Pre 1865 Buffalo Rifles

[OldRust]

What did they use ? History ? Who has one and what load do you shoot in it ? I'll start off with mine, a 50 caliber Shiloh Sharps 1863 Sporting Rifle. Many thanks to @Notchy Bob for suggesting this thread

Thanks,
O.R.

 

[Hermit Tim]

Nice rifle. I don't have anything like that so, if I went after buffler, which I would love to do, it would have to be New Englander 12 gauge with PRB or one of my half stock .50 rifles. Would someday like to add something like yours to the collection though. Sorry for no history info to share. Don't know much about that time period yet.

 

[2 shots]

What did they use ? History ? Who has one and what load do you shoot in it ? I'll start off with mine, a 50 caliber Shiloh Sharps 1863 Sporting Rifle. Many thanks to @Notchy Bob for suggesting this thread

Thanks,
O.R.

are you talking about professional hunters ? or the average guy?

 

[OldRust]

are you talking about professional hunters ? or the average guy?

My thoughts were to the professional and market hunters and longer range shots. The average guy would have used whatever he had for the meat.

The East Coast Buffalo, the Eastern Woodlands Bison I believe they were called were eliminated by the mid 1800's so I imagine the were even taken with smoothbore fowlers.

Thanks,
O.R.

 

[Notchy Bob]

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, @OldRust ! I think that other "buffalo rifle" thread must have been taken down by the moderators.

We know Hawken rifles were used for buffalo. Jim Bridger reportedly named his favorite Hawken "Old Bull Thrower." However, Hawkens have been pretty well covered, and there were a lot of other builders producing heavy rifles for plainsmen. I really like the looks of this one:



The rifle shown was made by William W. Hackney of Dayton, Ohio, likely in the 1850's. The seller's description indicated a 28-1/2" barrel in .54 caliber, which was considered a big bore back in those days. This rifle sold back in 2012 for $1,250. A Hawken in comparable condition would have probably brought twenty times that amount, or more, yet in my mind this old Hackney has everything you want to see in a plains rifle. If you browse the auctions online, you frequently find nice old plains rifles by some of the lesser known makers for under a thousand dollars. William Hackney's name may not be widely recognized now, but it probably should be.

George Kendall mentioned his rifle several times in his book, Narrative of the Texan Santa-Fe Expedition, published in 1844 and concerning events starting in 1841. This is from page 22:



Dickson was a very well-known and respected riflemaker in his day. The footnote, not shown here, indicates this rifle shot balls that ran 24 to the pound, which converts to .579" and likely meant a rifle of .60-.61 caliber. In this next quote (page 190), he describes this rifle's performance in hunting buffalo:


The "dogs" he described in that passage were prairie dogs. Kendall and his buddies were shooting them for amusement.

There is a wealth of information in the 19th century American frontier literature. Many people gave some detail regarding their firearms, and some of them, like Kendall, mentioned ball size, but I have found a lot less about patch material and powder charges. We will see what turns up!

Notchy Bob

 

[OldRust]

@Notchy Bob

Great post and reference, Thank you, I was really enjoying that Other Buffalo rifle thread knowing it was going to be taken down for its post 1865 type of rifle content.

I was sure Hawken’s were used, but not sure of what other types.

Thanks,
O.R.

 

[nkbj]

Several years back there was an original large flintlock rifle shown in a thread here on the forum that had been built for big critters. If I remember correctly it was about a .70 bore. It had long range peeps with the holes offset to compensate for lateral drift induced by the spin on the ball. Speculation was that it must have been set up for buffalo hunting.

 

[French Colonial]

My thoughts were to the professional and market hunters and longer range shots. The average guy would have used whatever he had for the meat.

The East Coast Buffalo, the Eastern Woodlands Bison I believe they were called were eliminated by the mid 1800's so I imagine the were even taken with smoothbore fowlers.

Thanks,
O.R.

The bison in the eastern states were the same as those on the plains, the wood bison's primary range was in Canada, from what I have read they evolved from the need to forage through layers of snow.

 

[dave951]

If you do a deep dive on buffalo hunting, you'll find that there were several time frames. Here's the "Cliff Notes"- There was buffalo hunting pre-Civil War and hunters used Hawken style rifles and others. There was a bit of a lull during the War of Northern Aggression. Post War, many went west to get away from the memories and Reconstruction. Buffalo hunting resumed in earnest with Civil War surplus guns and the southern herd was wiped out first. The northern herd was later and that was in the 1870-80s with the classic Sharps etc and similar cartridge rifles.

 

[French Colonial]

I posted this before and will again, great book and extensively documented. In the 1700's they shot bison with whatever rifle they happened to have at the time, lots of stories about shooting them and then having fun being chased waiting for them to expire.

https://www.amazon.com/Long-Hunt-De.../ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

[OldRust]

I posted this before and will again, great book and extensively documented. In the 1700's they shot bison with whatever rifle they happened to have at the time, lots of stories about shooting them and then having fun being chased waiting for them to expire.

https://www.amazon.com/Long-Hunt-De.../ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Thank you for reposting the info and book link. I just ordered one.

O.R.

 

[OldRust]

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, @OldRust ! I think that other "buffalo rifle" thread must have been taken down by the moderators.

We know Hawken rifles were used for buffalo. Jim Bridger reportedly named his favorite Hawken "Old Bull Thrower." However, Hawkens have been pretty well covered, and there were a lot of other builders producing heavy rifles for plainsmen. I really like the looks of this one:

View attachment 228211

The rifle shown was made by William W. Hackney of Dayton, Ohio, likely in the 1850's. The seller's description indicated a 28-1/2" barrel in .54 caliber, which was considered a big bore back in those days. This rifle sold back in 2012 for $1,250. A Hawken in comparable condition would have probably brought twenty times that amount, or more, yet in my mind this old Hackney has everything you want to see in a plains rifle. If you browse the auctions online, you frequently find nice old plains rifles by some of the lesser known makers for under a thousand dollars. William Hackney's name may not be widely recognized now, but it probably should be.

George Kendall mentioned his rifle several times in his book, Narrative of the Texan Santa-Fe Expedition, published in 1844 and concerning events starting in 1841. This is from page 22:

View attachment 228215

Dickson was a very well-known and respected riflemaker in his day. The footnote, not shown here, indicates this rifle shot balls that ran 24 to the pound, which converts to .579" and likely meant a rifle of .60-.61 caliber. In this next quote (page 190), he describes this rifle's performance in hunting buffalo:

View attachment 228216
The "dogs" he described in that passage were prairie dogs. Kendall and his buddies were shooting them for amusement.

There is a wealth of information in the 19th century American frontier literature. Many people gave some detail regarding their firearms, and some of them, like Kendall, mentioned ball size, but I have found a lot less about patch material and powder charges. We will see what turns up!

Notchy Bob

Interesting I have an mid 1800's I'm guessing, hunting rifle that was built around a Harpers Ferry designed 1817 Common Rifle barrel. They were a rifled .54 caliber and the gov inspector who stamped it only inspected in 1822. This is something that could have been carried to thin out the Buffalo or it could just be a parts gun built because of the usable parts available. If they could talk.
I was hoping to pin it to a general location by the Butt plate and trigger guard style but no luck as yet.

Thanks
O.R.

 

[Surfinator58]

I got my Navy arms 1863 Buffalo getter 58 caliber backed by 100 grains of 2f

 

[Absoroka]

The rifles ordered by the traders operating during the Rocky Mountain fur trade were calibrated at 30 to 35 balls to the pound with the average being around .53 caliber. These firearms took their fair share of buffalo during the period and were often made in what is referred to as the Henry patter.

 

[sheriff john]

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, @OldRust ! I think that other "buffalo rifle" thread must have been taken down by the moderators.

We know Hawken rifles were used for buffalo. Jim Bridger reportedly named his favorite Hawken "Old Bull Thrower." However, Hawkens have been pretty well covered, and there were a lot of other builders producing heavy rifles for plainsmen. I really like the looks of this one:

View attachment 228211

The rifle shown was made by William W. Hackney of Dayton, Ohio, likely in the 1850's. The seller's description indicated a 28-1/2" barrel in .54 caliber, which was considered a big bore back in those days. This rifle sold back in 2012 for $1,250. A Hawken in comparable condition would have probably brought twenty times that amount, or more, yet in my mind this old Hackney has everything you want to see in a plains rifle. If you browse the auctions online, you frequently find nice old plains rifles by some of the lesser known makers for under a thousand dollars. William Hackney's name may not be widely recognized now, but it probably should be.

George Kendall mentioned his rifle several times in his book, Narrative of the Texan Santa-Fe Expedition, published in 1844 and concerning events starting in 1841. This is from page 22:

View attachment 228215

Dickson was a very well-known and respected riflemaker in his day. The footnote, not shown here, indicates this rifle shot balls that ran 24 to the pound, which converts to .579" and likely meant a rifle of .60-.61 caliber. In this next quote (page 190), he describes this rifle's performance in hunting buffalo:

View attachment 228216
The "dogs" he described in that passage were prairie dogs. Kendall and his buddies were shooting them for amusement.

There is a wealth of information in the 19th century American frontier literature. Many people gave some detail regarding their firearms, and some of them, like Kendall, mentioned ball size, but I have found a lot less about patch material and powder charges. We will see what turns up!

Notchy Bob

I have a twin of that Hackney rifle. Mine, at one time, was fitted for a false muzzle. Probably the nicest rifle I own.

 

[brazosland]

There were buff on Long Island. At one time they were everywhere.

 

[Notchy Bob]

Here is an interesting old rifle I ran across while browsing the web. A .60 caliber slant-breech percussion Sharps!


Sixty caliber! This would have been a conical bullet, too, not a round ball... A massive projectile. A quick review of Frank Sellers' book, Sharps Firearms, indicates some M1853 carbines were produced in 26 bore (roughly .564 caliber), but 32 bore (approximately .526 caliber) was the largest available in the M1853 sporting rifles. However, I'm pretty sure the factory would rebore customers' rifles when needed.

This rifle was listed for sale by River Junction Trade Co. a few years ago. I don't know what it sold for. If you click that link, you will find several more photos and a good description of the rifle. I don't think they listed the weight, but I would be surprised if this old-timer would be much less than 14 pounds. The barrel is massive. We don't know its history, either, but if I had lived in the late 1850's and wanted to go after buffalo in a big way, a rifle like this would have been very desirable. I do think it is a hunting rifle, too, with those open sights.

I know Old Rust is interested primarily in professional hunters prior to 1865, but one class of people whom folks like us often ignore are settlers on the frontier... Individuals and families who went to the very edge of the civilized world to build their homes, plant grain, and raise livestock. Those who settled on the peripheries of the plains considered buffalo a resource to be harvested, and they would organize annual group hunts for the purpose of laying in a supply of meat, tallow, and hides for their personal use. You don't really see a lot about these 19th century pioneers, but I did find this interesting reference concerning the frontiersmen of northeast Texas. Here is a little of what John Hart had to say about those days:



As for their firearms, Mr. Hart said this:



"This was when the cap and ball rifles were used, and we had to get as near as eighty or a hundred years of them to get a shot." These folks were clearly not adventurers and sportsmen like George Kendall (see post #5). A description of their guns follows:





They were "making do" with the rifles they had, and home-made powder and caps. I thought the comment about pistols was also interesting. You don't hear much about those, and I don't think many of those country-made single-shot pistols survived. There is a lot more to read in the book: Pioneer Days in the Southwest from 1850 to 1879, by Goodnight, Dubbs, Hart, et al.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[Hermit Tim]

Here is an interesting old rifle I ran across while browsing the web. A .60 caliber slant-breech percussion Sharps!

View attachment 228489
Sixty caliber! This would have been a conical bullet, too, not a round ball... A massive projectile. A quick review of Frank Sellers' book, Sharps Firearms, indicates some M1853 carbines were produced in 26 bore (roughly .564 caliber), but 32 bore (approximately .526 caliber) was the largest available in the M1853 sporting rifles. However, I'm pretty sure the factory would rebore customers' rifles when needed.

This rifle was listed for sale by River Junction Trade Co. a few years ago. I don't know what it sold for. If you click that link, you will find several more photos and a good description of the rifle. I don't think they listed the weight, but I would be surprised if this old-timer would be much less than 14 pounds. The barrel is massive. We don't know its history, either, but if I had lived in the late 1850's and wanted to go after buffalo in a big way, a rifle like this would have been very desirable. I do think it is a hunting rifle, too, with those open sights.

I know Old Rust is interested primarily in professional hunters prior to 1865, but one class of people whom folks like us often ignore are settlers on the frontier... Individuals and families who went to the very edge of the civilized world to build their homes, plant grain, and raise livestock. Those who settled on the peripheries of the plains considered buffalo a resource to be harvested, and they would organize annual group hunts for the purpose of laying in a supply of meat, tallow, and hides for their personal use. You don't really see a lot about these 19th century pioneers, but I did find this interesting reference concerning the frontiersmen of northeast Texas. Here is a little of what John Hart had to say about those days:

View attachment 228496

As for their firearms, Mr. Hart said this:

View attachment 228497

"This was when the cap and ball rifles were used, and we had to get as near as eighty or a hundred years of them to get a shot." These folks were clearly not adventurers and sportsmen like George Kendall (see post #5). A description of their guns follows:

View attachment 228498

View attachment 228499

They were "making do" with the rifles they had, and home-made powder and caps. I thought the comment about pistols was also interesting. You don't hear much about those, and I don't think many of those country-made single-shot pistols survived. There is a lot more to read in the book: Pioneer Days in the Southwest from 1850 to 1879, by Goodnight, Dubbs, Hart, et al.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

I gotta get that book. Thanks for the info.

 

[Notchy Bob]

I have a twin of that Hackney rifle. Mine, at one time, was fitted for a false muzzle. Probably the nicest rifle I own.

That’s great, owning an original like that! If you are comfortable showing it on the forum, I’m sure a lot of us would enjoy seeing it in the Original Antique Firearm section. I know I would.

If you can enlarge that image of the Wm. Hackney rifle in my first post, you can see that about the last quarter inch of the barrel was turned round, for use with a precision straight starter. I doubt this open-sighted hunting rifle had a false muzzle, but having the very end of the octagonal barrel turned round to fit a precision straight starter like that was a very common feature on better quality mid-19th century “plains rifles,” including the plain ones intended for hunting. The old timers must have recognized some value in that. A false muzzle would have been yet another step up, for a really serious shooter.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[sheriff john]

That’s great, owning an original like that! If you are comfortable showing it on the forum, I’m sure a lot of us would enjoy seeing it in the Original Antique Firearm section. I know I would.

If you can enlarge that image of the Wm. Hackney rifle in my first post, you can see that about the last quarter inch of the barrel was turned round, for use with a precision straight starter. I doubt this open-sighted hunting rifle had a false muzzle, but having the very end of the octagonal barrel turned round to fit a precision straight starter like that was a very common feature on better quality mid-19th century “plains rifles,” including the plain ones intended for hunting. The old timers must have recognized some value in that. A false muzzle would have been yet another step up, for a really serious shooter.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

I misspoke, Bob. Mine is the same thing - turned round at the muzzle ,not a false muzzle. During the many years I've owned it, the original front sight was damaged. Although I still have the tubular "shade" portion, the base and elevated bead are not to be found since we moved to our farm in '04.

I'm severely challenged at posting photos, so that's not likely.