Louis and Clark's Short Rifle?

[Java Man]

I'd sure like to believe L&C carried the 1803's, since I have one of the italian versions in .54cal. Its a sweet shooting rifle. Only thing better would be a custom version from TOTW's parts, AND a 1792 Contract from Don Stith. Just so we got all our bases covered. :grin:

Anyway, this is a great discussion. :thumbsup:

 

I thought that scholarly research had established that the 1803 models were not available until after L&C left on their little trip. But, I have seen several articles over the past few years that say either they were not or they were--maybe-- 1803 rifles with L&C. The "they were not" crowd has good arguments and the "maybe" crowd relies on wishful thinking and interpretation of ambiguous accounts. Funny, the other major expeditions (there were three others planned by Jefferson for about the same period)don't seem to raise as big a controversy. I am re-reading the Dunbar-Hunter expedition journals (1804-5) and the only mention is that the dozen soldiers with them had 'rifles'. Perhaps they didn't take the care L&C did in planning, but the implication is that standard military issue arms were carried. I am not sure I would take a prototype arm into the wilderness on such an expedition--but rather a tried and proven (known) arm. But all of this is speculation. It seems the recorded facts support the notion that the 1803 was not ready prior to the departure of L&C.

 

[Zonie]

"...The answer may exist if we can find anything definate on the gauge/caliber of the amunition carried, weren't the 1803's 52 or 53 caliber? "
________________________________
Henry Dearborn, Secretary of War at the time went into a rather lengthy description of the new rifle in his letter dated May 25th 1803 when he authorized full production of the gun.

Among the things he wrote were:
"...The Barrels of the Rifles should not exceed two feet nine inches in length and should be calculated for carrying a ball of one thirtieth of a pound weight-the barrels should be round from the muzzle to within 10 inches of the Britch and not of an unnecessary thickness especially in the round part..."

One thirtieth of a pound would be a 30 bore which equates with 233.3 grains. This is just about exactly the weight of a .535 diameter ball (give or take a few grains) which in our modern world of barrel sizing would be used in a .54 caliber bore.

As for finding out what caliber L&C's rifles were we are at a loss. There is included in the list of items only the words "15 Pairs of Bullet Moulds". No calibers were mentioned.

Regarding scholarly research, much has been done without definitive results leading to the two camps one saying the 1792 rifles while the other says 1803 rifles.

I tend to think both of them were correct with some of both rifles being taken on their journey.
As I mentioned above, this would be the only good reason for them saying "Short Rifle".
If all of the rifles were the same, whether long or short they would have been refered to only as "Rifle".

Zonie

 

[tmdreb]

I don't mean to be Captain Obvious, but someone needs to point out that the US 1803 Rifle was not the first weapon in history that could be described as a "short rifle."

 

[Desert Rat]

I just looked through the books that I have on the expedition (all whoppin 2 of them so I know I don't have the complete list)and I didn't see any references to spare wiping sticks being packed along. I know that future traders to the mountains carried them to rondevous and were listed in manifests. I'm getting to my thoughts here the round about way so bear with me. If Lewis would have packed spare rods wouldn't he have listed it with the rest of his equipment? With the absence of any entries I'd like to present 2 possibilities:

1. Lewis planned to make spares on the trail as needed.

or

2. The rifles and muskets that he brought had metal rods that would not have broken. ( I don't have answers for lost rods or the rods for personal guns)

All right there you have it that's my logical argument for the 1803. As I said I don't have the complete lists so it's very possible and probable that I'm full of :bull:

 

[MJB]

Morning Folk,
THis is my first post on this fine forum, thanks for haveing me.
I just wanted to give a heads up to anyone in the Washington,D.C. area. The Lewis and Clark Bicentenial Exhibition is open through September of this year. There is some great stuff in this exibit, I think you'll find it worth your while. I got to work on the original installation In St.Louis, MO. Although many of the artifacts are from the period but not of the expedition there is still much of interest and some authentic...Includeing Clark's Small rifle, which is a beautiful piece. Also, a Gerondoni air rifle...a wonderfuly controversial piece.
see,[url] www.beemans.net/Lewis & Clark Airgun.htm[/url]

Again thanks for a fine forum
Mike

 

[John Vaccaro]

I posted this on another fourm a while back, it may be of intrest here.

-----------------------------------------------
I have read with interest the article ”The Short Rifle of Lewis & Clark” by Richard Keller and Ernest Cowan in the May 2006 We Proceeded On, (the official publication of the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation) concerning the discovery of a "Model 1800" Harpers Ferry Rifle carried by Lewis and Clark. The authors make a great many assumptions, but the most interesting evidence is the front RR thimble is not flared. In a letter dated Dec.1803 Secretary of War Dearborne specified the front thimble be “flared”, lending credence to the theory that there was at least a prototype before L&C went west.
An argument against this assumption is an earlier find reported on in the May 1985 American Rifleman “ A Lewis and Clark Rifle”? by Kirk Olson. In this article the author describes a Harpers Ferry rifle with a different configuration for the RR entry, and the upper thimble appears to be flaired. This rifle has only one lock bolt retaining the lock. Is this an earlier prototype? If it is a L C gun why the difference between it and the “model 1800"?
Is any one else familiar with these articles? I would like to see a more scholarly study of the rifle in the WPO articlue with better pictures.
I still like the theory of the 1792 Contract rifle.

Zoni -- once had a conversation with the curator of the NRA museum, he made referance to the size of bullets dug up in archaeological digs at L&C camp sites. I of course don't remember the sizes, maybe someone will come back with this info.
[url] http://sharps1877.tripod.com/[/url] John