The 1792 Contract Rifle.....Lewis and Clark C. of D..

[zampilot]

Excellent point Swampy.

 

[dyemaker]

I was reading that the rifles used in the expedition were sold at public auction afterwards. They also ordered a pontoon boat which was never used and many tomahawks, most of which were meant as Indian gifts and knives along with shooting bags and powder horns from Harper's Ferry armory. All those hawks and knives but only one small grindstone?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I would also want the spare locks to be totally interchangeable with the locks on my new guns and unless refurbishing the older "used guns" meant restocking them so that they would accept a common lock size and shape that wouldn't be possible with the 1792's

Spare locks were taken and of what around 400 1792s in storage they couldn't find 15 that would interchange locks? I find that very hard to believe.

Why so hard to believe Swampman? In 1803, successful, complete interchangeability of parts of guns made at the National Armories was still 39 years away. Worse still, the locks of the 1792 Contract were civilian locks that the various contractors had used, probably based on more on cost and what was available more than any vague pattern specified. As a matter of fact the specifications didn't specify any particular pattern. They were purchased on the civilian market and were made by various lock makers in England and Germany and were not of the same pattern at all, just roughly the same size and of a similar shape. Even locks purchased in the same batch from the same lock maker were similar but not interchangeable without some fitting as far as the shape of the lockplate. Then you get to internal parts - springs, tumblers, sears, bridles and screws. Sure, each maker used dies to rough forge each part, internal and external including the plate, frizzen and hammer, but the parts then had to be filed to final shape by hand and interchangeability was not a concern, just similarity and, hopefully, function. Getting complete locks to fit into the mortise of another was relatively simple - remove a little wood here and there and add some in over there and you are done (IF the size and shape were similar) but, getting lock parts to interchange from one lock to another was just not going to happen easily. Why does everyone have so much trouble understanding that the 1792 Contract Rifles were not made to a standard pattern like muskets were, even rifles made by the same contractor were only similar to each other.

 

[zampilot]

"Why does everyone have so much trouble understanding that the 1792 Contract Rifles were not made to a standard pattern like muskets were, even rifles made by the same contractor were only similar to each other."

I have not seen that trouble, but I do see people poo-pooing the idea that a 1792/94 Contract rifle was part of L+C, with no proof or documentation whatsoever, only wishful supposition that a new and improved short rifle was brought along, before it existed.

 

[rabjr]

Everybody believes pre 1803 locks were used on these rifles. Ok well I've seen a few guns in Flydermans that has plenty of room for a new lock to be installed. Now lets throw another hardball into the picture. What proof do we have that pre 1803 locks were used? Almost 400 guns at Harpers, don't seem to be out side of the realm that 15 good hardly used guns were found and similar replacement locks found from the remaining inventory.

I really don't care one way or the other, I'm not the one trying to make money from the "Right one" according to whoever has the most money
to make.

I must say once I get caught up, some time in the future I'd like to redo my 1792, shortening it to 33, 34". If nothing else, it would make it easier for me to use.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Everybody believes pre 1803 locks were used on these rifles. ..................................

Well, if you are talking about the rifles made under the Contract of 1792, I will guarantee that the locks used were indeed civilian, pre-1803 locks of English or German manufacture - not at all like later military locks. If you are talking about 1792 Contract Rifles that MAY have been modified for the L & C Corps of Discovery, it is possible that they used what could have become what collectors call the US M1803 Rifle lock.

 

[rabjr]

If you are talking about 1792 Contract Rifles that MAY have been modified for the L & C Corps of Discovery, it is possible that they used what could have become what collectors call the US M1803 Rifle lock.

My post was about this, are you absolutely sure M1803 locks were used on these 15 rifles?

I find it hard to believe they could not find 15 rifles good enough to refresh and of all the guns on hand they couldn't find enough locks from others to fit and use on these 15? This one fact is totally impossible?

Like I said I have no money what so ever to make off of this one way or another. I'd just like to know the truth like everyone else, but we will will never know it. Besides what one or two people who sell kits wants you to believe.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

No, and I never said that the HF locks were used on the L & C guns, I just said that it was possible. Seems we are going at this thing at cross purposes, I apologize if you or anyone else are taking offense as none is intended. But I do stand behind everything that I have said. The Contract Rifles were not of the best quality and their locks were middling quality at best in most cases, not to mention problems with the barrels and the stocks as well, but barrels and stocks are not important here. They may have used the Contract rifles as they were or they may have modified them or they may have built new rifles of overall better quality with - specifically - carefully made locks to a high standard so that they would be reasonably interchangeable, we just aren't sure and probably never will be.

 

[rabjr]

No, and I never said that the HF locks were used on the L & C guns, I just said that it was possible. Seems we are going at this thing at cross purposes, I apologize if you or anyone else are taking offense as none is intended. But I do stand behind everything that I have said. The Contract Rifles were not of the best quality and their locks were middling quality at best in most cases, not to mention problems with the barrels and the stocks as well, but barrels and stocks are not important here. They may have used the Contract rifles as they were or they may have modified them or they may have built new rifles of overall better quality with - specifically - carefully made locks to a high standard so that they would be reasonably interchangeable, we just aren't sure and probably never will be.

Exactly. :v

 

[tsmgguy]

There is not a single shred of evidence from the time that reasonably points to a M1792 hypothesis. Not one. Anywhere. There is much to support a Harpers Ferry M1800, or M1803 theory. Wake up and smell the powder smoke, fellas!

 

[rabjr]

There is not a single shred of evidence from the time that reasonably points to a M1792 hypothesis. Not one. Anywhere. There is much to support a Harpers Ferry M1800, or M1803 theory. Wake up and smell the powder smoke, fellas!

Hey enjoy your new gun and believe what you want to believe. :v

 

[Dphar]

There is not a single shred of evidence from the time that reasonably points to a M1792 hypothesis. Not one. Anywhere. There is much to support a Harpers Ferry M1800, or M1803 theory. Wake up and smell the powder smoke, fellas!

Hey enjoy your new gun and believe what you want to believe. :v

There is no smoking gun "proof" for either theory.
HOWEVER, we do have Lewis's Journal entry of March 20 1806 where he indicated that the rifles were made at HF.

Of course its not a comprehensive smoking gun. But there is NOTHING written to indicate they took 1792s.
And its took some time to get the guns ready for Lewis.
2-3 men could have shortened all the barrels on 15 rifles in a day, another day to shorten the stocks. Then the locks. A week maybe? They made both complete locks and parts if I read the Journals right.

The time frame supports not using the 1792.
Maybe. There just is no proof either way.
If there was one would think the Keller/Cowan or Tait would have found it. Then we have the guns getting rusted on the trip down the Ohio. How badly? Did Lewis order guns to replace them????
There was plenty of time.

Its ALL SUPPOSITION. Except for the "short rifle mentions in the journals, the burst barrels (typical of the 1/2 oct 1803), and Lewis's journal entry of March 20 1806. These are facts that all *hint* at the 1803 style rifle. But these are just tantalizing clues not an absolute.
The case for the 1792 is not as strong. Its people saying "they would have used them since they were there" this is even worse supposition.
There are no orders or inventories that tell us this might have happened. There is no support from 1803-1806 for the 1792.
The caliber thing.
Lewis was not going to the west totally in the dark. By the time Lewis was appointed to command the mission the French had already named the Yellowstone River. They surely know of the buffalo, the elk and the G. Bear from the years of planning that took place and Lewis staying in Missouri for a whole winter with time to talk to people in St Louis who had to know what was up there. I don't think they really ran out of pre-departure knowledge until the mouth of the Yellowstone or maybe the Falls of the Missouri.
So Lewis may well have wanted a rifle larger than 50 caliber.
But this is supposition too. More 20th century thinking of the 19th century.
We do not know. Everyone is guessing. So take your best guess but don't do it without reading all three articles and hopefully the Journal's as well.

Dan

 

[zampilot]

"the rifles were made at HF"
-or refurbed/stored there.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Dan: I think you make too light of the evidence that does exist, and the strength of your own argument.

People are always uncomfortable when Inductive reasoning is used, and more so when its used in conjunction with deductive reasoning. But, Inductive reasoning is done all the time, and is just as " solid " a means at ferreting out the truth, as is deductive reasoning.

Time Factors, and general comments in the Journal, as well as knowledge about the guns being made at HF, allow one to use prior knowledge( OR OTHER knowledge) you have about the "making of guns" at that time and place. That knowledge is as much fact as the entry in the journal. Your conclusion drawn from using that knowledge leads to just as valid a conclusion as being able to use a purely deductive syllogism.

We can never know for sure- barring the discovery of some written sources of information not yet found. But, no one thought that air rifle the C of D took would ever be found, and the Beeman family has made a very convincing argument that it now has that very gun in its collection.

50 years ago, You could not get anyone to place a small bet that the air rifle would ever be found.

I think the same situation exists today with regard to the actual guns used on the Expedition. In someone's barn, attic, basement, or home, or in the back of some museum, improperly catalogued, there may be such a gun, to be discovered for what it is, yet, in the future. That is why this search for "Proof" is so much FUN! :thumbsup:

In the meanwhile, careful analysis helps guide us in the right direction. You won't know you found something, unless you have a good idea what it is you are seeking. Your arguments are Much stronger than you want to give credit for them, and your analysis is SPOT ON. :hatsoff:

 

[zampilot]

"no one thought that air rifle the C of D took would ever be found, and the Beeman family has made a very convincing argument that it now has that very gun in its collection."

Now that is some interesting information!!

 

[MDIvancic]

But, no one thought that air rifle the C of D took would ever be found,

Explain please? I have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks!

 

[jbtusa]

I concur... tell us more about that air rifle! Are there any photos of it???? Stories of that air rifle are fascinating!

 

[rabjr]

First of all it's L & C for Lewis and Clark.

They took with them a .40 cal air rifle caplable of taking game at short distance.
http://search.isp.netscape.com/nsi...ttp://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DZ9WEsILY92o

 

[poordevil]

:thumbsup:

 

[rabjr]

They actually got very powerful and Napolian lost so many men to air guns he made it plain anyone being caught with one to be executed.