Author Topic: Hawken rifle comparisons  (Read 10224 times)

nosrettap1958

  • Guest
Hawken rifle comparisons
« on: December 19, 2016, 06:53:34 AM »
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 06:57:01 AM by crawdad »

Offline Herb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2016, 06:49:02 PM »
They are not at all close to originals.  The first one- a 15 1/2" LOP is far too long for most anyone to use well.  Most were probably 13 1/4 (The Bridger and Carson rifles) to 14" LOP.  The comb is not fluted. Lock panel on right side front is too bulbous.  Escutcheons not flush with wood.  Two entry pipe pins- don't know of any original I have seen like that.  Front sight too near muzzle.  Cheek piece is too long.  Left lock panel too bulbous and fat.  Hammer not centered on nipple.  Originals have the top of the snail as an oval, not square to barrel.  All originals have a wood screw at the tail of the trigger plate.  Keys are not flush on the right side, key heads are too fat.  Lock does not set flush with wood.  So, a generic Hawken with many features not similar to the average original.

Second one- rear of lock panel longer and more pointed than originals, whole panel too fat.  Escutcheons not flush.  Left lock panel too fat.  Escutcheons narrower than usual.  Entry pipe is set way back- should be even with back of nose cap.  Top of snail is filed oddly, not square to barrel, originals all oval at top.  Tang bolt has an oval head instead of flush flat.

Third- The Sharon has a 13 1/2"LOP , makes for better handling.  Comb is not fluted.  Rear tang bolt is oval.  Lock panels too fat, not fluted at front top.  Escutcheons narrower than usual.  Two entry pipe pins.  Butt plate long and pointy, but maybe some originals looked like that.  Key heads fatter than originals, escutcheons too narrow.  Unusual colored lock and furniture. Front of lock panel not fluted at top.  Clean out screw in snail- never saw an original with that.  Two filled holes in tang for a tang sight?  Front tang bolt too close to end of tang.  Top of snail not filed oval.  No screw in tail of trigger plate.  Butt plate screw oval instead of flat and flush, not blued, more centered vertically than originals.  Otherwise- someone's idea of a Hawken who had never studied many originals.

There are many photos of originals on this forum, find some of them and compare your three rifles to them.
Herb

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12547
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2016, 09:09:10 PM »
That's a great comparison Herb.  You were less critical than I would have been.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

nosrettap1958

  • Guest
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2016, 10:31:02 PM »
Thanks Herb, great review. Call these 'plains' rifles or 'sporting' rifles but not Hawken rifles. Any preference, opinions on the Oregon barrel over the Sharon barrel?  I always thought that Sharon Rifle Works built a pretty good repro of the Hawken rifle. 



Not real interested in a Hawken rifle, I like these,

https://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/616/1/VINCENT-OHIO-PERC-PARTS-LIST
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 10:33:06 PM by crawdad »

Offline PPatch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2016, 03:27:13 AM »
Here is an link to one of The Gun Shop's current Hawken offerings:

http://www.thegunworks.com/custprodgun.cfm?ProductID=132&do=detail&Cat2Option=yes#

Also, as far as I know Oregon Barrel is the successor to Sharon, and uses Sharon's old tooling equipment.

Great review Herb! Are there Hawkens with cast pewter nose caps?

dave
Dave Parks   /   Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Offline Herb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2016, 07:57:22 AM »
I have no experience with Sharon barrels.  Last summer I built a Bridger Hawken with a custom made Oregon barrel, and it was very good.  There were original Hawkens with cast pewter nosecaps.
Herb

nosrettap1958

  • Guest
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2016, 04:47:56 PM »
Well if that is true where the Oregon Barrel Company purchased the old Sharon Rifle Works equipment I can see the continued quality of these barrels. A friend swore by the Sharon Rifle Works and their barrels and their Hawken rifles that they offered back in the 70's alongside the Ozark Mountain and of course the Green River.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 04:48:34 PM by crawdad »

Offline Herb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2016, 05:54:39 PM »
Taylor, I would like to see your comments.  Also from others who know Hawkens.  This would help increase our member's knowledge of the subject.  There is a lot of variation among original Hawkens, they being built by different workmen, yet on average they "look like a Hawken".  Except a few that are downright ugly, but generally they average around common features.  I'd like to see other comments.
Herb

nosrettap1958

  • Guest
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2016, 07:46:09 PM »
I agree there, you won't offend anyone except perhaps the builders.  And maybe they possibly need offending. There is a big difference between labeling your product a 'Hawken' as opposed to labeling your product a 'Plains' rifle.

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12547
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2016, 10:44:20 PM »
OK here goes...

First, let me say that for the most part, all three rifles are inlet fairly well, have decent wood typical of original Hawken rifles, and are priced very reasonably.  I think these rifles, especially the Sharon Rifle Works #3, were made during a time when authentic parts were not readily available - witness entry pipe and butt plate shape.  A lot of us used those same parts to make our Hawken rifles, in those days.

But the OP requested a critique.

#1
LOP way too long
Appears to be Chromium Trioxide stain evidenced by the green cast of the curl.
escutcheon plates could have been spaced better
lock not bottomed in the mortise
lock panels too chubby and lack sculpting especially at the front end
hammer cup doesn't align with nipple -= too far forward
gap between rib and nose cap excessive
two pins in entry pipe - redundant
needs better solder clean up on piples and rib
jag on the rod?
front sight too far forward
cheek piece lower line should not intersect back end of lock panel
trigger guard mainspring screw too long - pushing guard away from trigger plate
domed screws (butt plate)
lock bolt escutcheon unusual shape - too big
no attempt to clean up or file sculpt breech snail
I like to see a screw at the rear end of the trigger plate
forestock is shaped well with no slab-sidedness but the panels along the trigger plate are missing
barrel keys left too thick - heads too fat
nice wood - well finished
decent quality parts and a good price

#2
lock panel undercut too much and a too pointed at the rear.  Not sculpted at the front end - too beefy
domed butt plate screws
escutcheons not dressed with the wood and screw heads domed
keys too fat and thick
solder clean up on pipes poor
nose cap/entry pipe relationship incorrect - cap should begin at mouth of pipe
under rib upper lip too heavy
nice cheek piece
trigger guard shaped nicely
domed butt plate screws
lock panels WAY TOO FAT
no attempt to file dress the cast breech snail and tang
domed forward tang screw and forward screw too far forward
barrel and breech plug browned together - grease line evident
panels along trigger plate erased by oversanding
priced cheap

#3
production rifle from Sharon Rifle Works circa 1978
butt plate too much crescent and not enough heel
lock panels poorly sculpted, especially at the front end
steel has been hot blued and too much nickel or chromium in the alloy caused purple hue to trigger guard, lock and breech plug
comb line is swamped
domed butt plate screws
allen headed screw in snail is inappropriate
escutcheon plates too narrow
nose cap shape is incorrect
ramrod candy strip is inappropriate
cheek piece is good shape
barrel key heads need shaping
two entry pipe pins
entry pipe casting is poor - tail too short, and transition ramp too long
forward tang screw much too far forward
needs a screw in the rear end of the trigger plate
panelling lost along trigger plate
butt plate screw in cresent is 1 1/4" too high and domed.

All that being said, these rifles were made at a time when there wasn't very much published material on Hawken rifles, and builders frequently copied others mistakes.  Combine that with the fact that correct parts were not commercially available and had to be hand made, if you could glean what WAS correct from someone 'in the know'.  There is much variation in original Hawken rifles but there are nuances that set them apart.  To learn these nuances, careful study is necessary.  I highly recommend Jim Gordon's Volume III of his three book set, "Great Gunmakers for the Early West".  There you will see the diversity and the consistency of Hawken rifles.





D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

Offline Herb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2016, 07:15:27 AM »
Thanks, Taylor.  Glad I don't have my Kit Carson I am finishing up out there for you to critique!  I am having trouble with the solder joint of the pipes to the underrib- but expect to git 'er done tomorrow.
Herb

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12547
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2016, 01:49:19 AM »
Herb:  apply cold blue to the joint  - the solder will not colour and it'll be obvious where more work is required.  I scrape to remove solder, being careful not to introduce chatter....turn the scraper to different angles often.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12547
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2016, 01:50:25 AM »
...oh, and we all fall short in some way or another folks, so do your best and don't sweat the small stuff.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

nosrettap1958

  • Guest
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2016, 04:59:24 AM »
For a Sharon Rifle Works product that is one ugly stick of wood. Matter of fact I've never seen a Sharon with that plain of stock on it.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 05:00:33 AM by crawdad »

Offline WadePatton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5274
  • Tennessee
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2016, 05:34:47 AM »
Thanks, Taylor.  Glad I don't have my Kit Carson I am finishing up out there for you to critique!  I am having trouble with the solder joint of the pipes to the underrib- but expect to git 'er done tomorrow.

Thanks Taylor and HERB too!  I've learned a bit more about these guns from your shared expertise. Cheers, the Sun is past the yardarm!
Hold to the Wind

Offline Bob Roller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9335
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2016, 04:41:29 PM »
Thanks, Taylor.  Glad I don't have my Kit Carson I am finishing up out there for you to critique!  I am having trouble with the solder joint of the pipes to the underrib- but expect to git 'er done tomorrow.

The late Tom Dawson made some of the best Hawken repros and his copy of the Parkman Hoffman&Campbell was a real stunner.
He had access to originals and when the "Hawken craze" took off in the late 1960's he turned out some very fine "aged" copies.
These were hard to tell from the originals and if someone encounters what seems to be a  fine original,insist on removing the barrel
and if it IS a Dawson copy it will be marked "T.K.Dawson,Williamsport,Ind and gun #whatever it is". Caveat emptor prevails here.
Today,one of the best makers that uses an original to make bench copies is Bob Browner in St.Louis and also Brant Selb in Bend,Oregon.
There are no doubt others but these two I know personally and sometimes send locks and triggers to them both.
I have made exactly ONE "Hawken" type with a Bill Large 1-1/8x34" in 54 caliber.Finished it on Thanksgiving Day of 1967,took it to
the range and made a 100 yard 4 leaf clover with 5 shots from a rest.
Getting back to Tom Dawson,most of the info in Baird's book came from him.He and Baird were neighbors and traveled  together a lot in the
gathering of info for that book. I have what is supposed to be the 4th copy off the press but no way to prove it and it makes no difference
to me.

Bob Roller


Offline Joe S.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
  • the other Joe S.
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2016, 05:19:38 PM »
Always learning something about these rifles here,thanks folks.

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12547
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2016, 09:53:25 PM »
I've only ever seen one Sharon Rifle Works rifle - won it at a match in Chilliwack BC back in the 70's.  It has an absolutely plain piece of hard maple for stock.  the rifle featured here could be it's bench mate.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

Lee44shootercnb

  • Guest
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2016, 01:44:44 AM »
http://www.icollector.com/Original-S-Hawken-St-Louis-marked-1-2-stock-percussion-Plains-Rifle-36-cal-medium-weight-oct_i12499300
 
Original S. Hawken St. Louis marked 1/2 stock percussion Plains Rifle, .36 cal., medium weight octagon barrel, measuring 34", 50" overall, brass mounts, scroll trigger guard, double set triggers, single barrel key;formerly James Gordon collection and pictured in "Great Gun Makers For The Early West, Volume III, page 393. The metal surfaces show a deep brown patina, scattered light to heavy pitting with absolutely no cleaning orrestoration. The heaviest pitting occurring on firing areas, muzzle and top of barrel, and the type of aging associated with exposure to the elements and genuine frontier use. The stock shows weathering, small loss around the front edge of lock, a large crack in the butt stock, wear from carry and use. The action works well and the rifle has tremendous character. If ever a gun headed west, this is it. Est.: $3,000-$6,000

All items are as is, no warranty or claims and All SALES ARE FINAL. Please examine prior to bidding as it is the bidder's responsibilty to establish condition, age, genuineness, value or any other determinative factors.

« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 01:47:02 AM by Lee44shootercnb »

Lee44shootercnb

  • Guest
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #19 on: December 25, 2016, 07:38:56 PM »

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12547
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #20 on: December 25, 2016, 09:28:44 PM »
That says it all.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

nosrettap1958

  • Guest
Re: Hawken rifle comparisons
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2016, 04:57:21 PM »
Usually MtnMeek will pop in here on these discussions. He let his web site do the talking this time. I've seen some beautiful Sharon Hawken rifles in the past rivaling the GRRW rifles.