Been several years since I studied this subject and memory does not improve with age. The 1792s in stores at HF were relocked with HF design locks when issued for service in the war of 1812. All 7 that have been located have 1812 dated HF locks in them.
There are references in the journals to short rifles. If there is one quote in there that specifies that the 14 HF sourced rifles were short rifles, I would like to see a copy of that quote. Most of the weapons carried by boatsmen and hunters were supplied by the individuals.
The 1792 rifles saw limited use because of the brevity of the campaign in the Whiskey Rebellion. I did not find any references to any shortcomings of the rifles. Again, if you have such documentation I would enjoy seeing it
I viewed the TRS piece before it became Jess's. I own a similar piece with just as crudely contoured barrel containing the inspector stamps on the barrel and a low serial number. Bought it at a civil war show in Richmond over 20 years ago and am no more convinced of its history than I am of the other one.
One claim that always gives me a laugh is "They would have enlarged the bore of a contract rifle to handle the bigger game out west".
If they had known what bigger game and rough country was out there, they would not have needed to go. Did Jefferson have a spy plane to do a flyover so they could prepare properly for what they would encounter?
The one thing I agree with is there will never be proof positive of what they took with them for arms.
First off this mission was YEARS in planning by Jefferson and Lewis, it was also secret such as things could be at the time
since the Spanish were expected to interfere and apparently DID send out patrols or so I have read.
The French had already been far enough up the Missouri and the Yellowstone to name the Yellowstone River, the Missouri was known that far and likely to the Falls. They did not run into anything that required a lot of thought until they reached 3 Forks. They did not go out blind at least till past the Yellowstone.
Even in later years the 50 cal was consider an adequate minimum for the west due to the ranges involved. After all there are Black Bears in PA and Eastern Canada to this day that weigh 800 pounds plus. So far as the short rifles. There were a number of them and they are mentioned several times. I would also point out that Lewis knew he had been shot with a "short rifle" by the size of the ball found in his breeches. What size was it? Not noted.
They also obviously had a number of "short rifles" since when portaging the Falls of the Missouri the only people who kept their arms were those issued "short rifles". Everyone else had their hands free to work. There were MUSKETS carried and used as well and mentioned at various times. But no other issue rifles mentioned.
The point is that the 1803 DID have a short coming. The barrels the early ones at least, were apparently made of poor iron or poorly welded and tended to burst in the round section. Lewis left HF with ONLY 15 rifles, 15 pouches etc. So far as I have seen there are no more rifles in the inventories.
Then we have the CHANGES Dearborne recommended before late 1803-early 1804 which indicates he had a prototype in hand. Changing the top rod pipe etc. He HAD to have a rifle in his hands since drawings were NOT USED. It appears that HF had been working on a military rifle since about the time the British adopted their model 1800. So there was obviously some thought being put into this. While it is impossible to prove I have actually read the Complete Journals looking for things. Finding in one of my several readings of the portage around the falls that the baby had what we would call a "Teddy" Bear. But there is no mention of rifles other than the short rifles and the personal rifles of the two officers. There were muskets, at least one "elegant fusil" and "short" rifles. If someone can find other rifles in the inventories I would like to see this too. I know that the short rifles had barrel failures. I have read that Pike had the same problem. I know there are 15 extra 1803s made, Lewis took 15 rifles. HF had to be working on some sort of prototype while Lewis was there so that Dearborn had a rifle to look at and recommend changes. They surely were looking at larger bores given that the English had just adopted a 62 caliber.
If someone can find a reference to rifles other than the 15 and the officers rifles I would REALLY like to see this.
There is NOTHING in the Journals that will provide a smoking gun for what the short rifles were. Its simply not there. Nor is it in the Sgt's journals that I have found. So we have the inventory and the mention of "short rifles" thats it. Unless the 1792s were shortened they were not there. Could they have been shortened? Easily. Were they? Nobody alive to day knows its ALL supposition. So I tell people that a short 1792 or a 1803 is as close as anyone can guess.
People who are interested should read the complete journals and see what they find. But note that some versions of the "complete Journals" have been rewritten and some language changed. In particular is changing a sentence to make it seem the short rifles were made in HF when whether they were or not is not stated in the original writings.
Maybe "short" was mentioned because they were sent out as a test of the idea. I have not the slightest idea from reading the journals and neither does anyone else its all supposition as to calibers, stocking, etc etc. All we know is they were "short" like Dearborne wanted.
We do know that the rifles were badly rusted during their trip down the Ohio. So did Lewis order new ones before leaving early the next spring? Not noted.
Its REALLY frustrating that there is not more detail. But the rifles were not important other than being short.
Dan
