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

[zampilot]

Extrordianry to say the least! Thanks Swampy!

 

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...w.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DZ9WEsILY92o[/quote]

or C of D for Corps of Discovery :thumbsup:

 

[rabjr]

Or that sorry! I blame it on the drugs. :redface:

 

[paulvallandigham]

A couple of years ago, the American Rifleman had a full multi-page story on the Air Rifle, and the efforts the Beeman( air rifle company founders) family made to acquire the gun that had been passed down in a private collection of a family, I believe, living in Pennsylvania. They had some written record of the gun being bought at auction from the sale of the Corps of Discover equipment( C of D) when the men returned. And they had further "Provenance" in the form of letters or a diary kept by their ancestor discussing the source of the gun. The family loaned the gun to the NRA's National Firearm Museum for display. I don't know if its still on display there, but a Phone call to the Museum would answer that question quickly for anyone interested in seeing.

The article in the American Rifleman magazine made a very convincing argument that the Beeman gun IS THE SAME gun that L&C took with them. You should be able to find the article in the back issues of The American Rifleman.

If I find it in my many copies I have not sorted, and thrown away, I will post a note on this forum and make copies available to members who are interested. A phone call to the NRA might generate a copy or a citation to it sooner, however.

 

[Dphar]

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

Lewis actually wrote, and everyone agrees this is the correct text:

“The guns of Drewyer and Sergt. Pryor were both out of order. the first was repared with a new lock, the old one having become unfit for uce; the second had the cock screw broken which was replaced by a duplicate which had been prepared for the lock at Harpers ferry where she was manufactured. but for the precaution taken in bringing on those extra locks, and parts of locks, in addition to the ingenuity of John Shields, most of our guns would at this moment been untirely unfit for use; but fortunately for us I have it in my power here to record that they are all in good order.”

Tait takes Carl P. Russell to task for using the Elliot Coues edited version of the Journals which reads: “”¦replaced by a duplicate, which had been made at Harpers Ferry, where the gun itself had been manufactured”¦”
Tait then states:
“”¦It is unfortunate that Coues had a habit of editing other people’s text to improve their writing. In the original Lewis does not state so flatly the the rifle was made at Harpers Ferry, although the sentence in question may give this impression on the first reading”¦”

Tait’s article is mostly on the history of the 1792 and has little to do with the L&C Expedition. He takes Russell to task for believing the Coues version of the March 20, 1806 entry when the original says the same thing with just a few less words. BUT he does NOT give the correct quote since it would have the reader seeing that he might be trying to revise the Journal by leading the reader to believe it says something that agrees with his opinion. It is open to “interpretation” I guess. But this gets dangerously close to “revisionist thinking”.

I started this thread with little care as to what they carried.

But looking a Tait again I find that my first opinion of his article is re-enforced. Tait’s case for the Expedition using a 1792 is SPECULATION in its entirety there is not one shred of evidence to back it up aside from what he thinks. This is not fact.
The only facts we have are:
1: The expedition carried rifles shorter than the 1792. They were referred to several times as “short rifles”.
2: They came from Harpers Ferry one way or another.

3: They had parts of locks and complete locks made there as spares.

4: They were “much injured” by rust after a spell of rainy weather while on the Ohio River.

5: Members of the Expedition with short guns were ordered to carry them to counter any attacks that might occur while moving boats and baggage around the Falls of the Missouri. This indicates they were lighter and "handier" than the other weapons the expedition carried.

6: 2 burst near the muzzle. A common fault of at least the early 1803.

7: Lewis was shot is the a** by Cruzzate with a short rifle, which Tait insists was his personal rifle inspite of Lewis’s written account stating “”¦the ball had lodged in my breeches which I knew to be the ball of the short rifles such as that he had”¦”

Based on the actual statements by Lewis and ignoring the attempt at confusing the issue by Tait we have little choice but to side with the new made at HF argument based on the actual evidence of the time. The 2 rifles bursting near the muzzle is a good indication that they were ½ octagonal 1803 type rifles. Supposition, yes, but its backed by the history of the rifle. Pike had similar problems during his exploration.

To side with Tait is to risk siding with revisionist history. People trying to make history what THEY want it to be by changing the facts to suit their view.

We cannot get inside Lewis’s head to know what he meant. We have to read what he wrote and take it as it was written.

So”¦
No. I cannot say that L&C used an 1803 prototype. But everything certainly points to this.

After going over this, again, I can’t come to any other *opinion*, and that is all it is, based on what was written at the time the ONLY thing we can accept as actual evidence.
We can play word games. Did Lewis mean the lock when he said “she” or the gun?? Would he have called a component “she” or “it”.
Yes its open to interpretation. BUT show me ANYTHING that indicates the 1792 was used. There is nothing but 20th century supposition.

So again.
Someone recreating say “Drewyer” or Pryor or Cruzatte, etc who wants to use a “Model 1800” is fine with me. If he wants to use a shortened 1792, fine with me. I cannot prove either is incorrect. But over the course of this I found myself more and more siding with the 1800/1803 proponents, mostly due to the weakness of the 1792 information.
I too had read Russell and assumed the 1803 was used, then we get into the dates and its “impossible”. I then swung toward a shortened 1792. But then we see that there is history behind the 1803. Congress authorizing then cutting funds for a rifle Regiment. Which would have resulted in some planning to arm it.
We have the British adopting a 62 caliber service rifle in 1800 and setting up a significant number of rifle units. The US Secretary of War surely knew of this.
The L&C expedition was semi-secret and was a very high priority with Jefferson. Would they have been equipped with the best?
They had to know the game was bigger in the west and the ranges longer.

So thinking of their using rifles that were shortened because the barrels failed at the breech in simply silly. This was an important, well funded military operation not some poor farmer needing his gun fixed. I am going on a 3 year expedition and I would take rifles with barrels that were PROVEN to be flawed?

IMO the 1792, based on what I have read, was another “made by the low bidder” thing and was not especially well liked by anyone. Now we address people worried about taking a “new” rifle. Would a new rifle made by competent people who were NOT cutting costs be worse than a 10 year old rifle that has developed a less than stellar reputation in service?
Its just not possible to resolve. There is too little evidence to satisfy everyone.
But if you have not read Tait, Keller/Cowan and Olson, all three then you really are guessing. Tait had a follow up piece in a subsequent issue of “Man at Arms” #6 1999 that addressed someone not doing a very good job of taking him to task concerning the 1792 article.
So do some research, look at the actual EVIDENCE not just what is written or 20th century supposition and make an informed decision.
But you have to sort out the supposition and opinion, and perhaps change yours as I have twice now in the past year or so.
Sorry this is so long”¦
And no I don't make either rifle or kits or any parts for them or have any desire too.

Got company so gotta run excuse any more than normal typos.
Dan

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

That was a good, well thought out post Dan. I may not agree with everything you said but I come close to it. As a whole it all makes good sense. The 1792 Contract rifles filled a role but were far from satisfactory in use.

 

[MDIvancic]

Thanks!

 

[Tumblernotch]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, and it doesn't matter to me what they carried, but this discussion has been very interesting and has me thinking. I guess I've always liked a puzzle. I must say that I have always assumed (dangerous word there) that they used M1803's and from the quotes from the various texts mentioned and what little info I have at hand, I have to believe that as for the "short rifles", they were most likely the new '03's. Your first quote (Lewis') mentions that the locks and parts were made at the Ferry where "she" was made. "She" would not be used to describe a simple part, but an entire gun. Also, the fact that they had spare parts made to fit a group of weapons tells us that there was a particular model or pattern with a degree of uniformity. Although interchangeability didn't exist until John Hall was making his breechloader, attempts were being made at the armories to achieve it or at least to make parts that could be fitted in the field with the least amount of filing and other work. I'm also of the opinion (and this is just speculating) that Lewis or the Master Armorer may have even had spare locks and other parts made and pre-fitted for each rifle in the event that a quick repair needed to be made. Like I said, that's purely speculation, but if a dummy like me can think of such a preventive measure, why couldn't they?

As for the 1792 Contract Rifles, I don't have much history about them. Flayderman's descripton of them is of a fullstock octagon to round (blended) of .50 to .60 caliber, made by several notable Pennsylvania rifle makers including Dickert, Henry, Peter Brong, Peter Gonter and Michael Gumpf. Gumpf, by the way later worked at the Ferry and probably worked on the M1803!

Although these rifles were being made for the military, they were still basically civilian in style, caliber and sturdiness. And in the usage of the times could be called short rifles because their barrels averaged 38 inches which was the length specified by Tench Coxe. Of course the same could be said of the M1803 which was not the most robust rifle ever used by the military. However, its caliber was heavier and it was more uniform than any before and that was probably the most important thing on the Army's mind at the time. And though not as heavy built as the muskets at the time, the '03 was still a little beefier than the longrifle and its derivatives such as the 1792 rifles. I do find it odd that although the M1803 was adopted (though not called by that model at the time), contracts were let in 1808 for the 1792 rifles and they were made till at least 1809.

I do tend to believe that the Harpers Ferry Rifle was the one used. There should have been enough of them in store at the arsenal in time to be issued to the Corps, parts that would fit were available and I cannot see why they would use older arms when this would be the best, though potentially dangerous way to field test a new weapon. I'm going to continue to look for more info. This is an interesting study.

 

[Dphar]

That was a good, well thought out post Dan. I may not agree with everything you said but I come close to it. As a whole it all makes good sense. The 1792 Contract rifles filled a role but were far from satisfactory in use.

Its really difficult.
Its just one way to look at the question.
All we know is the rifles were short.
Which of course opens a another whole field to speculate in :wink:

Dan

 

[tsmgguy]

Get your grubby mitts on the Cowan & Keller article, if you have not yet seen it. It covers all of the guns of the expedition, not just the rifles.

As to the provenance of M1800 rifle #15, isn't it an absolutely amazing coincidence that it should surface in an antique shop in St. Louis, MO, precisely where the Expedition's equipment had been auctioned away in 1806?

Yes, the L&C air rifle resides in the Beeman collection. It is extensively described in the same K&C article, and the modification and repairs to it precisely match descriptions in the Journals. It was Italian, not an American Luken as had been supposed for so long. (Don't have the article in front of me as I hunt and peck this, or I'd probably get the spelling correct!)

 

[rabjr]

As to the provenance of M1800 rifle #15, isn't it an absolutely amazing coincidence that it should surface in an antique shop in St. Louis, MO, precisely where the Expedition's equipment had been auctioned away in 1806?

Yes, and I'm sure it wasn't planned that way...

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I'm with you, Swampy. It's just got to be authentic. I'll bet if they pull the butt plate it'll say "Genuine Lewis and Clark Rifle" under it. I guess if folks want to believe something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it. Personally, I want to see this rifle's Birth Certificate. And not a "Certificate of Live Birth" either.

Ya don't suppose having this gun found in St. Louis--in an antique shop of all places--would affect its value, would it? Because other than that, there really is no solid proof that L&C carried this type of rifle. I do love the fact that it has No. 15 stamped on it, though. Why not No. 1? Too obvious I guess.

 

[Tumblernotch]

That is amazing when you consider the fact that there was never a M1800 rifle made!

 

[Dphar]

I'm with you, Swampy. It's just got to be authentic. I'll bet if they pull the butt plate it'll say "Genuine Lewis and Clark Rifle" under it. I guess if folks want to believe something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it. Personally, I want to see this rifle's Birth Certificate. And not a "Certificate of Live Birth" either.

Ya don't suppose having this gun found in St. Louis--in an antique shop of all places--would affect its value, would it? Because other than that, there really is no solid proof that L&C carried this type of rifle. I do love the fact that it has No. 15 stamped on it, though. Why not No. 1? Too obvious I guess.

Look guys. Before starting down this route of hinting at fakes maligning people's integrity and such you need to read Olson's rational as written in the American Rifleman. Then Keller/Cowan. Then Tait or reverse the order as I did. I really should read them all three again.
Man at Arms #6 1999, The American Rifleman, May 1985, and the Keller-Cowen piece in "We Proeeded On" May 2006.
BE SKEPTICAL.
Then the Journal entries mentioning short rifles.
It is impossible to make informed comments on the subject without doing the research.

You see I was informed that if I only read "Tait" I would suddenly be informed and would then know that the full length 1792 was "the gun". I read it and found that it was ALL supposition where the L&C expedition was concerned. There is no compelling evidence there unless the reader REALLY wants it to be the 1792 then you have something to "believe".
The others make a much better case IMO but still....

Dan

 

[Tumblernotch]

I may have to reverse my earlier opinion. I was just reading the DeVoto edition of Lewis & Clark's Journals where Biddle is quoted giving the month when L & C arrived in St. Louis. He says December, 1803. If this is correct, and Lewis didn't return from there to Harpers Ferry and back again before the expedition started up the Missouri, there's no way they carried the M1803 Rifle. The pattern rifles were not even submitted to the War Dept. until late November and it would have been no earlier than January or February before any production could begin. Arriving in St. Louis in December would have required them to leave Virginia no later than early November, before the pattern rifles were submitted. If Lewis did go back and returned to St. Louis before May, there is a chance he would have picked up the new short rifles. I have no sources here that state whether or not he did.

 

[rabjr]

I really do not care what the answer is here. When I did my Tribute back in 2004 I must admit I was taken in by the Tait article. I also learned a lot as Went on and the Tribute I did which was hunt with Lewis and Clark guns from 2004 to 2006 was done with both 1792 Contract rifle and an 1803. To cover the bases so to speak. Both maybe totally wrong but I went with the best info I had at the time. As I said before, we can talk about it until the sun goes down, we will never know the correct answer here.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Dan--We were just goofing around. Personally, it's frustrating as all get out that we don't know more about the rifles they carried. We know more about that nearly useless boat they carried than any thing else. They were great explorers and brave Americans, but their sense of History was just awful!

I've tended toward the 1792 rifle for a while. with the barrel shortened and recrowned and fitted with new locks. The difficulty they had with the big bears seemed to support this, too. It always seemed to me that someone would have made at least passing mention of the half-stock configuration and the under-rib etc., which were big differences from the usual rifle of the time.

I don't have a pony in this race in the sense that I want it to be one rifle or the other, I would be happy just to know the truth. I believe that we are on common ground there--and I hope that one day conclusive evidence will appear. Maybe #15 will turn out to be it. Dan

 

[zampilot]

Is there any evidence of what the C of D recruits carried, the men found in St. Louis or elsewhere down river from eastern civilization??

 

[Tumblernotch]

Technically, using the specifications of the time, the 1792 was a "short rifle", averaging a 38 inch barrel length. And, as I said before, given the time frame of the Corps arrival at St. Louis and when the 1803 pattern rifles were submitted for approval, it would have been impossible for them to have been used in the expedition unless Lewis returned to Virginia to get them before May.

 

[Dphar]

Dan--We were just goofing around. Personally, it's frustrating as all get out that we don't know more about the rifles they carried. We know more about that nearly useless boat they carried than any thing else. They were great explorers and brave Americans, but their sense of History was just awful!

I've tended toward the 1792 rifle for a while. with the barrel shortened and recrowned and fitted with new locks. The difficulty they had with the big bears seemed to support this, too. It always seemed to me that someone would have made at least passing mention of the half-stock configuration and the under-rib etc., which were big differences from the usual rifle of the time.

I don't have a pony in this race in the sense that I want it to be one rifle or the other, I would be happy just to know the truth. I believe that we are on common ground there--and I hope that one day conclusive evidence will appear. Maybe #15 will turn out to be it. Dan

The only conclusive evidence we have is "short rifle".

No amount of self-flagellation will produce any proof of what it really was

Anyone who reads enough looking for "proof" will likely meet himself coming back from another direction.
Unless some letter or journal with the "smoking gun" in it is found hidden in some corner of the Archives, or under the floor of Jeffersons summer kitchen etc its not going to be resolved.

The rifle apparently was not important enough to appear in the Journals it would seem aside from passing mention due to repairs or when Lewis got shot with one.

:dead:
Dan