What A Hawken Is Supposed To Look Like

[AZshot]

I don’t mean to suggest that design is of no significance. I just mean to put it in context. On a different thread someone commented that some people don’t know the difference between good design and mediocre or even bad design (my paraphrase). I’ve met people like that, too, so I agree with the observation, at least in a limited way. But I think it’s important to also recognize that an informed preference for the traditional is not the same thing as naiveté or ignorance. There are many on here who do know the difference, and yet they prefer the traditional, even with its details that others may consider flaws.

While your story on changing something you had no ownership in is reminiscent, building a replica Hawken flintlock presents challenges as there is no one specific historical Hawken rifle that is "cookie cutter" uniform to use as an example. And perhaps that's the way it should be (because that's the way it is)

You've stated "I think it’s important to also recognize that an informed preference for the traditional is not the same thing as naiveté or ignorance."  What you believe may be naiveté or ignorance may simply be "I choose to not make\do it that way". I've customized given builds to suite my needs and preferences...knowing the entire time that "purest" would scoff at the change.

With all of these given examples of a historical Hawken, I've seen no responses that state "this is how it should look" when you're done.

Steeltrap, thanks for the reply. I wasn’t meaning to criticize anyone's builds or choices, and wasn't meaning to suggest that anyone who wasn't a traditionalist was naive or ignorant. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.

I still don't see a way to show what is THE most quinessential "Hawken Rifle."  Which means ANY design with the basics cannot be critisized that it's not like ONE individual rifle.

Because:
- They evolved over time (as all guns do).
- They were made by several people, over many years.
- Hawken, like all the original long rifle makers that I follow (such as the Gillespies) made radically different rifles, sometimes during the same year.  One Gillespie would have brass furniture, one iron.  One would have wriggle work, another not.  Etc.  You can't say a representitive Gillespie is not so, because it doesn't have some feature that was not on all of them.

Only the most BASIC or common features should be considered if we were trying to generalize "what makes a hawken."  To me, that is it's half stock, 2 barrel wedges, heavy barrel.  It is not barrel length, caliber, grooves, twist, wood, location of wedges, actual weight specification.

All one could really do is point to ONE Hawken, isolated from all others in time and specs, and say "THAT one is A Hawken made in 18xx, by J OR S Hawken."  None are "what the design is."  All are unique in time.  Maybe 2-3 were identical made one month.  But 6 months later, something new was started.  These are hand made guns, they changed.

[Bob Roller]

I don’t mean to suggest that design is of no significance. I just mean to put it in context. On a different thread someone commented that some people don’t know the difference between good design and mediocre or even bad design (my paraphrase). I’ve met people like that, too, so I agree with the observation, at least in a limited way. But I think it’s important to also recognize that an informed preference for the traditional is not the same thing as naiveté or ignorance. There are many on here who do know the difference, and yet they prefer the traditional, even with its details that others may consider flaws.

While your story on changing something you had no ownership in is reminiscent, building a replica Hawken flintlock presents challenges as there is no one specific historical Hawken rifle that is "cookie cutter" uniform to use as an example. And perhaps that's the way it should be (because that's the way it is)

You've stated "I think it’s important to also recognize that an informed preference for the traditional is not the same thing as naiveté or ignorance."  What you believe may be naiveté or ignorance may simply be "I choose to not make\do it that way". I've customized given builds to suite my needs and preferences...knowing the entire time that "purest" would scoff at the change.

With all of these given examples of a historical Hawken, I've seen no responses that state "this is how it should look" when you're done.

The late Tom Dawson made some of the best Hawken copies when it came to building in the accidents and mistakes of a particular rifle and said."The best anyone can do is to make a representative type".His copy of the Parkman rifle made in
 1847 even had the "repair"in the grip of the stock that looked real.The reliability of any muzzle loader depends on the lock and  these seen on an original Hawken are very simple and as long as the mainspring  stays in one piece it will work.The rifle made by CooleyS recently seen here is more of a New York rifle than anything that Jake and Sam made.and IF they saw an English half stock it was beyond their skill set to copy but they did what they could with what they had to work with.Wes Kindig was the one that got me started in making  a "Hawken:lock and then the long bar triggers and I think he passed away in 1973.On request I made the lock with only a full cock position for the hammer and left the springs with the blue color after tempering then.Most of these were made with a plate and hammer that used a lock from a J&S Hawken lock with name and engtaving cast in.I called these a "KISS"lock,Keep It Stupidly Simple.
Bob Roller.
 

[Bill in Md]

Trying to replicate the works of others long gone is in my mind is about as lame as these "cover" bands who exist to play the songs of Pink Floyd, The Grateful Dead and the Beatles rather than creating their own songs. Copying originals dulls true personal growth and art in my personal opinion

In the fly fishing world you have the same thing. Builders intent on making careers out of duplicating old tapers such as Dickerson's, Garrison's, and Paynes, when the very best functional tapers are being made by folks who break away from the status quo and design their own....b

[whetrock]

I hope it's clear that my long post above wasn't meant to argue that a traditionalist preference was superior. I realize that there are a lot of different philosophies on here.  I'm not meaning to suggest that any of them are superior or inferior. (I posted something on here many years ago about philosophies of builders. You can see it here:
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=25329.0 .  It may help summarize some of the different views that keep getting debated.)

I do sometimes see the suggestion that guys who have a traditionalist preference are somehow stuck in the past, or unaware that muzzleloading can be an evolving art form, or unable to appreciate the finer points of design. I also sometimes see the suggestion that more modern approaches are somehow illegitimate. I'm puzzled by those both of those extremes. The contrasts we are talking about are just contrasts in people's personalities and their life experiences. They aren't a measure of intelligence or morality.

I like new guns that look like old guns. That's my personality. The work by Tom Dawson that Bob Roller has described, where a guy can successfully copy even the blemishes and damage, is very fascinating to me. But I'm not meaning to suggest that someone who wants to develop the art in a different direction and create a new form or an entirely new school, for that matter, is somehow "less". (Speaking personally, it doesn't matter to me what people create commercially, either.) But I do think most of us would like to be understood, and my earlier long post was simply meant to help express how it is that a frustrated subset can feel so strongly about a particular style or group of antiques.

Okay, that said, I'm not meaning to highjack this thread. Rich, if you want to move my earlier post and this sideline conversation to a new topic, that would be fine with me. If you need to just delete it, that's okay with me, too. I really wasn't meaning to poke the hornets' nest.  I was just trying to respond to earlier posts in this thread that asked us to set aside the heroes and just look at the wood. As I have written, for some of us, that's just not how this works.

 

[rich pierce]

This all seems like good discussion to me. I was exhausted from twice daily following and moderating the original thread on an upcoming product so fired a shot across the bow. Hoping threads like this one could evolve into either “how would I get or modify parts to recreate such and such original” or Which is your favorite original by this maker, and what makes it especially appealing to you?”  That’s just my bent, not a roadmap others need to follow.

[Robby]

Golly jeepers! With all the variations in the originals, subtle and not so subtle, it wouldn't surprise me one bit is one turned up as the spitting image of the one no longer talked about.
Robby

[Lone Wolf]

I've seen Hawkens (well, perhaps interpretations of Hawkens) with both with full stock and half stock.  Were Hawkens in fact made with full stocks?  If so, why the difference?

[reddogge]

Yes, they made them in full stocks which were cheaper than half stocks.

[whetrock]

Regarding full stock Hawken rifles, Ethan (I love muzzleloading) has a good video of one that was at Rock Island. I think he said the full stocks cost 18.00. The half stocks, 25.00. Here’s a link:

[reddogge]

Rich, this original Hawken rifle on top and the bench copy made by Bob Browner checks all of the boxes I want in a Hawken rifle from length of barrel, maple stock, color of stock, color of metal.

[Daniel Coats]

S. Hawken St. Louis Marked Half-Stock Percussion Rifle as restored by Louis Parker. Estimated price $25,000 - $$40,000 Price Realized $52,875

Pictures courtesy RIA August 23, 2024





Plain maple stock picture distortion from my phone makes it appear curly which it is not.

[Daniel Coats]

Regarding full stock Hawken rifles, Ethan (I love muzzleloading) has a good video of one that was at Rock Island. I think he said the full stocks cost 18.00. The half stocks, 25.00. Here’s a link:

Price realized at auction on May 21, 2023 for this rifle was $141,000

[rich pierce]

Rich, this original Hawken rifle on top and the bench copy made by Bob Browner checks all of the boxes I want in a Hawken rifle from length of barrel, maple stock, color of stock, color of metal.

I’ve probably handled that original. I got to see a lot of Bob’s builds and was always very impressed. He’s so skilled. He can do no engraving for 6 months then sit down and engrave the “money piece” right off. He will fabricate breeches, modify locks, adjust trigger guards; whatever is needed to build the exact gun he wants.

[rich pierce]

Here’s an early J&S Hawken I really like. It has a modified shotgun guard and short bar double set triggers. The guard has extensions front and rear. The DST are tucked up under the guard but theres no long bar extending in front of the guard and under the scroll. It has a lot of unusual non-standard features. The breech snail for example, of a type I call a “conquistador hat”.  The lock looks very robust and is way more interesting to me than later locks on Hawken rifles. I imagine it was discovered in rough condition and refinished a lot. This is likely 1830s. This fits the fur trade era, the heyday of Rocky Mountain rendezvous.

[Ben I. Voss]

Thanks for posting that rifle, Rich. It’s really one of my favorites too! Lot’s of character.

[Daniel Coats]

Original S. Hawken selling at auction Feb 22 2025. Here's a link to an original with a known history. I clicked the text reminder link so I can watch the auction live when it sells. It's sorta affordable as a restock of a rifle salvaged from a fire but dang it's a Hawken. Location of the RIA auction is Bedford TX (Dallas) and interested people could go there and handle the gun to their hearts content the day before. A rare opportunity and if you're a buyer then...

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/1048/2399/s-hawken-st-louis-marked-halfstock-percussion-rifle

Lot 2399: "S. HAWKEN ST. LOUIS" Marked Half-Stock Percussion Rifle
"S. HAWKEN ST. LOUIS" and "BEQUETTE" Marked Half-Stock Percussion Rifle
Auction Location: Bedford, TX
Auction Date: February 22, 2025

[3thumbs]

Rich, you made a good point about the wider-in-front, narrower at back taper. (reply #46, page 2 of this post) Even with all the great pics of Hawken rifles nowadays, very few are shown of the wrist/lock area from the top or bottom view, where that feature is pretty obvious.I have heard from some custom makers that it was used by the Hawken shop to make the wrist more narrow and pleasing to the eye, especially on rifles with a 1 1/8 inch breech, or larger. Could anyone let us know if the original Hawken rifles that had a one inch breech/barrel also had this 'tapered aspect' to them? That may be an important fact for authenticity for those of us wanting a one inch or smaller diameter barrel.

[whetrock]

Johnson's book, Accoutrements III, has photos of a full stock "S. Hawken", including a top photo of the breech and tang and upper part of the wrist. See pages 27-29.

On that rifle, the photo shows that the front lobe of the lock stands proud of the wood very slightly. The rear of the lock seems flush with the wood. But, of course we can't tell from one photo whether it was built that way or if this is just the result of some issue. Can't tell from the photo if the bolster is or isn't pulled up snug against the barrel.

[Jim Kibler]

Rich, you made a good point about the wider-in-front, narrower at back taper. (reply #46, page 2 of this post) Even with all the great pics of Hawken rifles nowadays, very few are shown of the wrist/lock area from the top or bottom view, where that feature is pretty obvious.I have heard from some custom makers that it was used by the Hawken shop to make the wrist more narrow and pleasing to the eye, especially on rifles with a 1 1/8 inch breech, or larger. Could anyone let us know if the original Hawken rifles that had a one inch breech/barrel also had this 'tapered aspect' to them? That may be an important fact for authenticity for those of us wanting a one inch or smaller diameter barrel.

From a design standpoint, a narrow wrist usually isn't a success or something you would shoot for.  I think this feature is more the result of the very narrow buttplate and transitioning the wide barrel to such a buttplate.

[Joe S.]

The holy grail would be finding an un--altered flinter fullstock IMHO. I know its not on spirit of the subject,  Hawken halfstocks.

[rich pierce]

The holy grail would be finding an un--altered flinter fullstock IMHO. I know its not on spirit of the subject,  Hawken halfstocks.

It exists but is not a rifle suitable for the West. There’s a J Hawken full stock flintlock in .36. Standard small caliber plain full stock long rifle.

[Steeltrap]

The holy grail would be finding an un--altered flinter fullstock IMHO. I know its not on spirit of the subject,  Hawken halfstocks.

It exists but is not a rifle suitable for the West. There’s a J Hawken full stock flintlock in .36. Standard small caliber plain full stock long rifle.

So, there were some originals made with a rock lock. Just another toss into the mix of recreation.

[rich pierce]

The holy grail would be finding an un--altered flinter fullstock IMHO. I know its not on spirit of the subject,  Hawken halfstocks.

It exists but is not a rifle suitable for the West. There’s a J Hawken full stock flintlock in .36. Standard small caliber plain full stock long rifle.

So, there were some originals made with a rock lock. Just another toss into the mix of recreation.

Yes, but we cannot identify any early J&S Hawken flintlock rifles suitable for “going west” from the early fur trade era. There’s also a later S Hawken rifle that has been converted from flintlock to percussion. No evidence for what some desire - a halfstock, flintlock, early J&S Hawken rifle built to go west (.50 cal or larger).

[Steeltrap]

I did a search for a S Hawken flintlock rifle and ended up at the NMLRA website that has this picture on the page. My initial impression is this was perhaps, a cap lock converted to a flintlock. With the wood removed at the top right behind the hammer is the only clue I noticed.

[rich pierce]

The “Smithsonian” Hawken can be seen here. Obviously late and also small caliber.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_414955


Thiss as usss gun apparently converted from flintlock to percussion using a drum and nipple setup.