GPR rebuild

[Bob F]

Well, the first coating of stripper is on and off and removed quite a bit of the old finish.  I applied a second coat tonight and will let it sit overnight wrapped in clear wrap to keep it from drying out as the instructions recommend. 

I also started removing all of the old blueing from the hardware and I remebered how much I really don't like sanding but once it's all done I plan on browning everything with LMF Plum Brown.  I also started some research on what wood needs to be removed to make it more in line with the original Hawkens.  What I plan so far is the perch belly that the GPR has, some wood around the lock plate and I am going to round off the wood to barrel finish. 

I am also going to inlet a teardrop for the lock bolt and replace the Lyman triggers with a set of Davis double set triggers..

For those who have built Hawken's before...what sights are more historically correct...a buckhorn rear or a longer adjustable elevation rear sight?

Any other suggestions I mght have missed???  All comments are welcome.

thanks.....

[bigsky]

From conversations and responses from Don Stith and others, original Hawken metal finishes appeared to be: 1) charcoal blued or rust blued barrel, rib, and thimbles, 2) mottled case hardened buttplate, triggerguard, toeplate, entry pipe, nose piece, and lock.  The Carson Hawken shown in Wilson's Peacemakers book shows these metal finishes pretty well. 

As far as modifying a GPR, you are correct in getting rid of the perch belly (although late S. Hawkens have a very slight one).  The transition along the top line from the barrel through the wrist needs to be more gradual (the GPR has too much of a dogleg shape as it comes down at the tang).  The butplate on a GPR is set at the wrong angle (with the barrel vertical, the heel should touch the floor, not the toe).  It would also be nice if the GPR had a longer tang like a Hawken with the tang bolt going through to the trigger bar.

Buckhorn would be more appropriate than longer adjustable sight.

My first ML was a GPR because of all the production guns at the time it looked the most like a Hawken, but the more I studied Hawkens, the more the differences seemed to show up.  I believe you can successfully rework your GPR too look MORE like a Hawken if you can get the profile correct.  You might want to get one of the Hawken plans to set the GPR stock on to see where it needs modification.  Good luck and post pictures when you finish.

[tg]

I always thought the LGP allready looked like the later post fur trade Plains rilfes and was not intended to look like a Hawkin.

[J.D.]

I always thought the LGP allready looked like the later post fur trade Plains rilfes and was not intended to look like a Hawkin.

That is my impression too.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, these photos of Hawken rifles speak volumes.

That link didn't work, so I'll try this one.
http://www.bbhc.org/collections/BBHC/index_CFM.cfm

Click on "manufacturer" then scroll down the drop down box to (Samuel Hawken, St. Louis, MO) for photos of six original Hawkens.

Bigsky is right on about the blued and case hardened metal finish.
I recently saw a very well preserved Hawken with some blue remaining on the barrel and traces of case colors elsewhere.
God Bless,
J.D.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I did a rebuild of the GPR a couple years ago for my buddy Brian Dancey.  We had no intension of making it look like a Hawken, I don't think, but it ended up that way.  Probably because Hawken's geometry is so much more pleasing to the eye than the Lyman rifle's.  I took out most of the perch belly, greatly altered the curve of the wrist from the breech to the comb, lock panels, cheek piece, and forearm.  I exchanged the escutcheon plate for pure silver, and added some other inlays per Brian's taste.  I don't know what the wood is - walnut of some kind - but is harder than anything I've ever carved before or since.  Oh yeah, I browned the barrel, rib and thimbles, triggers and guard, and butt plate, and case hardened the nose piece and screws.

There isn't much you can do to improve the butt plate...it has much too short a heel.  that's perhaps the single biggest complaint I have of this design, and of the design of Hawken plates that are currently available on the market today.  Don Stith has the only plates of which I am aware, that are correct.  Perhaps someone else can suggest other venders that have correct plates.

















In answer to a diminishing number of requests, I have erased the photobucket images and replaced them using our new service, and added a few more from my files.
Regarding the profile of the GPR, I think the single most important improvement that you can make is to take the standing breech tang out of the stock, straighten out that terrible hump, rebend it closer to the break-off, reinlet it and file away those two bevels along the edges ( I don't know what they were for).  This will make the top curve of the wrist more gentle, more pleasing, and more like a Hawken rifle. 
Someone made a great observation regarding Hawkens and other fur trade era plains rifles.  There were lots of builders, right in St. Louis that were contemporary to the Hawken boys, and they made some wonderful rifles.  Volume III of Gordon's books on this subject has pages of rifles by other makers and most are very neat, rivaling Hawken's design.  So don't be afraid to let your imagination loose.
As an example, I have included an image of the stock barrel slide escutcheon which is a skinny football shaped piece of steel pressed into a too-large hole filled with soft putty.  I made new escutcheons out of pure silver and I think they add a great deal of interest to the otherwise fairly plain rifle.
I used the factory sights.  The rifle also has L & R's replacement flintlock.  It works very well whereas I was unable to get the factory lock to make ANY sparks.  But I have seen other GPRs whose stock locks work well...go figure.



upload photos to website

[Bob F]

Thanks to all for the great suggestions and photos.  My plan is to try and get it closer to a Hawken look, but I know it won't be totally possible.  I'll keep everyone updated as I go.  So far I have stripped the old finish off the stock and started sanding the hardware to remove some rust and rough spots from the metal.

Thanks...Bob

[B Shipman]

Bob, I used to redo these for people  many years ago. First consider that few mtn. men had Hawkens. You want to make it look like a cool  mtn. or plains rifle.

First, and VASTLY the most important, is to reduce the wood around the lock and sidplate areas. SPECIFICALLY, 1/8 in. of wood above and below the lock and the same shape on the opp side. Redo forestock inlays, dress everything down to the wood. Thin forestock. Redo sideplate inlay. Big teardrop. Refinish everything brown. It's easy and looks good. Wish I had pictures.

[Bob F]

Thanks for the lockplate and sideplate specs. I already have s teardrop that I was going to inlet. I contacted Don Stith about getting a better buttplate. How much did you thin the forestock down?  I was also planning to make the cheek piece a little smaller.

[karwelis]

the buffalo bill cody museum has pics of alot of hawkens, and you would be surprised how close the gpr allready is, this is a pic of mine.

[rich pierce]

For the life of me if Dancy has that one I don't know why he needs any other guns.

[B Shipman]

Bob, less than 1/8 in. It's important to make it round like an egg. No hint of a square.

[Bob F]

Thanks

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Rich, Brian's here in PG right now and I don't think he has access to the forum...could be wrong though.  In any event, he'll need time to defend himself.

[Bob F]

Well, tonight the perch belly disappeared.  Tomorrow I think I'll tackle thining down the forestock and start rounding it off to get rid of the rounded square shape.

[Bob F]

Has anyone ever tried reshaping the cheekpiece from the rounded oversize GPR cheekpiece to a smaller squared off cheekpiece that you can see on some original Hawkens?  If so, how hard was it and how did it turn out?

[Brian]

Ha!  I’m back.  I was, as was suggested, out on the road working.

First of all, let me make no bones about it – Taylor did an absolutely MAGNIFICENT job on my GP.  It is a stunning piece of work in every aspect.  The alterations speak for themselves as you can see – and the finish is impeccable.  It is in every sense, a “Sapergia Masterpiece.  His craftsmanship and talent speak for themselves, and he knows the era and styles involved.  And no, I assure you, I am NOT related to the man.  I wish I was.  I could get better prices!

So why (to answer Rich) do I need any other guns.  Okay, first of all, there is no such thing as “too many guns”.  I (all of us) need one of everything!  It just has to be.  Too many guns!  What a joke!

More to the point, and while this is exactly what it is, a fantastic “Great Plains” rifle, it was only a “taste” for me.  This goes way back guys.  Then the “sickness” REALLY set in and I discovered the origin of it all!  And so away we went.  The rest is history and yes, I know, most of you think I’m nuts.  But I love these old rifles and the history behind them SO much I don’t care what people think.  I “need” so many of them.

But back to the GP.  It is a masterpiece, but for me it was just the beginning (so to speak) and I went from there.  It opened the door to what “was” and I fell through.  I am forever trapped in the 18th Century – and I love it.

BUT – for any of you who are into the Great Plains era and the 19th Century – the example set by Taylor with this GP rifle is outstanding in every sense.  The man does have a habit of setting the benchmark.  His work is not only exemplary, it is trend setting.

If anyone wants more details of the rifle I’d be happy to send more pictures and/or specs.  It truly is a masterpiece! And hot @!*% – does it shoot!

[Bob F]

OK..well so far I have reshaped the cheekpiece, lockplate, rounded the forearm and nose of the comb.



I have posted pics of the project so far at:  http://www.nepaoutdoors.com/GPR_refurb.htm

[S99VG]

I am new to this forum and seriously interested in the topic of this thread.  Can anyone add to this or bring it up to date?  I'd be interested in seeing the pictures but it looks like they didn't survive the recent Photobucket massacre.  Many thanks for any help.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I replaced the pictures in my original post above, and added some comments.

[Daryl]

Has anyone ever tried reshaping the cheekpiece from the rounded oversize GPR cheekpiece to a smaller squared off cheekpiece that you can see on some original Hawkens?  If so, how hard was it and how did it turn out?

Bob- have a look at the first picture - that is the re-shaped cheek piece before re-finishing. The 3rd, 4th and 5th show it finished. I suppose you might have enough wood for a Tennessee cheek piece if you wanted that.

[J Henry]

  Is the cheek piece on the left side ,for a lefty??

[S99VG]

Thank you very much!

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

The cheek piece is on the left hand side of the buttstock...for a right-eyed shooter.  One's dominant HAND ("leftie") has nothing to do with it.

A comment on the GPR factory cheek-piece...Those stocks are made to be slack sanded for ease and speed of manufacture, ie:  no hand work involved.  The cheekpiece and lock panels require sculpting, and in truth, the cheek piece could be pared down by half.

[greywuuf]

Just a word to the wise...dilute hydrochlorich acid (muriatic pool acid) strips blueing by just rinsing . No sanding required.

[S99VG]

I've been comparing pictures of the reworked GPS with a stock rifle and of finished kits from some of the shops and noticed the following (my apologies if I repeat things that already have been said):

The downward bend at the tang is more acute and not as round as in the original GPR.
In accord with the above, there appears to be less wood in the wrist immediately behind the tang.
The slight perch belly is now a straight line.
The front of the comb appears a bit more sharp.
The pads are more pronounced.
Per the text, in cross section the forearm is more rounded (or egg shaped) than the GPR's original rectangular shape.

I'm sure there are more changes in the basic shape than meets my eye.  Would making the wrist more round in cross section and carrying that shape into the butt by relieving the nose of the comb also give a bit more authentic shape?  Earlier plains rifles seem that way to me.  Again, many thanks for refreshing this older post.