Whatever happened to the Lewis and Clark expedition rifle?

[smart dog]

Hi Folks,
A few years ago there was quite a stir about a rifle alledged to be one of the "short" rifles carried by L&C.  It was sort of a prototype of the Harpers Ferry model 1803.  The Rifle Shoppe latched on to it and sold a parts set.  Has anyone investigated it other than Cowan and Keller?  I noted that TRS does not sell a parts set for it on their web site. 

dave       

[mbriggs]

The person that has done the most research on the type of short rifle that Lewis & Clark took with them on the expedition is Mr. Michael Carrick. (He is a fellow member of the American Society of Arms Collectors.) Michael has an example of a Pre-Model 1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle and has given an excellent program featuring the several things to look for to be able to identify this type of rifle.  Michael lives in Turner, Oregon.  His email is mike@mikecarrick.com. He is very friendly, feel free to contact him to learn more.

Michael Briggs

[timM]

“The U.S. Contract Rifle Pattern of 1972” By Frank Trait. A rather interesting article which appeared in “Man at Arms” (June, 1999)

Mr. Tait's twelve page article describes these Pennsylvania built Contract Rifles, their history and how they relate to the Model 1803  Harpers Ferry Rifle. It also displays two Dickert built contract rifles and convincingly touches on the L & C possibilities.

I would be willing to email a PDF of this article to those who are interested. Just reply to the email address on my profile link. tim

[smart dog]

Hi Guys,
Thanks for the information. Tim, I read Tates paper and all the others that I am aware of concerning the expedition rifles.  What I want to know is if any further investigation has been done on the gun that the Rifle Shoppe was advertising as a recently identified expedition rifle.  It looks like a prototype of the model 1803.  I know all the arguments for and against contract rifles, model 1803's, modified contract rifles... ad nauseum.  TRS wrote that the rifle in question is owned by Leon Budginas.  Ernie Cowan and Richard Keller supposedly examined it and concluded it was one of L&Cs 15 short rifles.  It even has serial number "15".  Spooky huh?  Anyway, if it was generally accepted as an expedition rifle, I would expect a lot of excitement by collectors and historians.  I have not heard any (although I am by no means plugged in to the collectors network) and was wondering if anyone was aware of new information about this rifle. 

dave

[Dphariss]

Its is all guesswork at this date.
I tend to lean toward the 1803 prototype for several reasons. But its all based on what I have read.
Its impossible to know for sure. But the apparent prototype 1803 that has been found and the fact that the Harpers Ferry records show 15 more were made than were ordered by the Gov't and that 1803s tended to burst in the round section (2 L&C rifles burst in this manner) gives tantalizing clues.
Lewis HAD to see prototypes at HF and he could easily have had them made special for him since he had an order telling HF to make anything he wanted.

Its all supposition/opinion but the clues all point to the prototype IMO. The 1792 is easily possible too. But personally I doubt this.

Dan

[smart dog]

Hi Dan,
Your points are good and certainly could support an 1803 prototype.  However, has the alleged "L&C short rifle" been determined to be genuine?  If not everyone is back to speculation.

dave   

[Longknife]

Dave, I do believe Dan is speculating. He has researched it and has come to a conclusion, base on his findings that you may or may not agree with. Tait and Cowan and Keller were also speculating and came up with their conclusions that you may or may not agree with. The question "has the alleged short rifle been determined to be genuine" (to the L&C exp?) is a good question, but have any 1792 contract rifles been "determined to be genuine" (to the L&C exp.?) How could you tell any way? Would they have to be stamped or signed by L&C? Who would have kept track of all the gear that was auctioned in St. Louis?
  I have done a little limited research, read all the articles, studied the Journals and have discovered that there are some serious errors in Taits article that lead me to doubt his claims---but--- I am still speculating and searching for the truth!!!...Ed

[Dphariss]

Hi Dan,
Your points are good and certainly could support an 1803 prototype.  However, has the alleged "L&C short rifle" been determined to be genuine?  If not everyone is back to speculation.

dave   

I do not know how it would be possible to determine what rifle was or was not taken on the expedition.
IMO its all guesswork and speculation.
You cannot discuss the L&C short rifle honestly not not add one of these terms.
The bursting at the muzzle is an indicator, maybe.
Some state that Dearborne did not order the rifles until after Lewis departed. True.
But he MUST have had a pattern rifle to look at to make the changes he recommended. They did not work from drawings at this time. He had a rifle in his hands to comment on.
So we can safely assume that Lewis saw prototypes. If he liked them he could easily have ordered 15. For all we know the offcials at the armory could have recommended them.
Making 15 rifles in the time frame was possible for HF especially if they were planning on make a run of them anyway which I am sure they were. This had been in planning for sometime by my reading.
We also run afoul of creative editing of the published Journals. One version has Lewis stating that the guns were made at HF. But this is not what he wrote when looking at versions without creative editing. (Garavaglia and Worman use the "edited" version in Firearms of the Amerian West 1803-1865)
We do know that Lewis had replacement locks/parts made.
But then the 1792s were later all relocked with the 1803 style lock that was closer "interchangable" in its parts than the hand made locks on the 1792.
It would be interesting to know what rifle George Drouillard took with him, if any, when he left the expedition. He had been using a "expedition" rifle for a couple of years and I doubt that he brought his own along.
The 1803 was the classic prototype for the Plains rifle. 1/2 stock, 1/2 ounce ball relatively short barrel.
it was pretty much what was settled on as a rifle for the west by 1830 or so. So its easy to get all ga ga and say this is what they must have used. It was perfect right? But this is not fact.
Considering the importance of the Expedition to American history it would be thrilling to find stuff that was positively used. But IMO its just not possible. Sherlock Holmes could only speculate.
So we look at what was written by the participants, that we can find, and go from there.
But firearms description was not high on their list of things to write down it seems.
Would be nice is some lost journal by an expedition member would turn up with a detailed mention of the rifles, I understand that several that supposedly existed are lost.
But I will not hold my breath.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Dave, I do believe Dan is speculating.<snip>...Ed

I *know* Dan is speculating. Thats why the first sentence of the first post contains the word "guesswork."

Dan

[Sean]

Anyway, if it was generally accepted as an expedition rifle, I would expect a lot of excitement by collectors and historians.  I have not heard any

I think that statement pretty much nailed it on that gun.

Sean

[smart dog]

Hi Ed,
I read the collection of papers you sent me long ago that included Tait's paper and Cowan's on the prototype hypothesis.   The evidence provided and conclusions drawn were very weak and speculative in both accounts and never would pass muster in terms of scientific evidence.  Regardless, my question is simply - is the Budginas rifle an authentic production from Harpers Ferry or is it a fake?  Of course it would be difficult, perhaps impossible to prove a gun was carried by L&C, but at least as a start the piece should be judged as a genuine product of the times and in this case, a product of Harpers Ferry.  The fact that Lewis obtained 15 rifles from Harpers Ferry and the Budginas gun is serial number 15 is a little suspicious (although it could certainly be true and be a product of chance).  Think of it this way, if the number was anything other than 15, you might consider it as an example of a gun that could have been carried by L&C.  But the serial number 15 immediately draws you into thinking it might be an actual L&C gun.  Anyway, I am not trying to rehash all the discussion about L&C guns.  I just want to know if there is a concensus that the gun is genuine example of an 1803 prototype or a fake.

dave  

[Dan'l 1946]

The little I've read indicates that the gun could well be real, but I don't have a list of sources. To be clear, when I say real, I mean the gun wasn't a fake--not that L&C carried it or even saw it. I believe Jess Melot at the Rifle Shoppe might be able to help you some more with this if you call him. I think he'll even build you a copy if you like.  Dan

[Longknife]

I just want to know if there is a concensus that the gun is genuine example of an 1803 prototype or a fake.

I do believe Mr. Carrigan, Mr. Keller and Mr. Cowan think it is an authenic prototype 1803 rifle. I have not head of anyone challenging this theory so we will have to accept the opinions of the experts (for now).I may get a chance to view it myself in October, and find out more info on it...I will let you know what I find out....Ed

[smart dog]

Hi Ed,
I would be very interested in your opinion of it.  Unlike some with commercial interests in this, I don't have a dog in the race.  I don't care if L&C used 1803's, prototypes, or contract rifle.  None of those guns have any significant bearing on L&C and company's achievements or the historical importance of their trip.  However, the Budginas gun sounds too good to be true, although that is by no means a reason to reject it.  Keller and Cowan long speculated on some sort of 1803 prototype.  Their paper on it (one of those you sent) is unconvincing and does not represent very thorough or objective scholarship.  Tait's paper (not the one published in Men at Arms on contract rifles) on the L&C guns is also unconvincing and relies on great leaps of faith.  For Keller and Cowan (as expert opinions about the gun), the rifle may be too much of what they wanted to find for them to be objective about it.  Michael Carrick probably represents a more disinterested opinion.  Anyway, if you do look at it consider the alternative hypothesis that is is just an 1803 that has been in civilan hands for a long while along with the hypothesis that it is a prototype.  I would like to know if the stamped #15 looks as worn as the other markings on the gun.

Take care,

dave     

[Dphariss]

Anyway, if it was generally accepted as an expedition rifle, I would expect a lot of excitement by collectors and historians.  I have not heard any

I think that statement pretty much nailed it on that gun.

Sean

The problem is that there is no way to authenticate it. Its impossible. No paper trail, no story, nothing that I know of. Even if it checked out in every way as being made in HF in 1802-1803 there is no way to tie it to the L&C Expedition and this is why nobody gets excited.
My research is very limited, but I have read Tait, being told by someone with a finacial stake that this would "prove" the 1792 was used. It does not. Even when Lewis was shot with one of the short rifles, identified by ball size he does not mention the size.
Keller and Cowan are far better informed, but the iron clad information stops at "short rifle". No description, no notation of ball size, no clues that I know of other than "short rifle".
Keller and Cowan  are very well informed  it seems. They could EASILY be right. But at this time there is no proof. No smoking gun.
So we try to puzzle it out. But its all what ifs.
If someone believes they used 1792s and wants a shortened version as a L&C rifle go for it.
If another thinks that an 1803 prototype is correct he is as correct as anyone else.
Read the information think it through and make a decision.
The fact that some rifle or the other might be somewhat suspect does not change this.
Barring some further enlightenment from some source with direct knowledge it will likely stay this way.

Dan

[Sean]

Dan,

I suppose my comments were more directed at the K&C article than the gun itself.  I probably should not have posted the one sentence reply that I did because it could be interpreted stronger than I intended.  I have no dog in the hunt and like Dave I don't care which gun the corps carried.  But you and I differ on our opinions of K&C's information and I think you expected more from Tait than he intended to give.  Both articles have substantial amounts of speculation tossed in on rather scanty information.

Sean

[Dphariss]

Dan,

I suppose my comments were more directed at the K&C article than the gun itself.  I probably should not have posted the one sentence reply that I did because it could be interpreted stronger than I intended.  I have no dog in the hunt and like Dave I don't care which gun the corps carried.  But you and I differ on our opinions of K&C's information and I think you expected more from Tait than he intended to give.  Both articles have substantial amounts of speculation tossed in on rather scanty information.

Sean

Its tough to do a discussion of this sort in print. It best done setting around a table with a pot of tea.

The lack of information opens the field up to speculation.
I don't like the 1803 or the Contract rifles much aesthetically.
As you state the writers on the subject all seem to have an axe to grind and/or stretch things and perhaps have not done all the research they might have. But considering how little material there is ?

The problem, just like many things to do with history in general is putting a 20th century mindset into the mix.
We think of it as what we would do. Without written documentation we can't get to what Lewis was thinking.
Our own preferences and opinions get into the mix ect ect. This is one reason we don't really comprehend facets of 18th and 19th century American shooting/gunsmithing, we cannot get "inside their heads". All we really have, for the most part, is the surviving firearms, what there are left, to form opinion.

The expedition had firearms along that were "unlisted", an "elegant fusil" lost in the flash flood near Great Falls was one. Could have been one of the officers personal guns I suppose. Had it not been lost it might never have been mentioned.
I keep hoping one of the lost journals will surface that might have some comment that would be more enlightening.
The bottom line is that the firearms carried were just tools much like an axe or a hammer.

Dan

[Sean]

Dan,

We may not see eye to eye on somethings, but I certainly agree with what you had to say there.

Sean