Mountain Man Flintlocks

excellent post Grey Wolf--alot of good info on early caplock use. it amazes me today to hear so many times from flintlock lovers how the caplock is no better--but quotes like the ones you cite show the reasons why caplocks supplanted the flints in short order in most places--better reliability.

 

[Zonie]

"...Zonie I hope you don't feel I have pirated your thread here, as that was not my intention...."
-------
Not at all.
The purpose of my post was to open discussions about Flintlocks and brass furniture during the Fur Trade era.
It has generated a number of interesting comments so far and these seem to support the old adage: "Never say never!"

zonie :grin:

 

[roundball]

"...speaks of mountings in "well ornamented brass". Along with the other info it tends to make me believe that today's reproduction of the Hawken half stock may not be as far off as most think..."

(Whew...now if I can just find documentation to cover those TC adjustable rear sights.... :grin: )

 

[Runner]

One problem with that line of speculation is that they were not much shorter, and they were heavier, not lighter.

 

[50cal.cliff]

The second reference states they were 12"-15" shorter. So if they were just a little shorter is was enough to be useful for the need of the mountain man.

As for the weight I stand corrected. :bow: But the weight was there for a reason according to the references. The plains rifle was bored manily in 50 and 54 caliber.

 

12-15" shorter is a bit extravagant. The Hawken rifles were more like 4 - 6 inches shorter. The late Gemmer Hawkens were much shorter yet. Let's talk RMFT era Hawkens and the longrifles of that same are. The average Fur trade era Hawken had a barrel length of 37" - 39". The average longrifle had a barrel of 42" - 44". The math doesn't jive with the above article.

The Roosevelt Hawken was in his collection and was not a using firearm on his part. I don't believe he should be numbered among the Hawken users of the fur trade. The Hawken that Roosevelt owned was one of Carson's earlier rifles (1855) vintage. The one in the Masonic lodge was a later and shorter Hawken yet. Carson was a shorty. For more on the subject of the Carson Hawken rifles read an article by William Q. Pirie, entitled, "The Carson-Beale Hawken". Pirie goes into detail on the provenance of this famous Hawken and how it wound up in Roosevelt's collection and eventually in to the collection of the Boone and Crockett Club. The Boone and Crockett Club then sold it and now it is in a private collection. But, these are all later than furtrade Hawken rifles that are sited here. When people hear the word Hawken they usually think of the late short beefy big bore plains rifle. For the sake of this discussion I believe we are talking about Hawken rifles of the 1830's. For a picture of an 1830's Hawken see Hanson ppg.53, Fig. 17A. and also Baird ppg.24 and 25. There are more pictures of early fur trade era Hawkens published elsewhere, but these are probably the easiest to get a hold of.

TC's and Hawkens are like comparing apples and oranges. They are both sort of round so they must be an awful lot alike.

Just some facts to consider and a little brain fodder. :hmm:

 

[50cal.cliff]

I never said I was an expert I am just quoting what this refrence had said.[url] http://home.att.net/~mman/PlainsRifle.htm[/url]
The Plains Rifle was characterized by a short heavy barrel, octagonal in shape, generally with a .50 or .54 caliber bore, low, iron-sights, set triggers and a half- stock. Overall the Plains Rifle was 12-15 inches shorter than the Kentucky/Pennsylvania Rifles. Early Plains Rifles were flintlocks, but rifles of later production, particularly those manufactured by Jacob and Samuel Hawken, used the percussion ignition system.
The whole point I was trying to make is I do not that todays Hawken is as far off in looks as most would like to think. As I feel the Hawken is patterened off the Plains Rifle IMHO!
No I have never seen one of that vintage. I didn't know any were still in existance.

 

Hi Cliff,
I am not picking on you, I am rebutting the article that you posted. I mean nothing personal about you I just don't think the premise stands up to the historical facts. When I post stuff it is not meant to be argumentative for argument sake. I post my observations to help folks understand the truth that is blurred quite frequently with repeated myths about Hawken rifles.
Please don't take my post as a personal attack.
I am sorry if it sounded like it was,
Don :v

 

Cooner is correct--the typical Kentucky rifle had a 42-44" barrel and the typical plains rifles were more like 36", which is 6-8" shorter...that is not to say that there were not shorter rifles [and longer]. Meek's pet was a stubby little ugly thing (see Hanson, The Plains Rifle).

 

[50cal.cliff]

Cool, I am here to learn, what I don't know, and that's why I said I am not an expert! I try to avoid arguments on this forum. The Hawken statement is mostly my opinion, but the opinion was based on information obtained from refrences. That's why I listed the refrences. Having said that, I realize everything that makes its way to the internet is not gosple, some of it is far from it
It's my opinion The plains rifle and The Hawken are one in the same rifle. When one Mountain Man road up on another on the trail and he told him he liked his rifle! What was it? He would have gave the name brand,(like we would say its a Winchester), he would have responded its a Hawken, and that name stuck. It was considered a reliable rifle and therefore a desirable rifle.
If you can accept that then, Zonie's post would seem to indicate maybe the brass triming might not be as far off as most believe.
The refrence from the National Firearms Museum about the patch box on the Hawken, suggests that the rifle Theodore Roosevelt possed had a stock that had in actuallty been cut for another rifle, as most Hawkens were plain and usually adorned by their owners. That got me to thinking that the later copies may have incorporated the patchbox, thinking this was original when perhaps it wasn't!
I do think that what we consider to be todays Hawken would have been a much later version of the origional Hawken.
I realize if your are looking at this from a PC point of view my opinion probably seems way off base. I was not trying to say that todays rifle was by any means PC. I am not trying to get into a PC contest on this. What I was trying to say is that today's Hawken may be based on some features of the origional rifle along with some that came from older copies, perhaps like the Theodore Roosevelt rifle.

 

Today's TC Hawken was the designer's idea of a modern muzzleloader with an "ol'timey" look and feel--he was not trying to copy anything in particular--and especially not the 'original Hawken'. It turns out that it looks alot like certain so-called California rifles that I have seen pictured, which date from the 1850s. It was designed as a hunting rifle, not for reenactors, but rondyvooers took them up in large numbers...and have been looking for justification for years...for many they are "close enough".

 

[Runner]

So much depends on the specific time in the fur trade also. At the beginning, we are talking rock lock full stocks only. In 1860, could you have purchased a rifle that looks somewhat like the TC? Yes. Could you have purchased one and have gone to the last fur trade rendezvous? No. The TC is a very fine rifle. If they ever decide to build a 54 flinter with a 38 inch slow twist barrel in a full stock, the brass hardware would not slow me down one little bit! If you ever get to handle a late period small bore Hawken and then one of the plains style Hawkens, you will get a real good idea where the TC came from and which it is closer to.

 

[roundball]

"...and have been looking for justification for years..."

I have to be honest and say I'm really surprised at that statement. And the last thing I want to do is try to sound knowledgeable by tossing around "years" like some[url] do...but...in[/url] this case I have to use a reference...and it is that I myself have been in muzzleloading now since the late 80's...and exclusively with TC Hawkens since the early 90s.

I've also been a daily participant on a number of different ML forums for several years now. In all that time, I've never seen or heard anyone claim, defend, or attempt to pass off a TC Hawken as a true representation of any particular Hawken from any time period back then.

By contrast, I have seen frequently and steadily, others jump into a TC Hawken thread, volunteering the declaration something like: "ya know, those aren't really PC".....and I think it's funny...I very often poke fun at my own choice of 1970s vintage TC Hawkens, etc.

Just surprised at a statement that people have been trying to justify a TC Hawken design for years and years, because personally, I've never seen a single instance of it...maybe it just happens at rondys...never been to one.

 

Roundball, once again you have taken what I said in the wrong way--I was referring only to the rondyvoos folks trying to justify their use of the TC Hawken in "pre-1840" events. I have never badmouthed the folks [or the rifle] who use it for what it was intended--a fine hunting rifle. I know you are sensitive about the topic, and I suppose I need to reread everything I say in that light--I just thought what I said was clear in context. It has been my experience that TC Hawkens have been and are used in "pre-1840" events and have been since their introduction sometime in the late 60s/early 70s. The topic has come up so many times as to not need explanation.

 

[roundball]

Roundball, once again you have taken what I said in the wrong way

No, you're[url] mistaken...in[/url] fact my closing comment was that maybe it only happens at rondys.

I know you are sensitive about the topic

No, you're mistaken...I'm a factual individual and offered a different view based on different observations.

The topic has come up so many times as to not need explanation.

I couldn't agree more

:thumbsup:

 

Zonie,

I got to this topic a little late because I've been traveling a lot lately. Gray Wolf and Cooner are both knowledgeable on the subject of western fur trade guns and have added some good stuff above.

A few comments here:
1) It appears that percussion ignition started to trickle into the western fur trade first on pistols in the mid-1820s. Folks like Henry Deringer started making rifled, back-action percussion pistols around 1826 that were generally referred to at the time as 'Armstrong' pistols because he apparently made the first pair for a fellow named that. They were very popular and were copied by many up to the early 1850's. See Hanson's article on this in the Museum of the Fur Trade Quarterly (vol. 18 #1, pages 18-20). In addition, there were also a lot of cheap English and Belgian screw barrel cap guns imported. Citations for percussion rifles in the west start showing up around 1830-34, but westerners seem to have stuck more to their flint guns for these until the late 30's to mid 40's. Percussion NDN trade guns came along much later, and it was not until the 1850's that any real significant orders for caplock fusils start showing up.

2) On the Henry trade rifles. If I remember correctly, the Henry you mention in Garavaglia is the iron-mounted NC rifle that Gray Wolf Mentions and not a Henry. That gun was in the Smithsonian and I'm sure Charlie Hanson never saw it in person before he saw the picture. According to Don Stith it has a signature on the barrel of a Salem area smith, and if you look closely you can see the comb moldings and tear drop carved at the termination of the comb that give it away as an NC gun. There is a Henry English pattern in the Indian trade gun chapter near the back that represents a much more common western fur trade gun. These were second in numbers ordered behind the American or Lancaster pattern that Cooner mentions. Henry was the primary contractor for AFC after about 1830-31. Before that AFC contracted with a number of Lancaster makers like Henry Gibbs, Jacob Fordney, Jacob Dickert-Gill, and many others. Nearly all of these guns of all patterns were brass mounted. There's been a lot made over the years of the iron-mounted Henry rifle. Some have even postulated it as the forerunner to the iron mounted plains rifle. However, but it appears to have been something rare of a special order that was short lived. Hanson only found a handful of these orders in existing AFC records. No one really knows what these looked like, but they were likely similar to the guns they were already making like the Lancaster or English patterns.

3) The Lancaster pattern was the most popular, running at least 2 to 1 over the English. Examples of these can be seen in Hanson's Hawken book (Henry), Gunmakers of Lancaster (Gibbs, Gumpf, and others), Shumways Muzzleblasts articles Vol 1 (Henry, Gumpf, Fordney)

4)Guns used by western company men were no different than those ordered by the company for trading to NDNZ. Note, I use the term guns here because there were both rifles and fusils traded to both. In general, AFC tended to order guns of slightly larger bore size than most other groups like the NDN bureau. The bulk of their orders were right around .53 for rifles with a range of about .47-.55. The NDN bureau's guns guns probably averaged about .47-.49, and I've seen orders down to the .38 range. Of course these were all order in terms of gauge or balls per pound.

5) AFC was probably the biggest purveyor of firearms and other goods in St. Louis prior to the late 30's. Smaller independent firms like Ashley-Henry (and all of its later incarnations) appear to have bought at least some of their guns from them.

Hope that helps some.

Sean

 

Let's talk RMFT era Hawkens and the longrifles of that same are. The average Fur trade era Hawken had a barrel length of 37" - 39". The average longrifle had a barrel of 42" - 44".

Cliff,

Cooner's numbers for barrel length are right probably well into the 1850's. That man knows Hawkens and strives to build them correctly. I think the model of 36" or shorter comes a lot Kephart's early writings on Hawkens in the 1920-30's, which were based on a very late rifle he purchased in St. Louis in 1896. It was probably an 1860's era rifle with a 34" barrel which was on the short side. Look at Tom Tobin's gun which is much more representative but still well post-1840.
[url] http://www.muzzleblasts.com/archives/vol2no2/articles/mbo22_3.html[/url]

Oh, and I'm a hack at Hawken history compared to Cooner and Gray Wolf.

Sean

 

Howdy Sean - Here's some additional info...

There's been a lot made over the years of the iron-mounted Henry rifle. Some have even postulated it as the forerunner to the iron mounted plains rifle.

My considered opinion is that the iron mounted Henry's, which first came out in 1830, were in response to the iron mounted rifles that were already being used in the west i.e. Southern Mtn guns, Hawkens, and the English guns, rather than a precursor. Henry was a smart businessman and IMO more of a responder than an innovator (i.e his English model was a "copy" of the imported English trade rifles.)
About 1831 he also started selling half-stock rifles, which based on the companies records of sales of other models were most likely flint! (While a generally a good responder to the market Henry doesn't appear to have offered percussion models until around 1840.) By mid-1836 he was shipping these half-stocks on a regular basis. Sure would be nice to see what these looked like.

However, but it (iron mounted rifles) appears to have been something rare of a special order that was short lived. Hanson only found a handful of these orders in existing AFC records.

While Hanson states the iron mounted Henry's were only built from 1830-1834 other documentation says otherwise. On both the 1836 and 1837 rendezvous trade lists from the UMO (sent to rendezvous from Ft. Pierre rather than St Louis - Hanson did not include these records in his research, IMO a MAJOR faux paux that scews the facts), iron/steel mounted Henry rifles appear, these may have course been old stock.
But, in 1844 and again in 1846, T. J. Albright of St. Louis, ordered blued, iron mounted rifles from Henry. (page 51, Firearms of the American West: 1803-1865). Some of those rifles were half-stocks with walnut stocks and back action percussion locks.

No one really knows what these looked like, but they were likely similar to the guns they were already making like the Lancaster or English patterns.

What did the iron mounted Henry's look like - no one will know until an actual one is found or a period description pops up, but I've got a "feeling" that these may have been the progenitor to the Scroll Model English which appeared in 1834?

As to barrle lengths, all the major students (Serven, Barsotti, Hanson, et al) of the Hawken state the majority of them had barrel in the 38-40" lenth, but exceptions do exist. Two of the earliest Hawken in existence (see Baird, Hawken Rifles, the Mtn Man's Choice), have shorter barrels. One an early half-stock has a 33 5/16" barrel and the other a full stock has a 36" barrel. While IMO not as common as the longer barrels, shorter barrels are not completely unknown during the 1820-1830 period. The Harper's Ferry M1803 half-stock of course had originally a 33" barrel and the later version had a 36" barrel.

That's all for now - got some hides to stretch..

BTW - Sean - give me a shout some time - been a while since we palavered. Finally catching up on orders and am able to breath!

 

Hey Chuck,

Will do. My life's starting to settle down finally as well. Haven't had a day off in 3.5 months.

Don't have any of my sources handy at the moment, but the Quote Zonie originally posted above was Ramsey Crooks' answer to Henry's attempt to sell them percussion rifles in 1830. Henry did try to sell them different sorts of things. At one point he tried to market plain 'common smoothrifles' for $6.50 each to AFC in place of NW guns and Ramsey shot him down on that one too, say that it was too heavy compared to the NW gun.

As for the early Henry half stocks, I'm pretty sure the rifle we were discussing last year that I thought was a cut-down fullstock Lancaster was actually an original halfstock. There's a rifle with the same key estuchions, crude forend cap, and rib and muzzle treatment pictured in that 90's Henry booklet.

I'm guessing that the iron halfstock rifles ordered in 46-47 were like the Henry plains rifles in the Trade Rifle Sketchbook, but that is a speculation. That sort of rifle was definitely coming in vogue by then. I realize there are holes in Hanson's numbers from AFC records. He also doesn't include the rifles shipped to the Great Lakes area and there were substantial numbers of English and Lancasters sent to that front. My intention on saying the early iron-mounted guns were a rarity was based mostly on the numbers from existing orders. They were very small compared to the other patterns he was producing, but its still extrapolating from a sample. Need to look at the dates on that again, but I thought the last order Hanson showed for them going to the UMO was in like 1833 or so.

Buena suerta,

Sean

 

[Loren Schultz]

As a new member, I apologize if I'm taking this conversation off topic but information in this thread was what brought me to this forum. So here are my question(s).

I have been planning to build a flintlock rifle for a while now and yesterday I was in an antique store and came across a musket barrel that I decided to purchase for that reason.

The Barrel:
>Stamped manufacturers name: "J Fordney Lancaster PA"
>Octagon barrel - 37 7/8" long
>Caliber - .65 (According to the seller, most likely correct.)
>Smooth bore (Musket)
>Two iron ramrod thimbles. (Forward and middle.)
>Rear mounting tab missing. (Evidence of it's placement.)
>Breach plug currently loose but in good shape. (Someone removed the breach plug but did not force it back into place.) The tang has been broken at the mounting screw hole.
>Percussion drum and nipple present. Evidence of corrosive fowling over the right side of the barrel around the touch hole is obvious that the gun was converted from a flintlock to percussion at a later date.
>Visual inspection of the barrel tube looks good, clean.

I would like to reconstruct the musket around the barrel.

As I only have the barrel to go on, I have allot of needed planning to give this barrel it's proper care. Here are my questions.

1) The iron ramrod thimbles - Do these indicate that this might have been built as an "iron-mounted" gun? (This would indicate the direction I might go in it's reconstruction, i.e. brass or iron fittings.)

2) Do YOU think, I should retrofit the touch hole and rebuild it as a flintlock or retain the history of it's conversion to percussion?

By the information I've given on the barrel, what observations or knowledge might the readers here have to help me in this project?

Loren