TRS M1800 . 54 Rifle Arrives!

[tsmgguy]

I ordered up a new reproduction M1800 Harpers Ferry short rifle from Jess at The Rifle Shop in August, 2007. It showed up on the door step two years later, almost to the day.

This is a reproduction of the rifle that surfaced in St. Louis, that is believed to have accompanied the Lewis & Clark expedition. This rifle is well described in the May 2006 issue of We Proceeded on, the journal of the Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation. The rifle has a serial number of 15, the lowest observed to date for any M1803 rifle. As there are significant differences between this rifle and later M1803 rifles, historians Cowan & Keller gave it the M1800 designation.

The reproduction is beautifully made, and worth the wait! Jess used a lovely piece of walnut for the stock, with plenty of subtle tiger stripes. The barrel, lock, and stock are well marked, and indeed the lock was cast from impressions of that of rifle #15. The rifle is slimmer than first pattern M1803s, with a smaller and differently shaped lock, shorter patch box, buckhorn rear sight, hollow barrel rib, and differently shaped stock. It does not have provisions for a sling, and looks nothing like the military arms of the time. It more resembles a light hunting rifle, or British officer's fusil. Compared to my TRS Baker rifle, it looks very elegant indeed!

Jess and son Mike finished the tang, rib, and 33" barrel in brown. The brass is bright, with the lock color case hardened. Screws and barrel wedge are fire blued. The stock's finish is deep and glossy, and appers to be finished in many coats of boiled linseed oil.

I have yet to shoot it, but it handles beautifully and sparks extremely well. I'll post photos shortly.

 

[texcl]

Can't wait to see the pics.

 

[BobKrohn]

I have been trying to trace down info on the #15 rifle without success. Do you have a copy of the magazine article?
I saw no way to look at it online at the Lewis and Clark Org website.
Pics of your rifle will be great to see when you post them.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Like everyone else, I can't wait for the pictures.

 

[BobKrohn]

Went to Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation website (www.LewisAndClark.org) but they don't have the article online.

I sent an email and soon rec'd a PDF file of the article.

Fantastic. Confirmed all my suppositions. Now I have a authoritive citation.

 

[zampilot]

I thought the 1803 rifles were not in production in March 1803 and L+C took 15 new 1803 dated locks and spare parts along with 1794 rifles from storage?

 

[PGTMG]

Like everyone else, I can't wait for the pictures.

What he said please.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I thought the 1803 rifles were not in production in March 1803 and L+C took 15 new 1803 dated locks and spare parts along with 1794 rifles from storage?

You are correct about the M1803, but in reality no one knows for certain what rifle they actually carried, it could have been a prototype of the 1803 as Keller and Cowan suggest. I know Rick Keller and Ernie Cowan and they are VERY knowledgeable and I trust their research as far as it goes but no one really knows what rifle was carried and I doubt that it will ever be confirmed. We do know what musket they carried, so at least we know what weapon the majority of the Expedition used.

 

[Dphar]

I thought the 1803 rifles were not in production in March 1803 and L+C took 15 new 1803 dated locks and spare parts along with 1794 rifles from storage?

You are correct about the M1803, but in reality no one knows for certain what rifle they actually carried, it could have been a prototype of the 1803 as Keller and Cowan suggest. I know Rick Keller and Ernie Cowan and they are VERY knowledgeable and I trust their research as far as it goes but no one really knows what rifle was carried and I doubt that it will ever be confirmed. We do know what musket they carried, so at least we know what weapon the majority of the Expedition used.

Keller and Cowan make a strong case for the prototype 1803.
Others scoff at the idea. Some for commercial reasons.
However, Lewis SURELY saw a prototype. Why? Because Dearborne had to have one to look at to make the revisions he made in the design. Everything was done by prototypes and samples. Detailed drawings were not done. This *IMO* is *very* likely.
If Lewis liked what he saw he could have simply ordered 15. He had a letter from Dearborne instructing them to make anything he wanted.
Was this done? Did they use Contract Rifles that had been through a couple of expeditions?
All we know is that the rifles were short. Whether they were pre-1803s or shortened contract rifles we do not know.
However, the 1803 as prone to burst between the octagonal portion and the muzzle. 2 of the L&C guns burst in this manner.
And the 1803 production was for a given number of rifles (the exact number escapes me an the data is on another computer) but Harpers Ferry *made* 15 more than this. So....
I would also point out that the 1792 proponents have not done a good job of proving their point. Some don't even seem to agree with the Journals that the L&C rifles were "short".
I would also point out that Jefferson and Lewis were not in the dark as to what the expedition was going into, there were several years of research done. Considering the country they were going into the 54 caliber would have been preferable.
Bottom line. Nobody knows for sure. I lean toward the prototype 1803, but someone could show up outfitted as a L&C member with a shortened 1792 and I would not raise an eyebrow.

Dan

 

[tsmgguy]

Sorry to be so slow in posting the photos! I'm out of town and this will happen next week.

A few arguments helped to settle the L&C M1803 v. 1792 contract rifle question for me, in addition to those mentioned above:

The M1803 was almost universally referred to while in Army service as, "the short rifle", not "the M1803" or "'03", or "Harper's Ferry", or whatever. Expedition journals refer to the 15 examples of the rifle carried in just this way.

The M1803 had a problem with barrels that tended to burst just in back of the front sight. This problem was mentioned in the journals, and indeed, several of the Expedition's short rifles with burst barrels were shortened, as a field repair.

Lastly, M1792 comission rifles came from 17 different makers, and there was no effort made to use interchangable componants. Eli Whitney (the American father of parts interchangability) helped set up the Harper's Ferry Arsenal. The M1803 was to feature fully interchangable parts, and it's prototypes would have, as well. Lewis took many parts with him for the repair of his short rifles, including complete locks. There would have been no way that he could have done this with M1792 contract rifles from so many different makers.

The 2006 article is from the May 2006 Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation jopurnal, "We Proceeded On', and can be had for $5, including mailing. It's entitled, "The guns of Lewis & Clark". Call Don Peterson at 888 701 3434. Back copies of that particular issue are enormously popular and have sold out.

Pics on the way, I promise!

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Good posts Dan and tsmgguy. tsmgguy, I do have to disagree with a few things though. Eli Whitney was not 'the American father of parts interchangeability", his efforts to that end were almost completely unsuccessful. And I can not recall that he assisted setting up the Harpers Ferry Arsenal in any way. He was offered the position of Superintendent after the Arsenal had been up and running for a few years but turned it down because of personal affairs and business at his own works that needed to be taken care of.

The M1803 was, like all Harpers Ferry products at the time, completely hand made and the artificers made little to no attempt at parts interchangeability during actual production of the M1803. However, you are correct, the locks were reasonably interchangeable by the standards of the time and special effort was made on the locks for the L & C expedition.

 

[zampilot]

Hmmm, great info. Thanks!

 

[zampilot]

One thing: if I were going on that journey into the unknown, I wouldnt place faith or trust in a new and unknown unproven prototype rifle. I'd stick with what was known and proven, the future be damned!

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

You may be right, but the M1792 Contract rifles had been a hit or miss proposition, there were many problems with them and many complaints from the field. Some contractors did fairly well and others did fairly poor work. Among the problems was poor quality locks, badly breached barrels, poor quality rifling and substandard wood. There was variation in quality of guns delivered by all of the contractors so there was enough blame to go around.

It is possible that Lewis wanted something better and more reliable, but was Harpers Ferry, still going through the beginning phases of getting up and running, capable of doing the work? They had high quality, craft trained gunmakers from Maryland and Pennsylvania working so maybe they did.

 

[BobKrohn]

I asked the person at L&C.org if I could post the .PDF file of the article but was told there would be a copyright problem.
Everyone with any interest should read this article. Many, many important historical details are brought up and dealt with.
As yet I have not yet been able to get any valid contact info for Ernest Cowan or Richard Keller to ask further questions re the #15 relic rifle.
One of them being the question mentioned here, i.e. did the rest of the 1803's exhibit parts interchangeability.
Article states that the M1792 was obsolete. Why.
Have there been any other historical information uncovered since publication of the article.
Where is the #15 gun now and what reputation does the then owner, Leon Budginas of Salt Lake City, enjoy. (i.e. could it be a fake)
I can't find any info on any of these three individuals.

Stated in the article "Model" terminology was not used then and is a 20th century collector phenomenon.
The "M1800" or "M1803" was simply a "Short Rifle".

Article lists firearm yearly production numbers.
1802=1,472 1803=1,048. So they had capacity for 15.

The expedition had been in the works for years, albeit somewhat clandestine in nature. We didn't "own" the territory until just before they left and this was basically a military operation.

 

[rabjr]

Wishful thinking but I guarantee none of us will ever know for sure which was the right weapon taken and used.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

...............

As yet I have not yet been able to get any valid contact info for Ernest Cowan or Richard Keller to ask further questions re the #15 relic rifle.

...............

Both should be reachable at Great War Militaria in Chambersburg, Pa.:
http://www.greatwar.com/Scripts/default.asp

The above will give email, snail mail and telephone contact information.

 

[Dphar]

One thing: if I were going on that journey into the unknown, I wouldnt place faith or trust in a new and unknown unproven prototype rifle. I'd stick with what was known and proven, the future be damned!

The "proven technology" argument will not withstand scrutiny.
It was not new and unproven. Its not as if the change was like jumping from the Trapdoor Springfield to the M-16. The 1803 was proven 1780s-1790s technology through out, the locks were not even state of the art for 1800. It was all "old school" aside for a somewhat shorter barrel and concerns about this could be eliminated with a few shots to compare range and penetration.
The 1/2 stock is more reliable than a FS. Its less likely to break.
Dan

 

[BobKrohn]

Yup, I had already done that.
They sent me an incorrect email address.
Then I got another "odd" email from GW and one from Ernie Cowan himself stating:
"...you will most likely receive a curt response if you direct your inquiries to Great War. I apologize."

He kindly gave me a phone number to reach him at which I intend to do ASAP.

He also stated that the published article was edited down quite a bit. He had then submitted the full article to 'MuzzleBlasts' and they have it on a back burner.
Wants people to contact them so full version will be put into print.

 

[tmdreb]

The "proven technology" argument will not withstand scrutiny.
It was not new and unproven. Its not as if the change was like jumping from the Trapdoor Springfield to the M-16. The 1803 was proven 1780s-1790s technology through out, the locks were not even state of the art for 1800. It was all "old school" aside for a somewhat shorter barrel and concerns about this could be eliminated with a few shots to compare range and penetration.
The 1/2 stock is more reliable than a FS. Its less likely to break.
Dan

Dan,

I might have to disagree with you here. There are just too many primary sources documenting the disastrous results of the new guns automatically switching their setting from "stun" to "kill".