Austin & Halleck Mountain Rifle - Question

[S99VG]

Anyone have any experiences with the Austin & Halleck Mountain Rifle (flint or percussion)? I remember thinking when they came out that it was a nice looking rifle but beyond that all I know is what's been posted on-line. Seems like the on-line information is mixed - nice stocks and locks, but issues with quality control. I have to say that A&H did make a good looking Hawken but are they good rifles? Many thanks.

[smokinbuck]

I had an early percussion. As I recall it was a quality rifle and shot as well as most, maybe better than a few. They were a little pricey at the time.
Mark

[Flint62Smoothie]

I have an early ‘late model’ (post their move to Idaho) Austin & Halleck ‘mountain rifle’. Given that these are  factory rifles I will say that I like them and prefer them over the T/C Hawkens or Lyman Great Plains Rifle.

Immediate advantages to me are:

• More period correct styling
• Trimmer (less clunkier with less extra wood)
• Better traditional sights
• Full-caliber bore to the breech - NO sub-caliber patent breech
• Better flintlock lock than a T/C, excellent geometry & flint strike angle (no need for a 2nd generation ’fix’) and it is a full-size for caliber lock, unlike the tiny flint cock on the Lyman GPR,
  with the small lockplate. Plus the A-H lock is sprung by a traditional flat-V mainspring.
• Browned hardware

They were only available in 50-caliber with a 32" octagonal browned barrel in 1:28 conicals twist or a 1:66 round ball twist, in both flint or percussion ignition. The stocks were also available is ascending grades of maple to OMG gorgeous tiger-striped maple, from plain to Holy Cow that’s a factory stock?’ in appearance.

My maple flint is more plain with some figure, but was stained dark brown to mimic walnut - I guess. I am refinishing it now - see recent posts about ‘lye’ and ‘mud-like stains’ in the gunbuilding forum.

Austin & Halleck closed their doors in 2006; with their earlier ones excellent quality. There were some build quality issues w/ later build Idaho ones.

[Flint62Smoothie]

Oh ... forgot to add that my A-H mountain rifle is of excellent quality, is trim & handy, accurate and 100% reliable ... in fact it is my hunting flintlock.

[S99VG]

Thanks much for the responses.  I'be been considering a Lyman GPR but some outfits want nearly as much as I may be able to get into a A&H as an alternative.  And they do look nice and historically accurate - at least good enough for me.

[Flint62Smoothie]

Buy the A-H if the roundball twist. FWIW I’ve seen them run ~ $300+, but feel like I stole mine at
 $250.

[Fyrstyk]

I have a A&H flint roundball mountain rifle, and agree with the earlier posts.  Mine is an older model with a very nice tiger striped maple stock.  Shoots better than I can hold, but that is just me.  Many people have admired my rifle at the shoots that I attend.  You won't go wrong if you get the A&H, and I think you can still get parts for them thru Traditions, as they bought out the remaining inventory and marketed the rifle themselves for a few years.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I respectfully offer a dissenting opinion but with the following caveats:
1. I do not know if the guns I fixed were early or later versions
2. I only have experience with 2 flint versions that I repaired
The stocks were fine curly maple with a smooth modern looking finish.  The shape of the comb was not historically correct but that was minor with respect to how the stock was shaped at the breech.  The barrel tang was almost straight with no downward curve. The barrel had a hook breech but the maker did not shape the wood down to better match the octagonal flats on the breech. Instead, the wood is flush with the straight tang all the way to the breech so that the side flats on the hook tang are bedded below the surface of the wood. It is not historically correct and gives the rifle an ugly slab-like appearance around the lock.   The lock uses L&R Classic flintlock detachable pan, frizzen, and frizzen spring.  On both guns I fixed the frizzens were ill fitted and loose between the plate and pan bridle. On one, the hole drilled for the frizzen screw was so close to the top of the lock plate bolster that the upward  pressure of the frizzen spring on the screw broke through the thin metal on top of the hole.  On the other, the fit of the frizzen on the pan was very poor and the frizzen screw, which is a tiny #6 diameter, had bent upwards from pressure by the spring.  If these were both late production that might explain the lousy quality control but that also means you need to know when and where a A&H gun you are considering was made.

dave

[S99VG]

smart dog - I have the following comments and questions on your post:

"The stocks were fine curly maple with a smooth modern looking finish."

I've noticed this.

"The shape of the comb was not historically correct."

What is the historically correct shape for the comb?
Also, are the two lock screws historically correct?

"The barrel tang was almost straight with no downward curve."
"The barrel had a hook breech but the maker did not shape the wood down to better match the octagonal flats on the breech."

Should the tang be curved down immediately after the breech and should the wood be lowered to match the flats?

"The lock uses L&R Classic flintlock detachable pan, frizzen, and frizzen spring.  On both guns I fixed the frizzens were ill fitted and loose between the plate and pan bridle. On one, the hole drilled for the frizzen screw was so close to the top of the lock plate bolster that the upward  pressure of the frizzen spring on the screw broke through the thin metal on top of the hole.  On the other, the fit of the frizzen on the pan was very poor and the frizzen screw, which is a tiny #6 diameter, had bent upwards from pressure by the spring."

Is this a fairly easy fix or a significant problem? 
Would a percussion gun be preferable to a flintlock?

"If these were both late production that might explain the lousy quality control but that also means you need to know when and where a A&H gun you are considering was made."

Should late guns be avoided and how do you discern a late made gun?
Are the guns that were sold by Traditions late production rifles and should they be avoided?

Many thanks and I really appreciate your input - Jeff

[smart dog]

Hi Jeff,
Good questions!  Assuming you are thinking of the gun representing a plains rifle, the sides of the comb should just come together where the comb ends without the little groove of wood taken out on each side.  Two lock screws are correct as is one.  Both ways can be seen on plains rifles.  Generally, the earlier guns used 2 screws.  Regardless of the number of screws, the lock plate bolster must snug up against the barrel with no gap.  The tang should start curving downward at or near the end of the barrel and the wood sculpted so that the top 3 flats on the hooked breech are flush with the wood.  That also means the flat panels around the lock will be much narrower, as they should be.  Fixing a poorly drilled frizzen screw hole requires welding and you cannot just fill the hole and redrill it because you will have to refit the frizzen.  Even if the hole is OK, I would recommend compressing the frizzen spring in a spring vise to relieve pressure on the frizzen, then remove the screw (you will need a very small screw driver). Using KaseNit or some other hardening compound, heat the screw head and much of the shaft to bright red, dip it in the compound and reheat to bright red, then quench in water.  Then polish the screw and heat it very slowly until it goes from yellow to purple, and then to blue.  Stop heating at blue and let it cool. That will harden the screw and shaft. That prevents the tiny screw slot in the head from getting worn out because the screw from the factory is very soft and it will also prevent the screw from bending upward under pressure from the frizzen spring.  The percussion gun should not have these problems.  I suspect that A&H came out with a percussion gun first and then adapted their percussion lockplates to flint using L&R parts.  The resulting flintlock geometry is not very good because I doubt the lock was originally designed to be a flinter.  I do not know how to tell early from late guns but there may be folks who can chime in on that question. 

dave

[S99VG]

Dave - many thanks again for your informative reply.  I will now look at the A&H with a more educated perspective and probably stay away from the flint lock.  That pits it against the Lyman GPR which, if the price is competitive, makes the A&H a more interesting and perhaps better buy.  My feelings for the GPR is that it's probably the best looking and priced currently mass produced plains type rifle, albeit with historical inaccuracies and some (likely minor) mechanical issues. 

[OldMtnMan]

Finding an early American made CVA mountain rifle is another good choice. They have a Douglas barrel. Also a better version to the real Hawken than the GPR.

[S99VG]

OldMtnMan - I did not know that.  I bought a CVA percussion Kentucky long rifle kit with my first real paycheck back in 1977 when I was 17.  That was my first and only foray into black powder.  That kit cost me 100-bucks and the completed rifle faded off into the sunset years ago like so many other things from that early time in my life.  I just always figured CVAs of that period were all made in Spain like that kit was.  Thanks again for the info. 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I do not know how to tell early from late guns but there may be folks who can chime in on that question.

Finally found the answer! Austin & Halleck, Inc. was located in Weston, Missouri and then moved to Provo, Utah, where they eventually went out of business. They made a very nice muzzleloading firearm (early models), some tiger-striped truly stocks spectacular for a factory rifle, but the production costs paired with the import of cheaper in-lines cut deeply into their market share and they ceased operstions on 01Oct2006.

I looked my early flint over last night and see zero issues as reported ... even my lock is excellent! So I’d say that any A-H with build/quality issues had to be later production arms when the ‘bean-counter accountants’ were driving co$ts and operations.

[S99VG]

Many thanks!

[VJM]

Does anyone know when Traditions got involved. I saw one that the seller claimed was built in 99 but it was marked "Traditions" on the box as well as on the barrel....doesn't sound right. Did Traditions buy out in 10/06?

[Daryl]

Finding an early American made CVA mountain rifle is another good choice. They have a Douglas barrel. Also a better version to the real Hawken than the GPR.

Really - I never would have thought that. I've seen a lot of those CVA "Mountain Rifles" in years gone by and although, for the time, they seemed a decent 'starter rifle, not for one

moment did I every think they looked even remotely close to a Hawken.  The GPR was/is head and shoulders ahead of the CVA's., although it is not very close either, in it's present guise.

[OldMtnMan]

Yes, really Daryl. A lot of guys will disagree with you. Including me. Find a nice one marked Made In USA and see what you have to pay for it. Are you going to disagree with everything I say?

[Daryl]

Yes, really Daryl. A lot of guys will disagree with you. Including me. Find a nice one marked Made In USA and see what you have to pay for it. Are you going to disagree with everything I say?

Nope - only that which I disagree with.  Saw lots of those CVA production guns back in the 70's and 80's - to me, they all looked like TC's. Every one was marked made in USA, but seems most I

saw were using Italian barrels, seems to me.   I'd just as soon have one of those as a Douglas bl. Saw some really good shooting done with them.  I did have a Douglass XX .50 barrel back in

the 70's & it shot just fine, but no better & maybe not as well as than Les Bauska's cut-rifled barrels.

For me, comparing production guns of the 70's, 80's and 90's is like comparing different apples.  Some are edible, others just a bit too "woody".

[Daryl]

Yes, really Daryl. A lot of guys will disagree with you. Including me. Find a nice one marked Made In USA and see what you have to pay for it. Are you going to disagree with everything I say?

There are a lot of guys who think the TC Hawkens looks like a Hawken. Even THEY do, or at least advertise it as such.

[Fyrstyk]

Traditions bought out A&H, but i don't know when.  Traditions put together several rifles from the parts inventory they purchased.  Their QC left something to be desired.  The early A&H rifles were high quality.  When they moved to Utah, their quality started to fade, presumable due to the bean counters, and the competition from other makers.  They couldn't stay competitive.

[OldMtnMan]

Yes, really Daryl. A lot of guys will disagree with you. Including me. Find a nice one marked Made In USA and see what you have to pay for it. Are you going to disagree with everything I say?

There are a lot of guys who think the TC Hawkens looks like a Hawken. Even THEY do, or at least advertise it as such.

The TC isn't even close and i'm not so sure that was TC's goal.

The CVA mountain rifle of the 70's stock is much closer to the real Hawken. The GPR stock is terrible and takes a lot of carving and sanding to make it look good. The CVA has a pewter nose cap which is a plus. I agree the trigger guard on the CVA is terrible, but all the production guns had that problem.

When I look at the old CVA guns I think Hawken except for the trigger guard. Not in the same sense as a custom Hawken which are true replicas. I'm taking mass production guns. Even though i've owned many GPR's I never looked at it as a copy of a Hawken. The stock was too much of an eye sore.

So, the CVA had a pretty good look and were very accurate. It appears to be a well built gun. I'm not talking about a custom built Hawken, but a production gun. I put it ahead of the TC and GPR. Plus, it was built in the US.

[Daryl]

Yes, really Daryl. A lot of guys will disagree with you. Including me. Find a nice one marked Made In USA and see what you have to pay for it. Are you going to disagree with everything I say?

There are a lot of guys who think the TC Hawkens looks like a Hawken. Even THEY do, or at least advertise it as such.

The TC isn't even close and i'm not so sure that was TC's goal.

Plus, it was built in the US.

TC advertised "'Ol Sam would be PROUD to put his name on this Rifle".
That advert impressed me and I was sucked in.
To me, TC's intent is/was quite obvious - their own advertising said it plainly.

My good friend of 1972-1994, Lester H. Hawkes put me straight, showing me pictures he took of
actual Hawken rifles, in collections and museums. I was so discouraged and angry to be sucked
in like that.  I then used that stock, once modified so it didn't crack me in the cheek bone, as a
test bed for the factory barrel as well as a number of Bauska barrels. My education started then,
in early 1973. I was loading a .495" ball WITH .022 DENIM patch in that rifle. With that, combination
and 80g.r 2F, it shot very well- 1" or a bit tighter at 50yards.  A factory crown will not allow that combination.
The factory sights were thrown away right off the bat- useless for me, for shooting groups.

I have never looked at a GPR and thought it was a copy of a Hawken, either. See - we agree.
There are no reproductions I know of, that were a copy of any Hawken Plains Rifle.

[OldMtnMan]

Johnathan Browning was probably the closest. I had one of those. Kind of heavy and the main spring was a bit of overkill. It would wear you out cocking it a lot. It shot pretty good, but nothing to brag about.

Most companies just tried to come close. We should call them plains rifles instead of Hawkens. I wish I could have built the TOW kit, but I waited to long to get it done. Now i'm shooting a shorty, but it should be a good hunting rifle.

[S99VG]

I accept "Plains Rifle" to represent a genre or general category of rifle design that is representative of a period of American history and (possibly) place.  I also accept it to represent something that was highly influenced by popular culture of the 1970s and 80s.  And obviously the latter has overshadowed our understanding of the former in many ways.  i'm just attempting to separate the former from the latter to better understand the true form of the historical rifle rather than dialing in the specific design of a individual builder such as Sam Hawken.  And in doing I am comfortable building something that looks more like what would have been procured from a maker in the early 1800s than the 1970s, even if that means modifying a Lyman GPR in ways that take it in that direction more so than what Invest Arms has produced.  At least that's where I am now but I may end up being more exacting as I venture more into the hobby of muzzle loading and shooting.  Again, many thanks to all who have responded as this thread has been an educational experience for me.