Thw Real Jim Bridger Hawken Rifle

[JOHN L. HINNANT]

Good Evening Gentlemen.

Have any of you Forum Members had an opportunity to study the real Jim Bridger Hawken rifle and perhaps photograph and/or measure it?

There is a particular detail concerning the butt plate on the original rifle I am trying to resolve.

I purchased the factory second Jim Bridge rifle stock recently advertised by TOTW. It is of very nice quality in all aspects.

The heel length (top part) of the Hawken style butt plate for the TOTW Bridger stock measures 2-3/4 inches long. Compared to most (not all) original Hawkens, this seems to be a bit short.

I have had the opportunity to examine and take measurements of a number of original Hawken rifle over the years. My notes show that the butt plate heel of these rifles measured 3-1/4" to 3-1/2" long.

Photos of original Hawken rifles tend to show a long heel.

Do any of you gentlemen have any hard evidence on the heel length of the original Bridger Haken rifle?

Sure would appreciate some help with this detail.

Best regards and good shooting,

John L. Hinnant

 

[rebel727]

There's a pic of it here but it's not very clear, specially the heel. There does appear to be a small hump in the pic which might be the screw. if it is it would appear to be a short heel. One thing I found odd (to me anyway)is it has a back action lock.[url] http://www.museumofthemountainman.com/exhibits/scr-jimbridgerrifle.jpg[/url]

 

[davy]

 

[windwalker_au]

if this is the origional jim bridger hawkin,then the kits that tracks sell are not corect they have a std lock and the bridger pick shows a back action lock.i no the tryon had a back action lock
but never new that jake &sam hawkin used back action locks
bernie :hmm:

 

[Blizzard of '93]

Do you happen to know what caliber he used? I'm guessing .54?

 

[Vaino]

Is that a left-handed rifle?

 

You're talking about 2 different rifles here. The rifle at the Mountain Man Museum in Pinedale is a .40 cal back action lock and was not made by the Sam Hawken. It does have cheek pieces on both sides of the stock and this is a feature that was seen on many later rifles from the Ohio River Valley.

As for Bridger's Late Hawken, I'd suggest contacting Don Stith about it. There's not a more knowledgeable guy out there on this topic. He told me once that one of the TOW Hawken butt plates was actually cast from a Dimmick rifle butt plate that he owned.

Sean

 

[faw3]

SEAN.....I can belive that, to bad Cooner 54 is teaching at colleg now and isnt on much anymore if at all Ill E him +see if he has time to answer this "Q" but if John doesnt know .... :hmm: Fred :hatsoff:

 

[hhughh]

Bridger's Hawken was a .53, according to "The Plains Rifle". Can't help with the rest of it; sorry.

Hugh

 

[Herb]

They had the Jim Bridger rifle down from Montana, I think it was, at the old Green River Rifle Works when I took a class there in 1978. We handled the rifle and took the lock out, but I can't remember it.

 

[noworries]

if this is the origional jim bridger hawkin,then the kits that tracks sell are not corect they have a std lock and the bridger pick shows a back action lock.i no the tryon had a back action lock
but never new that jake &sam hawkin used back action locks
bernie :hmm:

Hey...that bottom pic is my gun :v

 

[JOHN L. HINNANT]

Good Evening Blizzard,

All of my reference sources state that the Bridger Hawken Rifle is 53 caliber which would be correct for that period of time.

At some point in time, the Hawken brothers settled on 53 caliber as their standard production caliber. While it is true that they did have other calibers, such as .56, most of the rifles seem to be a true .530 bore.

I am not sure that their rationale for standardizing this caliber is knowm. When Uberti produced their Hawken in 1981, they also copied the 53 caliber bore.

My 1981 production Uberti Hawken barrel slugs out at .530, and is the bore spec thar Uberti advertised and put in their spec sheet for Hawken owners.

And now, that brings up another question. How and why did modern muzzle loading barrel makers standardize on the the 54 caliber with a true .540 bore size? Why the move away from the .530 bore?

This is way off of the subject of my original question, so nobody need feel like they have to post an answer. I am just doing one of those "wondering out loud" things.

Best regards and good shooting,

John L. Hinnant

If you are not an NRA or NMLRA Member, why not? I am carrying your load.

 

[paulvallandigham]

John : One of the Great " Imponderables " I did the same thing a couple of years back when I heard that some company was marketing " replica " Harper's Ferry Armory Rifles in .49 caliber to commemorate the Lewis and Clark Expedition! I ranted and raved about why they would not simply make it a .50 caliber rifle so that commonly sold Round Ball could be used, and people would not have to go to the added expense of finding a custom mold maker to make them a .480 diameter round ball mold!

I can only assume that the .54 diameter barrel was chosen arbitrarily, based on other gun maker's barrels. A true .530 would be a 31 gauge barrel( .531")

BTW, I remember reading an article in Muzzle Blast years ago about his rifle and it was described as being a .54 caliber rifle. I suspect it was a typographical error, or an editor's error, who thought the author had made the mistake. The author actually examined the gun, and Bridger's possible bag, horn, and powder measure. Apparently the muzzle is coned, and that may also contribute to the discrepancies in reports of the bore diameter. The author was writing a book on early American possible bags, and noted that like so many bags made before our Civil War, there was no short starter, and no loop inside the bag to hold one.

 

John,

On the standardization thing, this is really a modern issue because there was no standardization or interchangeability of even military gun parts until, IIRC, the 1830-40 period and then only on some. Hawken bore sizes varied a fair amount and the .52-.53 size is an average. I think this is due to the hand reaming and rifling process. The folks I've talked to who've done this say the reaming is a booger and there was likely some 'close enough' syndrome going on. If you look back at original trade rifle orders, they often took this into account by specifying a range of gauges, and each rifle came with its own mold in addition to the wiper, rammer, and canton cloth slipcase. This could be due to the reaming process or the use of multiple suppliers.

Can't remember where I read it, but I've also seen mention of early barrel makers selling 'blanks' that were forge welded and then ground octagon in a wateer-powered grnd stone, but still needed final reaming and rifling. I know that there are records of the Hawken shop buying barrels, but have never heard of one with anything other than a 1-48" twist... Coincidence? Who knows.

Sean

 

Fred,

I'm guessing ol' Cooner is busting butt right now teaching new classes, but will eventually get caught up and be back on the board. He knows a lot about these rifles. I remember not too long ago that he was discussing the Bridger rifle and dating Hawken rifle hardware with Don Stith on another board.

Sean

 

[davy]

Fred,

I'm guessing ol' Cooner is busting butt right now teaching new classes, but will eventually get caught up and be back on the board. He knows a lot about these rifles. I remember not too long ago that he was discussing the Bridger rifle and dating Hawken rifle hardware with Don Stith on another board.

Sean

Old Don (Cooner) ... hes probably holdin out for more money! :thumbsup:

Davy

 

John, you can get the correct BP for that rifle from Don Stith. The TOTW Bridger Hawken BP is all wrong. Never seen an original Hawken with that BP on it. :shake:
That'll cost ya nuttin'.

 

Good to see you around here, Mr. Muzzleloader Consultant. What's your going rate for advice these days?

Don Stith's web page:[url] http://www.donstith.com/muzzle_loading_rifles.html[/url]

Sean

 

[faw3]

Thanks for getting back to me on this Cooner. :bow: Fred :hatsoff:

 

A little off topic .... how's the new wee one?
Did ya post any pictures for all us guys to look see? :hatsoff: