-
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
T/C Arms?
- Thread starter Halftail
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
gmww
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 4,693
- Reaction score
- 4
Thanks for the Link Musketman. I know you weren't slamming T/C. Your comment got me thinking about how the different companies have affected our sport. I must say despite the fact that T/C Hawkens don't meet the true Hawken line they sure did a lot for ML. Of all companies out there Lyman, Traditions, CVA, ect. T/C is the one that I read most about. Not to mention their Lifetime Warrantee!
T/C seems to be the choice of many for an entry level gun into this fine sport. I've never owned a T/C ML but I just might if not for anything else but to have a handy meat gun laying around. :thumbsup: Sure like to get my hands on one of their old .45's. At a good price of course.
T/C seems to be the choice of many for an entry level gun into this fine sport. I've never owned a T/C ML but I just might if not for anything else but to have a handy meat gun laying around. :thumbsup: Sure like to get my hands on one of their old .45's. At a good price of course.
FWIW, that's one source I can't/won't read...there seems to be a history of financial motivation for articles, making it impossible for me to know what has credibility and what doesn't...Musketman said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Pittsburghunter
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 39
It is sad to say that I too take what he writes with a grain of salt. If he ain't getting money from them they are junk. I use Fadala for reference only now.
Walks Alone
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2005
- Messages
- 923
- Reaction score
- 8
:thumbsup: roundball and Pittsburghunter... for the same reasons and more.
As a serious TC Contender user myself getting my first one in 1969 (and also going into the gun business by about 1972), I believe they first entered the public world as a MFG of firearms with the release of the Contender a couple of years before I got my first one (not 1965 as per that article clip). Fjestad also published 1967 as the first production date in his 26th blue book BTW.
As far as the TC muzzleloaders, Norte says in his BP Guide (1969) that at the time he was writing it, TC was "an investment casting firm of considerable repute in the process of developing its first firearm", the Contender, and that "FOLLOWING that item's success", they designed and produced their first muzzle loader - the Hawken Rifle. I have no way of knowing how long it took Norte to write before publishing in 1969, but by his statement the first BP rifle must have been released sometime between the Contender in 1967 and publication in 1969 (or possibly even later) I presume. "Later" because my copy of his book is a 1976 2nd edition that may have been updated.
Obviously, everything published on this topic is not correct, and with the factory fire where records were lost even TC's CS manager (Tim Pancurak) may not try to venture a firm answer.
None of this is documented fact for sure, but I trust what I remember as about right from my own experience and these two sources far more than I do the writings of RW.
IMO - YMMV - FWM
As a serious TC Contender user myself getting my first one in 1969 (and also going into the gun business by about 1972), I believe they first entered the public world as a MFG of firearms with the release of the Contender a couple of years before I got my first one (not 1965 as per that article clip). Fjestad also published 1967 as the first production date in his 26th blue book BTW.
As far as the TC muzzleloaders, Norte says in his BP Guide (1969) that at the time he was writing it, TC was "an investment casting firm of considerable repute in the process of developing its first firearm", the Contender, and that "FOLLOWING that item's success", they designed and produced their first muzzle loader - the Hawken Rifle. I have no way of knowing how long it took Norte to write before publishing in 1969, but by his statement the first BP rifle must have been released sometime between the Contender in 1967 and publication in 1969 (or possibly even later) I presume. "Later" because my copy of his book is a 1976 2nd edition that may have been updated.
Obviously, everything published on this topic is not correct, and with the factory fire where records were lost even TC's CS manager (Tim Pancurak) may not try to venture a firm answer.
None of this is documented fact for sure, but I trust what I remember as about right from my own experience and these two sources far more than I do the writings of RW.
IMO - YMMV - FWM
whitetaildg
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 0
Roundball,
What number did T/C start with on the barrels for a S/N number and were the first stocks really pronounced with the drop?
W.T.
What number did T/C start with on the barrels for a S/N number and were the first stocks really pronounced with the drop?
W.T.
whitetaildg said:
WT, I'll have to pass on that one...I've never been able to figure out a pattern or talk with anyone at TC yet who could explain it.
The only thing I can say is that I've come to believe they didn't start with something as simple as "0001" but rather at least started with a full number digit set like 1000, or 2000, etc.
But when they added the line of 1:66" round ball barrels, they also assigned all of them 4 digit numbers.
And to confuse things even more, both of the 5 year special runs of Hawken Cougars had 4 digit serial numbers and that was on the standard barrels that came with them.
Based on history, my guess is that the additional 5 year special runs of Hawken Customs and Hawken Silver Elites had 4 digit numbers as well.
By contrast, for about the last half of the 1900s Marlin had an excellent S/N scheme...you could tell at a glance what year the rifle was made...they reset and repeated the range of serial numbers for each year...but with the exception that the first two digits uniquely indicated the year of manufacture...oddly they did it in reverse of what you'd think...the year of manufactore was always indicated by the first two digits being subtracted from 100...ie: if the first two digits were 30, then it was made in 1970...if they were 12 it was made in 1988, etc.
But TC's overall scheme is a mystery to me...
whitetaildg
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 0
OK, Roundball
I got some of it, I heard they started with S/N 1000 , What about the stock shape? I have a T/C 45 percussion with a 3xxx S/N on the barrel , and it got the long lop but not the pronounced drop in the stock, what do you make of that?
W.T.
I got some of it, I heard they started with S/N 1000 , What about the stock shape? I have a T/C 45 percussion with a 3xxx S/N on the barrel , and it got the long lop but not the pronounced drop in the stock, what do you make of that?
W.T.
whitetaildg said:
My sense of it is that the distinctive comb / stock design began to smooth out by the end of the 70's, and continued to straighten out well into the 80's...and the LOP began to shorten as well.
Interesting side note...I've never seen the larger .54 x 1" Hawken stocks with the distinctive comb design and long LOP...it may be that they only offered the .45/.50cal Hawkens in the 70's and by the time they added the .54cal to the Hawken line, the stock design was already flattening out.
I think the overall Hawken stock 'design' pretty much stablized by the end of the 80's with the final tweaking being to shorten the LOP to the present length of 13+7/8" - 14.0".
Does the 3xxx barrel you menetioned have Thompson/Center stamped on it?
Is it a 28" standard barrel or a 32" round ball barrel?
whitetaildg
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok, Roundball,
I will agree the stocks started straighting out in the late '70's but this S/N is 3 thousand, with the long LOP! Explain that one!!It has T/C on barrel and is 28 inch long.
W.T.
I will agree the stocks started straighting out in the late '70's but this S/N is 3 thousand, with the long LOP! Explain that one!!It has T/C on barrel and is 28 inch long.
W.T.
whitetaildg said:
I mentioned that I thought the LOP length issue continued it's evolution separately from the stock comb design issue.
It may be that TC used duplicate sets of S/N's but separated by caliber and that would have worked...dunno what their overall scheme was.
PS: and unless you personally bought everything brand new at the same time on that rifle, it realy can't be assumed 100% that the barrel currently on it is the barrel that came with that stock.
Since the components are mass produced and interchangeable, if you buy a used rifle, there's really no way of knowing...the original barrel and stock could have gone separate ways years ago.
ie: I have a couple of Hawken stocks wearing GM .54cal and .62cal Smoothbore Flint barrels, and another stock wearing a GM .58cal rifle barrel...resold the original barrels long ago...whoever bought them may have needed to replace rusted/pitted barrels, and now the S/N he's bought from me has no correlation to the particular vintage stock he put it on.
whitetaildg
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 0
Now we are talking Roundball, the old swap stock deal,that is what I was thinking all along! Because the stock is in too good of condition for the S/N !
Thanks Roundball
W.T.
Thanks Roundball
W.T.
roundball said:
I didn't write the artical, I just found a single reference to the original question on production date, that is all...
I do not endorse Mr. Wakeman's idealistic view-points, the only thing we have in common is our first names: "Randy"...
Last edited by a moderator:
