"I just looked at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center Collection again.
www.bbhc.org. On the first page you click "manufacturer" and pull down a menu where you can find J&S Hawken, S. Hawken, Samuel Hawken and W.S. Hawken. Then you click on one of these and the thumbnail photo comes up. Click on that and you see several photos of the same rifle. You can enlarge these so much you can see the grain in the wood, bigger than your screen. The J&S Hawken rifle comes up, and it is a conversion. "
Herb,
Do you mean this one?
http://www.bbhc.org/collections/BBHC/CFM_ObjectPage.cfm?museum=CFM&VarObjectKey=32976If so take a close look at those guns. I say 'those' because if you zoom in on the full length shots, you'll notice that its a different gun than the one with the converted lock and the toe plate picture is of a third gun with a patchbox. I referred you to the BBHC page from another web site and I honestly never noticed all this until now.
Despite that, the converted lock gun has a lot of things that make me think the lock is a replacement on a gun that was always a caplock. First there's no cut on the upper lock panel for the cock. Second, if you look at the lock inlet you'll notice that its loose in the front half of the inlet, tight in the rear, and tight under the patent breech. That's not the wear pattern you'd expect. You'd expect it to be loose in the tail, which is where the mainspring causes more torque on the lock inlet. Third, the patent breech does not look like an addition to me. I'd look at the other pics for a top view, but I think that's a different gun as well. Finally, that is not a trigger guard style I've ever seen on any of the other (and there are reasonably few) known early Hawkens that are thought to date earlier than 1840. Of course, I'm not an expert anywhere close to the caliber of Don Stith on this, and I do not yet have access to Jim's book for any other photos of this gun. If his book has other evidence that would make us think otherwise, I will gladly eat crow on the issue.
Oh, and for MikeR, I don't think they never made them in flint. I just think they are rare as hens teeth today and probably pretty rare back then. Don Stith told me once he'd examined a small handful of Hawkens that may have been converted at some point. It makes a lot of sense that they are rare when you think of it this way. In the 1830's there were some really big outfits in Lancaster and Philly turning out inexpensive flint rifles ($6-12 per gun) for the west by the wagon load. If a small operator like the Hawken Brother's at that time tried to go head to head with them, there is no way they wouldn't have gone under. The Hawken Brothers seem to have chosen to focus on the higher dollar market by incorporating some English characteristics, iron mounts and some of their own pizazz. They provided a gun that was a step up from your average western trade rifle, but still suited for the West unlike a lot of the fancier guns being turned out back east. But if you're going a step up in quality, why not include the new fangled ignition system that was being so highly touted at the time? Hence, I don't believe that they made many flint guns by the 1830's when they really got rolling in the gun making trade. Is that all speculation? Yes, but its based in a pretty good understanding of the market of the time, the known records of the Hawken shop, and having researched some of the known early Hawken pieces.
Sean
