• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

In praise of Thompson Center Hawken & Renegade

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
95
Location
Central Washington
If we can put aside our historically critical views for a moment, imagine where our hobby would be without Thompson Center. Many of us had our first exposure to muzzle loading by firing the ubiquitous T/C Hawken rifle. Some of us also realized the dream through building our first T/C kit. Any way you look at it, Thompson Center has played a huge part in making black powder shooting what it is today. I
 
There are many Blackpowder shooters out there today who wouldnt exist if it wern't for the Thompson Hawken and Renegade. I feel they filled a niche for beginning shooters.
I do have a sore place in my mind about the inlines and scoped weapons that have evolved to satisfy the folks who are using them. Yes, I am opinionated....I expect a lot of flack with the statement that the marketing world has created a monster for the sport. I often wonder if inlines were created expressly for folks who are unable to collect a deer during regular season and must rely on the extra time allowed during M/L season to fill their tag. There is probably a spot for them ...maybe in bench rest competition....or some such. I Don't believe they should be considered as such for the M/L seasons. Thompson Center, CVA,Knight and all the other folks have jumped on the bandwagon of course...and I applaud their energy in the chase for an almighty dollar, I just get sorta choked up when I hear inlines and traditional blackpowder frontloaders lumped in the same category......enough of this....flame me all you want
 
Couldn't agree with you more and couldn't have said it better...for my personal choice I'd substitute the Hawken in place of the Renegade but your overall point is on target regardless
 
No flame here, I wonder how things would have developed if Mr. T&C would have known anything about ML guns from a historical perspective and leaned that direction when they took to task making one. I have heard of the story about Mr Knight making the in-lines for some friends who could not make conventional ML guns work on a hunting trip, I don't know if it is true or not but if so I would certainly not return from a hunting trip and tell anyone I could not master a technology as simple as a ML circa 1840ish caplock....
 
I agree with you completely, and you said nothing to cause anyone to 'flame' you...I myself started with an inline and other than the marketing hype at the time I knew nothing about muzzleloading, period...but it's been great fun for the past 15 years and today I couldn't enjoy shooting flintlocks more if I wanted to!

It's only after people get deeper into ML and all the reading & learning & discussing do people come to realize that the "ML seasons" were really set aside in the spirit of preserving "primitive weapons"...their purpose was not to be set aside to be used by just any weapon that happens to load from the muzzle like inlines.

You're right, it was a marketing opportunity that Knight first began to exploit in the 80's and when the inline craze exploded, every other gun manufacturer jumped on the bandwagon to get their fair market share of profit for their stockholders.

While TC certainly didn't make periodic specific rifles, they sure made high quality, reasonably traditional looking one, at very affordable prices, with a lifetime warranty that is second to none.

And being the big TC fan that I am, I'm disappointed to see that TC's shift has had to follow the new markets and as of this year, the only "traditional" type ML's they now list in their catalog is a .50cal Hawken and a .50cal Renegade. The .45 was dropped a year or so ago, and this year they dropped the .54...really hate to see that happen.
 
hey look what i started with....T/C hawken flinter....

154672.jpg


need i say more.......................bob
 
Great lookin' TC Hawken Bob - too bad they didn't bring out a few limited edition premium curly maple guns like yours :winking:

Here's a Renegade I have coming - bought it from a fellow TC shooter in Alabama. It's about the nicest factory wood I've seen :)
Renegade_flinter.jpg

TC_LEFT_ACTION_2.jpg
 
Nordheim.jpg


Looks like TC might have looked into historic guns after all.
Sure there are some differences like the deeply hooked Butt Plate but I can almost hear the discussion...

Weeney: "TC. About that Muzzleloader. Here are some photos of some 1840-1885 Muzzleloaders. I knda like these California guns.

TC:"... yes, they are historic, but there is no way the modern shooter is going to want to use that butt plate. The lawsuits from shoulder injurys alone will break the company.
Modern shooters don't know your supposed to shoot this style off of the arm."

Weeney:Well, here is a picture of a real Hawken like they used on the plains.

TC: Well, that Butt Plate looks more like something we could make a market for. We might have to flatten it out a little but I think the American buyer will accept that...I like the name too...Check to see if it's trademarked."

Weeney: "Weeney sir?"

TC: "No you idiot! Hawken!

TC: "You know, Weeney, some of the old guns used brass furniture. I think our new muzzleloader should have brass furniture. Oh, and while your at it, look thru this old Tryon catalog for a suitable Cap Box. One of the smaller ones. We don't want to over do a good thing."

Yes the story is made up, but the similarities between the TC Hawken and the California gun in the photo cannot be denied.
 
I remember seeing that pic before, the TC designer sure must have seen it to. Wish he would have given the TC as much drop as the one in the pic.
 
I find it hard to praise the T/C Hawken rifle, and I only refer to it because it's the only T/C I own or will ever buy again... I think T/C took an icon (A Real Hawken) and tried to make it into a sports car and fail miserably. They succeeded wonderfully in advertising hype, and that's about all the praise I'll give them...
 
I'll give credit where credit is due, Thompson Center has done much to revive muzzleloading today. Back in the mid to late 70's, you couldn't swing a dead cat in Louisiana without brushing up against a pick up truck with a Thompson resting in a window rack. But, Thompson Hawkens are like Robert Redford's portrayal of Livereating Johnston in Jeremiah Johnson. Nice, entertaining, but not quite accurate.

In the early 80's, I decided I wanted to know more about the fur period and in the Belle Chase library, I came across a book entitled "The Plains Rifle", and those guns looked nothing like the "Hawken" that Redford toted across the silver screen. I found that the gun that Redford carried was based in design on the Leman trade guns of the period. I kept that book out for six months straight.

When I decided to put a kit together, I forewent the multitudes of Italian made kits, as well as, the Thompsons and opted for the Lyman Great Plains in .54 percussion. I sometimes regret that I didn't choose flint. But, whenever I start to feel that way, I have but to take a look at Lucifer and all regrets disappear.

I ordered my kit from an ad in the Shotgun News, and sent off a money order for the sum of $134.95, $125 for the kit and another $9.95 for shipping. When the box arrived, I wondered what I would find inside. Opening the box, I found the nicest piece of European Black Walnut and a 95% inletted kit. The wood alone was worth twice the price I paid for the kit all together.

Looking over the stock, it just didn't sit right. So I recontoured the comb and added a grease hole, which were more the rule. The stock received no staining other than what occurs with age. I applied four coats of hand rubbed Birchwood Casey's Tru-Oil. Each coat was allowed to throughly dry, gone over with 0000 steel wool and buffed out with a woolen rag.

The ramrod, was the only piece of wood that I stained. Which was dyed with Ox Blood leather dye and finished off with three coats Tru-Oil. Again, each coat was handrubbed and allowed to throughly dry, gone over with 0000 steel wool and buffed out with a woolen rag.


Deciding that I would brown the all steel furniture and the barrel, I left the nose cap in the white, a sort of faux pewter. Using Dixie's browning solution, I corked the muzzle and plugged the nipple seat. I let the humid Louisiana summer do the rest. Or should I say rust? After degreasing the exterior of the barrel and wearing rubber gloves, I would apply the browning solution in the morning before heading off to work and let the parts hang in my bathroom window. After a good coat of surface rust accumulated, I would card it down with a stiff degreased brass bristle brush. The browning took six weeks, before I was satisfied with the finish. Sort of looks like a parkerized flat brown finish. I stopped the rust with boiling water and follow that with water souble machine oil.

The whole affair went on for two months, before I decided I was done. I looked at my handicraft and thought to myself, "You're too pretty to shoot straight."

Taking some .535 round balls and greased pillow ticking I headed for the range. Setting a 30 inch section of 2"x4" out at 50 yards, I looked down the barrel, set the trigger and breathed. Foom, when the great cloud of smoke cleared, the section of 2"x4" was now two sections of 2"x2". Beautiful and shoots like the devil, what else could I name him but "Lucifer"?

Here, I'll let you decide:
lucifer1.jpg

lucifer2.jpg
 
Like them or not, T/C is responsible for many a black powder shooters here, how many of us started with the T/C muzzleloader?

I for one, feel that T/C is a great starting point for anyone wishing to get into muzzleloading, once their knowledge expands, they usually will opt for a more PC firearm...
 
Claypipe,

Hope to see those photos of Lucifer soon - sounds like a labor of love. I also am planning on building a GPR in the near future.

You mentioned the book "The Plains Rifle" by Charles E. Hanson Jr. of which I happen to have a copy. I thought I would share an interesting photo from the book. Note the trigger guard on the top rifle which according to Hanson - page 28: "Top: Light Hawken Rifle. Probably made for local Missouri Trade" would suggest that rifle makers of the day were not locked into using what we interpret as signature furniture on their rifles, but catered to the wants of their clientel. ( the one below is a typical S. Hawken ) The book also shows a rifle by R. Beauvais with some Hawken characteristics - imitation being the most sincere form of flattery as they say.

Hawken_rifles.jpg


Beauvais.jpg
 
I feel I should clarify my earlier post. If T/C was going to sell the public on the idea of a "Hawken" muzzleloader, they could have done a much better job of manufacturing something more authentic... I feel the premier muzzleloader to start with in kit or assembled form is far and away the Lyman Great Plains Rifle... Muzzleloading is a traditional sport and the introduction to tradition should come from the introduction of a more closely made traditional muzzleloader. The GPR fills this bill, not the T/C...
 
It sounds like a lot of people are fixating on the word HAWKEN rather than the fact that rifles which look very similar to the TC XXXXXX existed and still exist today.

Perhaps if he had named it CALIFORNIAN most of us could acknowledge that TC produces a pretty well made useable muzzleloading rifle.
 
Zonie,

You hit the nail square on. I have a 1972 Black Powder Gun Digest that devotes 6 pages to the then new T/C Hawken. The article entitled " Return of the Hawken" demonstrates the marketing done at that time. There is a small paragraph stating " Through the popularity of such rifles, the name Hawken is occasionaly used to describe the general type of buffalo, plains or mountain man rifle built on the lines of the Hawken-built originals. " and again under a photo on the same page is the caption: "Not an exact copy of the original, the Thompson/Center Hawken does feature the styling and feel of the famous Hawken gun." Gun writers being who they are - paid to sell guns - I doubt seriously they would have lost any sleep over offending the shooters of the day. Today's informed BP shooters would have every right to take issue with such suggestions of authenticity - ask any living history reenactor. And perhaps Jake and Sam are rolling in their graves over it - but I doubt it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Don't get yer hackles up Zonie. :) But to me, calling a Thompson a Hawkens is akin to callin a Chevette a Vette. Like I said earlier on, the Thompson is based on the Leman Trade Gun, period and historically accurate, but still not a Hawkens. Thompson Center, in my opinion, was cashing in on the popularity of the movie "Jeremiah Johnson", and here too, the trade gun was labeled as a Hawkens. But that's Hollywood for you. Another recent mis-identification of a rifle can be found in "Sniper 2" with Tom Berenger calling Russian 7.62x54r Mosin Nagant a German 8mm 98 Mauser! ::
 
well to clear all this up....what should i call my T/C hawkens then if it's not a hawken....inquiring minds need to know....lol.........................bob
 
Call it a Thompson Center Black Powder Rifle, which is made by Thompson Center... The Hawken Rifle was made by the Hawkens'... Tryons' were Tryons', Henrys' were Henrys', Meyer Friedes' were "M. Friede, St. Louis.", and so on... I've handled actual Hawken rifles', and a T/C is in no way shape or form even close to the real thing! Remember the story of Horace Kepheart who wrote for the old, "Shooting and Fishing Magazine"... In 1896 he bought a .53 caliber Hawken rifle in new condition from a St. Louis dealer. The rifle had a 34 inch barrel, weighed 10 1/2 pounds, sights were a low silver bead front 3/16 high, the rear was a buckhorn...Rifling was a very slow twist with shallow grooves. Charles Siever, one time gunsmith in the Hawken Shop had made the lock more then 40 years earlier... I present this as proof that people took pride in what they built, and T/C should be proud of their own history, not the history of someone elses name, such as "Hawken"... :)
 
Back
Top