I was wondering which production muzzleloader is the most accurate in terms of style. Now, I don't mean the ones that are replicas of the Brown Bess that are being made in India, I mean a Hawken or Mountain man type rifle. There has been discussion that the TC Hawken is similar to some California guns. Someone posted pics of a Hawken that they had just finished and the CVA Mountain Rifle is a very close copy of it to my untrained eye. I am just curious...
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Most correct style production muzzleloader...
- Thread starter Pork Chop
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
The Mountain rifle is likely the closest that I know of, but some folks question the date on the gun it copied. Those guns from that correct time period are heavy and have much larger diameter barrels than we are used to. Take the Mountain rifle and put a 1 or 1 1/8th barrel in it 36 to 40 inches long and you are getting closer. Use the plain lockplate of the later Hawken and you are closer yet. Lose the drum and use a snail type breech and you are closer yet.
The simple fact is that most of them are in the spirit of the times and are fine guns. The Lyman gets about as good of an approval rating as any do that I know of. There is a nice looking TOW kit gun sitting at a gun shop in Arnold Mo that is supposed to be pretty close. It has a 600$ price tag on it.
The simple fact is that most of them are in the spirit of the times and are fine guns. The Lyman gets about as good of an approval rating as any do that I know of. There is a nice looking TOW kit gun sitting at a gun shop in Arnold Mo that is supposed to be pretty close. It has a 600$ price tag on it.
When I bought my CVA mountain rifle a few years back, I bought it because I was told it was resonably authentic for the Mountain man Era. The guy said, having 2 barrel lugs and a drum made it more realistic to the flavor of a real Hawkins rifle. He went on to say that in some areas of the country, Hawkins rifles would not be permitted unless it had the second barrel lug. I've never witnessed that at all. As a matter of fact, out here in the mountain states of Colorado and Wyoming, everyone is really laid back and more interested on how well you can shoot the rifle you carry.
Regards
Wounded Knee
Regards
Wounded Knee
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,703
- Reaction score
- 2
I believe the Uberti Hawken was a very close copy of an original. I know it is more massive than the Lyman GPR. In fact, Uberti so closely copied an original that the bore is slightly off-center and is .530 diameter (takes a .520 ball). Mine was the old Uberti from the 1970s marketed by Western Arms as the "Santa Fe Hawken". Don't know if the re-introduced Uberti is exactly the same.
Doc Arroyo
Greybeard
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 976
- Reaction score
- 9
The most period correct for the mountain man era would be a Hudson Bay trade gun or a Pennsylvania trade rifle. The best production one of these that I have seen and shot was the JJ Henry trade rifle by JP Gunstocks, but they are out of business.
Of current production, I would go with a percussion Lyman GPR.
Of current production, I would go with a percussion Lyman GPR.
The drum used in the CVA type guns mimics the conversion used to convert flint guns to caplocks. The snail type drum mimics the original manufactured breechplugs made for cap use. The questions still remain and we have some hard facts. The original guns of this type from before 1840 tended to weigh in about 12 pounds. None of the factory replica's is even close. The barrels were longer in the 36 to 40 inch range mostly. The sights were primitive fixed on almost all. The questions come in when you start to ask things like which cheekpiece is more authentic for the pre 1840 time frame. Which nose cap type is correct, or all three of the normally seen options correct? Did the early models use the slim line buttplate and stock or did they mimic the military guns of the time? Is a pinned simple trigger correct or is an inletted plate style more correct? Are the reports of the long trigger guards and trigger plates adopted to allow additional support in the wrist area with the plate adding support and the guard hiding it? That is the reported historic reason of a few years ago. If you use the nose cap without the integral entry pipe, is an inletted skirt proper or not on the entry pipe? Which type of fixed sight is the most proper?
There is a flintlock Santa Fe hawken on sale at the local gunshop. The overall quality of the piece did not impress me but the sights were maybe the best I have ever shouldered. It definately is no where near the weight and the build of the originals. The 52 TOW gun sitting there is the one you would want, but the builder left the stock blonde. It would need stripping and refinishing.
Much depends on the gun you are looking at and who the builder was. The Hawken brothers are the ones most famous, but they were only one of several shops in the St. Louis area. I have seen everything from no buttplate to a wrap over to the one now identified with the Hawken type gun. I have seen all three types of nosecap. I have seen no entry pipe all the way to very ornate skirted ones. I have seen everything from no cheekpiece to the almost modern beavertail. I have seen everything from very small bores to about 60 caliber.
On most the wood is pretty dark and if it is fancy, it doesn't show. Most use a trigger plate. Most have the slimline cast buttplate and most have the entry pipe with a fairly plain skirt.
None of the present guns combines even all of the mosts, much less the original weight, barrel length, or dark finish. My Mountain rifle would be a good copy of a squirrel rifle made by Dimmick if it was about 30 caliber. It would then also weigh in about right. As a 50, it is too short and the barrel is not nearly heavy enough. I think you could make excuses for everything else except the size of the lock. The lock is too small for a conversion gun which is what the drum would most likely make it from what I have seen.
I am sure there are guys here that can add lots to what I just posted and correct my mistakes if they will. This is a lot like the early long rifles. The details that are correct depend on where it was built and by who. I am doing two stocks right now for my guns and I still am not sure what nose piece I am using on either!
There is a flintlock Santa Fe hawken on sale at the local gunshop. The overall quality of the piece did not impress me but the sights were maybe the best I have ever shouldered. It definately is no where near the weight and the build of the originals. The 52 TOW gun sitting there is the one you would want, but the builder left the stock blonde. It would need stripping and refinishing.
Much depends on the gun you are looking at and who the builder was. The Hawken brothers are the ones most famous, but they were only one of several shops in the St. Louis area. I have seen everything from no buttplate to a wrap over to the one now identified with the Hawken type gun. I have seen all three types of nosecap. I have seen no entry pipe all the way to very ornate skirted ones. I have seen everything from no cheekpiece to the almost modern beavertail. I have seen everything from very small bores to about 60 caliber.
On most the wood is pretty dark and if it is fancy, it doesn't show. Most use a trigger plate. Most have the slimline cast buttplate and most have the entry pipe with a fairly plain skirt.
None of the present guns combines even all of the mosts, much less the original weight, barrel length, or dark finish. My Mountain rifle would be a good copy of a squirrel rifle made by Dimmick if it was about 30 caliber. It would then also weigh in about right. As a 50, it is too short and the barrel is not nearly heavy enough. I think you could make excuses for everything else except the size of the lock. The lock is too small for a conversion gun which is what the drum would most likely make it from what I have seen.
I am sure there are guys here that can add lots to what I just posted and correct my mistakes if they will. This is a lot like the early long rifles. The details that are correct depend on where it was built and by who. I am doing two stocks right now for my guns and I still am not sure what nose piece I am using on either!
Last edited by a moderator:
The Austin Hallek Rifle AH-MRFF-1/66 Mountain Rifle .50 cal Flintlock-32" Ball Barrel-Fancy Stock $579.00.
Is a lot like the early Hawkens that only had one wedge. They are very easy on the eyes too. They make one with a little plainer wood that is some cheaper.
Is a lot like the early Hawkens that only had one wedge. They are very easy on the eyes too. They make one with a little plainer wood that is some cheaper.
FWIW any similarity of the TC guns to the "California guns" is by chance as they did not use any particular gun as a "pattern" they stumbled upon the 1/48 twist because it worked well with RB and their own design conicals, shortened the barrels because they could not imagine goingg thru the woods with a long one, and added the coil spring because a flat spring would not last, they basicaly melded the old and the new to over the hunter a gun that loaded from the front had the general appearance of a 19th century halfstock yet was familiar enough to be comfortable with when making the change from modern centerfires, for authenticity,currently the LGP is about as close as you can get in a production gun, maybe one of the Blue ridge long guns if you squint real hard.
