talking about. :wink:

I doubt we'll agree completely even in person because of the type of people we are. Even if we debate something hotly, I hope you won't take anything personally as I don't really intend that.

Sean

 

[rifleshooter2]

The problem is until some one finds documentation stating exactly what type of rifle they were using we will be having this discussion. Which is cool with me I lie trying to figure out the past. Maybe we can work on the chicken or the egg next :thumbsup:

Andy

 

The problem is until some one finds documentation stating exactly what type of rifle they were using we will be having this discussion. Which is cool with me I lie trying to figure out the past. Maybe we can work on the chicken or the egg next :thumbsup:

Andy

Yup, and you can dang sure bet you won't get that answer out of the Journal. However the debate might make a few more people go back and re-read it. Like I said, its fun to speculate as long as we don't take ourselves too seriously.

Sean

 

[Joel/Calgary]

Most rifles that saw any use were recut (freshed), often several times. Recutting usually adds 2 calibers, a 50 becomes a 52.

This is a minor nit-pick, perhaps, but it is my understanding from reading that one could freshen the grooves a few times before it became necessary to enlarge the bore, unless the lands were severely damaged. One simply went to a thicker patch. If this was/is correct, it would moderate somewhat the anticipated rate of caliber creep.

With the groove itself acting as the guide for the cutter, this did not require a full rifling bench, and the cutter assembly could be fabricated easily by any gunsmith or skilled blacksmith, and on the spot, if need be, as was done on the expedition IIRC.

As I have nothing factual to add specifically to the '03 vs '92 Mod 1 ('92A1?) debate, I'll get back to work now. This discussion has been (largely) a quite enjoyable read.

Respectfully,
Joel

 

[redwing]

Dan, please do not close your mind to other text on this subject. If someone disagrees with you its only because they do not read the same magazines that you read?
You will never understand history reading and quoting from one text. There are other text on the shooting accident. As you may know many of the men who made this trip lived to be very old. Many of these fellows disagree with the notes taken for Government consumption.
There have been over time many parts of the Journals proven wrong. :hmm:

 

[Dphar]

Most rifles that saw any use were recut (freshed), often several times. Recutting usually adds 2 calibers, a 50 becomes a 52.

This is a minor nit-pick, perhaps, but it is my understanding from reading that one could freshen the grooves a few times before it became necessary to enlarge the bore, unless the lands were severely damaged. One simply went to a thicker patch. If this was/is correct, it would moderate somewhat the anticipated rate of caliber creep.

With the groove itself acting as the guide for the cutter, this did not require a full rifling bench, and the cutter assembly could be fabricated easily by any gunsmith or skilled blacksmith, and on the spot, if need be, as was done on the expedition IIRC.

As I have nothing factual to add specifically to the '03 vs '92 Mod 1 ('92A1?) debate, I'll get back to work now. This discussion has been (largely) a quite enjoyable read.

Respectfully,
Joel

Barrels with minor problems can be lapped (leaded), a far less aggressive treatment than freshing and only slightly changes the size.
Cutting the grooves deeper will not address the problem of loose ball fit near the breech. In patched ball rifles the grooves mean little and only need be .007-.008" deep.
Once a bore is worn past the point of being accurate through corrosion or erosion its going to take about .01" on a side to clean it and make the bore uniform. This can be put off sometimes by using a larger ball but eventually its going the need "freshed" as the ball gets too hard to load through the tighter part of the bore. This makes a 50 a 52. They generally were enlarged at the breech. I would also point out that they might be enlarged to fit a cherry the smith had on hand for a mould.
The recutting process is why rifles that saw much use always have vise tracks and wrench marked breech plugs. I would also point out that rebreeching was required at times if the threads were smaller than the groove of the barrel after being recut.
If you must believe all the early guns were big then look at rifles of Colonial America. Several rifles with very little use are featured. They have been in Britain since about the time of the American Revolution I don't think any are over 50 caliber.
A quick look at ROCA I & II will show 4 rifles is very good condition that were removed to England at the time of the revolution, one is a documented battlefield capture, one was documented to about 1800 in England but could easily date to the 1780s according to Shumway.
#44 44 caliber
#96 42 caliber
#108 45 caliber (barrel is 1.5" at the breech but heavily tapered)
# 121 47. This is a documented battlefield capture southern rifle.

There are others of 50 and under but #44 to #121 were sent to England when near new so the bores are almost certainly representative of what they were when made.
There is an early Lancaster rifle by Resor in "Steel Canvas" in near new condition that dates to 1770 or before that is 42 caliber.

However, we have documentation that some liked smaller bores and some liked wider bores. But most mentions at the time indicate the 54 was the typical large bore in Rev. War times. Yes *there were bigger bores made*. But 30-32 to the pound is often listed as a maximum.
I believe ECONOMICS restrained bore sizes.
A 54 cost about twice as much to shoot as a 44 with little real gain for most uses at the time in question.
A 62 or 66 is off the charts so to speak , a 66 uses a 1 ounce ball or very near it, the .433 ball weighs less than 1/3 an ounce.
I have no complaint with the idea that large bore rifles, over 50-52 caliber were made, its irrefutabe. But it is impossible to make blanket statements such as "early rifles averaged 53 caliber" when rifles were recut, bored smooth etc etc over the course of their lifetimes. This simply cannot be ignored.
The "1792" Contract Rifle has been been under discussion here. They were made for military service (one place a large bore is especially useful) they were apparently made as 49 caliber. There is a 1803 1st model in the Cody Firearms museum that is now 60 caliber rifled. Are we to think that some 1803s were made as 60 caliber? Its been FRESHED. Probably 2-3 times maybe 4. This rifle is 30+ years newer than most early kentuckies.

Walter Cline reamed and re-rifled or freshed original guns to make shooters of them during the early 20th century. Read his book. Along with detailing rerifling and freshing barrels he states that "Not many "Kentuckies" in original bore condition exist today" this was early 1940s. People were recutting originals to use in matches when the sport started to get more popular in the 1930s. He was thankful that some ML gunsmiths still existed at the time that knew how to fresh barrels and make repairs to get rifles shooting again.

When you see a Rev War period rifle converted to percussion you must understand that this probably took place in the late 1820s (50+ years for some rifles see rifle # at the EARLIEST and it was not done by its original owner in most cases but his son or grandson. These rifles did not fall from use in their original owners lifetime and possibly not in their grandchildrens life time if they could be made serviceable by any economically viable manner.
Freshing was a very common job for gunsmiths. We know it was done, we know how the freshing cutters were made. Kindig points out that Leonard Reedy listed the making of 48 guns while freshing 128 in 18 years.
The common dogma has been that the early rifles had large bores 54-58-62. But this was not the average size nor can it be proven that the 58-62 were all that common. But its very difficult to overcome a "fact" when its "common knowledge". Had you asked me before I started looking closer some years back I would have said they were usually 54 or bigger.

Dan

 

[billandbeaufort]

Paul, In your studies did you learn much about the "Air powered" rifle they took along? I believe it was a Girondelli pattern made by a Philadelphia gunsmith of some repute. This is the gun I am most interested in, so if you have any reading leads that would be great. I saw one shot on DVD the other day. It was a repeating 41 cal! It could shoot 15 times before needing to be re-pumped! It also produced over 200FPE! Makes me wonder why gunpowder won out. Thanks B&B

 

[paulvallandigham]

I believe that a family in Pennsylvania had the original air gun, and that it has been purchased by the Beeman family to put in the National Firearms Museum, in Fairfax, VA. I read an article on this gun a couple of years ago(?) that made a very convincing argument that the gun found was in fact the very same gun used on the expedition, and had been in the same family for more than 150 years. I believe there is a Beeman website, where you can find the article reprinted.

The Air rifle was a very complex piece of machinery, as are air rifles today, and that is the reason they did not replace the black powder rifles then, or now. The KISS principle was alive and well then as now. It was a very interesting firearm, and the Unfamiliarity with this " silenced " weapon apparently had a great affect on the Indians who saw it demonstrated.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

this has become a very interesting thread, one of the best I've seen on the Forum.
regarding the 'air rifle' on the expedition the one that is suspected to be the actual weapon carried has been tenitavely (spg?) identified by reason of a replacement spring which has markings similar to a file, Lewis noted that the Corp's smith had made the same part from a file to repair his rifle. this is from an NRA 'American Rifleman' article.
since there was no serial # on the rifle it's not 100 certain. one can only imagine the impression the 'firing' of this rifle had on the NDN's.

 

[paulvallandigham]

The only record of the impression this gun had on the Native tribes is mentioned in the Journals. I don't even think there is a comment in the letters that some of the men wrote about this.

 

[redwing]

There is a story regarding the Air Rifle and a shooting accident. During the departing of the boat on the Ohio River. Many locals were allowed on board. During one of these visits the Air Rifle was shot for a Demo.
The fellow who was shooting the arm made a mistake. The shot hit a local women in the head. She was almost killed from the round. I believe she lived. :hmm:

 

[Dphar]

There is a story regarding the Air Rifle and a shooting accident. During the departing of the boat on the Ohio River. Many locals were allowed on board. During one of these visits the Air Rifle was shot for a Demo.
The fellow who was shooting the arm made a mistake. The shot hit a local women in the head. She was almost killed from the round. I believe she lived. :hmm:

See
http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=1825
Dan