Author Topic: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?  (Read 16583 times)

captpete

  • Guest
Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« on: March 30, 2014, 05:34:47 AM »
Hello the board,

Who makes a decent kit for the Lewis and Clark / 1803 Harper's Ferry Rifle?  Your comments and help are all gratefully appreciated  ;D

-- Peter

galamb

  • Guest
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2014, 06:16:02 AM »
Don Stith has a Lewis & Clark kit.

You can check it out here http://www.donstith.com/lewis___clark.html

Offline Pete G.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2014, 03:33:34 PM »
Track of the Wolf has a Harpers Ferry kit, but there might be a question if it is early enough to have been with L&C.

borderdogs

  • Guest
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2014, 03:50:53 PM »
I actually owned an original Model 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle many years ago. It was made in 1808 and had been converted to percussion and professionally reconverted back to flint. It was in good condition considering how old it was and the barrel's rifling was strong with some pitting. The worse area of that rifle was around the flash hole where there was pitting on the barrel and the wood near that area was worn. I actually shot it and it was a pretty accurate rifle out to 100 yards+.

I often wondered about whether they would have been used in the L & C expedition. I good friend of mine, who is now dead, was a antique gun dealer and he was the guy I got that rifle from back in 1983. He swore that base on all he knew in his research that they could not have been used.

By the way, I like the TOW HF 1803 kit and a rifle I wouldn't mind building sometime.
Rob

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2014, 03:52:10 PM »
This is a Don Stith kit build which represents a'1792 contract rifle', that was re-locked at a later date, and purportedly carried bt Lewis and Clark. Don is a wealth of knowledge, and his kits are top quality. My photos are crummy.  :D



Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Online smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7887
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2014, 04:11:25 PM »
If L&C got back from the expedition in 1806, its sounds unlikely that a rifle made in 1808 whould have been with them.

Offline smart dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6992
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2014, 05:21:05 PM »
Hi CaptPete,
What guns L&C carried is hotly debated.  The Rifle Shoppe sells castings and stocks for a prototype model 1803 that they claim was carried by the expedition. Some firearm experts and pundits support that view and others contest it. Some believe they carried the rifle shown above by Acer.  No one really knows and there is no conclusive documentation.  So take your pick, a contract rifle, a shortened contract rifle, or the 1803 prototype.  Build one of each and then you cannot be wrong, until of course someone argues they carried a really early prototype of the AR-15.

dave
"The main accomplishment of modern economics is to make astrology look good."

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2014, 06:13:57 PM »
From my understanding, it's possible that L&C carried 1803 prototypes. I don't know how many of these existed at the time of L&C's departure. The contract rifle in my above photo represents a 1792 contract rifle with a Harper's Ferry 1803 lock on it.


Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9919
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2014, 06:25:38 PM »
Track of the Wolf has a Harpers Ferry kit, but there might be a question if it is early enough to have been with L&C.

This is an argument that cannot be resolved. What we do know is that 1 Lewis had an order stating that HF should make him anything he wantes. 2 The Expedition Rifle was a short rifle not a contract rifle as originally made. 2 The Expedition Rifles tended to burst in front the forend since 2 of  the 15 did during the expedition. Zebulon Pike reported the same problem with the 1803s he was issued. AND there had to be prototypes at HF when Lewis was there. AND there were 15 extra rifles in the original order for 1803s. Lewis had 15 rifles made at HF.
Lewis also knew that the Contract Rifle was not a very good service rifle having served with them before they were put into storage. So all the circumstantial evidence points to 15 1803 prototypes similar to the one that was shipped to Dearborne at about the same time for approval. The only thing that proponents of the Contract Rifle can say is that HF had them in storage so he must have used them.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9919
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2014, 07:05:23 PM »
This is a Don Stith kit build which represents a'1792 contract rifle', that was re-locked at a later date, and purportedly carried bt Lewis and Clark. Don is a wealth of knowledge, and his kits are top quality. My photos are crummy.  :D

<snip>

Except its not "short". The rifles taken on the expedition are repeatedly referred to as "short rifles".
While neither I or anyone else can say that a SHORTENED 1792 is wrong. I am SURE a full length one is.
We know the officers took long their own rifles. But the hunters apparently put a lot of wear on theirs and the spare parts made at HF were used to repair them at Ft Clatsop. IMO the advocates of the 1792 do a lot of straw grasping. Some even use the painting of Lewis as "evidence" that the expedition rifles were "long" when the rifle he is holding is obviously his personal rifle.
I know of no documentation FROM THE EXPEDITION MEMBERS that tells what the short rifles were. Also a rifle with a later lock cannot be an expedition rifle since it is my understanding that ALL equipment was auctioned off at St Louis after the expedition's return. So its not likely the rifles were returned to HF to be reworked with a later lock.
IMO a person cannot be proven wrong if they have either a 1803  or a shortened Contract Rifle as a "L&C Rifle". But I lean toward the 1803 prototype due to the barrel failures and the fact that there are 15 more 1803s made than the first order was for. If it was 10 or 20 or 5 maybe it could be easily explained away but 15? Both these facts are pretty good evidence for the 1803 prototype.
And there is what is apparently a surviving slightly variant 1803 out there.
So? This is an endless loop since unless a previously lost journal from one of the other members surfaces with new data we will continue to run is circles over this with no hope of actual resolution.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Don Stith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2815
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2014, 10:37:33 PM »
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.

Offline Ky-Flinter

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7472
  • Born in Kentucke, just 250 years late
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2014, 01:19:47 AM »
If L&C got back from the expedition in 1806, its sounds unlikely that a rifle made in 1808 whould have been with them.

I believe the antique dealer was saying (in his opinion) the model 1803, made in 1803, could not have been used by L & C.  Not that this particular (1808) gun wasn't used, obviously it could not have been.

-Ron
Ron Winfield

Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun. -Nate McKenzie

borderdogs

  • Guest
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2014, 03:13:18 AM »
Ron,
You are right about that. There were two models one from 1803 to about 1807 and a second model from 1814 to I think 1819, there were slight variations between the two.

Rob

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9919
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2014, 03:14:45 AM »
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
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2014, 04:08:44 AM »
Dan, Don, do you know "short" is in relation to what length? Was 42" considered a normal length?
Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9919
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2014, 06:26:34 AM »
Dan, Don, do you know "short" is in relation to what length? Was 42" considered a normal length?

They were "short". Who knows what it means? Given that 40-44 was pretty normal at the time I can't see a 38" as being "short". So it was likely under 36".

Dan

He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Vomitus

  • Guest
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2014, 09:32:58 PM »
   Hmm, makes want to research what Alexander Mackenzie's men used 10 years earlier on their overland trek to the Pacific. It terminated at a place in BC called Bella Coola in July of 1793.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 09:50:14 PM by Leatherbelly »

Offline Don Stith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2815
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2014, 11:01:06 PM »
Dan has not convinced me the issued rifles were short,whatever that means.
The years in planning is a stretch . Lewis was busy being a soldier until Jeffersaon was able to acquire his services as personal secretary in mid to late 1801. From what I have read, planning for the Expedition began in fall of 1802
 Unfortunately there is no direct evidence to support either of the possibilities.
 I would like to know the reference material supporting "15 more rifles than ordered" at Harpers Ferry. Seems like a light charge in a military arm that would barely break the breeches of a man and be intact enough to measure the ball size. I know first hand that a 50 cal round ball with 75 grain charge will lodge inside the far side of a deer and be completely flattened.  I admit I do not know what the prescribed millitary charge is for whatever they carried.

Offline Curt Larsen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 617
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2014, 03:20:53 PM »
Things are getting away from the original question.  I have one of Don Stith's 1803 kits.  The stock is correct for the early model 1803.  The barrel is a Bobby Hoyt barrel and correct for the gun.  I don't think the TOW kit is comparable.  Don's 1792 contract rifle kit is also the highest quality.  You won't go wrong with his stuff.  Oops, I don't think Don does the 1803 Harpers Ferry anymore, at least it is not on his website.  In any event, mine was first rate.  One of these days I'll try his 1792 contract rifle.
Curt
« Last Edit: April 02, 2014, 05:01:13 PM by Curt Larsen »

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9919
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2014, 06:51:15 AM »
Dan has not convinced me the issued rifles were short,whatever that means.
The years in planning is a stretch . Lewis was busy being a soldier until Jeffersaon was able to acquire his services as personal secretary in mid to late 1801. From what I have read, planning for the Expedition began in fall of 1802
 Unfortunately there is no direct evidence to support either of the possibilities.
 I would like to know the reference material supporting "15 more rifles than ordered" at Harpers Ferry. Seems like a light charge in a military arm that would barely break the breeches of a man and be intact enough to measure the ball size. I know first hand that a 50 cal round ball with 75 grain charge will lodge inside the far side of a deer and be completely flattened.  I admit I do not know what the prescribed millitary charge is for whatever they carried.


If you have not found the 15 rifle citation then you have not read all the available info. I am not going to bother look it up since you don't want to see it anyway.
I cannot change what Lewis wrote. HE wrote it. Since HE was shot I can only assume HE is the authority. If you can find some thing to refute what LEWIS WROTE I would be greatly surprised.
You sound remarkably like the experts that tried to tell the sailors that they did not see the shell hit the midget sub off the entrance to Pearl Harbor for DECADES. So they poo-pooed the eyewitness accounts. Until they found the sub with a shellhole at the base of the conning tower just like the one sailor told them.

Dan

[Lewis]    
Monday August 11th 1806.
  "... we fired on the Elk I killed one and he wounded another, we reloaded our guns and took different routs through the thick willows in pursuit of the Elk; I was in the act of firing on the Elk a second time when a ball struck my left thye about an inch below my hip joint, missing the bone it passed through the left thye and cut the thickness of the bullet across the hinder part of the right thye; the stroke was very severe; I instantly supposed that Cruzatte had shot me in mistake for an Elk as I was dressed in brown leather and he cannot see very well; under this impression I called out to him @!*% you, you have shot me, and looked towards the place from whence the ball had come, seeing nothing I called Cruzatte several times as loud as I could but received no answer; I was now preswaded that it was an indian that had shot me as the report of the gun did not appear to be more than 40 paces from me and Cruzatte appeared to be out of hearing of me; in this situation not knowing how many indians there might be concealed in the bushes I thought best to make good my retreat to the perogue, calling out as I ran for the first hundred paces as loud as I could to Cruzatte to retreat that there were indians hoping to allarm him in time to make his escape also; I still retained the charge in my gun which I was about to discharge at the moment the ball struck me.    when I arrived in sight of the perogue I called the men to their arms to which they flew in an instant, I told them that I was wounded but I hoped not mortally, by an indian I beleived and directed them to follow me that I would return & give them battle and releive Cruzatte if possible who I feared had fallen into their hands; the men followed me as they were bid and I returned about a hundred paces when my wounds became so painfull and my thye so stiff that I could scarcely get on; in short I was compelled to halt and ordered the men to proceed and if they found themselves overpowered by numbers to retreat in order keeping up a fire. I now got back to the perogue as well as I could and prepared my self with a pistol my rifle and air-gun being determined as a retreat was impracticable to sell my life as deerly as possible.    in this state of anxiety and suspense remained about 20 minutes when the party returned with Cruzatte and reported that there were no indians nor the appearance of any; Cruzatte seemed much allarmed and declared if he had shot me it was not his intention, that he had shot an Elk in the willows after he left or seperated from me. I asked him whether he did not hear me when I called to him so frequently which he absolutely denied. I do not beleive that the fellow did it intentionally but after finding that he had shot me was anxious to conceal his knowledge of having done so.  [3]    the ball had lodged in my breeches which I knew to be the ball of the short rifles such as that he had, ..."


From http://www.history.army.mil/LC/The%20Mission/planning_and_preparation.htm

"It was fortunate for Captain Lewis that the President�s vision of westward exploration was based on events spanning a decade or more in the past. President Thomas Jefferson had long possessed a great interest, for both practical and scientific reasons, in exploring the American west. In 1783 he had asked Brigadier General George Rogers Clark to lead an expedition to the Pacific, but Clark refused. Ten years later, Jefferson helped raise money for a westward expedition by botanist Andre Michaux, which was then canceled. In 1801 Jefferson�s interest in exploration was once again awakened by the publication of a book by Alexander MacKenzie in which he chronicled his adventures as the leader of a British expedition searching for a water passage in Canada that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific. "

The "15 Rifles" thing you will have to find. Unless I have it on a non-upgraded computer upstairs I can't access it right now.

I found it in reading up on this a few years back, about the time I posted on the subject the first time.

Dan  
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

borderdogs

  • Guest
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2014, 02:45:39 PM »
Capt Pete,
Looking on the TOW site it appears there are a fair number of parts on the "back order" status for the HF 1803. Last time I looked at that kit I seem to remember the same thing. It may or may not be an accurate representation of what L & C used but and I have never handled one made from that kit. But from the pictures of it it is pretty darn close to looking like the original rifle I had.

If you find a kit or parts to make up a complete rifle I sure would like to know. By the way, if you check out some of the auction sites like RIA and a few others they sometimes come up for auction. I have seen some realized prices range from about $3800 to around $9000. The friend I was referring to in my earlier post was Pete Cardone. He told me back then that he had seen a number of HF rifles of both models and of the ones he had seen all were either converted to percussion or reconverted back to flint, including the one I had.
Rob

captpete

  • Guest
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2014, 07:42:51 AM »
Wow! So much valuable insight!  I knew there was a reason I needed to back to black.as it were :)

Just to make sure, I'm reading the advice correctly, there are three sources for kits.  In no particular order, tow, Don Sith, and Rifle Shoppe.

--Peter

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9919
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2014, 08:05:25 PM »
The "15 extra rifles" comes from the official records according to "The Short Rifle of Lewis and Clark" by Richard Keller and Ernest Cowan appearing in "We Proceeded on".
http://www.lewisandclark.org/wpo/pdf/vol32no2.pdf
pg 20 thru 28
Having read about everything I could find I know that there are misstatements/errors in ALL of the articles. However, Keller and Cowan seem to make the most sense and seem to have less fabrication/guess work in the research.
But as I have stated before. People need to do their own research and base an opinion on that. No what is promoted on this web site. Since it IS a nebulous subject people need to form their own opinions.  

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Curt Larsen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 617
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2014, 03:55:24 PM »
Well, the pdf file that Dan posted got me interested again.  Thanks for posting this Dan.  As Don Stith has said in the past, unless we have a time machine we'll never really know what L&C took with them.  My question about what has been generally said about the rifles they took with them from HF pertains to the locks, supposedly with interchangeable parts.  From everything I've read about the manufacturing techniques used at HF (the Merritt Roe Smith book is the best I've seen so far), the HF arsenal had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the developing modern world of interchangeability.  The management was so set against it that the War Department forced the Hall Rifle Works on them to get them thinking in that direction.  Hall was one of the first of his breed trying to think interchangeable parts.  It appears that HF did not adapt to interchangeability until 1842 when the Springfield Arsenal had been doing it for some years.  I suspect L&C had lots of spare parts and a really good gunsmith.  Like everyone else of his breed back then he was skilled in every aspect of a gun smith including locks.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2014, 07:21:11 PM by Curt Larsen »

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9919
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Lewis and Clark Rifle Kit?
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2014, 07:56:55 AM »
Well, the pdf file that Dan posted got me interested again.  Thanks for posting this Dan.  As Don Stith has said in the past, unless we have a time machine we'll never really know what L&C took with them.  My question about what has been generally said about the rifles they took with them from HF pertains to the locks, supposedly with interchangeable parts.  From everything I've read about the manufacturing techniques used at HF (the Merritt Roe Smith book is the best I've seen so far), the HF arsenal had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the developing modern world of interchangeability.  The management was so set against it that the War Department forced the Hall Rifle Works on them to get them thinking in that direction.  Hall was one of the first of his breed trying to think interchangeable parts.  It appears that HF did not adapt to interchangeability until 1842 when the Springfield Arsenal had been doing it for some years.  I suspect L&C had lots of spare parts and a really good gunsmith.  Like everyone else of his breed back then he was skilled in every aspect of a gun smith including locks.

They were working on interchangeable parts since it would be a boon to the military. How soon this was actually accomplished and who did it is another thing. There is a difference between making a lock with extra parts and making 15 locks that all the parts interchange between. I would be surprised if the locks on the 15 rifles were truly interchangeable in their internals as we view it today. But the locks may have been numbered and the parts then numbered to the locks they were fitted too. Guessing here but in 1803 the equipment needed was simply not there.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine