TRS "Expedition" Rifle

[runningbadger]

Sorry I missed that.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Sean,
I went to the "We Proceeded On" website and tried to search for Keller, Cowan, Wier, rifles etc, and did not come up with any reference to a paper. Supposedly the article appeared in the May 2006 issue of the journal. This "expedition" short rifle sold by TRS has my red flags up. Finding a rifle with serial number 15 is almost too coincidental since there were supposed to be 15 of the rifles on the expedition. The gun has no sling yet the inventory for the trip calls for 15 rifles and 15 slings. If the gun was generally accepted as an expedition rifle wouldn't you think that would be huge news in the antique gun world? Yet, I can only find little snippets here and there mentioning it. I have no vested interest in whatever guns L&C carried, however, some of the players in this debate do. I am sure the owner of the gun would love to claim it was an expedition rifle because it would be priceless. TRS put a lot of effort into the castings for their 1803 Harpers Ferry rifle and were reportedly not very happy when Tait published his paper on the contract rifles. They certainly have a vested interest in marketing the "true" expedition rifle. With all the fakery in the antique gun world, you have to be very suspicious of anything that looks too good.

 

[Desert Rat]

I'm willing to bet that if a verified gun from the expedition was ever to surface the news would be big enough to go beyond the antique gun world. I think that this is one of those debates where each side has just enough evidence to make an arugment but not enough to prove their point.

It's sure fun talking about though. :wink:

 

Rat,

Tactfully put.

I went through my copy of the Tait article again last night. Here is a quick summary of some of the points he makes in that article:

1) Most people who state that the 1803 was the rifle of the expedition cite Carl Russell's 1960 work, which was an uncited, unsubstantiated statement.
2) The other source used for this claim is the 1818 version of the journals of the expedition edited by Coues. Tait cites Chittenden who said that Coues had a tendency to add his own information to original works. He furthermore went through a few passages of the original journal and showed the differences where Coues insinuated that the 1803 was used.
3) The War Department's letter requesting a prototype of the 1803 was dated May. Lewis was at HF two months before that in April to pick up his rifles and equipment. He was not at HF long enough to design and have them built as has been stated.
4) HF's own records show that they built no rifles in 1803, only muskets and pistols.
5) HF's records show that they had many 1792/4 contract rifles in storage at the time Lewis visited. Lewis did request new locks for these with interchangeable parts.

After all that Tait displays and discusses four original 1792/4 rifles.

If you can find a copy of the article, check it out. Try your local library and see if you can request it by interlibrary loan.

Sean

 

[Desert Rat]

There ya go again citing all that research... :grin: That's why I like talking to ya.
I made the decision in my own mind that the contracts were most likely the rifle brought some time ago. I just wish I had more resources to do a correct contract rifle instead of the re-worked 1803.

 

[rabjr]

Some more info here.
[url] http://nimrodsplace.com/lewisandclark6[/url]