Half-Stock Flintlock Question

[Smokey Plainsman]

Note: If this is the wrong section, please move. I am not so sure as to where to put this question.

Hello everyone! I have some questions about early 19th century half-stock flintlock "plains rifles" as it were. Really, my main question is, did these even really exist? I understand that some English sporting rifles of that period were around but probably not used by most people out west in the fur trade and pioneer days.

I have a Lyman Great Plains .54 caliber rifle in flintlock. As of now, it's my only flintlock rifle. I just am curious if the design has any historical basis at all. I know the Lyman GPR is loosely based on the J&S Hawken pattern plains rifle, and also know that nobody has ever found a half-stock J&S Hawken gun with a flintlock mechanism. But were there other makers during that time who were producing half-stocked "plains" style rifles before or during the percussion era?

Any info on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.

[Seth Isaacson]

Here is my semi-informed take on this.  Given that the Hawken brothers worked together in St. Louis starting in the mid-1820s (Jacob moved there a little earlier), some of their guns were no doubt flintlocks given the percussion system was not widely used yet, especially on the frontier. However, their earlier rifles were probably closer to the Model 1803s made at Harper's Ferry where they had worked before moving to St. Louis or plainer full stock rifles similar to those made by others for the western trade. It isn't too unlikely that some flintlock plains rifles continued to be made by them well into the mid-19th century given other makers like Leman were still producing flintlocks for the western trade in that period. Flintlock firearms were still manufactured for Native Americans into the late 19th century.

[Mtn Meek]

Hello everyone! I have some questions about early 19th century half-stock flintlock "plains rifles" as it were. Really, my main question is, did these even really exist? I understand that some English sporting rifles of that period were around but probably not used by most people out west in the fur trade and pioneer days.

I have a Lyman Great Plains .54 caliber rifle in flintlock. As of now, it's my only flintlock rifle. I just am curious if the design has any historical basis at all. I know the Lyman GPR is loosely based on the J&S Hawken pattern plains rifle, and also know that nobody has ever found a half-stock J&S Hawken gun with a flintlock mechanism. But were there other makers during that time who were producing half-stocked "plains" style rifles before or during the percussion era?

Smokey,

The simple answer is if they existed, they were scarce because very few examples survive today.

Fashion, style, and trends in guns have been around for a long time.  The trend from a wide, straight butt plate of the 18th century to the curved, narrow butt plate of the 19th century appears impracticable today, but that was what became popular.

The wealthy English were buying half stock guns and rifles in the mid to late 18th century, but the style wasn't popular in the USA until the mid 19th century--about the same time the percussion system was becoming popular.

The Harper's Ferry Model 1803 has been mentioned.  The fact that Jacob Hawken had worked at Harper's Ferry before moving to St. Louis opens the door for a lot of speculation on how the 1803 may have influenced the Hawken mountain rifle.

Not a lot has been written about another possibility concerning the HP 1803, though.  That is the likelihood of a gunstocker using parts from an 1803 as the basis for a sporting arm.  Jim Gordon has such a rifle in his collection.



This rifle has been restocked and re-barreled with a full octagon barrel, but otherwise, built with parts from an HP 1803.





One of the more intriguing features of the rifle is the beaver tail cheekpiece.

The history on this rifle has been lost with the passage of time, and we don't know who built it or when, but it was most likely built in the flintlock period.

Some of the early HP 1803's were prone to having their barrels burst.  Pike made note of this in his journals.  It seems natural that a gunstocker in some place like St. Louis may have taken salvageable parts from one of these damaged 1803's and built the rifle above.  The fact that some one had this idea means that Jacob Hawken could have also had the same or similar idea.

In any event, the rifle above shows that sporting half-stock flintlock rifles may have made their way to the West in the early part of the 1800's.  Such rifles may have also been the inspiration for the Hawken bothers famous half-stock mountain rifle and variations such as your GPR.

[Dphariss]

The surviving S Hawken Flintlock is a fullstock. This is the rifle is the one in the Smithsonian and it has been converted to percussion.
There is no reason that 1/2 stock FL rifles were used in the West.  Maybe even some English guns early on (which Jake and Sam obviously knew about). We have to remember that the percussion cap as WE know it was not really available when the Hawken brothers formed their partnership. SO... AND the American Fur Company would not order or accept percussion rifles for the upper Missouri trade. They also were very particular as to the locks to be used. AND the surviving lists of goods for Rendezvous at least for +- first half of the 1830s had no percussion caps listed.  There were LOTS of them in St Louis so???
Of course we have accounts of people heading for CA in 1840 who were told to AVOID the percussion guns and thus many immigrants carried FL arms.  So? 
We also have to remember that the percussion cap did not catch on in rifles in England like it did with shotguns. Given that I have seen reports of the "hot" caps made for the various hard to ignite "replica" powders causing accuracy problems in some rifles with real BP I wonder if this was a reason. Were the early percussion caps inconsistent and caused accuracy problems in rifles in the early years.
Then we have the 2 vs 1 lock bolt thing. The late English FLs, and virtually all those used on double shotguns for quite a time only had one lock bolt. But might have a wood screw or staple to engage a hook on the front of the lock
So two were not needed so I would wonder if some of the early Hawkens, half-stock or otherwise could have been percussion they the barrel fitted with a new breech by shortening or brazing a lug on the barrel. Adding a new percussion lock that might or might not erase any indication of the FL and we have a percussion Hawken. 
NOW this is not FACT but it IS possible and there WAS resistance to the percussion in the west documented to at least 1840 since the caps were not what they are today and many it seems thought unreliable. But there were percussion rifles in the west. 
However, the English rifles by late 1820s were likely mostly if not all percussion and these WERE seen in the west. BUT the English who were ordering rifles were not the same income level as the people in America. Another factor.
AND one can pickup agate and other materials in the west and either make a flint by breaking it or they may fit as picked up. I have picked up two in one walk back to the pickup  across a flat prairie during hunting season. So yes YOU CAN pick up flints off the ground in the west.
FINALLY SFAIK the earliest 1/2 stock Hawken "Plains Rifle" seems to date to the early/mid 1830s. So what were they making before that? AND did the customers WANT 1/2 stocked percussion rifles? THIS an the important point.
Just something to discuss.
Dan

[Seth Isaacson]

There are also period sources indicating hundreds of thousands of percussion caps were available in St. Louis by the mid-1830s, so there is no reason to think that by that time the bulk of their rifles would not have shifted to being made in the latest and greatest fashion.

[Smokey Plainsman]

Thank you all, this is very enlightening. I know this is a very debatable subject, and I've heard arguments both ways elsewhere.

[grabenkater]

There are also period sources indicating hundreds of thousands of percussion caps were available in St. Louis by the mid-1830s, so there is no reason to think that by that time the bulk of their rifles would not have shifted to being made in the latest and greatest fashion.

I would not build my argument solely on fashion. If that were the case, why do we see percussion rifles being built and utilized well into the cartridge era in Appalachia and other rural regions. I would hazard a guess that many of the people moving west to seek fame and fortune were unable to afford the latest fashion and relied on what they had with them when they came.

[Seth Isaacson]

I agree. That is not my sole argument by any means though. If loads of percussion caps were being shipped to St. Louis, there was the demand for them, and we also have very few indications they made many flintlocks after that time frame.

I agree that many people would have been using older flintlocks as you suggested, but that would not have pushed the Hawkens to make flintlocks, as you said, they weren't able to afford new firearms.

[Seth Isaacson]

Back to the main issue at hand here, there is no surviving examples that I am aware of that indicate the Hawken brothers manufactured half stock flintlock rifles, but their guns were hand built and some were no doubt built for specific customers so there is no reason they couldn't have built some. The only evidence for flintlocks are full stock rifles from the earlier years. By the mid to late 1830s they appear to have predominantly switched over to percussion locks.

[nosrettap1958]

You're making a big mistake if you are basing your observations on rifles in the west solely on the J & S Hawken rifle. There were many builders out there and some, according to contemporary accounts holding far more weight than our opinions, considered rifles that were as good or better than the Hawken rifle.

Taking a quick glance through William Ivey's book, "North Carolina Schools of Long Rifles" I already found two builders of original half stock flintlock rifles, Henry Ledford and William Lamb & Jabez Stephens. They built them out west and used them out west, also.

[Seth Isaacson]

Fully agree! I guess I got too focused on the Hawken brothers given the original question. I'm not saying others didn't make flintlock rifles for the western trade, just that I have not seen evidence of the Hawken brothers making them in any significant numbers after the mid-1830s. Leman and others are definitely documented as having manufactured flintlocks for the western trade and fur trade even into the 1860s. Granted these were mostly full stocks. Barnett in England even manufactured some flintlocks into the very late 19th century for the Pacific Northwest trade. I'm sure some makers manufactured half stock flintlock rifles, some are documented, but they are definitely less common than half stock percussion rifles.

By the time the Plains rifle appeared (the 1830's) the percussion system was in general use except in the Army. Only when some old-timer insisted on having a flintlock was the Plains rifle equipped with the antiquated mechanism. - Carl P. Russel in "Guns on the Early Frontiers"

[nosrettap1958]

My mistake, I was trying to comment on the OP's question.   

In my opinion far too many people concentrate on the Hawken as opposed to the Plains rifle.  A lot of good builders throughout the mid west. In 1836 how many Hawken rifles were found at the Alamo or how many percussion rifles were found there also.

[Martin S.]

Crawdad,

Caution, thread drift.

I have always wondered what type of rifles were at the Alamo.

Were most of them flintlocks?

Or percussion?

Are there any documented historical sources?

I think there was an "Alamo rifle" attributed to Davy Crockett, but I had always thought that most of the rifles were destroyed in the funeral pile after the battle.

Any thoughts?

[nosrettap1958]

Martin, correct me if I'm wrong but they say they have never found a percussion cap spent or otherwise at the Alamo. Doesn't mean there wasn't any but to read into that statement, if there were percussion rifles there, they were few in number.

[Old Ford2]

Hi,
Just to add to the confusion, Leman built many, I say many flint half stock rifles well into the 1890's
Leman was one of the most prolific gun makers on the American scene and yet perhaps one of the most least mentioned.
Many of his plains rifles were flintlock. The saying goes the rural communities were slow to accept the percussion.
Why, $#*! even today in the 21st century percussion caps are difficult to find and are more expensive than ever.
So for your quest on a 1/2 stock plains rifle, look up Leman plains rifles.
I just completed a .58 cal. version of a 1/2 stocked Leman plains rifle.
I wold gladly post a pic if I could figure how.
Have a great day!
Fred

[Bob Roller]

Martin, correct me if I'm wrong but they say they have never found a percussion cap spent or otherwise at the Alamo. Doesn't mean there wasn't any but to read into that statement, if there were percussion rifles there, they were few in number.

The Alamo fight was in 1836 and by then a Colt 5 shot percussion revolver was available to
anyone who could afford one. Whether on not percussion cap rifles were used by anyone
is anyone's guess.

Bob Roller

[Smokey Plainsman]

Thanks so much, all. I am learning a lot here!

[oakridge]

Martin, correct me if I'm wrong but they say they have never found a percussion cap spent or otherwise at the Alamo. Doesn't mean there wasn't any but to read into that statement, if there were percussion rifles there, they were few in number.

The Alamo fight was in 1836 and by then a Colt 5 shot percussion revolver was available to
anyone who could afford one. Whether on not percussion cap rifles were used by anyone
is anyone's guess.

Bob Roller

I have a copy of an 1828 newspaper ad by a Mississippi gunsmith stating that he would "alter guns to the percussion plan". This was 8 years before the Alamo battle, so how popular were these percussion guns by 1836?

[Bob Roller]

Martin, correct me if I'm wrong but they say they have never found a percussion cap spent or otherwise at the Alamo. Doesn't mean there wasn't any but to read into that statement, if there were percussion rifles there, they were few in number.

The Alamo fight was in 1836 and by then a Colt 5 shot percussion revolver was available to
anyone who could afford one. Whether on not percussion cap rifles were used by anyone
is anyone's guess.

Bob Roller

I have a copy of an 1828 newspaper ad by a Mississippi gunsmith stating that he would "alter guns to the percussion plan". This was 8 years before the Alamo battle, so how popular were these percussion guns by 1836?

I would think the popularity of the percussion caps in 1828 or 1836 would be proportionate to availability.
Today with the cost of 100 caps costing more than a thousand used to may be a motivator to go to the
flintlock.Most of us know there is at least one better ignition system for sporting guns but we choose to
not use it and accept the challenge of an antiquated system.

Bob Roller

[Dphariss]

There are also period sources indicating hundreds of thousands of percussion caps were available in St. Louis by the mid-1830s, so there is no reason to think that by that time the bulk of their rifles would not have shifted to being made in the latest and greatest fashion.

This is true. But there are journals that show as late as 1840 people were still being told that the Flintlock was a better choice in the west.  There are others cursing the flintlock as unreliable. But still the American Fur Company would not accept percussion rifles for the upper Missouri trade well into the  1830s.
The thing I don't understand is why percussion caps do not appear on the lists of goods going to the Rendezvous even when Hawken Rifles were listed and we all "know" they "had" to be percussion? The fact there there was resistance to the percussion cap is irrefutable. We know for example that the earliest J&S Hawken "plains" rifles we see date to the early (perhaps) to mid-1830s. This based on the "Petersen rifle" and the Atchinson rifle of 1836 have identical, variant lockplate designs and neither has what we would not call full Hawken "plains" rifle features that we see on the 1840 period rifles. Its pretty obvious that the J&S rifles we see as "plains rifles" with the long tangs and other "Hawken" features probably appeared after the hey day of the Rendezvous and the Rocky Mountain beaver trapper.
So there are many questions and there is documentation for BOTH arguments. IIRC the Hawken shop was still buying flintlock locks well into the "percussion" era 1850s. I think this is in one of Hansen's books. So its obvious the FL did not just "drop dead" with the advent of the percussion cap and rifles did not adopt the system immediately even in England this according to George.
There were STILL people using FL rifles for hunting in the EAST in the late 19th or early 20th c. This is documented by either Dillon or Cline.

Dan

[Bob Roller]

There are also period sources indicating hundreds of thousands of percussion caps were available in St. Louis by the mid-1830s, so there is no reason to think that by that time the bulk of their rifles would not have shifted to being made in the latest and greatest fashion.

This is true. But there are journals that show as late as 1840 people were still being told that the Flintlock was a better choice in the west.  There are others cursing the flintlock as unreliable. But still the American Fur Company would not accept percussion rifles for the upper Missouri trade well into the  1830s.
The thing I don't understand is why percussion caps do not appear on the lists of goods going to the Rendezvous even when Hawken Rifles were listed and we all "know" they "had" to be percussion? The fact there there was resistance to the percussion cap is irrefutable. We know for example that the earliest J&S Hawken "plains" rifles we see date to the early (perhaps) to mid-1830s. This based on the "Petersen rifle" and the Atchinson rifle of 1836 have identical, variant lockplate designs and neither has what we would not call full Hawken "plains" rifle features that we see on the 1840 period rifles. Its pretty obvious that the J&S rifles we see as "plains rifles" with the long tangs and other "Hawken" features probably appeared after the hey day of the Rendezvous and the Rocky Mountain beaver trapper.
So there are many questions and there is documentation for BOTH arguments. IIRC the Hawken shop was still buying flintlock locks well into the "percussion" era 1850s. I think this is in one of Hansen's books. So its obvious the FL did not just "drop dead" with the advent of the percussion cap and rifles did not adopt the system immediately even in England this according to George.
There were STILL people using FL rifles for hunting in the EAST in the late 19th or early 20th c. This is documented by either Dillon or Cline.

Dan

Dan,
It was in Cline's book that he mentioned a Tennessee bear hunter named L.G.(Daddy)Moore that used only a
flintlock and needed nothing else.
The long deceased Lucian Cary went with E.M.Farris to a place called Hildalgo or Hidalgo Ky to visit a man
called Wyatt Atkinson who still made and rebuilt flintlock rifles and he was said to forge mainsprings out of
cold chisels. I think this was in the 1940's. Cary also tied up a lot of the barrel maker Harry Pope's time
with special projects and was a prolific writer on firearms and related subjects. I think he passed away in
1972. Lots of good reading with no praise for junk or other mediocrities and I wish it were so today.

Bob Roller

[Darkhorse]

It is my uniformed opinion, and it is just an opinion based on my experience and thinking, that there a whole lot more flintlocks made by the Hawken brothers and others than we choose to except today. For one thing let's suppose 200 flintlocks were purchased for a fur trapping expedition into the rockies. From the moment those rifles left the shop they entered traumatic conditions. Always out in some sort of weather, maybe uncleaned for days. The best they could expect was to be carried across a saddle pommel for months or years. And they were carried right into the Blackfoot and Pawnee hunting grounds. Maybe used as clubs resulting in broken stocks. They were cared for the best ways possible in that era and environment.
So, out of the 200 flintlocks originally bought just how many would or could have made it to modern times? My guess is not many. Only the lucky rifles carried by lucky trappers. And opinions are being based on those few.

When I started out I had a percussion rifle. I thought it to be the next best thing to a brass cartridge ever invented. Even the occasional bad cap or plugged flash hole failed to budge my opinion. So a few years later I bought a flintlock and found I couldn't shoot it at all due to a new case of flinching. Often times it didn't go off. And when it did I mostly missed. It once took close to a 50 to beat me in the 50 yard offhand bullseye. Now I'd be lucky to score 2 shots. A flintlock was the absolute worse design ever and why did I ever want one. But I am a stubborn person and once on a track I can seldom be deterred. So I kept at it.
Now fast forward at least 30 years. I can't remember the last time one of my flintlocks failed to fire. Really, I can't. I now shoot my own builds with top components from Jim Chambers, Rice, Davis and people like that. I would not carry a percussion if it was offered to me. I have really crummy chert on my place but I can still make it fire a flintlock. So I don't doubt many experienced hunters preferred a flintlock over a percussion. Perhaps the reason there so many percussion caps in St. Louis was because few people were buying them.

[okieboy]

 Old Ford 2, show us even 1 Leman half-stock that was originally flint.

[Bob Roller]

It is my uniformed opinion, and it is just an opinion based on my experience and thinking, that there a whole lot more flintlocks made by the Hawken brothers and others than we choose to except today. For one thing let's suppose 200 flintlocks were purchased for a fur trapping expedition into the rockies. From the moment those rifles left the shop they entered traumatic conditions. Always out in some sort of weather, maybe uncleaned for days. The best they could expect was to be carried across a saddle pommel for months or years. And they were carried right into the Blackfoot and Pawnee hunting grounds. Maybe used as clubs resulting in broken stocks. They were cared for the best ways possible in that era and environment.
So, out of the 200 flintlocks originally bought just how many would or could have made it to modern times? My guess is not many. Only the lucky rifles carried by lucky trappers. And opinions are being based on those few.

When I started out I had a percussion rifle. I thought it to be the next best thing to a brass cartridge ever invented. Even the occasional bad cap or plugged flash hole failed to budge my opinion. So a few years later I bought a flintlock and found I couldn't shoot it at all due to a new case of flinching. Often times it didn't go off. And when it did I mostly missed. It once took close to a 50 to beat me in the 50 yard offhand bullseye. Now I'd be lucky to score 2 shots. A flintlock was the absolute worse design ever and why did I ever want one. But I am a stubborn person and once on a track I can seldom be deterred. So I kept at it.
Now fast forward at least 30 years. I can't remember the last time one of my flintlocks failed to fire. Really, I can't. I now shoot my own builds with top components from Jim Chambers, Rice, Davis and people like that. I would not carry a percussion if it was offered to me. I have really crummy chert on my place but I can still make it fire a flintlock. So I don't doubt many experienced hunters preferred a flintlock over a percussion. Perhaps the reason there so many percussion caps in St. Louis was because few people were buying them.

According to Baird's book on the Hawken the Modena rifle was made in 1833 and was a caplock.

Bob Roller

[Smokey Plainsman]

Very interesting. 1833 for a caplock? I wonder when one could order a caplock on a widespread scale?