"Hawken-esque" history question

[greywuuf]

This is not exactly the Long rifle Era, but I have found some wonderful research and general depth of  knowledge here about  all things Hawken, So I will go ahead and ask. Since it has be oft repeated that Hawken  halfstock's were considered kind of High end items, and there has always been more Low budget people than high. Has any one come across any examples of older pieces  that had been " updated" in the manner of a plains rifle ? is there any evidence of a guy  say having his fathers  surplus war musket    and heading west only to Stop in St. Louis and maybe have some work done ....... Any hooked breach's added to older guns, or long tangs or triggerbars /guards ? rebarreled ?  Myself I can picture an old mountain man being leary of the " new fangled" cap guns, but wanting his flinter with one of them  easy to clean wedge barrels. I know that wrists used to be repaired .... were they ever  reinforced with a long tang ?

Any one seen any evidence of any of that kind of thing ?  ( not so much raw hide and brass tacks, but actual up grades  or using of newer/newer style parts)

[Hungry Horse]

I can't imagine hawkenesk additions to military surplus rifles. But I can imagine Jake Hawken's getting an eye load of an 1803 Harpers Ferry, that had been to the Pacific and back, and sayin,' Hey, half stock, keyed barrel, big caliber, mountain tested, this might be the way to go.
 I seriously doubt the old trappers dismounted the barrels of their rifle very often for cleaning, even if it had a patten breech.

                  Hungry Horse

[WadePatton]

sporterized muskets yo.

maybe the world wars metal scrounging got all of those.

[Mike L]

There are known examples of Spencers  converted with Hawken barrels and forearms replaced and sometimes the butt stock. They were done by J.P Gemmer after he purchased the Hawken shop. Barrels were sometimes marked Hawken and some are Gemmer marked.

[Dphariss]

I can't imagine hawkenesk additions to military surplus rifles. But I can imagine Jake Hawken's getting an eye load of an 1803 Harpers Ferry, that had been to the Pacific and back, and sayin,' Hey, half stock, keyed barrel, big caliber, mountain tested, this might be the way to go.
 I seriously doubt the old trappers dismounted the barrels of their rifle very often for cleaning, even if it had a patten breech.

                  Hungry Horse

It is far more likely that the 1/2 stock Hawken evolved from the English Sporting rifle. There is not really any part of the Hawken that looks like an 1803. But they look a LOT like and English Sporting rifle of 1800-1840 period from the lock forward.
 
Dan

[bgf]

I am not a Hawken expert, but I am intrigued by them.  I agree with Dan Phariss that they most likely were based to a large degree on English sporting rifles, but I also think they have Southern Mountain rifle and other influences and were following a general trend, not innovating in any revolutionary sense.  Just for some thinking fodder, look at some of the rifles by Templeton Reid, such as the "Buffalo Rifle" in Noble, vol. 1, where the inluence of the English sporting rifles is not hard to imagine.  Wealthy British folks probably brought their own rifles to the wide open spaces to hunt and wealthy (and/or aspiring) Americans probably wanted something similar.  If Hawkens weren't the only halfstocks people looked at, they would probably make a lot more sense !

[galamb]

For what it's worth here is part of an article from the Feb 1955 edition of "Guns" magazine:
(just a few years before the "hype" of Jeremiah Johnson

Technically, the first Hawken caplock rifles seem to
have been developed by adopting features of three flintlock
rifles of the period just preceding: the time-tested Ken-
tucky rifle, the Harpers Ferry rifle first made in 1800 and
improved in 1814 and 1817, and the heavy English
sporting rifles produced by London gunsmiths since about
1800.

Very few English rifles had reached the American
frontier in 1822; the Harpers Ferry was fairly numerous;
the Kentucky most numerous of all. In 1822 the long-
barreled Kentucky was considered the ultimate in perfec-
tion by gunsmiths and shooters alike.

Daniel Boone and
Simon Kenton had carried the Kentucky in the Indian-
haunted woodlands of the "Dark and Bloody Ground,"
and the famed weapon had served America with brilliant
distinction throughout the Revolution and the War of 1812.
The superiority of the Kentucky was an unassailable tra-
dition in 1822.
 
Yet, west of the Mississippi, the renowned Long Rifle
of the early pioneers proved clearly inadequate for grizzlies
and buffalo. Hunters, returning to St. Louis from the
mountains, demanded of gunsmiths a rifle capable of
dropping a fat buffalo cow or of stopping a charging
grizzly.

Jake Hawken, alone among St. Louis gunmakers,
produced the needed weapon at the right moment and his
market was ready and waiting. Mountain men were avid
to buy the rifles as fast as he could turn them out and
Hawken swiftly became famous.

The article also notes Jake's (dislike) of the flintlock system and suggests he believed caplocks would be superior is wet/windy weather (quotes a supposed conversation between Jake Hawken and Bill Williams (famed trapper/guide) who "according to this article" bought Jake's "first" caplock rifle).

side note - IF that conversation took place AND Bill got his first caplock, either this was Jake's first rifle built in St. Louis OR he must have built flintlocks. If it was his first rifle would a "famed trapper, scout etc" be the "guinea pig" to a rifle maker with no "proven models"??

More fodder for the ever raging Hawken debate..

(I have the magazine in PDF format if anyone would like a copy)

[greywuuf]

All interesting info pertaining to Hawkens and their origins... I am wondering more about Other weapons and adapting Hawken features........ie:  say an 1803  with a long tang patent  breach ?   Looking more into  "Sporterized" military weapons. I know "bubba" the Gunsmith musta had a hack saw and File back in the day,  I also know the propensity of the american mountain man/cowboy/farmer   to Make do  with what they had  and not be afraid to chop cut modify  whatever they had  to meet what they needed .

[Dphariss]

For what it's worth here is part of an article from the Feb 1955 edition of "Guns" magazine:
(just a few years before the "hype" of Jeremiah Johnson

Technically, the first Hawken caplock rifles seem to
have been developed by adopting features of three flintlock
rifles of the period just preceding: the time-tested Ken-
tucky rifle, the Harpers Ferry rifle first made in 1800 and
improved in 1814 and 1817, and the heavy English
sporting rifles produced by London gunsmiths since about
1800.

Very few English rifles had reached the American
frontier in 1822; the Harpers Ferry was fairly numerous;
the Kentucky most numerous of all. In 1822 the long-
barreled Kentucky was considered the ultimate in perfec-
tion by gunsmiths and shooters alike.

Daniel Boone and
Simon Kenton had carried the Kentucky in the Indian-
haunted woodlands of the "Dark and Bloody Ground,"
and the famed weapon had served America with brilliant
distinction throughout the Revolution and the War of 1812.
The superiority of the Kentucky was an unassailable tra-
dition in 1822.
 
Yet, west of the Mississippi, the renowned Long Rifle
of the early pioneers proved clearly inadequate for grizzlies
and buffalo. Hunters, returning to St. Louis from the
mountains, demanded of gunsmiths a rifle capable of
dropping a fat buffalo cow or of stopping a charging
grizzly.

Jake Hawken, alone among St. Louis gunmakers,
produced the needed weapon at the right moment and his
market was ready and waiting. Mountain men were avid
to buy the rifles as fast as he could turn them out and
Hawken swiftly became famous.

The article also notes Jake's (dislike) of the flintlock system and suggests he believed caplocks would be superior is wet/windy weather (quotes a supposed conversation between Jake Hawken and Bill Williams (famed trapper/guide) who "according to this article" bought Jake's "first" caplock rifle).

side note - IF that conversation took place AND Bill got his first caplock, either this was Jake's first rifle built in St. Louis OR he must have built flintlocks. If it was his first rifle would a "famed trapper, scout etc" be the "guinea pig" to a rifle maker with no "proven models"??

More fodder for the ever raging Hawken debate..

(I have the magazine in PDF format if anyone would like a copy)

Most slick paper gun magazines are poor places to find really accurate information.


Stating  there were not enough English guns in America in the early 1820s to give people ideas is not going to withstand scrutiny.
There were English style halfstock flintlocks being made in America circa 1820, the silver mounted Jams Haslett rifle is one, half stock, scroll guard and the English shotgun buttstock.  Circa 1820 Simeon North was making 1/2 stocked FL pistols with Manton recessed breeches. One has to remember that the Hawken brothers were neither backwoods hicks or life long Missouri residents. They were both highly experienced gunsmiths and both were VERY familiar with the 1803 and likely saw large numbers of them while employed at Harpers Ferry. This does not equate into making 1/2 stocked rifles because of it. They were also in the east later than 1800 and could easily have seen 1/2 stocked English sporting rifles before they moved west. First Jake and then Sam.
In St Louis the rifles he/they made were what the customers were used to and thus expected. Sam continued to make full stocked rifles until about the time he sold the business still the rifles DID evolve a great deal from the 1820s since the coming of the percussion system caused a sea change in firearms once it was perfected. So the fullstocks of the 1840s-50s were not those of the 1820s. The fore stock on the half stock Hawken looks much more like the circa 1800 Mortimer and John Manton flintlock sporting rifles  pictured in George's "English Guns and Rifles" plate XI than the 1803. The forends on these rifles are virtually identical to that of the Halfstock Hawken of 1840. These both have scroll guards  another English feature dating to many years before Jake and Sam adopted it. The Mortimer is actually a little large being a 6 bore, but the forend layout and shape is still pure 1/2 stock Hawken, err, the Hawken is pure Mortimer/Manton.  The later English rifles had shorter forends and usually one key.

One must also remember that the Kentucky was ballistically equal to the Hawken of the same caliber, and they were still making longrifles in "western" calibers in the 1820s-30s. They were not as common as 50 or larger calibers were circa 1775 but they were being made. 50 caliber was thought to be the minimum caliber for the west.   One also must remember that there were a lot of Buffalo in Kentucky when it was initially settled. But the cattle diseases seemed to kill them off rapidly there were Elk in the east and black bears nearly as large as many Grizzlies. 500 pounds plus. But they did not have the same attitude.
Then we have the Henry rifles like the "Lancaster" and "English" pattern were ordered in large numbers by the American Fur Company. Surely more than the Hawken's made. They were mostly flintlock, no percussions at all prior to the early 1830s.

I really like the Hawken rifle in full or half stock but to attribute some magical effectiveness to them that was not available elsewhere is simply something someone wrote who had no understanding of the ML rifle. Its obvious from the specifications in the orders placed that the JJ Henry rifles sent up the Missouri during almost all of the classic western fur trade era were simply full stocked FL JJ Henry design Kentucky rifles with barrels from 36 to 42 inches in calibers from about 44 to 58.
Clearly inadequate? Indeed, someone was not properly informed.
Much information on the rifles of the 1820-1850 period can be found in "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865".

Dan

[smylee grouch]

I agree Dan, and I wonder if the powder charges used for the Kentucky style gun were the actual short falls for use on western game such as bad attitude bears. I think the breeching of the Kentucky was somewhat weak as compared to the English/Hawken style breech so smaller powder charges were used. Many of the slick cover gun writers dont know much if anything about the development of the gun except what they were told or what was writen about by other slick cover gun writers. Most of them just dont have any personal on hands background with traditional muzzleloaders. JMHO

[Bob Roller]

There's a whole bunch of people who have NO knowledge of traditional muzzle loaders
and judging from what I have heard at gun shops and pawn shops,none is wanted.
If it isn't modern enough to be used in outer space,they won't sell and I know of no pawn shops
that will give anything for a traditional muzzle loader in this area.
Every kind of bastardization known will sell but the presentation rifle given to General Grant
wouldn't bring $50 in such an environment.

Bob Roller

[Dphariss]

I agree Dan, and I wonder if the powder charges used for the Kentucky style gun were the actual short falls for use on western game such as bad attitude bears. I think the breeching of the Kentucky was somewhat weak as compared to the English/Hawken style breech so smaller powder charges were used. Many of the slick cover gun writers dont know much if anything about the development of the gun except what they were told or what was writen about by other slick cover gun writers. Most of them just dont have any personal on hands background with traditional muzzleloaders. JMHO

1/2 ball weight of powder was mentioned in Revolutionary War times by Hanger. I suspect the rifle was between 44 and 50 caliber.
They were shooting British officers at ranges as far as 400 yards. They were not squib loads.
We know from current experience that rifles shoot better, in most cases with loads toward the heavy end of the scale.
While surviving artifacts do not tell the whole story I believe teh horn and powder measure attributed to Modena's rifle only holds about 50 grains of powder. AND velocity does not necessarily equate to increased killing power. It DOES flatten the trajectory. however.
The ENGLISH were noted for using far too fast a twist and far too little powder especially in rifles of a ball size suitable for heacy game in the 1820s-30s-40s. So much so that many hunters of heavy game used smooth bores in many cases since they penetrated better with hardened balls. The standard for heavy game.
That the Hawken was somehow ballistically superior is a myth.
Now what WAS the Hawken's real advantage? They were better guns, they also cost more. They used good locks, good triggers they used good breeches and they had a reputation for accurate rifles. They were strong and reliable. More so than many Kentuckys which due often using cheap locks never had a rep for reliability over all and this was one of the complaints during the Revolution. The use of minimal quality locks continued unabated into the percussion era.
And there were other factors. many Kentuckys have such poor stock designs, from the standpoint of bores over 44 and charges in the 1/2 ball weight range than they could not be reasonably used with charges the heavier Hawken with better stock design would use with not shooter abuse.
The locks imported from England ran from very good to useless junk (in the context of long term use in remote areas).
This is an except from "The Gun" by W Greener.



There is more in the short chapter but this pretty well explains it. He also complained about the dismal quality of many export barrels.
So locks ran from a few shillings a pair to several pounds. But few of the high end locks were found in America. Many rifles sold for the equivalent of a few pounds complete in America. So putting on a lock that cost 2 pounds in London was not going to happen. The better triggers, locks and breeches common to the Hawken was one of the reasons they cost upwards of twice what a common Kentucky of the time cost. The available ballistics was not the factor if the rifles both have decent stock designs. But the RELIABILITY was paramount when 1200 miles from St Louis in 1820-25 and i think the reliability was a key factor. Remember that several rifles of the L&C Expedition needed lock repairs (with spares made at HF) and one lock was so worn as to require replacing by the time they reached the Pacific Ocean.
The problems with locks is further confirmed by The American Fur Company telling Henry to be very careful about the selection of locks for the rifles they were buying for the western trade.
Then we go back to the "gun owner, shooter, rifleman" classes gun owners. These were common in the past and still exist today. The first and many of the second are happy if the gun goes off most of the time. The rifleman is more particular and also expects to be able to hit what he shoots at. The needs of a farmer in PA in 1825 are FAR different that someone who expects to spend 2 years in the Rockies in 1825.
Dan

[Habu]

There's an interesting conversion of an 1841 rifled musket in this thread: http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=10590.0  If I ever stumble across a trade for a repro 1841, I intend a similar conversion.

[greywuuf]

BINGO  that is exactly what I was looking for!  thank you for that, I am currently collecting parts for a 1803 and I think I will incorporate some subtle changes such as those, was just curious if there was an historical precedence.  it appears that " Bubba" has been around a very long time, just that some were much more adept than others.