GPR Signature Series

[OldMtnMan]

What do you think? It looks much closer to a Hawken than the old Investarms version. Wood to metal fit is really good too. Leaf spring lock as it should be instead of coil springs on old version. Sights are correct. Shape of stock looks good to me.

[thelongrifle]

I would like it if it was a flintlock. Just my bias

[OldMtnMan]

I thought about it but there never was a half stock flintlock Hawken. At least in my research I couldn't find any pics of one.

[smylee grouch]

It might be an improvement over the older model but that rear sight is still too far back for a lot of older eyes. JMHO 

[OldMtnMan]

It will be fuzzy for me no matter where it is. I've gotten good at shooting fuzzy sights. 

[flinchrocket]

I thought about it but there never was a half stock flintlock Hawken. At least in my research I couldn't find any pics of one.

Maybe the guy who owned one didn't have a camera!

[smylee grouch]

That's a good observation Flinch rocket. I am a firm believer in the never say never or never say always when talking about these old guns. 

[OldMtnMan]

Yes, but proof is needed. We can't just make up what we want because proof can't be found.

[Daryl]

That Lyman rifle does look a mite better than the previous ones, for sure. The shorter forend-cap
makes a big difference.

[hanshi]

I thought the old one was okay; but the new version is much improved.

[alacran]

The early GPR's were much better that the TC Hawken. They shot better, had a longer sight radius, and looked much closer to a Hawken than the TC.
There was a write up the new version in Muzzleloader Magazine. For a production gun, it is pretty good looking.
I agree about the sights being too far back. That is not just for seeing, but for carrying. It looked to me that the sight would be fairly close
to the balance point.
By the way Flinchrocket, your argument can be made for any thing that there is no documentation for, ie ball blocks, short starters etc.

[flinchrocket]

When you consider the fact that the whole Hawken family worked at Harpers Ferry making halfstock flint rifles for the government,I don't think it's too far fetched to think they could have made a halfstock flintlock in St. Louis.

[rich pierce]

When you consider the fact that the whole Hawken family worked at Harpers Ferry making halfstock flint rifles for the government,I don't think it's too far fetched to think they could have made a halfstock flintlock in St. Louis.

Often hypothesized, often debated. For those who are happy with “could have happened” it makes a great looking rifle. For those who like documentation, it has little appeal.

[longcruise]

I always thought it was pretty close to a generic plains rifle circa 1850 or later but I'm not near as knowledgeable as some here.

[Panzerschwein]

The early GPR's were much better that the TC Hawken. They shot better, had a longer sight radius, and looked much closer to a Hawken than the TC.
There was a write up the new version in Muzzleloader Magazine. For a production gun, it is pretty good looking.
I agree about the sights being too far back. That is not just for seeing, but for carrying. It looked to me that the sight would be fairly close
to the balance point.
By the way Flinchrocket, your argument can be made for any thing that there is no documentation for, ie ball blocks, short starters etc.

There IS documentation of ball blocks and starters for THIS period (Hawken).

[OldMtnMan]

We've called the GPR a Hawken for years. However, it's not sold as a Hawken but a plains rifle. That does open it up to more than being a Hawken.

[MuskratMike]

I live in the land of half stock "plains" rifles. I much prefer full socked rifles in flintlock. Guess I should just pack up and head to the land we came from (N. Carolina). Seriously they are just to barrel heavy and have what I think of as l clunky heavy appearance. now if I was heading up the Missouri in the early to middle 1800's these tough mountain rifles be be my choice. I just now days choose not to own or shoot them.

[OldMtnMan]

I thought Muskrats were tough?

[smylee grouch]

I do know that muskrats can bite through rubber gloves! 

[flinchrocket]

I live in the land of half stock "plains" rifles. I much prefer full socked rifles in flintlock. Guess I should just pack up and head to the land we came from (N. Carolina). Seriously they are just to barrel heavy and have what I think of as l clunky heavy appearance. now if I was heading up the Missouri in the early to middle 1800's these tough mountain rifles be be my choice. I just now days choose not to own or shoot them.

Mike, you should try one with a tapered barrel. Handles just like a swamped barrel.

[alacran]

We always seem to forget that these rifles were used by men that had horses and were never far from them. The weight of the rifle was not a big consideration.

[Panzerschwein]

The Hawkens and other plains rifles were stout on purpose. Designed to be tough and durable even if the took a tumble. Hundreds of miles from civilization out in the mountains is not where you’d want a dainty graceful rifle to get knocked off kilter from a fall from beast or man. They were also typically made shorter to better fit on a horse.

[OldMtnMan]

Not sure it's true but i've read they used the gun for a club when fighting Indians. It's the reason so many have repairs on the wrist area of the stock.

[Hungry Horse]

 Pete, I think the horse, not the Indian, is the likely villain in this story. I have some friends that do horse pack in treks, and hunt from horseback. Their guns could be taken to a museum that doesn’t have a firearms expert, and nobody would even question they’re age. One of these old hunters, that is long gone now, said that a horse wrecks a rifle out of awkwardness, but a mule had it planned from the gitgo.

  Hungry Horse

[OldMtnMan]

Yeah, and the heavy barrel has a lot of weight to bounce around on a horse. Something has to give and the wrist is the weakest point.

Still, using it as a club is more exciting.