J & S Hawken GRRW build - educate me!

[Muley Hunter]

Yes, but that proves nothing. It's the kind of info i'd find too. I never could find half stock and flintlock words together.

 

[Buck Conner1]

Yes, but that proves nothing. It's the kind of info i'd find too. I never could find half stock and flintlock words together.

Usually that combination of words was a custom built firearm, not run of the mill knock them out production guns. 

I have seen a few southern early rifles that were half-stock and flintlock. The (those-in-the-know {in their own mind's status} claim the guns were full-stock, damaged and made into half-stock. How would you ever prove something like that unless written in a journal of the owner as to what happened.

 

[exMember]

I think it was the mountain mans sketch book that said this, but im not 100% sure.. I read that the full stock hawken was actually $18 cheaper than the half stock. Not sure how that makes sense?

 

[Muley Hunter]

In my research, I did find a half stock flintlock plains rifle, but it wasn' a Hawken.

I guess that would cover the Lyman GPR, because they never claimed it was a copy of a Hawken. Of course, I found that after I sold the GPR flinter thinking it wasn't a copy of a real gun.

 

[lighthorseman]

Similarly the 1792/94 Contract rifles approximately 3500 were built, but today there are only a couple that can be authenticated and I believe both were converted to percussion. 1rst we know the family was in the rifle building business for some time in the flint era. "The family's association with gunmaking began with brothers Christian and Nicholas Hawken, of Hagerstown, Maryland, who established themselves as makers of "Kentucky" rifles.  Christian's sons George, John, Jacob, Samuel, and William later followed in their father's footsteps. Three of the brothers remained lifelong residents of the Hagerstown area, while Jacob and Samuel headed west. Jacob's younger brother Samuel originally established a business in Xenia Ohio before joining Jacob in St. Louis after the deaths of their father and Samuel's wife in 1822.  Initially, Samuel started his own gunsmithing shop, but the two brothers entered into a partnership three years later. The earliest J. & S. Hawken rifle order that can be documented dates from 1831, and in that year and the one following, orders for 18 rifles were placed with the company.  Both half- and full-stock models were available.  Some of these were flintlocks, but percussion arms account for the bulk of their production." (NRA Museum) Only 18 rifles built that first year compared to 3,500 "U.S. Contract rifles" built in 1792 and '94. It's not hard to imagine first that...as the article says "Both half- and full-stock rifles were available....some of these flintlocks." Secondly as the average of 10% survival only a couple of that first years production might have survived to today.....maybe no flinters at all survived. If I wanted a flintlock half stock Hawken, my biggest challenge would be to try and find a very early model to see what the lines were and specific furniture. ......the Carson/Bridger guns looked a whole lot different than the one original I've held.

Another question is.....during the period that the "brothers" were building guns in Missouri...what guns were the rest of the family producing back in "long rifle country"? A rifle barrel with Hawken engraved could be either from Sam and Jacob.....or could it be from George, John and William?

 

[lighthorseman]

Turkey Snout...for what it's worth, if I had one built, I'd go with a half stock gun with a 36" .62 caliber barrel with an English lock with waterproof pan and a fancy patchbox like the one on the Smithsonian gun. 

 

[Buck Conner1]

I think it was the mountain mans sketch book that said this, but im not 100% sure.. I read that the full stock hawken was actually $18 cheaper than the half stock. Not sure how that makes sense?

That does not make sense, because there's more labor involved with additional inletting with longer barrel channel, additional pins needed to hold barrel to longer stock, and additional ramrod pipes inlet. 

When we first priced out GRRW.CA labor Carl Walker was building J&S Hawken GRRW.CA <a href='/tags/H' rel='nofollow' title='See all tagged subjects with: #H'>#H</a>..02 CA (a full-stock .62 cal. convertible [flint/perc.], 1-1/8 inch across the flats of the barrel 36 inches long). When he saw we had missed the cost difference between a half-stock and this build a full-stock - he was yelling about the extra amount of time it would take. I had to buy him lunch to settle down and get him back to work.

 

[William75]

Turkey Snout...for what it's worth, if I had one built, I'd go with a half stock gun with a 36" .62 caliber barrel with an English lock with waterproof pan and a fancy patchbox like the one on the Smithsonian gun. 

I can understand the appeal of a rifle of the S Hawken period, but my interest is in the fur trade prior to 1830.  And I would suppose that most of the guns in the Rockies were Indian trade flinters.  But I have my head set on getting what I imagine would have been a rifle by J & S Hawken.  The GRRW.CA H03 fairly well fits my needs along this line.

 

[William75]

Below is a post on AmericanLongRifles Forum about a late, full stock Hawken flinter:]
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=8944.0

Pics of the Smithsonian Hawken - an 1850 era Sam Hawken built rifle

As noted The Museum of the Fur Trade Quarterly, vol13, issue 4 , 1977 has an article on the Kennett Hawken (another 1850's era fullstock - it's in the School of the Ozarks) which includes info on and photos of the Smithsonian Hawken....they sell scanned copies of the article alone. The lock is clearly a converted flinter and all other signs point to the gun being originally a flint. The tacks on the wrist are part of a repair and the fore end cap is Schnabel shaped.

Here are the best pics I have of the Kennett

 

[Buck Conner1]

Many of the early mountaineers that dreamed of cashing in on the fur trade were no more than folks that were wanting to better their lives. Many of those that ventured westward into the Rockies came with whatever they had and in many cases that was a smoothbore musket that they carried or a family member had used in either the Rev. War or the War of 1812. Hanson wrote about this in several of the Quarterlies. I wrote a book on the NW Trade Guns with Hanson and Curly G. - "Success In The North American Fur Trade". We got lucky with having the U. S. Library of Congress list it as a must have book for students of the fur trade. The three of us figured if we had 500 books printed that would be about right for the numbers we could sell. Well it sold better than expected with three printing. Charley Hanson and Curly G. thought there was approximately 50 major builders of NW Guns, once we started additional research we found about 176 producers that built at least 250 guns a year.  Fun stuff ...

 

[lighthorseman]

Hard to convince some that many smoothies came west......"rifles or nothing". I agree with you Conner (not that you need me to) but the fur trade had promises of making a fortune, even though the reality was usually much different...........so they brought what ever they had. I think a fur trade impression with a "surplus" musket or rifle is an excellent impression. I also believe that most Hawken rifles were made for the buffalo hide market.....which replaced beaver by the 1840's......I could also imagine that a good number were purchased by "pioneers" going west on the Oregon or California trails.

 

[Muley Hunter]

True, and I agree with that. However, if just one trapper in the fur trade era had a Hawken. We can feel good about owning one, or even a lousy replica of one.

 

[Buck Conner1]

True, and I agree with that. However, if just one trapper in the fur trade era had a Hawken. We can feel good about owning one, or even a lousy replica of one.

I posted this last summer, need to correct pictures???  : 


http://furtradebooks.tripod.com/those.that.carried.htm


There's Lemans and Hawkens carried by some famous guys.

 

[Muley Hunter]

I knew a lot of them, but not that many. Plus, it says that's just a few of them.

 I know had I lived in those days i'd have had one. I'm not much of a drinker, so I could have saved enough from that to buy one.

I notice a lot of them have repairs on the stock at the wrist area. Was that from using them as clubs?

 

[lighthorseman]

Absolutely! ......

 

[Buck Conner1]

I notice a lot of them have repairs on the stock at the wrist area. Was that from using them as clubs?

Used for a club or falling off a horse.
 
   I have a '94 Winchester carbine made in 1929, carried by the wife's grandfather in CO and UT for 50 years while working in sheep camps or guarding the herds. The old gun had a bent magazine tube and had a blacksmith's welded tang, so I took it to my friend that's a gunsmith. He told me he could straighten it without hurting the 80 years of wear. 
   When I picked it up was informed the old gun had a bent barrel plus other repairs throughout it's life. To be safe he replaced the firing pin with one that was broken (looks the same just the pin is broken off). We both felt something heavy had to have hit the barrel to have bent it.
   Once home got to looking at some of the old pictures of the wife's relation and found this rifle in a scabbard. His horse had probably taken a spill and bent the barrel. 

 

[BrownBear]

We both felt something heavy had to have hit the barrel to have bent it.
   Once home got to looking at some of the old pictures of the wife's relation and found this rifle in a scabbard. His horse had probably taken a spill and bent the barrel. 

I'm with you. Seen an awful lot of rifles with broken stocks or bent barrels from horse wrecks. Seen some survive pretty rough treatment too, so you never know till the dust settles. But horses will be horses, whether they take a spill or simply take it into their bony heads that it's time to lay down and roll around a bit.

 

[William75]

I have been looking through my Great Gunmakers for the Early West by Gordon and there are pictured several J & S Hawken fullstock rifles.  All are converted to caplock.  One rifle has an ornate brass patchbox.  It also has a patent breech.  The trigger guard also has more fancy finials than is shown on other J & S rifles.
If you know which particular rifle (pictured in Vol. III) that I am referring to, do you have any ideas about this rifle?

 

[William75]

James D Gordon states in his book, Great Gunmakers for the Early West (vol I), that the Hawken was born from from the Harpers Ferry Model 1803.  That statement was stunning to me!  So I have now broadened my research to the Harpers Ferry 1803.  I have previously abhorred massed produced, government issue guns but this idea has given me pause.  Maybe I have ignored similar statements in my reading 3 or 4 decades ago, I do not know.

What do you fellers think about the relationship of the Hawken to the 1803?

 

[lighthorseman]

Well...possibly as the family was employed by Government armories. A long time debate is whether Lewis equipped the "Corps" the now famous 1803 half stock Harper's Ferry rifle or a simple alteration of the full stock 1792 contract rifle. I did quite a bit of research on it back 17,18 years ago and came to the conclusion that it was the 1792 contract rifle with a 6" shorter re-freshened barrel with sling adapters. But the 1803 HF became quite popular...carried by Pike's expedition in 1806 and it armed nearly all the rifle regiments during the War of 1812. One of the reason's I took that position was because the Corps has more difficulty killing the big bear.....than Pike's group....I concurred the reason being the 1792 rifles were .49 caliber, probably frenshened to at least .50 cal. while as we are certain Pike's group carried the 1803, the .54 caliber guns were far more effective...IMHO! If the "Brother's" modeled the Plains rifle after the 1803, it took them a while to do it...if I understand the dates correctly.