Author Topic: J & S Hawken  (Read 20865 times)

dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2010, 11:38:40 AM »
Dave, I was looking at your other photos on your blog. Question; How did you get such nice planking lines on your Alb. D v, and how do yo adjust the radiator louvres in flight when the Mercedes starts to run hot? ;D

northmn

  • Guest
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2010, 12:53:13 PM »
The one description I had read that included the term crudely was made by an Englishman saying they were crudely engraved.  Doesn't mean that much as it was opinionated by a rather chauvinistic source.  I think final finishing of today is getting a little overdone.  Leaving a few finishing marks is more appropriate.  Interesting to find that fullstocks were built so late.

DP

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2010, 05:13:22 PM »
'Ol Jack's pleased, that's for sure.  It's a terrific rifle guys and does hold nicely for a gun with a hooked butt -  non-British gun, you see - HA!

Sean

  • Guest
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2010, 05:43:41 PM »
Taylor,

If you have Hanson's Hawken book, check the line drawings in it of the May rifle parts.  I'll try to scan something sometime for you that will give you an idea how good a job you did on that gun.  I did not mean to be critical about the tang.  Its just a detail that not many pick up.

Chuck,

I did mention the Dunn rifle in my post above, but I personally think that is a replacement tag on that one.  I think it was added to clean up the tang inlet when the barrel was set back and the old patent breech was removed.  Its a great old rifle that still smells of dust, sage, buffalo grease, and blood.

On the discussion of Hawkens being slab-sided and ugly, I think the brothers were like anyone else.  They put out some guns that were not-so-refined plodders and others that were highly refined and fine boned like an Arab stud.  It was all a matter of who the customer was and what he wanted to pay.

Sean

dan parrett

  • Guest
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2010, 12:15:27 AM »
Since nobody has asked yet.....how does she shoot and how is the kick with the crescent butt plate and the 1" to 15/16" barrel? I was very tempted to have a Hawken in 62 and decided to go with an English style. The thought of a 62 Hawken made my shoulder quiver.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2010, 02:55:17 AM »
It's a gun for hunting, not for plinking, or even practising much with hunting loads.  If he loads it below it's wants, it should be just fine. As Hatchet Jack just got it, he hasn't shot it yet.  Hopefully he'll bring it out Sunday, but I think he might wait. Why? I don't know.  I'd already have a pound through it - at least. That's less than 60 shots.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 02:55:46 AM by Daryl »

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2010, 07:20:47 AM »
As Taylor indicated in today's addition to the "On Any Sunday" thread in shooting, Hatchet Jack shot his rifle today and shot it well.  He was very pleased indeed.  It certianly is a beautiful rifle. 

Later, perhaps with me, we'll try some hunting loads in this rifle. Today, he shot only 80gr. 2F- a very mild load for a bore that size, yet it seemed to do just fine.  As Taylor noted, he hit the 109 yard bucket 2 out of 3, offhand.  I suspect he also got the fox at just over 90 yards - a nemisis for a lot of shooters. That target looks a LOT bigger than it is and most mistakenly call it a coyote.

Offline smallpatch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4030
  • Dane Lund
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2010, 04:30:10 PM »
Beautiful job, Taylor. 

Very graceful, slender rifle.  Not like most Hawken's you see.
In His grip,

Dane

Offline Dan'l 1946

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 628
Re: J & S Hawken
« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2010, 03:45:15 AM »
     Dan--I have two Hawkens with crescent buttpieces and find that they are comfortable to fire even with hunting loads. One is a .54 caliber and the other is a .64.  The proper mounting position is on the upper arm with the butt nestled between the deltoid and bicep. I can close my eyes and swing these rifles into firing position and when I open my eyes I am always looking through perfectly aligned sights.
     The .64 weighs about 10.5 lbs. It is pleasant to shoot even with 140 grains of FFg under a 380 grain ball. 90 grains of FFg is a nice target load.
                                                                Dan