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

[Va.Manuf.06]

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??

Possibly the M1795 muskets that were the majority of the guns carried by the Corps, or maybe their own weapons?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

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.

Only if they were shortened after manufacture. The specifications for the Contract rifles of 1792 were set down by Secretary of War Knox on January 13, 1792 - he specified 44 and 1/2 inch barrels and they were to be of .48 caliber.

On February 4, 1792 he changed the specs to 42" barrels of .50 caliber.

Further, in correspondence dating between 1795 and 1805 regarding the Contract Rifles of 1792 between the Sec. of War, the Purveyor of Public Supplies, and Military Storekeepers indicate that the rifles received under the contract had barrels ranging from 42 inches and 44 and 1/2 inch barrels, that they were between .45 and .49 caliber, that they were identified as to the makers and some were stamped "U.S."

The above period documentation is taken from the book, "American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol. 2: From the 1790s to the end of the Flintlock Period" by George D. Moller, published in 1993, ISBN: 0870812866 / 0-87081-286-6. Moller's 2 volume work (soon to publish Vol. 3) is considered the most accurate and reliable text on the subject of US shoulder arms. His earlier book is "American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol. 1: Colonial and Revolutionary War Arms" ISBN: 0870812866 / 0-87081-286-6

 

[Tumblernotch]

My mistake. :redface: It would seem that the 38 inch barrel requirement wasn't until the 1807 contracts for the same type of rifle. Tench Coxe, Purveyor of Public Supplies wrote this in a letter to one of the makers. He also required that the barrels be "pressed" round. The rifles of this group had bores of between .50 and .60 cal.

You know, it's funny that despite having the new rifle being made at Harpers Ferry, the Ord. Dept. kept receiving the 1792 contract type rifles until 1809 with contracts being let in 1807 and 1808.

I still don't believe they carried the 1803 rifle to the Pacific, unless someone can show me that either Lewis or Clark went back to Virginia after reaching St. Louis and returned with them before going up the river. The timeframe doesn't support it. An earlier post states that Lewis test fired the rifles in July of 1803, yet the pattern rifles weren't even submitted to the War Dept. until late November. By that time L & C had to be well on their way to St. Louis.

Oh well. I guess it's no big deal, but I'm sure curious.
:hmm:

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I think we all are. As far as continuing to order the "longrifles" as indicated by the 1807 Contract, those rifles were exclusively for equipping the militias of the various states. It was only rarely that the states received weapons manufactured by either Federal Arsenal, the contract made muskets and rifles were intended to be issued for militia use unless necessity required otherwise.

 

[Tumblernotch]

That's true although this was before the Militia Act of 1808. But remember too that the rifles of the 1792 contracts were purchased for the arming of regular troops. I would suppose that after the 1803/14 and the M1817 Common Rifle became available that most of those early rifles, if serviceable, may have been issued to or sold to various states. They were probably sold at public auction.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Yes, but the Contract of 1807 was, for all intents and purposes a Militia rifle. By the time the rifles were delivered, the M1803 had been produced in quantities sufficient to more than meet the Federal need. The earlier Contract of 1792 was intended for Federal, State, Territorial and in two cases totaling almost 500 of the 1792 Contract Rifles as Indian Gift rifles. The military need for rifles remained very small through the early 19th Century.

 

[tsmgguy]

Yes, the M1803 pattern rifles were not submitted until November, 1803. That's the point: the features and characteristics of rifle #15 predate M1803 first pattern rifles. The pattern of these rifles was finalized only after War Secretary Henry Dearborn wrote a letter to the Harper's Ferry arsenal dated May 25, 1803 that "bristles with specifics" concerning just the kind of rifle that he had in mind. Remember, he was a bureaucrat, not an arms maker: he did not just pull these very specific instructions out of a hat; he had to have been examining a pre production gun when he wrote the letter. He very likely had input from others more knowledgable than he, including the US Army. You can bet that pattern and pre-production guns existed, and were the basis of the M1803. We have one, rifle #15, that recently came to light in Saint Louis, MO.

Meriwether Lewis arrived at Harper's Ferry on May 16, 1803, and departed on April 14th. That's a long time to stay if all you were asking of the Arsenal was a folding boat, powder kegs, knives, and tomahawks! I'd contend that the M1800 rifle already existed, and that Lewis had the opportunity to fire it and then order 15 of them using Dearborn's famous one sentance letter to the Arsenal saying, "You will be pleased to make such arms & Iron work, as requested by the Bearer Captain Meriwether Lewis and to have them completed with the least possible delay". The letter gave Lewis carte blanch. He could have any thing that he wanted, including the latest and greatest from the Harpers Ferry arsenal and its English trained superintendant, Joseph Perkin.

Oh, and damn those Confedrates anyway for their 1861 burning of the Harpers Ferry Arsenal and all of its records. After all of these years they've finally managed to piss me off! Now, we shall likely never have an exact time line in this very interesting matter.

 

[zampilot]

I've always leaned toward KR's view, but all I've read are Tait and Ambrose' Undaunted Courage. Anyone got copies of the other papers referenced here?

 

[Tumblernotch]

Watch out now! :nono: Can't blame the Confeds for burning the arsenal. Lt. Jones and his little garrison did that little trick when the Virginia militia went up to take it over. The last thing the Southerners wanted to do was destroy any weapons, machinery or paperwork having to do with armory business. In fact, they had to scramble and sneak drawings and notes from Springfield to help set up the Richmond Armory.

I don't know what to tell you about what rifle was used. These rifles are not my specialty and honestly I don't have very much in the way of references to draw from to make a case. About all I have are a few references as to when the pattern rifles were submitted for approval and how many were turned into store in 1804. I know that unless Lewis returned to the Ferry to pick them up in the early Spring of '04, they couldn't have carried them. The only possible alternative would be if Perkin shipped them to St. Louis with an escort (I figure the river rats would steal them otherwise).

As for an M1800 rifle, I have looked through quite a few gun books and old Ordnance records as well as handled quite a few old guns over the years and I've never seen nor heard of the M1800. That's not to say a pattern or patterns of rifle wasn't made or adopted at the armory in that year. There were supposed to be some short full stock rifles being made at the Ferry in 1800 or 1801 on an experimental basis, but were never adopted by the department.(Gluckman) But, there is the tantalizing possibility that some of these were the ones carried West. It would be nice to find some correspondence about this. Also, as far as model designations go, what we call Model this or Model that is a misnomer. The first US long arm with a model designation was the M1816 (or M1820 depending on what school of thought you follow). The M1795, M1808 and the M1812 were all simply known as "Charleville Pattern". These model years came later and both clarify the changes made and confuse to some extent. The M1803 was simply the "short rifle". The M1814 was just a longer version of the M1803 with a longer barrel and forearm. For years, the M1817 was a "common rifle" as were those made under the 1792 and later contracts.

I don't have an answer, not having enough info about Lewis' whereabouts. It doesn't sound like the 1792 rifles were used, especially since Lewis mentions that the rifles being repaired had been made at HF. The 1803 wouldn't have been ready in time to go with the Corps, unless like I said before, that Lewis went back and got them or they were shipped. The experimental rifles I mentioned sound like they would fit into the M1800 category you mention. They would have been new rifles made at the Ferry. I guess somebody has to dig deeper about them. We have three types here and only one seems to be in the right place at the right time. And out of the two earlier rifles, it was the only one made at HF. I reckon I've said all I can and that was probably too much. See what you can find about those full stock rifles made at Harpers Ferry.

 

[tmdreb]

I too have a bit of an issue with the "M1800" designation. I don't think that one example with no provenance is sufficient to declare a previously unheard of "pattern".

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Well, there is also the fact that few, if any, Contract Rifles were at Harpers Ferry pre-Expedition, at least Moller dosn't mention them. The majority of the Contract Rifles were sent to the Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia or Ft. Pitt with a few going to Staunton, Virginia for issue. None were listed as being sent to The Point of Fork Arsenal. Now, most of the arms sent to Harpers Ferry for storage came from Schuylkill and Point of Fork, but they may not have been there in time for Lewis to have examined them and found them appropriate for his use. On the other hand, development of the new pattern short rifle would have been underway so it is possible that he saw them and decided on their use. We may never really know what rifle he used.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Well, there is also the fact that few, if any, Contract Rifles were at Harpers Ferry pre-Expedition, at least Moller dosn't mention them. The majority of the Contract Rifles were sent to the Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia or Ft. Pitt with a few going to Staunton, Virginia for issue. None were listed as being sent to The Point of Fork Arsenal. Now, most of the arms sent to Harpers Ferry for storage came from Schuylkill and Point of Fork, but they may not have been there in time for Lewis to have examined them and found them appropriate for his use. On the other hand, development of the new pattern short rifle would have been underway so it is possible that he saw them and decided on their use. We may never really know what rifle he used.

Yep, I have a feeling we'll never know for sure. In a book I have detailing the HF Armory's history (Smith), there is no record of new arms being made until 1801. However, the fabrication of arms is mentioned as early as 1798, before the armory was even completed. According to Smith and others, the term fabrication was loosely used at that time and could mean three things: to assemble, repair or make new. Since most of the plant hadn't been completed far enough to actually produce guns on a regular basis, it was still possible to work on arms made somewhere else and issue from that place. Records show expenditures for the "manufacture and repair of arms". So, there is a strong possibility that the earlier contract rifles could have been altered and repaired there as well as other arms and that a small run of experimental rifles completed in time for Lewis to inspect them for use with the Corps.

According to the table of output and unit costs that I have for Harpers Ferry, actual production began in 1801 with 293 Charleville Pattern muskets completed and in 1802 and 1803, 1,472 and 1,048 respectively. No rifles are mentioned during these three years. In 1804 things changed drastically. There were only 156 muskets and 4 pattern muskets made, but 772 rifles and 4 pattern rifles made. The armory at this time was concentrating almost all its efforts on the new half stock short rifle and would until 1808. There were no muskets made in 1805 and only 186 made in the following two years. At the same time 3,243 short rifles were made and 4,088 pistols. When rifle production stopped in 1808, musket production started back up.

As for the 1803 rifle, the four pattern arms weren't made until sometime in 1804, so that kind of throws a monkey wrench into things, seein' as how Lewis and Clark were in Missouri.

Puzzlin' ain't it? :hmm:

 

[tsmgguy]

. . . except that just under 400 Harpers Ferry M1803 rifles with 1803 dated locks have been observed, including rifle number 15.

So, production of the M1803 commenced in 1804 with no experimental or pattern guns whatever? Doubtful.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

. . . except that just under 400 Harpers Ferry M1803 rifles with 1803 dated locks have been observed, including rifle number 15.

So, production of the M1803 commenced in 1804 with no experimental or pattern guns whatever? Doubtful.

Well... I understand your reasoning tsmgguy, but there is a problem with it. The earliest Harpers Ferry muskets (not rifles) had locks dated "1801" (a very few examples still exist, 3 or 4 as I recall) but HF manufactured no muskets until, IIRC, mid-1802. They were, however, making locks and musket furniture (bands, triggerguards, butt plates, etc.) in 1801 and the locks date represents it's manufacture date, not necessarily the date of the entire musket. The same holds true for the rifles - a lock says one date and is accurate for the manufacture of the lock, not the entire rifle. The original Harpers Ferry records are needed to make any real determination. And, despite Lt. Jones' aforementioned efforts in 1861, that may be possible.... More later.

 

[zampilot]

More later???? I want more now!! I'm glad I started this post, lots to think about, each opinion from several different angles, for the Newbie like me.

 

[Tumblernotch]

. . . except that just under 400 Harpers Ferry M1803 rifles with 1803 dated locks have been observed, including rifle number 15.

So, production of the M1803 commenced in 1804 with no experimental or pattern guns whatever? Doubtful.

Well... I understand your reasoning tsmgguy, but there is a problem with it. The earliest Harpers Ferry muskets (not rifles) had locks dated "1801" (a very few examples still exist, 3 or 4 as I recall) but HF manufactured no muskets until, IIRC, mid-1802. They were, however, making locks and musket furniture (bands, triggerguards, butt plates, etc.) in 1801 and the locks date represents it's manufacture date, not necessarily the date of the entire musket. The same holds true for the rifles - a lock says one date and is accurate for the manufacture of the lock, not the entire rifle. The original Harpers Ferry records are needed to make any real determination. And, despite Lt. Jones' aforementioned efforts in 1861, that may be possible.... More later.

Well fellers, found something today before I went to work that may just muddy the waters more. I was looking through the 4th Edition of Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms and while reading about the M1803, I found a note to see also the M1805 pistol. It concerns the dating of arms and when completed arms were reported in the returns. Now, I don't know how accurate Mr. Flayderman is in all his research and writings, but have to admit that he is known as one of the big guys in terms of his expertise. He certainly has had access to much more records than me and has seen more old guns than most of us. That being said, this is what I found and I quote:

"Production records for this model as first seen in the 1822 Report of the Chief of Ordnance (and subsequently used and reprinted in numerous books on US Martial pistol collecting) seemed to indicate the manufacture of eight pattern pieces in 1806 with a total production for the balance in the years 1807 and 1808. A lengthy study of existing specimens (including the viewing of authenticated 1805 dated pistols and over 30 specimens of 1806 dated pistols) and the compilation of known dates and serial numbers clearly points to the fact that the 1822 records, although correct in total, are misleading when applied to actual markings on the guns themselves. The most plausible theory advanced to explain the confusion of quantities made and dated 1805 and 1806 has been that Harpers Ferry was then operating on a fiscal year basis (October 1 to September 30) and thus the first 300 pistols while actually manufactured in the year 1806 and so dated do not appear in reports for that year but rather show up for the fiscal year 1807 on their production records. The difference may also be explained in the light of a knowledge of the method of Ordnance Department record keeping in which arms made at the end of the year and not actually delivered either physically or record-wise from the armory to the military storekeeper until the following year show up in Ordnance reports as being made in the latter year."

In other words, a M1803 rifle could be made in the second week of October and thus marked, but not noted as manufactured until 1804. The same could be said for the musket. 1801 was the year generally accepted as the first year of manufacture, yet there could, and probably are some muskets actually completed in 1800, though that number would be very small. Correspondence and expenditure reports did show some work being done as early as 1798, most of which was the repair of arms.

This still doesn't clear the way for the 1803 to be the C of D rifle however. The four pattern rifles were not submitted for approval until late November, 1803 (and are carried on the 1804 return).

I'm afraid that this may not help in identifying the L & C rifles, but it should explain the 1803 dates on those rifles that tsmgguy is talking about. All I can say is, keep looking for documentation.
:thumbsup:

 

[Dphar]

Well... I understand your reasoning tsmgguy, but there is a problem with it. The earliest Harpers Ferry muskets (not rifles) had locks dated "1801" (a very few examples still exist, 3 or 4 as I recall) but HF manufactured no muskets until, IIRC, mid-1802. They were, however, making locks and musket furniture (bands, triggerguards, butt plates, etc.) in 1801 and the locks date represents it's manufacture date, not necessarily the date of the entire musket. The same holds true for the rifles - a lock says one date and is accurate for the manufacture of the lock, not the entire rifle. The original Harpers Ferry records are needed to make any real determination. And, despite Lt. Jones' aforementioned efforts in 1861, that may be possible.... More later.

But then we need to ask "what were they using for pattern pieces to make the musket parts?"
It never ends.
This is what I can't see with Dearborne's orders to change the design. He HAD to have a pattern piece. He just had too. I can't see a way around this. How would he state the upper rod pipe needed to be funneled rather than straight otherwise etc.
I can't get around this. It was how things were done. We can be sure was not working from a blueprint.
This is my personal stumbling block to agreeing with people who insist that the 1803 *type* rifle did not exist when Lewis was at HF.
I cannot see there not being SOMETHING there circa early 1803 that Lewis would have seen or been told about.
Sorry hear we go again. :dead:

It really is frustrating though.

Dan

 

[Tumblernotch]

I've gotta go to bed (have to get up early), but the answer to your first question is simple. They used the French M1763 musket for their pattern. They had thousands of them. And although that pattern of musket was made at both National Armories, they differed somewhat. (of course being handmade they all differed, but the types were a little different between the armories).

I too believe Dearborn had access to some type of rifle similiar to the 1803. There was mention of experimental rifles being made at HF as early as 1800 or 1801. They could have been the ones he wanted to improve on. I haven't seen anything describing these rifles yet. There should be something out there.

 

[Dphar]

I've gotta go to bed (have to get up early), but the answer to your first question is simple. They used the French M1763 musket for their pattern. They had thousands of them. And although that pattern of musket was made at both National Armories, they differed somewhat. (of course being handmade they all differed, but the types were a little different between the armories).

I too believe Dearborn had access to some type of rifle similiar to the 1803. There was mention of experimental rifles being made at HF as early as 1800 or 1801. They could have been the ones he wanted to improve on. I haven't seen anything describing these rifles yet. There should be something out there.

French musket? Exactly. Its obvious.
Things were done from patterns.
Nobody sat down and drew up a new musket on paper. They needed a pattern. They used the foreign made musket.

We must be very careful that we do not confuse the manufacturing processes of the 19th and 20 the century with the processes of the 18th and early 19th. Everything was done from patterns.
The fact that the so called 1800 has a rib made from pieces skillfully soldered together is very interesting.
Prototype perhaps? The later guns have one piece formed ribs.
Dearborne certainly did not make recommendations from drawings and written descriptions. It was not the way things were done.

Dan

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Could they have used the latest British military rifle as a pattern, or at least as a rough guide? These were short rifles.