AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: arlen on June 03, 2017, 11:34:15 PM
-
Has there been any research written in a book about the U.S. Model 1800 flintlock rifle serial #15 made at Harper’s Ferry Arsenal created under the direction of Joseph Perkin?
Is this rifle authentic? What is the provenance of this rifle?
I notice that this rifle was sold at auction in 2012. Where is this rifle today?
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmnwttSz.jpg&hash=a3016a7e0aa55cb296b61b924ec2b72c4e97d8ea)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLQtOYb4.jpg&hash=347c15a07d60eb5c19bfd15fc124bcb3c62aed0a)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDSZR0VY.jpg&hash=d744092113b7e10712be93bfbf9bcaacf217c84f)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fbi7p38Q.jpg&hash=632251d2e7308d7610b4640bbd1eb13799d060f6)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgYojrWo.jpg&hash=e439536d2fd4000295c470cb3654a3c296c9e353)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGo9bk9t.jpg&hash=bd366172694906978fec093d6641208085f90b21)
-
It's a somewhat controversial argument that this is one of the "short rifles" that was on the Lewis and Clark expedition but I knew the previous owner, the gentlemen that did the flawless research, and had the pleasure of seeing and holding the gun in person and I think the argument is iron-clad. The few bench copies of it are fantastic but alas, I missed my opportunity a number of years ago but may still get a chance at one of them in the not-too-distant future.
-
Has there been a close photographic study of this rifle? I would like to learn as much as possible.
-
Arlen,
You can get castings made from the original rifle from The Rifle Shoppe and build your own.
http://therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/us_arms/(935).htm (http://therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/us_arms/(935).htm)
I also see on their website that The Rifle Shoppe has completed its move to new shops and homes and have the phones working again. The new address and phone numbers are given here.
http://therifleshoppe.com/ (http://therifleshoppe.com/)
-
Does this differ in some way from a M1803?
-
Yes it does, read the info on TRS website.....Ed
-
Mtn Meek, I have seen that the kit is offered on The Rifle Shoppe. I will most probably acquire a kit.
I wish that this rifle was owned by a museum, NRA, or NMLRA. The NRA could devote the huge funds to inspect, test, evaluate the remnants.
-
I'm not sure the Rifle Shop(pe) parts are actually taken from the original but what I do know for certain is that the caliber is incorrect as is the type of rifling and the rib they use is solid and not three pieces brazed or soldered together like the original #15. In addition, the original butt plate was constructed of two pieces brazed together - the Rifle Shop is one cast piece. There are also other subtle differences that I don't quite recall at the moment but if you're looking for a truly accurate copy of #15, the RS version is not it.
-
I'm not sure the Rifle Shop(pe) parts are actually taken from the original but what I do know for certain is that the caliber is incorrect as is the type of rifling and the rib they use is solid and not three pieces brazed or soldered together like the original #15. In addition, the original butt plate was constructed of two pieces brazed together - the Rifle Shop is one cast piece. There are also other subtle differences that I don't quite recall at the moment but if you're looking for a truly accurate copy of #15, the RS version is not it.
I've always been fascinated by the rifles L&C are supposed to have carried. I could not find the caliber of the kit on the Rifle Shoppe site. Can you tell me the difference there between #15 and the barrel they offer? To me the differences in the rib are resolvable if you want to make your own sheet metal one and if I want a two piece brazed butt plate, I suppose I could always cut theirs and braze it back together so that it would have a braze line. I'd always expect a few differences between a kit based on remnants of an original, just based on manufacturing difference between today and then, as well as trying to keep the cost somewhat reasonable on a product with a very limited market. Only other real option would be to entirely hand make one and since only remnants remain, there would always be some details subject to interpretation.
Thanks for any info you can provide on the caliber.
-
If I recall correctly, the RS version is in .54 caliber and the original was .52. Also, I'm not quite sure how to describe the rifling but it did not consist of conventional lands and grooves but rather the bore was hexagonal (or was it octagonal?) which resulted in far less fowling build-up and need for cleaning between shots. Again, it's been at least 6-7 years since I held the original and one of the bench copies but other than the 3-piece rib, brazed butt plate, and some other subtle differences between the original and the RS copy, the caliber/rifling difference was one of the biggies that stands out in my mind. You can find a little additional info. on #15 here: http://www.1803harpersferry.com/
-
thank you very much. These are very interesting and informative replies. It is what I was searching for.
-
You bet! I think that website also has contact information for the one of the guys (Rick Keller and Ernie Cowan) who did the research on #15. Ernie in particular could fill you in on the most minute of details!
-
There may be another HF 1803 with one of those low serial numbers if this rifle is authentic.
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/e2/de2e954a-a356-11e0-bce8-001cc4c002e0/4e0cdb572294e.image.jpg)
Some more info on the rifle can be seen here:
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/firearm-to-be-unveiled-at-th-anniversary-of-travelers-rest/article_3f36a5b6-a39e-11e0-9765-001cc4c002e0.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/firearm-to-be-unveiled-at-th-anniversary-of-travelers-rest/article_3f36a5b6-a39e-11e0-9765-001cc4c002e0.html)
It would be interesting to see how the characteristics of this #12 compares to #15 under discussion.
-
Bob Hoyt did an examination of #15 and described it as having g "ratchet" rifling, much different than the production rifling of later M1803 rifles.
-
If I recall correctly, the RS version is in .54 caliber and the original was .52. Also, I'm not quite sure how to describe the rifling but it did not consist of conventional lands and grooves but rather the bore was hexagonal (or was it octagonal?) which resulted in far less fowling build-up and need for cleaning between shots. Again, it's been at least 6-7 years since I held the original and one of the bench copies but other than the 3-piece rib, brazed butt plate, and some other subtle differences between the original and the RS copy, the caliber/rifling difference was one of the biggies that stands out in my mind. You can find a little additional info. on #15 here: http://www.1803harpersferry.com/
Bob Hoyt did an examination of #15 and described it as having "ratchet" rifling, much different than the production rifling of later M1803 rifles.
These are interesting statements. If you read the article by Keller and Cowan, in describing #15 they state, "At some point its firing mechanism was converted from flintlock to percussion, and the barrel was rebored to remove the rifling."
http://www.1803harpersferry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/vol32no2p20-29.pdf (http://www.1803harpersferry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/vol32no2p20-29.pdf)
There is no way of knowing the original caliber of #15 or what type of rifling it originally had. The barrel is a smoothbore now!
-
Well, that is interesting!! I only relate what he told me. Anyway, I have four Model 1803 Harper's Ferry rifles and three of the four were bored smooth. One still has nice rifling (1814 dated short rifle) and it is a very tight .52 caliber, 7-groove, with the typical 7-sided bore appearance with wide lands and narrow deep grooves. A .515" ball will fit, but my guess is that for ease of loading a somewhat smaller size was issued. This rifle could not possibly be loaded with the .525" ball that all the books claim was the standard government rifle ball.
-
Good article by Keller and Cowan. They may be guilty of presuming that the dates on the locks of Harper's Ferry arms correspond to the date of the gun's manufacture, as it generally did at Springfield. But at HF, that date is indicative only that the lock was finished that year. HF usually got up a large stock of finished components before stockers went to work, and no attention was given to lock dates. It is common occurrence on early HF arms to observe lock dates that clearly do not fit the gun's serial number, sometimes by a number of years. A good number of rifle locks were made up in 1803, but not necessarily mounted until 1804 or 1805.
-
Does anybody know if this gun #15 shows signs that it had sling swivels? I can't imagine that the hunters on the expedition would not have had slings. The journals describe that the hunters went out on foot for miles and carried back large game. I can't tell from the photos.
-
Well now isn't THAT interesting? Not that I claim expertise other than my general familiarity with #15 but a #12 out there is sure news to me! As for the rifling and how Cowan and Keller came to the conclusion that the original caliber was so-and-so and the rifling was of a different type I do not know. I'd have to ask but knowing them there was no guesswork involved in their conclusion. When it comes to slings, I don't believe any of the M. 1803s were fitted for slings (someone may correct me on that) but I am positive #15 never had any sling provision. There are notes for the Lewis and Clark expedition about them being provided with a number of slings but these would have been for the smoothbore muskets they also carried. Further evidence for a wide variety of arms carried by the expedition can be found in the account of the three kinds of powder they had...rifle, musket, and cannon.
-
If I remember right, there was an 1803 on display in the Cody Museum. Has this one been gone over for specifications, etc like #15?
-
The Southern Arsenal by Hartzel and Whiskler Old Bedford Press Bedford, Pa 15522 1996
The United States Arsenal at Harper's Ferry
History, Personnel, number of Firearms manufactured by year, pictures by model number
He alludes to a book by Merritt Roe Smith about the technological aspects of arsenal production.
Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology. Cornell University Press. 1977. ISBN 978-0-8014-9181-8. (reprint 1980)
-
Years ago there was an article in the Buckskin Report regarding an HF 1803 that surfaced in, or around, St. Louis that was a possible L&C gun. It differed from the standard model in several ways. One being it had a pewter nose cap, which either indicated it was different than the traditional 1803 HF,or may have had the cap cast on after the fact, or may have been a fullstock originally. As I recall the patchbox differed a bit from the original 1803, and it had sling swivels.
Hungry Horse
-
I wrote an article back in 2000 in "Muzzleloader" magazine entitled "The Short Rifles of the Lewis and Clark Expedition".
First, the rifle that appeared in American Rifleman in an article by Kirk Olsen is not an 1803-1806 production variant, it has components from a Type II rifle (1814-1819 production). Research by Jess Melot of The Rifle Shoppe clearly shows the distinctions.
Secondly, Harpers Ferry and Springfield Armories certainly never produced a rifle before the "short rifle" (also called "the iron ribbed rifle"), production which started with Lewis's visit in April 1803. This is borne out in numerous letters in official US government correspondance and arsenal lists of stores, which show only production for muskets and bayonets prior to 1803 (and were not talking about the incorrect 1822 records). How and why Carrick, Keller, and Cohan arrived at the "Model 1800" designation is beyond me. I have some doubts about the authenticity of the rifle they are promoting as a "Model 1800".
There is no evidence that Lewis's rifles were equipped with slings, and those listed were for muskets, as evidenced in various letters of the expedition, government correspondance, and arsenal records (zero parts for rifles in stores, with the exception of 16 rifle sights). We also have drawings from Gass's journal. The art of St. Memin depicting Lewis holding a long rifle or fusee has sling swivels, and it's obviously not a military arm.
As for Frank Tait's conjecture, he shows Model 1807 contract long rifles which were fitted with Harpers Ferry locks. These rifles were clearly made after the expedition, and in no way resemble the earlier contract long rifles of 1792, which originated from at least ten different contractors, made along their own personal styles, and were required only to be uniform in regards to having octogonal barrels of a certain length, thickness, and caliber. There are many letters attesting to the poor quality of these rifles, hence Dearborn's letter to Harpers Ferry arsenal master armorer Joseph Perkin to produce the "short rifle" (what we now call the Model 1803 Type I). I sincerely doubt Lewis would have picked out ten of the "best" 1792 era rifles, and only modify them by cutting them down, bore them to 30 balls to the pound, and add sling swivels. There is nothing in ordnance correspondence showing any such measures taking place (even before or after the expedition). More wishful thinking.
As for the authenticity of the purported "Model 1800" and its association with the L&C Expedition, there are several glaring discrepancies. For example, the lockplate does not fit into the mortise (notice the gap). Also, there is a mortise for the brass ferrule on the forestock, which was not present on early Model 1803 rifles- this was suggested in December 1803, long after Meriwether Lewis departed Harpers Ferry with his rifles, locks and spare parts, tomahawks, long knives, and iron frame boat. The stock appears to be from a Type II rifle. This rifle may have an original lock and barrel, however other parts are not from an Type I 1803 rifle.
Several years ago, a previous owner contacted me with the desire to examine his rifle. Unfortunately, I was out of state and could not meet him. As for forensic evidence, and given the fact that this rifle was advertised at auction for around $75,000, I propose that it be subject to non-destructive labratory analysis, to include dating the wood, x-ray of the markings, scoping the bore, chemical analysis of the metals, spectroscopy, etc., to actually determine its authenticity.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cxbpRx/model_1800_lockplate_Copy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/iNPyKH)
(https://image.ibb.co/goKb6x/1800_rifle_lock_mortice.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
I doubt the question of what rifles Lewis and Clark carried will ever be settled to everyones satisfaction/ I cannot find my copy of the Man at Arms magazine with Taits article to refresh my memory. My recollection is that he based it on a few of the 1792 Contract rifles that were taken from stores at HF & relocked with HF locks. I was fortunate to get to handle a few of those that he located
I remember two of them were signed Dickert and one was a Ferree
They were claimed to have been issued for use in the war of 1812. They were all 40 balls to the pound.
as was specified in the 1792 contract The 1807 contract rifles were quite different in barrel configuration stock and hardware(Furniture) than these 1792 rifles
I made several copies of the 1792's for use by fellows re-enacting the Expedition but no longer offer them
-
Don,
I'm comparing parts on the purported Model 1800, and there are some differences from photo's of number 94. The rear sight does not match.
I've seen some photo's of Type II rifles (1814-1819) that had serial numbers (one even marked "1"), obviously not an expedition rifle.
I'm in the process of writing another article on the contract long rifles, problem areas, and why it led to production of the "short rifle", will let you know when it is finished.
Yours, Mike
-
Mike
I am sure you know the typeII rifles were longer than the typeI. You might want to address that too
I have owned ones with serial numbers that matched to 1805 and 1807 as well as 1815 and 1817. All gone now
Don
-
There are a number of things about the "short rifles" that lead me to believe that they were prototype 1803s. First they HAD to be making at LEAST one of these as a pattern piece at the time Lewis was there since they did not work from drawings or blue prints or precision measurements and Deerborne had a rifle he looked at and stipulated changes to. If Lewis saw it and liked it and said, make me 15 they would have, he had a letter telling them to make anything he wanted. It is also my understanding that there were 15 more rifles built than the original order called for ( I have read). I have also read that the 1792s (which Lewis would have been familiar with due to his service when they were used before being put in storage) was not particularly reliable and given this I can't see Lewis taking some along on an expedition as he was embarking on. Then we have the barrel bursting problem. L&C had two rifles burst, very much like Pike had some 1803s burst during his trip of exploration from what I have read, apparently in the round portion at or close to the Oct to Rnd transition. Did any of the 1792s have this issue? I don't have any idea. I personally think the shortened 1792 is unrealistic. BUT I cannot say someone claiming its what was carried is wrong just "unlikely". When Lewis was shot he knew it was one of the short rifles by the ball size. But the questions is "what ball size?". Its maddening for inquiring minds but we will never know. All we can do is look at the evidence, what there is, and guess.
I am no expert in this by any means but the 1792 scenario just does not make sense to me.
Dan
-
What is the standard bore, twist, and number of grooves for a production 1803 Rifle? I have seen .54 caliber, 7 groove, with a 1:48 twist sighted as the specification, but the citation is Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms. I don't have that book, so I don't know their source or if it is accurate.
If Dearborn actually specified the rifle should “carry a ball of one thirtieth of a pound.” (as quoted in Notes on United States Ordnance, Vol. 1: Small Arms, 1776–1946) then that I take that to mean that the ball "carried" (meaning fired??) would be .538 in diameter. Which means the bore would need to be larger. A 25 (.571) or 26 (.564) bore would be the size of the bore if you follow the normal windage practices of the time. If you just use the other rule of thumb and go up two bore sizes, the bore would be 28 (.550) bore. If it was a very tight ball to bore fit, a 29 bore it would have been .544 in diameter, which would be impractical if one actually shot a .538 ball.
The ball size that is commonly cited as the standard US Army size for that period is a 1/32 lb (.526) ball. That sounds like it would work in a 30 bore barrel. So did the Army not follow the specification to use a rifle ball a 1/30 lb (.538) ball or am I interpreting the specification incorrectly, and what Dearborn actually meant was that the hole should be exactly the same size as a 1/30 lb (.538) ball?
And then what is the twist and the number of grooves? And how do we know? Did Dearborn specify those as well?
Mystified Mike
-
MM, That's a very good question, I would like to see the exact quote from Dearborn. I have some (unpublished) articles written by a noted Historian on the HP 1803 and he discusses the bore size at length in that article. I have loaned those papers out to the Historian at Camp River Dubois and as soon as I retrieve them I will post some quotes from those articles, the bore size is NOT,,,.540!!! I also just had the pleasure of viewing a magnificent example of a late 1803 (w 36" barrel) that appeared to have a pristine bore! WOW, unfortunately I did not get to mic the bore but I know where it resides and am planning a visit in the near future!...Ed
-
MM, That's a very good question, I would like to see the exact quote from Dearborn. I have some (unpublished) articles written by a noted Historian on the HP 1803 and he discusses the bore size at length in that article. I have loaned those papers out to the Historian at Camp River Dubois and as soon as I retrieve them I will post some quotes from those articles, the bore size is NOT,,,.540!!! I also just had the pleasure of viewing a magnificent example of a late 1803 (w 36" barrel) that appeared to have a pristine bore! WOW, unfortunately I did not get to mic the bore but I know where it resides and am planning a visit in the near future!...Ed
Ed,
Thanks, I am looking forward to your information. It is odd that that information isn't already out there, as popular as the 1803 rifle is.
I just obtained a nice set of 1803 1st pattern lock castings. I imagine the bore of the late versions was the same as the early ones. I would like to build an accurate copy. It will most likely require a custom barrel, but that's ok.
Mike
-
Here's the full Dearborn letter (printed in Hicks, Notes on United States Ordnance. Volume 1: Small Arms, 1776-1940, p. 25):
(https://preview.ibb.co/i2o9rJ/Dearborn_1803.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j3Xr5d)
-
Thanks Spgordon,,,, Mike, "'''The barrels of the rifles should.........be calculated for carrying a ball of one thirtieth a pound weight''''.---Hmmmm,,, It is my opinion this would suggest that the BALL should be 30 to the pound and my chart says that the ball would mic out at .537 but that is too big a ball for a.540 bore, just as you previously stated... Also I assume the bore on the late 1814 production guns with 36 inch barrels were of the same bore dia. as I have not read any thing different.
Colerain makes the early 1803 barrel, 33 inches in length and of .54 cal. They are full oct. at the breech end but the earlier ones were rounded on the bottom but you could round them by hand...Ed
-
"The barrels of the rifles should.........be calculated for carrying a ball of one thirtieth a pound weight"
"Be calculated" directs the designer to make the barrel capable of firing .537 balls and implies that the bore is not .537 in diameter, but something larger. The bores have to be closer to .57 caliber than .54 caliber if they intended to use conventional patches.
I have noticed that the specs for rifles were for the ball size and not the bore size. The Virginia Manufactory Rifles were required to shoot 1/40 lb balls (.488), the barrels gauge at about .510 or ~.50 caliber. Yet these are ofter quoted as being .49 caliber rifles.
I thought about getting a Colerain barrel, but I would like to replicate the real thing as closely as possible. Since the Colerain barrel is .54 caliber with 6 grooves I suspect it not actually historically accurate. It will always be a good possibility of course, if I can find someone to make an authentic copy, or if I can't find out what the real ones were.
By the way, weren't the Common rifles designed to use the same barrel? Does anyone have measurements for one of those?
Mike
-
Original bore info for 1803/1814 Harpers Ferry short rifle and 1817 Common rifle:
My two original rifles as above have reasonable bores. Both are right hand twist with 7 grooves, and the lands are much wider than the grooves. I think the rifling is original to each rifle.
The HF rifle is dated 1816 on the lock and has a 36” Octagonal (on the top) and round barrel. The lands are about 2 1/2 times wider than the grooves. The bore admits a .520 jag easily all the way to the breech plug. A .530 jag stops 1 1/4” into the bore.
The S North Common Rifle has a 35 7/8” round barrel and is dated 1827 on the tang and 1829 on the lock plate. Groove width measures +/- .064 at the muzzle, and the lands measure +/- .284”. The bore admits a .530 jag easily to the bottom, but a .535 jag stops 1/4” into the bore.
I have not measured the twist rate of either, but both bores are good enough to do that.
Bill Paton
-
Bill,
Thank you for the information. Your checks indicate that the 1816 HF bore is between .520 and .530 in diameter, with a taper to something over .530 in the last 1 1/4", and the 1817 Rifle has a .530-.535 bore with a slight cone at the muzzle.
It sounds like Mr Dearborne's original instructions might have been changed, or the bore diameter calculations are/were done differently.
Have you ever shot them? I wonder if the outward taper was intentional, as I don't see how that would help accuracy, loading perhaps.
Mike
-
From the Rifle Shoppe page:
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/us_arms/(500)_History_Facts_Description.htm
The rifling in all guns I have inspected (14 to date) which, I have found with original rifling, have the same shape of rifling. Average width .078 to .085 with .018 to .035 depth per side, with slightly oval or rounded bottom grooves and a twist of 1 turn in 49".
So it sounds like the HF rifles had a .535 bore with a 1:49 twist.
Mike
-
Wait that gun is an original.