The Guns Of The Lewis & Clark Expedition

[tsmgguy]

The first pdf file linked below is volume 32, number 2 of "We Proceded On, the Journal of The Lewis & Clark Historic Foundation". It contains an excellent series of articles, "Whack! Crack! Boom! The Guns of the Lewis & Clark Expedition", in which the contention is made that 15 early examples of the M1803 rifle may have made the journey after having been manufactured for Capt. Meriwether Lewis by the arsenal at Harper's Ferry.

The articles begin on page 10. You may have seen this before, but it's only recently become available as a pdf.

Also linked is the Journal for the following month, containing some interesting comments in the "letters" section.

http://www.lewisandc...df/vol32no2.pdf

http://www.lewisandc...df/vol32no3.pdf

Here's a previous post of mine concerning a reproduction "Model 1800":
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/237339/post/752373/hl//fromsearch/1/

 

[bpd303]

Links are not working.

 

[tsmgguy]

Try these:
http://www.lewisandclark.org/wpo/pdf/vol32no2.pdf
http://www.lewisandclark.org/wpo/pdf/vol32no3.pdf

Here's an article about the M1800 Harper's Ferry, written by Jess Melot, the owner of The Rifle Shoppe. He built the rifle pictured in the link above:
http://therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/us_arms/(935).htm

 

[Alden]

Lotta contention around this issue. I like to think the 1803 was it, but, even the Army indicates it wasn't...

As for ol' Jess (OK to use his name?), he also pretends the Newtown gun was a matchlock when it was no such thing. It is a matchlock now though so, if you're gonna reproduce it and get paid lots, that's what you tell everyone...

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
This has been discussed on this and other forums "ad nauseum", including the papers you link to. Just use the search function on this forum. There are other published papers with diffrent conclusions. No one will ever really know the answer and the TRS catalog blurb is by no means definitive.

dave

 

[BigBoreBLR]

Whether it's true or not. I want a 1803 harpers ferry on my mantle.

 

[Alden]

Did I mention the 1803 is generally considered by experts...

no, not the "a T/C is not a Hawken" or "I love to kill so much I throw a half dozen warm deer carcasses a year to 'the needy' and eat at McDonalds" types)

...to be the most beautiful martial arm made, certainly U.S.?

 

[azmntman]

You failed to mention that Alden, and I'm certainly glad you did. Otherwise I would have remained ignorant of the fact for who knows how long :idunno: Thank you, always learning....

 

[longcruise]

Fortunately we have "experts" available to coach us in matters of taste and beauty. :haha:

 

[mike garner]

how about the air gun they had and kill deer with it.

 

[Alden]

Shhh... It was Italian. I'm just guessing made by Pedersoli, so, it MUST have been historically imperfect from the start and cannot be mentioned.

 

[54ball]

I believe it was most likely a early version M1803 that made the expedition.

I may have the numbers wrong but the first order was for 4000. 4015 were produced. That for me is very interesting.

The barrel failure mentioned about the short rifle on the expedition was a common occurrence on US 1803s.

We will never know for sure, but the opinion of historians swings back and fourth between the 1803 and the Contract Rifles.

 

[Alden]

I am not a big believer in coincidence and tend to fall in your camp 54ball.

 

[Dphar]

I believe it was most likely a early version M1803 that made the expedition.

I may have the numbers wrong but the first order was for 4000. 4015 were produced. That for me is very interesting.

The barrel failure mentioned about the short rifle on the expedition was a common occurrence on US 1803s.

We will never know for sure, but the opinion of historians swings back and fourth between the 1803 and the Contract Rifles.

Just another clue or two would have been nice. Like the weight of the ball that Lewis was shot with. If I absolutely had to say what I really think it would be a 1803 prototype. But I would not say a shortened contract rifle was wrong either since it cannot be proven either way. But the circumstantial evidence, short rifle, burst barrels and 15 extra rifles made, indicates the 1803 type. The evidence for the contract rifle is "they had them there they must have used them" which is not very convincing to me.
I suggest that people do their own research if they are really interested. See who makes the most sense based on what facts we do have.

Dan

 

[Alden]

Well, Dan, the timing of events is also just a little too close for comfort, or to be completely ignored...

 

[Zonie]

Just as a side note for those who don't have a copy, I just reread my unabridged copy of the L&C journal's description of the Lewis shooting incident.

No mention of the caliber of the ball that hit Lewis in the thigh was made.

The reason I mention this is I have read some authors versions of the shooting and they did indicated he was shot with a .54 caliber ball.

Where they got this idea is unknown and it totally unsupported by the original writings.

 

[Dphar]

Just as a side note for those who don't have a copy, I just reread my unabridged copy of the L&C journal's description of the Lewis shooting incident.

No mention of the caliber of the ball that hit Lewis in the thigh was made.

The reason I mention this is I have read some authors versions of the shooting and they did indicated he was shot with a .54 caliber ball.

Where they got this idea is unknown and it totally unsupported by the original writings.

There are "Original Journals" that have had text added to them that can confuse the issue. The Reuben Gold Thwaites version is supposed to be correct, i.e. unadulterated, at least one other complete version has added words and phrases and "facts" that do not appear in the original manuscripts, (indicating, for example, that the rifles were made at HF during the repair work done at Ft Clatsop). The "Thwaites" edition only states that it was the bore size of the short rifles. Nothing more.
"the ball had lodged in my breeches which I knew to be the ball of the short rifles such as that he had..."
The online version has the same text. But adds that it was the 54 caliber 1803 in their footnotes, which we know is at best a good guess.

August 11, 1806

Dan

 

[BrownBear]

It's been so long since I read it, I can't say one way or the other. But does Patrick Gass' earlier journal from the trip contribute anything?

 

[Zonie]

The verbiage,

"the ball had lodged in my breeches which I knew to be the ball of the short rifles such as that he had..." does not exist in my copy of

"The LEWIS and CLARK EXPEDITION
by Meriwether Lewis

The 1814 edition unabridged
in three volumes
and with an introduction
by Archibald Hanna"
1961, J.E. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY
Philadelphia and New York
CCCN: 61-14989

This is a reprint of the 1814 journal by Paul
Allen, Esquire titled:

HISTORY
OF
THE EXPEDITION
UNDER THE COMMAND OF
CAPTAIN'S LEWIS AND CLARK,
TO
THE SOURCES OF THE MISSOURI,
THENCE
ACROSS THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS
AND DOWN THE
RIVER COLUMBIA TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN,
PERFORMED DURING THE YEARS 1804-5-6
By order of the
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

PREPARED FOR THE PRESS
BY PAUL ALLEN, ESQUIRE,
IN TWO VOLUMES.

(Don't you just love old book titles?)

In the Introduction, A. Hanna points out,
"... the first account of the expedition to be published was the diary of Sergeant Patric Gass. Roughly whipped into shape by a West Virginia schoolmaster, this appeared in 1807.

The same year Lewis issued a prospectus of his account, to be published in three volumes...two years later it had not yet appeared...
This prospect was ended by his [Lewis's] death a few months later."

At Jefferson's prompting, Clark now sought out and secured the services of Nicholas Biddle...
The journals were turned over to him, together with that of Sergeant Ordway, which Clark had purchased and with the assistance of George Shannon, who had been a private on the expedition, Biddle set to work. By July of 1811 the manuscript was finished. But John Conrad, who had originally agreed to publish the book, was now in financial difficulties and could not do so.
The matter dragged on for two years until another publisher, Thomas Bradford, could be found...
[Biddle] had no time for final revision and supervision. For this task Paul Allen, another Philadelphia writer, was found; he saw the two-volume work thru the press....
Biddle refused to claim any credit on the title page, leaving that distinction to Allen. The work as it finally appeared in February of 1814 consists then of Lewis's journals, supplemented by those of Clark, edited and cast into narrative form by Biddle, and finally revised by Allen.

Lewis's narrative went through almost a dozen editions in the next hundred years...
the present work, however, if not exactly as Lewis planned it, comes closest to his original design...
(Vol I, p. xi, xii)

With that explanation, this set of 3 volumes would seem to be the closest to the actual published original as one can get.

I know. I know. ff

 

[Mickc01]

Here's a neat website on the subject you might enjoy as well: http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2356