My Hawken

[Stillwater]

I don't like the term weapon to describe a rifle, a pistol, or any other firearm, either...

Your aunt Matildas hat pin, just holds her hat on her head, until someone touches her inappropriately, then it becomes a weapon...



Bill

 

[Roadking65]

Hey there!
Nice looking rifle! I too own a "TC Hawken". Just bought it used about 2 weeks ago. I found I like the traditional looking (however maybe not original) rifles over the modern in lines.

I never thought I'd like BP, but I bought a pietta reproduction (Gasp) Cabela's .36 Cal 1858 Remmington pistol. Intending to get a Kurst coversion and shoot cowboy matches. I went ahead and purchased the BP started kit, bought some goex FFF from BassPro. When I fired it I was like "COOL" Funny how you can get hooked so easily. I own several centerfire pistols and rifles and they don't compare!

My wife shoots and Hunts and has more and better guns than I do. She owns a .44 Cal rifle (it being the largest caliber that was in the house at the time). When I showed her the .50 she was like Damn now I don't own the biggest! I told her she could get a .54 Cal, I saw the gears turning in her mind! I have a feeling this is going to lead to a world of fun I never thought of !!

 

[Rifleman1776]

I never did understand why TC called them a "Hawken".

Marketing, plain and simple.
Seems to have worked.

 

[Dphar]

6,888 posts in 27 months to snipe at a guy with a TC Hawken? Are you trying to make up for the 72 years you missed out!? Well, one of my Hawkens is a TC. That's right. And one of them isn't, too...

TC never made a Hawken rifle, they just appropriated the name for advertising reasons. They desperately needed some name recognition.

So while you may have a TC its not a Hawken. It is impossible to make a true Hawken on a production basis. The shaping is too complex and subtle.
So there are no mass produced Hawkens. Years ago a copy of the J&S Hawken owned by the Montana Historical Society done by a VERY skilled maker was sent to Italy to be reproduced. We were waiting for the rifles to hit the market. Except the Italians was not capable of making the rifle. Basically the simply could/would not do it.
So when we see a mass produced "Hawken" no matter who makes it or how its duded up its still just a generic 1/2 stock rifle.
BTW the classic 1/2 stock Hawken grew out of the English Sporting rifle of the 1800-1840 period. Aside from the American features, crescent butt, long tangs and DSTs the Hawken is a dead ringer for a Manton 1/2 stock FL sporting rifle of the late flint/early percussion era. The scroll "Hawken" trigger guard, for example, is English, not American.

Dan

 

[Alden]

6,888 posts in 27 months to snipe at a guy with a TC Hawken? Are you trying to make up for the 72 years you missed out!? Well, one of my Hawkens is a TC. That's right. And one of them isn't, too...

TC never made a Hawken rifle... So while you may have a TC its not a Hawken...

Dan

Whew, lucky for me it's not a T/C then. This particular Hawken of mine, one of my Hawkens I own, is the CVA Mountain Rifle version. Made in St. Louis, Spain. It is an unassuming place I hear tell. Oh, wait -- it may be my TOTW Kit Carsen Hawken Rifle or was it Jim Bridger's!?
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/List/Item.aspx/615/1

You guys just keep stepping right into that bear trap, don't ya? If you didn't hold your nose so high you could probably see what you're sticking your foot into.

Dan, seriously, even though I'm chiding you and I dismiss out of hand that a more literal Hawken could not be made by the reproduction industry in Italy (and in Spain once upon a time) with some different minor nuances ludites everywhere can put on a pedestal (for the moment), we all get and I appreciate your point and award you points for technicality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go shoot my derringer, or is that Deringer. LOL

Later Dan!

 

[Alden]

I guess I better not post a picture of my Kentucky rifle... A traditions kentucky rifle that is :blah:

Uh oh. Oh no! Did you say KENTUCKY rifle? As in a CVA!? Slowly I turned, step by step...

 

[Kentuckywindage]

So this morning I woke up nice and early while it was cool out and with my regular load of 110gr Goex 2f, .020" patch and home cast .562" round ball, I went out to 100 yards. Its been well over a week since I last shot the gun and of course I did not have a 6" bulls eye target with me, only a 3" which was a real pain to use with my thick front sight. Although I think I will use that 3" target the next time out from now on as accuracy kicked rear end.

100 yards.

First 2 shots were to the lower left with moose milk lubed patches squeezed out tightly, the next hole you see in the black is again, moose milk patches soaked and then LIGHTLY squeezed between my fingers. This amount of lube on the patch left a white milky look in the bore after seating the ball.

That HOLE is actually 3 shots.

I think its safe to say, this 58 Hawken loves a slightly damp patch. No swabbing at all.


When I got back, I cleaned the rifle and then had to make a trip into town. I found some birchwood casey perma blue gun paste and man that stuff works awesome! I only applied 4 coats over my worn off bluing and its a deep rich black, almost looks like something off my old tc renegades.

 

[Patocazador]

I did not have a 6" bulls eye target with me, only a 3" which was a real pain to use with my thick front sight. Although I think I will use that 3" target the next time out from now on as accuracy kicked rear end.

When I first shot a qualifying round for the Sheriff's Dept., a deputy told me to tape an aspirin to the center of the silhouette target. That little white dot shrank my groups to the size of a teacup. A small target catches your eye and causes you to focus on a tighter area. It's a good tactic.

 

[Adui]

When I first shot a qualifying round for the Sheriff's Dept., a deputy told me to tape an aspirin to the center of the silhouette target. That little white dot shrank my groups to the size of a teacup. A small target catches your eye and causes you to focus on a tighter area. It's a good tactic.

:shocked2:

I dont think I could SEE that aspirin even at under 25 yards.. Guess Im going blind

 

[Alden]

I tried taping an aspirin to my last deer but he wouldn't let me get close enough, so, undaunted...

...I built an air gun that would propel an adhesive-gummed aspirin onto the deer at up to 50 meters.

I can nail them with the aspirin every time right where I'm aiming within 2 MOA at that range. But once I do they won't give me the time to pick up my real gun and shoot that aspirin!!!

Now what do I do!?

 

[Patocazador]

Funny comment. I never tried it on a deer

If you're familiar with a silhouette target, you know it's big and black and it looks like you can't miss. Without an aiming spot the shots tend to scatter all over. A small white dot gets your concentration just as a 3" target would tend to shrink your groups over a 6" target.

 

[Bon Sauvage]

Try replacing the front sight with your adhesive gummed aspirin.

 

[BriR]

I've got a J&S Hawken built by John Bergmann from parts made by Don Stith. Don copied the parts from his original. Having owned a couple of "Hawkens" previously and knowing I'd never own an original, I was not going to be happy until I owned a "real" Hawken. My Stith/Bergmann Hawken is as close as I"ll ever come. In fact, other than being made by someone other than Jake and Sam - and with modern steel- it is a Hawken. But, I still like shooting and hunting with my T/C "Hawken" with .58 GM barrel.

 

[Dphar]

Dan, seriously, even though I'm chiding you and I dismiss out of hand that a more literal Hawken could not be made by the reproduction industry in Italy (and in Spain once upon a time) with some different minor nuances ludites everywhere can put on a pedestal (for the moment), we all get and I appreciate your point and award you points for technicality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go shoot my derringer, or is that Deringer. LOL

Later Dan!

Look its ALL about the aesthetics. Something that is obviously lost on many.
One may, for example, take a made in Japan "Ultra-Hi" "kentucky" and file off all the markings on the barrel, buy a set of 1/8" letter stamps and put J. Dickert on the barrel but this will not make it look like a Dickert or any other Moravian/Lancaster rifle of the period.
One can mark a cheap Belgium made shotgun of 1890 "Westly Richards" (as was done with various spellings of various famous makers names) to fool the gullible. But it will not make it a Westley Richards in form OR function. This is what occurred with the Hawken name.
So far as the Italians and the J&S Hawken. Sure there are gunstockers that work in Italy that could surely stock a Hawken properly if given the right parts and a rifle to use as a model. But at WHAT COST? I was privy to what occurred WHEN IT OCCURRED. I KNOW what happened. We were all disappointed because we were hoping for something that would sell for perhaps 50% more than the butt ugly (from the standpoint of the first 1/2 of the 19th c., they look OK compared to a Model 70 Win/700 Rem what they are meant to mimic) reproductions everyone was buying at Wal-Mart. But it was not to be.
The TC and the other mass produced MLs were intended to appeal to the mass market. As a result they are stocked similar to what the average bolt gun shooter is used to. They have similar balance because thats what the target customer was used to. So they look and handle more like a modern bolt gun than a early 19th c American rifle. But they needed a name recognition so they used "Hawken". Now, with the advent of the plastic stocks and other "improvements" to "muzzle loaders" these abominations are thought to be "traditional". Something they were not considered to be when they hit the market.

For the aesthetically challenged? Well if one cannot tell a 55 Buick from a 2013 Ferrari this is not my problem.

Dan

 

[GreyWhiskers]

Dan, was it the stock that couldn't be reproduced? You'd think that a stock duplicating machine couldn't be fooled. GW

 

[Dphar]

Dan, was it the stock that couldn't be reproduced? You'd think that a stock duplicating machine couldn't be fooled. GW

This was over 30 years ago, frighteningly close to 40 I suspect, would have to get the old Buckskin Reports out to refresh my brain cells. Yes, the stock shaping was the hang up and likely the breech. TRADITIONAL MLs. The GOOD ones are too complex for most stock shaping machines. THEN, if the machine cuts it right who will sand them without screwing them up? If you doubt this look at an ORIGINAL Gibbs LR rifle then look at the Pedersoli "Gibbs".
Doing it right will add HOURS to the process if not a day. It takes a lot of time to properly finish sand a stock and not muddy up the lines. Mass production does not allow this. Firearms designed since about 1860 are DESIGNED to need little shaping. Look at a Henry or Winchester compared to a 1874 Sharps that is an 1850s design at the basic level. Then actually hold in your hands a good kentucky, even a late one like John Armstrong or a Hawken that is not beat all to heck or the edges all worn off. Even an early wide butt kentucky is a work of art unless its a blacksmith restock from 1835...
Better yet a Vincent Ohio rifle with the sharp radius lock panels. These simply cannot be done with a machine. The is a decent reproduction of a Vincent that routinely beats me in matches.

But most people in MLing don't really know what they are looking at and someone buying his first ML at a Wal-mart or pawn shop?
But come to some web site and tell people their gun is improperly shaped and they go on the offense or start talking about how good it shoots.
This rifle weighs 17 3/4 pounds. It REALLY shoots, far better than I can see.

The barrel alone cost $425. But it does not look clunky or oversized. In fact its the same depth in front of the lock mortise as a good Hawken copy I own with a barrel .250" smaller.

Now I understand people not being able to buy high end rifles. However, it is possible to buy a pretty nice rifle for 1000 or less at times. There is a pretty darned nice rifle on the American Longrifles for sale forum right now for 950. 1500 will often get a really nice rifle. If we look at what it costs to buy a tank of gas....

People look at Mls as some sort of superfluous toy. To me I see them as serious firearms that I use for serious purposes.
I enjoy looking at nice Kentucky's or a good Hawken for that matter. I look at is from the standpoint that life is too short to shoot ugly MLs.

Dan

 

[GreyWhiskers]

Good post. I didn't doubt you about the problem of duplicating certain rifles. It just seems like today's hi tech stuff could do it.

And I wonder, if somebody mass-produced a half way decent copy of a Hawken or Lancaster, what would people be willing to spend on it? GW

 

[Kentuckywindage]

Pedersoli Missouri Hawken looks pretty darn good to me. Love the 1:24 twist as well, perfect conical shooter.

 

[Alden]

Aw, come'on Kentucky, there just no WAY the Italian or Japanese reproduction arms industry could reproduce a 150 year old rifle. Here, let me convince you by saying it in detail...

They couldn't possibly reproduce the special lock, stock, or barrel of an original Hawken -- it would be too difficult and expensive. No-one would ever pay good money for a Pedersoli or Miroku rifle...

:rotf:

Of course this is nonsense. Maybe it was true 40 years ago but who knows. Who cares. We got out of polyester suits and the Arab Oil Embargo of the time too. Welcome to the 21st C.

 

[Dphar]

Aw, come'on Kentucky, there just no WAY the Italian or Japanese reproduction arms industry could reproduce a 150 year old rifle. Here, let me convince you by saying it in detail...

They couldn't possibly reproduce the special lock, stock, or barrel of an original Hawken -- it would be too difficult and expensive. No-one would ever pay good money for a Pedersoli or Miroku rifle...

:rotf:

Of course this is nonsense. Maybe it was true 40 years ago but who knows. Who cares. We got out of polyester suits and the Arab Oil Embargo of the time too. Welcome to the 21st C.

Heh! Heh! Heh!
BTW the Italians, for the most part cannot (or would not) make an accurate reproduction of a Colt SA or Colt Percussion revolver in most cases. Though by now they may have made more accurate moulds. I used to do repair and other work on these as well both repos and originals.
I don't suppose most people know that the Shiloh Sharps is not a true copy of a Sharps, at least when I worked for them? This was intentional. But then one would have to know where to look I guy or understand what you are looking at. Did you know that Pedersoli copied the Shiloh not an original even down to the intentional "error"?
To understand the reason the Italians would not/could not make an ACCURATE copy of a J&S Hawken one would have to be informed on how guns are acutally made and why or a gunstocker or a somewhat better informed than the average "ML enthusiast" or perhaps with a better eye for detail. Because everything mentioned here is in the details. To some at least they are irrelevant.
Especially is someone's sacred cow is being gored.

To others the rifle is either right or its not. This can be a minor change like the Italian revolvers and the Sharps that does not really mean much (except the Italian Colts did not point the same) or it can be a deal breaker as in a rifle with a 19th c name stocked like a mid-20th c breechloader done by people who saw this as right for people who either did not know any better, did not care or both.

Miroku? Ahh the memories...
I suggest We dig out the Feb and April 1976 Buckskin Report (I just did). Read the letter to the Editor written by Don Lamotte. Its reproduced in the April issue in connection with another "Ultra-Hi" firearm featured in a product report with a 2 piece barrel and other custom features, like the arc welded tang and arc welded underlugs. So far as I know all the Ultra-Hi stuff was Miroku. At least the one Lamotte wrote about was so marked. There were a number of horror stories associated with people importing junk around the time of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution. Selling it as rifles like the Minute Men used or as Brown Bess Muskets (same gun). But you needed to be involved in ML at the time. Subscribing to the Buckskin Report was also necessary since little if any of this saw print in Muzzle Blasts, nothing at all in the modern gun press. I spent a lot of time in the Buckskin Report office, sometimes working sometimes in conversation with John or later Dave. I saw and heard a lot about popular factory mades that would gore more cows.
I think before we start name dropping some might want to do some actual research.

I have a friend who started making MLs in the 1950s. Top of the line maker of the 60s into the 80s.

I was talking to him a month or so ago and he commented on how a customer, as soon as he got the rifle in his hands, know more about it than the guy who built it. Instant experts. They had a ML so they were then experts on MLing. How ignorant they were in reality was something else again.
Dan