Mountain Man Rifle

[Dphar]

I almost beat you to it.
But I typed in too much info :hatsoff:

Dan

 

[matt denison]

...but GOOD info.

The topic is controversial to some people. I haven't gotten tired of it yet. There is much to learn, keep it coming.

 

[Rifleman1776]

There is a lot of myth involved with the rifles the MTN men used.

We can safely say that is a huge understatement. :shocked2:

I have a theory on what some of the Mtn. Men might have carried. But, I always get stomped on because it isn't written in some book.
Enneyhow, my theory is: the guys coming from the east to seek adventure in the mountains were poor. They carried what they could get. And, I theorize, some of those were left over Rev. war muskets. Brown Besses, Charlyvilles, etc. Very likely cut down for ease of carry. No doubt, they upgraded when they could afford to or were signed on by a trading company and equiped by the owners.
Just like today, they had what they could afford.

 

[cynthialee]

that makes alot of sense

looking at orders from a company in the 1800's only reflects purchases made by those privilaged enough to have the money to buy stuff
poor folks use what is available
granddads/dads old gun(s) that you inherit is alot cheeper than a new gun
pre modern era folks took care of things much better than we do in our modern throw it away culture

 

[LaBonte]

There is a lot of myth involved with the rifles the MTN men used.

We can safely say that is a huge understatement. :shocked2:

I have a theory on what some of the Mtn. Men might have carried. But, I always get stomped on because it isn't written in some book.
Enneyhow, my theory is: the guys coming from the east to seek adventure in the mountains were poor. They carried what they could get. And, I theorize, some of those were left over Rev. war muskets. Brown Besses, Charlyvilles, etc. Very likely cut down for ease of carry. No doubt, they upgraded when they could afford to or were signed on by a trading company and equiped by the owners.
Just like today, they had what they could afford.

Sounds good but maybe you should study the subject in a bit more depth. One not very mountain man was poor and two those that joined the companies (including the first 100 men hired by Ashley & Henry in 1822 which included Jed Smith, Jim Bridger, etc.) were supplied their firearms by the company as part of their contract - they did not have to trade for them and Company men (whether HBC, AMFco, Ashley/ Henry. etc.)were by far the most common member of th fur trade.

 

[matt denison]

There is a lot of myth involved with the rifles the MTN men used.

We can safely say that is a huge understatement. :shocked2:

I have a theory on what some of the Mtn. Men might have carried. But, I always get stomped on because it isn't written in some book.
Enneyhow, my theory is: the guys coming from the east to seek adventure in the mountains were poor. They carried what they could get. And, I theorize, some of those were left over Rev. war muskets. Brown Besses, Charlyvilles, etc. Very likely cut down for ease of carry. No doubt, they upgraded when they could afford to or were signed on by a trading company and equiped by the owners.
Just like today, they had what they could afford.

And now there is another one, that mountain men carried any ol' thing including Brown Besses et;al.

All of the research and books and hundreds of hours spent researching orders and manifests and conversations with other knowledgable historians wasted. The whole thread went from what they probably carried to what they possibly carried.

Anything goes I guess. The end.

 

[LaBonte]

With respect to Mr. Garby but his article appears to be not as researched as implied - If he had not mentioned Leman I'd be more impressed but the fact is Lemans' have little evidence of having been used in the western fur trade prior to 1840. Hawkens on the other hand appear in the western fur trade literature as early as 1828-29 and despite "common" knowledge there were more Hawkens used in the west sent to rendezvous than some think - in at least one year they in fact outnumber the Henry's and others being offered for trade.
I'll try and offer more on Hawkens and percussions in the west. For instance - percussion guns showed up in Taos/Santa Fe long before the 1840's - that quote is one of those that needs to be heavily cross referenced. Jed Smith's pistols for instance, both percussion, were offered for trade after his death in the Santa Fe/Taos area as early as 1831

 

[LaBonte]

There is a lot of myth involved with the rifles the MTN men used.

We can safely say that is a huge understatement. :shocked2:

I have a theory on what some of the Mtn. Men might have carried. But, I always get stomped on because it isn't written in some book.
Enneyhow, my theory is: the guys coming from the east to seek adventure in the mountains were poor. They carried what they could get. And, I theorize, some of those were left over Rev. war muskets. Brown Besses, Charlyvilles, etc. Very likely cut down for ease of carry. No doubt, they upgraded when they could afford to or were signed on by a trading company and equiped by the owners.
Just like today, they had what they could afford.

And now there is another one, that mountain men carried any ol' thing including Brown Besses et;al.

All of the research and books and hundreds of hours spent researching orders and manifests and conversations with other knowledgable historians wasted. The whole thread went from what they probably carried to what they possibly carried.

Anything goes I guess. The end.

Matt - while there are records of the Brown Bess being carried in the west (Manuela Lisa for one and an Iroquois Indian per the MOFT for another). I agree that the whole "coulda" carried it is specious unless one has documentation to support. Just like in a court of law - you either have proof or you don't. Speculation is a good thing up to a point - i.e. as an hypothesis, but bonafide facts have more weight when considered properly.

Dan - I agree that Firearms of the American West 1830-1865 is a good resources, but some info is a bit dated. Gunsmoke and Saddle Leather: Firearms in the Nineteenth-Century American West by co-author of that book, Charles Worman, is an upgraded version of the original with lots of info as well. I recommend it highly..........

 

[Rod Lassey]

As long as we're adding to the reading list, don't forget the Encyclopedia of Trade Goods: Firearms of the Fur Trade, from the Museum of the Fur Trade. It'll be the book that is referred to for years to come.

http://www.furtrade.org/store/books?product_id=124

Rod

 

[Rifleman1776]

those that joined the companies (including the first 100 men hired by Ashley & Henry in 1822 which included Jed Smith, Jim Bridger, etc.) were supplied their firearms by the company as part of their contract

That's part of what I said.
You are ignoring that these guys came from many hundreds of miles east before joining a company. Unlikely they traveled unarmed. If they carried a gun from the east then were issued one by the company, their first one had to go somewhere. To a freetrapper perhaps? Or kept as a second gun?
Records are only one source of info. These guys did not have to fill out 4473s. Just like today, no record is kept of private sales. Do you know who or what I sold recently? Do you know what is in my house? I stand by my belief that left over war muskets were a big possibility in the mountains.

 

[crockett]

Actually, I'm not sure that is correct. Clyman speaks of rounding up a crew from the grog shops in St. Louis and most of them didn't own a gun or know the first thing about outdoor life. These "Newbies" usually worked as camp keepers- watching the stock animals, cooking the meals, working on stretching/fleshing beaver pelts, etc. If they stayed a second year they may then start working as a trapper or under the watchful eye of an experienced trapper. There were a lot of folks from all walks of life. The "Hunters from Kentucky" and the French or French/Indian Metis were greatly admired as expert woodsmen. In addition to the big fur companies there were small parties- say 10-20 trappers and in most of those small outfits the men carried personally owned firearms and tended to already be experienced woodsmen.
Getting back to the Hawken, first a lot of today's folks thought every mountain man had one and then attitudes swung too far the other way in the respect that folks thought there were NO Hawkens in the mountains pre-1840. One big problem on the Hawken is not whether they were being made pre-1840 but where did they go? Did they go to the mountains or to a closet in a Trading Post along the Missouri River?
If I was to wander afield this fall amongst today's deer hunters there would be Remington Bolt actions, semi-autos, Savage Bolt actions, Browning bolt actions, Marlin and Winchester lever actions, and some Weatherbys. If I found out the Weatherbys were very expensive would I then say they aren't a viable rifle? Only owned by the rich and famous? What about one of the more expensive Browning rifles? Even if the Hawken was only one out of 20, or less- that doesn't mean it isn't a viable choice if someone happens to like the style.
One arm no one has mentioned- double barrel shotgun- is mentioned in several diaries/journals. There were also swivel guns- a rifle with an over/under barrel. I think Bridger for a short time used one but they were heavier than h#!!.
On the Hawken, if memory serves me correctly, it is fair to say Provost and Ashley had one before 1840 while Carson and Bridger acquired their Hawken rifles after 1840. They definately became more common after 1840.

 

[Dphar]

October Country has a version they call a Liver Eating Johnson rifle and a deluxe version. I have no firsthand experience with them, but they reviewed very well in Muzzleloader magazine in the last year. Both have 32" barrels.

Here's an insight for you: I have a 58 cal GRRW Hawken that's awfully close to the originals. It has a 36" barrel tapered from 1 1/8" to 1" at the muzzle. It's wonderfully accurate and well balanced, but a tank to carry in the field at 12 pounds.

But their "Johnson" rifle only barely resembles Johnson's Hawken.

But they make them to sell or may not be able to see the difference. This is more common that some might think.

Johnson's rifle is very much like Bridger's late S Hawken.

It is impossible to buy a proper Hawken from one of the places that make semi-production guns and few custom makers make them right since they generally use the wrong precarved stocks and (wrong) available buttplates. Its barely possible to buy a good buttplate except maybe from Don Stith. I have not seen his first hard but they look right and they are from originals.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

There is a lot of myth involved with the rifles the MTN men used.

We can safely say that is a huge understatement. :shocked2:

I have a theory on what some of the Mtn. Men might have carried. But, I always get stomped on because it isn't written in some book.
Enneyhow, my theory is: the guys coming from the east to seek adventure in the mountains were poor. They carried what they could get. And, I theorize, some of those were left over Rev. war muskets. Brown Besses, Charlyvilles, etc. Very likely cut down for ease of carry. No doubt, they upgraded when they could afford to or were signed on by a trading company and equiped by the owners.
Just like today, they had what they could afford.

And now there is another one, that mountain men carried any ol' thing including Brown Besses et;al.

All of the research and books and hundreds of hours spent researching orders and manifests and conversations with other knowledgable historians wasted. The whole thread went from what they probably carried to what they possibly carried.

Anything goes I guess. The end.

Matt - while there are records of the Brown Bess being carried in the west (Manuela Lisa for one and an Iroquois Indian per the MOFT for another). I agree that the whole "coulda" carried it is specious unless one has documentation to support. Just like in a court of law - you either have proof or you don't. Speculation is a good thing up to a point - i.e. as an hypothesis, but bonafide facts have more weight when considered properly.

Dan - I agree that Firearms of the American West 1830-1865 is a good resources, but some info is a bit dated. Gunsmoke and Saddle Leather: Firearms in the Nineteenth-Century American West by co-author of that book, Charles Worman, is an upgraded version of the original with lots of info as well. I recommend it highly..........

Its pretty hard for the account of "Old Blackfoot" or the accounts written by Army officers to be "dated". Though the authors miss a few things overall the books are necessary for a study of the firearms of the west. Unless Worman included ALL the quotes, journal excerpts, photos (like the single trigger Hawken plains rifle) etc from the previous books then they are all needed.
I don't have the one you mention. Something else to add to the "I need this list".

Probably somewhere behind some curly maple for a current project (the front 1/2 is about done) and

:shocked2: pickup tires

and a number of other books I should have...
Book buying... It never ends...
Dan

 

[jdkerstetter]

....Its barely possible to buy a good buttplate except maybe from Don Stith. I have not seen his first hard but they look right and they are from originals.

For what it's worth, I have seen Don's parts first hand right next to an original Hawken, and they are right.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Rod Lassey]

Good photo of Johnston's rifle---I was just in Cody last Sunday, and I think I took an identical pic :haha:

TH, the deluxe rifle from October Country looks nice, and would be a decent version of a Plains-type rifle, but it's no Hawken. If anything, the general lines and nosecap are reminiscent of some of the 1850s rifles offered by Henry. The $1600 price tag will make a person think twice. For just $100 more, I recently got a custom made copy of a Deringer from the 1810-20 era, that's correct for the fur trade. The Pedersoli Hawken is also a nice rifle, a friend owns one and is happy with it, but as others have noted it's not a true Hawken copy, and would be better suited for the 1850s. A bit late for the 'classic' fur trade---although the fur trade didn't just shut down in 1840, either----but it wouldn't fall under the 1820-40 rule (who made that up, anyway?).

Keep your eye on the classified ads on this site, a friend of mine picked up a good used 1792 Contract rifle for less than the cost of parts. Don't be in too big of a hurry, save your money and choose wisely.

Rod

 

[Dphar]

those that joined the companies (including the first 100 men hired by Ashley & Henry in 1822 which included Jed Smith, Jim Bridger, etc.) were supplied their firearms by the company as part of their contract

That's part of what I said.
You are ignoring that these guys came from many hundreds of miles east before joining a company. Unlikely they traveled unarmed. If they carried a gun from the east then were issued one by the company, their first one had to go somewhere. To a freetrapper perhaps? Or kept as a second gun?
Records are only one source of info. These guys did not have to fill out 4473s. Just like today, no record is kept of private sales. Do you know who or what I sold recently? Do you know what is in my house? I stand by my belief that left over war muskets were a big possibility in the mountains.

Have you ever hunting in the west with a Musket or a trade gun? Its a good way to be hungry unless you can ride into a buffalo herd and shoot one at 5-10 feet.
Aside from being hopelessly inaccurate, the problem with the musket is that it shoots a ball that weighs at least twice what a plains rifle ball does and is useless much past 60 yards IN THE DAY. Where as the plains rifle could and did kill big game at ranges to 200 yards.
180 rounds of 54 rifle balls weighs about 6 pounds. 180 rounds of 65-66 caliber musket balls weighs over 11 pounds. But the heavier ball is LESS effective.
J.J. Henry in 1775 tells us he carried 70 balls in his pouch enroute to Quebec. His rifle was under 50 caliber so he had about 1 1/2 - 1 3/4 pounds of lead at the time of the description. If he had 70 rounds of musket balls he would would have almost 4 1/2 pounds of lead alone. The difference is equal to a decent blanket.

The best defense against the natives on the plains was to keep them beyond bow and trade gun range. Its hard to do this with a gun that is no more accurate than the trade gun.
Just because Lisa had a Brown Bess is no recommendation for general use. Lisa was not the boss not a trapper and its possible he could not shoot well enough to use a rifle.
The idea that everyone had a smoothbore so it was somehow better that the rifle stems to some extent from all the smoothbores in the east.

But we have to remember that having a militia gun was REQUIRED. So the townies and others with no other need for a firearm used the cheapest muskets and light fowlers since this with a pound or two of powder and the required shot, almost never came out of the closet.
People with rifles or other guns of any value often HID THEM since at times the local militia confiscated all firearms for militia use.
The people on the FRONTIER in colonial times had to contend with RIFLE ARMED natives after the 1730s-40s. It is impossible to counter rifle armed people with a smoothbore. ESPECIALLY if inside a stockade with people outside with rifles. (Think George Rogers Clark at Vincennes).
In the west the Natives with (usually) trade guns suffered extremely lopsided casualty rates when the tried to shoot it out in a static fight with the rifle armed trappers. The western natives were not good shots compared to the Delaware and some of the other eastern tribes who started using the rifle well before the F&I War.
So if you are out on the plains

faced with people with shortranged weapons who want to shoot you full of arrows then maybe cut you into chunks and your only hope is to keep them far enough away to keep them from lobbing arrows in while lying prone(Custer found this out the hard way) or killing you or your horse with a trade gun was to keep them out at 150 yards+ would a musket be a good choice?
It would not be mine.
People today do not look at it from the standpoint of a poor choice killing them. Thats what happened in the west (and the east for that matter) long after the Mtn Man era. You make bad choices, you make a mistake you may not come home. Poor choices killed people in DROVES in some cases.
The early ARMY expeditions to the west, L&C and Zebulon Pike used RIFLES as their primary arms since they had to FEED themselves. If in a Fort with supplies/supply system this was not so important and many of these relied on civilian hunters for fresh meat in later periods.
Everyone knew the Musket was really only good for use on a battlefield with linear tactics against other Musket armed armies.
In the civilian world it was too inaccurate and/or used too much lead and powder for what it would do.

Dan

 

[Rifleman1776]

Good discussion. And from all this we can conclude...
I'm not as well versed as most here on this subject and will continue on as ignorantly and blithley as I have for a long time.
My later in life reenacted persona and some fiction I have written has the character saying he left his Rev. period, small caliber, longrifle back east with relatives and picked up a large caliber shorter rifle, a Jaeger, when he crossed the Big Muddy to settle in the west.
BTW, I remember the days when Mtn. Men reenactors were hardly let into the circle unless they had a Hawken. Today it is smoothbores.