No two Hawken's are identical.

[alacran]

Jim Kibler says he's planning a Hawken kit. He posted in the for sale section. He is looking to buy an original to base his copy on..
Well lots of folks have been opining on his post what he should do.my point is there are no two identical. The last post I looked at on the add has a picture of the original and the bench copy Browner made, claiming they are identical.
It proves my point since just a cursory look at the two rifles show they are not identical.
This is specially true in the wrist area. I am sure if I had the two actual rifles I would find more discrepancies.

[MeliusCreekTrapper]

So it wasn't just my eyes looking at those two rifles.

[Bsharp]

I overlaid the two images, you can see a difference

[Bob Roller]

The Hawken was a handmade rifle and met a need in a rough circumstance and are easy to identify.Some seem to think they got the idea from seeing a half stock high end English rifle.Maybe so and the need for a "rough and ready" rifle set aside the need for fine workmanship.
I do hope Jim Kibler can make a good representation of a Manton half stock flint lock rifle.He has the lock and barrel and set triggers are not needed unless wanted.The late since 1989 Tom Dawson made Hawken copies that are very hard to detect unless the barrel is removed and on some,my name is seen in the locks and triggers.Bob Browner's copies are really good and I saw some others at the recent CLA Show that were really good.One man told me the hammers should not be checkered because the old ones weren't and my reply is that it;s the only external safety feature on a caplock rifle.The half cock position of a lock of any kind can easiiy be defeated with a hard squeeze on the trigger and that's a fact and includes big military locks.
Bob Roller

[Notchy Bob]

The original and the Browner copy look pretty dang close, to me.  They both look like old rifles.

I would agree that no two original Hawkens were identical, but “typical” original Hawken rifles are similar enough to be recognizable as coming from the same maker.  I think Bob Browner did an outstanding job in duplicating the original.

My take on the Kibler Hawken project is that Jim wants to get the architectural features correct.  He stated in his second post that he would likely make some concessions with the design to make the rifle more appealing to his anticipated 21st century customer base, so I would not expect a bench copy.  Which gets us back to the original point, which was that no two original Hawkens were exactly alike.

As for completed Kibler kits all looking exactly alike, that hasn’t happened, either.  There is enough variety in the wood grain and in the finish and individual embellishments and modifications to make every one unique.

Is his Woodsrunner an exact copy of the original?  I expect his Hawken kit will be designed and constructed in the same spirit.  I’m looking forward to seeing it, and will likely buy one.  I think what we will see is an authentic design made with best-quality components in a very builder-friendly kit.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

[rich pierce]

Best advice Louie Parker ever gave me was “never make a Hawken rifle that is a composite of features from several individual rifles.  Base your build on one original.”  The same rings true for many builds. My view only.

[Bob Roller]

I have made a bunch of "Hawken"parts and I don't think ONE is alike much less two .These guns were/are hand made and as Tom Dawson said was about the best any of us can do is make a representative type.To me the distinctive trigger guard will  be an instant identifier.I made the grand total of one and that was it.I have several plate patterns for locks and settled on the T.Gibbons and a couple of cast steel ones and have made a few of the Modena style which are small.The Modena rifle looks good but the shape of the stock is atrocious and Dawson's copy kicked like a mule and has a cheek rest that flows into the grip area and I got a fat lip after the first shot.The Hawken Shop has a good kit and the interest in such rifles is very limited due to cost.I think the one I examined at Friendship was about $1400.
None of the originals had a quality lock but were usable.I had some "bits and scraps" left and made up a traditional lock on a cast steel with no "half cock" and it went to California.It was and is representative of locks common to American rifles when the muzzle loader was all there was.
Bob Roller

[Dave Marsh]

I am not a Hawken or percussion fan (thank God as it is one less Kibler to buy).  If I did want a Hawken, it would be fullstock and flint.  Jim Kibler is in for quite the decision process from what I have read so far.  He sure shouldn't make a 12-pound rifle.  Hawken to me means heavy.  Herb's post certainly confirms that at least to me.  All I can say is good luck Jim in that decision process.   

[Scota4570]

$1400 is very fair if parts are high quality and the precarve is properly done.  I have never seen one but strongly considered trying one.

I went another route and it went very badly.  I am fully done with traditional precarve stocks and locks sloppily assembled from cast parts. 

Based on my experience, I'd pay more than $1400 for a Kibler Hawken.   Hawkens are very difficult to inlet the breech section.  There is a lot happening at once.  IF you do not understand the angles and sequence of inletting,  gaps will emerge. 

On the breech plug casting I got,  I  question the 1/8" flash hole.  The hole nearly comes out the side of the  plug-barrel threads.  The drilled hole also damaged the seating surface creating a fouling trap.   It looks like a quick and dirty way to do it.  I got a rough casting and made mine by cross drilling, plugging then drilling from the powder chamber to the cross hole.

 

[Dphariss]

Jim Kibler says he's planning a Hawken kit. He posted in the for sale section. He is looking to buy an original to base his copy on..
Well lots of folks have been opining on his post what he should do.my point is there are no two identical. The last post I looked at on the add has a picture of the original and the bench copy Browner made, claiming they are identical.
It proves my point since just a cursory look at the two rifles show they are not identical.
This is specially true in the wrist area. I am sure if I had the two actual rifles I would find more discrepancies.

Of course not. None of the rifles of this period were the same as another by the same maker.  In the Cody Museum there is a 1/2 stock Hawken  Mtn Rifle that is all brass mounted, same hardware as iron, down to the key escutcheons, in brass. We have them with variant buttstocks and variant cheekpieces. Different breeches, variations in trigger guards. Full and 1/2 stocks. There is a S Hawken heavy Kentucky in Cody that on examination was stocked by the same hand that stocked a FS S Hawken  mountain rifle in the same case.  We have mountain rifles with single, single set and DST triggers.
But some are a lot more likable than others. The later rifles are invariably more clunky than the early rifles. So I like the trimmer early rifles better. The ETC in Helena is probably about as nice as they get. There are others but the later rifles like the S Hawken marked rifles are sometimes really big and if you will kinda like a club.

https://mhsmuseum.pastperfectonline.com/Webobject/3C06C012-A946-4DED-B7B6-257823862894#gallery-1

Here is the stock of the second rifle based on this rifle. The first one was done back in the 70s and was my primary hunting/shooting rifle for several years. I liked it a lot but eventually sold it.  Its a lot slimmer than the later rifles like the Bridger and a friend of mine came by today and looked at the stock and stated  its much nicer  than the  Bridger rifle and similar.  Which he, BTW,  actually shot a deer with back when we were a lot younger. Yeah the original.

[alacran]

Thanks for posting that link Dan. I've only seen one photo of that rifle before, and it really wasn't a good one.
I like the lines of that rifle.  The snail bolster seems to be forged welded on to the barrel but on one of the photos of the rear of the breech seems to show a seam line. At any rate however it was made, it is elegant. There are a lot of other nice details in the photo like the nose cap. At first glance I thought it was poured but after looking at the detail and expanding it could be sheet metal. The wrist is one of the most pleasing I've seen on a Hawken.
I may have to get on my pigmy pony and go to Montana soon.

[RAT]

The muzzle cap on the ETC Hawken is poured pewter. We know for fact... Dan and I had the barrel out the last time we examined it. The bolster is forge welded onto the barrel... also fact.

If anyone plans a trip to Montana to see the ETC rifle... contact the museum first. The rifle is not on public display. You will need to arrange back room access. We were also informed the museum is under construction and (as of August) was closed.

If Jim is following this new thread... and I'm guessing he is...

Contact Bob Woodfill. I believe he facilitated the display of the Atchison Hawken rifle at the last Hawken Classic event in Missouri this past summer. I wasn't there, but I believe the rifle was on display. The Atchison and ETC rifles are close cousins with very similar architecture. The ETC is owned by the Montana Historical Society. The Atchison is privately owned. Maybe Bob can broker a loan for your purposes. The Atchison is the only legitimately dated Hawken rifle... dated 1836. I believe the Atchison and ETC rifles were stocked by the same person at around the same time.

[Metalshaper]

Just asking..Didn't Hershle House make a Hawken Rifle that was filmed for American Pioneer Video? What plans or prep did he use??

Respect Always
Metalshaper/Jonathan

[alacran]

Thanks RAT for clarifying the facts. Hard to discern details from photos.

[Bob Roller]

$1400 is very fair if parts are high quality and the precarve is properly done.  I have never seen one but strongly considered trying one.

I went another route and it went very badly.  I am fully done with traditional precarve stocks and locks sloppily assembled from cast parts. 

Based on my experience, I'd pay more than $1400 for a Kibler Hawken.   Hawkens are very difficult to inlet the breech section.  There is a lot happening at once.  IF you do not understand the angles and sequence of inletting,  gaps will emerge. 

On the breech plug casting I got,  I  question the 1/8" flash hole.  The hole nearly comes out the side of the  plug-barrel threads.  The drilled hole also damaged the seating surface creating a fouling trap.   It looks like a quick and dirty way to do it.  I got a rough casting and made mine by cross drilling, plugging then drilling from the powder chamber to the cross hole.

 

The late Don Brown who made a high end copy of an Alex Henry long range rifle showed an original Henry with a cross drilled breech and after the breech was fit to the barrel the hole on the left side was threaded and then a screw installed and upset like a rivet and filed flat and engraved so it was undetectable,Xray will detect these old methods.I still have a new breech and tang he gave me when I was making locks to use with them.It is not drilled.
Bob Roller

[Mike Brooks]

Oh good golly, anything but a hawken I have never understood what the attraction is.

[t.caster]

I'm with Brooks! I don't see the attraction and all the fuss, especially if no two were exactly alike.

[okawbow]

Jeremiah Johnson

[HighUintas]

Aside from the 70s mountain man craze (because I didn't take part in that!) I think the allure is the fact that they were well known makers and blacksmiths in the fur trade time period, there are many references in writings of that period and into the Oregon trail and 49er period to the "Hawkins" brothers making great rifles (which ultimately ended having the barrels turned into pry bars or similar in mining!!), and they may have helped start or at least took part in a major shift in the style of the American longrifle. My knowledge on eastern US made halfstocks of the 1830s is limited to non-existent, but were there many other makers building halfstock rifles with scroll guards in the 30s? Certainly not in St Louis to my knowledge.

Regardless, I hope Jim decides that the ETC rifle is the way to go. I love that rifle and the Atchison rifle and get a little bored of the later style snail breech bolster.

Another nice one to have it styled after, although i think it may be a later one, is the Sublette-Beale Hawken with it's "comma" style breech, capbox, and cheek inlay

 

[Dphariss]

Simple answer?The fully evolved Hawken probably about 1836-37, is by far the best ML HUNTING rifle. Period. At least for anything larger than a squirrel or rabbit. Not even debatable. But with its buttplate its not suitable for calibers over 54-58. But then a lot of people here either don’t use rifles hard, I know builders who hardly ever shoot a rifle, many don’t attend matches or hunt with MLs and few if any here have never been in a horse wreck/bucked off.  And the early ones were not the clubs the later rifles were either. A friend and guild member who hates Hawkens likes the ETC rifle.  During his trip to the West Francis Parkman met with two Englishmen doing about the same thing he was and IIRC both their English rifles had been broken in the wrist and repaired. Horses are notoriously hard on rifles to this day as people often find out.

[Dphariss]

I'm with Brooks! I don't see the attraction and all the fuss, especially if no two were exactly alike.

Good grief! Again? “Exactly alike”? Try interchanging parts on ANY period kentucky, trade rifle, NW Gun by the same maker. Or for that matter a pre-Kibler preinlet kit. I have had to MAKE a lock plate to fit a precarved stock since the inlet was just to far from the lock it was supposed to use.  Find me a Dickert that is “exactly” like another.  The Hawken was in production longer that ANY OTHER by the same shop and same name. There were STILL Hawken rifles on the rack for sale in Gemmers shop in the 1890s. They were still in use in the West in the 1870s at least. Until the advent of the 44-77 class cartridges in in the early 70s the 54 caliber RB rifle was the better hunting arm compared to a Henry, Spencer or 66 Win or a paper cutter Sharps or the early trapdoors in 58 or 50 caliber. When John Bozeman was killed (not by indians BTW) the man traveling with him was reportedly armed with a FS Hawken rifle. But was either away from Bozeman at the time or decided it was better to keep his mouth shut. There was a REASON that Jim Bridger late in life working for the Gov’t bought a plain late Hawken rifle for an expedition to the West. It was probably the best thing available.  And he did not come to that conclusion from reading some magazine article.
I LIKE long rifles a lot. I have built more of them by far  than 1/2 stocked rifles and Hawkens in particular. HOWEVER.  The best shooting I have ever done in offhand has been done with flintlocks stocked as Hawken rifles. If the Hawken Bros product was a POS they would have been doing blacksmith work full time by 1830 not building rifles. The fact that J&S and later Just Sam staid at it until Sam retired speaks volumes ESPECIALLY given the massive changes in firearms and other technology that took place over their lifetime. that the shop and the RIFLE staid in production virtually unchanged long after Sam had passed from this life is “uncommon”. And the rifles EVOLVED over time due to the hard use they were put to. They ended up somewhat “fatter” than what was made in 1836. Some late rifles (post 1845-50) are downright massive compared to something by the Beans or M. Fordney. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But you must also consider its looks vs its durability in use. But in firearms, MLs especially one must also consider the environment they “grew up” in. In the early 1830s the American Fur Company was telling Henry that percussion locks would not do and that the locks had to be carefully chosen because people up the Missouri were far from any place for repair. If the cheap import lock on a 1830s PA residents gun broke chances are the owner was within a 1/2 days walk or horse back to a gunsmith. Its over 600 miles as a crow flies from Ft Laramie to the closest point on the Yellowstone River. Just checked it with Google Earth.  Ft Hall is maybe 300 miles closer but there are a LOT of mountains, high ones, in the way.
 I need to get to the shop.

[Bob Roller]

I'm with Brooks! I don't see the attraction and all the fuss, especially if no two were exactly alike.

The Hoffman&Campbell rifle (J&S Hawken)credited to Francis Parkman and mentioned in the book published in 1905 was a dressed tp rifle with checkering in the grip area was a bit different,It was heavy and I fired it when visiting with Tom Dawson.He made a representation of it but in a lighter gun.I made the Ashmore lock for it and still have that plate profile,The Hawken is a part of the American Western expansion and today it is a fine hunting rifle.For what it's worth,my preference is for the fine target rifles as shown a book on Schuetzen rifles by Hamilton and Rowe. As I said earlier,I made and sold a lot of Hawken locks and triggers here in the USA and used a similar mechanism in the Schuetzen locks for the German market.I sometimes wish I had made more rifles but making small parts for others who did make them did help pay the bills.My wood working skills are not what I would like.
Bob Roller

[oldtravler61]

   Just one thought about these guns. The two Hawkins I handled a couple years ago at the CLA show ( original ) weighed 11 - to 12 lbs. I doubt if Kibler.. If he makes these at that weight. Most will be wall hangers. Because now days we're more wimpy than the Mountain men were back in the day. People freak out now over an 8 lb rifle.  First thing people ask about a gun for sale is how much does it way JMHO

[Scota4570]

I made a representative Hawken a few years ago.  I used the Bridger drawings, Carson drawings, Track plans, Robidioux drawings and read the usual books.  The barrel is 34" 1 1/8 to 1" taper, 54 caliber.  The weight came out at 11#.  It feels like a pig to me now.  I also made a "Leman halfstock" with a 34", 15/16. 54 caliber.  IT weighs in at 8#.  I like it much better.  I do not have a horse to tote my rife and my shop is only hours away if something needs repair.  I hope Jim's version is more svelt than mine.  I do not think an old Robert Redford movie still has the popularity today to create demand for a truly authentic late Hawken rifle.  Didn't he carry a TC in the movie?   I shot mine once and it is now a safe queen, it is just too clunkie. 
 

[alacran]

I usually do my postings here very early in the morning. I am not always clear headed at the time. I actually just wanted to respond to the two pictures, that showed Bob Browner's copy of an original. They were definitely not identical. But I suppose what I wanted to say that no matter what particular Hawken Jim Kibler wants to use as a model he will have a correct Hawken, since no two are alike.
I do hunt with my Hawken and at one time I once had three that I built. One in .45, one in .50 and one in .54.
I only have the .54 now. I have logged more than 300 miles carrying it. The first elk hunt I carried it on, I fell walking rocky terrain in the dark, I took a fall that would have broken most longrifle's wrist. All it got was rock rash. Since I was carrying it at port arms, it also saved my face.
There's plenty of folks that I know that would like to have an authentic looking Hawken. They don't have the knowledge to build one or the wherewithal to buy a custom one. So a Kibler kit in the price range of his current guns would probably be popular specially West of the Mississippi.