Halfstock, Flintlock Hawkens??

Full stocks and half stocks, I'm happy to have flintlocks.
Got a hankering for a rifled barrel for the 1816 to use .65 ball. Working my way up to it.

Now, if I can only find my Bergara Premier 6.5
In a half stock flintlock Hawk-in
I'll be in business!

Jim in La Luz

rich pierce said:

The thing that perplexes me most in this oft-revisited and debated topic is the enthusiasm for a speculative gun. I can’t pretend to understand the appeal of a speculative gun when there are dozens of terrific alternatives. Maybe it’s based on wanting something special or unique. Maybe enthusiasts want a Hawken rifle, prefer flintlocks or like the early 1820s era, and find fullstock Hawken rifles don’t ring their bell. Maybe some enthusiasts like having something that proves nobody can tell them what is historically appropriate. No idea. Can someone share why a flintlock, halfstock Hawken rifle appeals to them?

Click to expand...

Well..... I like Plains/Mountain rifles.


I wanted a quality flinter big enough for cow elk, and such.


I didn't want some weirdo eastern long rifle.




I could care less about historical correctness.

As we can see documented by the rifles shown in "The Trade Rifle Sketch Book" by Charles E. Hanson III, There were many firms that made rifles in the 51 to 54 and larger calibers in flint during the Plains rifle era. The Tryon Indian Rifle was a flint lock that was half stocked. The barrel was 35" long and the caliber was 54. It was made from 1837 to 1855. The most prolific maker of flint lock trade rifle in calibers suitable for the plains was Henry, whose use of advanced manufacturing techniques of water power, division of labor, imported English locks was able to produce a quality, sturdy and cheap rifle suitable for use on the plains. These flintlock rifles by Henry, Wheeler, Kreider, Deringer and Tryon dominated the market. By the late 1830's when the finely crafted rifles by makers such as Creamer, Hawken and Miles were being produced with percussion locks, flintlocks were still the most common configuration on the plains. These were hardly "weirdo Eastern rifles".

These trade rifles exist. They have a place in the history of rifle use on the plains and in the mountains. They were much more common than Hawken rifles and deserve to be replicated. I built a Deringer replica from the sketches in the sketch book. @rich pierce built a Deringer based on the sketch book and other documentation. Rich detailed the construction of his rifle on the forum. Starting a Deringer trade rifle | The Muzzleloading Forum

The Hanson book gives a lot of sketches of the rifle for use in building a replica of the rifles used on the plains and in the mountains from 1820 to 1840. For more information, the book, "The Hawken Rifle, Its Place in History", will prove to be quite informative.

Great post, Grenadier. I am still jealous of that Deringer rifle.

And no doubt, Hawken rifles were rare on the plains and in the mountains in comparative terms. Which to me points more to them producing a more cutting edge product. Maybe I am wrong there, it’s just my opinion.

If I was a bit too sarcastic in my previous posts to our historians here, I apologize. I love history, am a ravenous consumer of historical writing and am a bit of a nut for having things correct.

I know that history, like science, can’t be based on consensus. But must be based on fact. So as a matter of fact...there are no exigent examples of a Hawken made flint half stock. So history must be properly reported that while they May have, we can not say they Did.

However, I don’t think that fact precludes us from making a reasonable and rational argument that they may very well have made them without being dismissed out of hand for making the assertion.

I do admit from the pictures I have seen of the Smithsonian Hawken rifle, that it has a drum and nipple breech and the lock has been converted from percussion. I also think the Hawken rifle at the School of the Ozarks is also of the configuration of drum and nipple with a converted flint lock. Both of those rifles are full stock.

Having read all this so far. WHERE are the pictures of original full stock or half stock flint Hawken's?
I have debated this with John Baird, Don King and Ed Weber. To name a few. WHERE are the pictures?
Having shoot original percussion Hawken's, including one full stock. They were great to shoot and handled well.
I think if you study the Hawken business they started out as a repair shop and supplier to people headed west. While building rifles as ordered.
Not a naysayer just want PROOF.

brazosland said:

Great post, Grenadier. I am still jealous of that Deringer rifle.

And no doubt, Hawken rifles were rare on the plains and in the mountains in comparative terms. Which to me points more to them producing a more cutting edge product. Maybe I am wrong there, it’s just my opinion.

If I was a bit too sarcastic in my previous posts to our historians here, I apologize. I love history, am a ravenous consumer of historical writing and am a bit of a nut for having things correct.

I know that history, like science, can’t be based on consensus. But must be based on fact. So as a matter of fact...there are no exigent examples of a Hawken made flint half stock. So history must be properly reported that while they May have, we can not say they Did.

However, I don’t think that fact precludes us from making a reasonable and rational argument that they may very well have made them without being dismissed out of hand for making the assertion.

Click to expand...

That was a good post, Brazosland.

Also, the flintlock halfstock Hawken-styled rifle you pictured in an earlier post combines Beauty and Beast.... At .62 caliber, it's a "bull-thrower" for certain! Whether any of us can find an original like it or not, it is a beautiful interpretation of a theory, and that appears to be how you are presenting it. Thanks for showing it!

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

I don’t fault anyone for wanting this rifle or that. It’s the strong assertions that “they must have made some of those” that go against everything I learned in grad school and as a research scientist. It’s just ingrained. “Support it with data or put that hypothesis to death” was what I was taught.

You will find the Templar treasure before you get those pics.
How many total rifles survive today? From all time periods?

How many pre 1830 rifles are known?

Notchy Bob said:

That's a great image, WalkingEagle! That's the kind of thing we want to look for.

The rifle (or gun) is unquestionably a half-stocked flintlock, and is that a scroll on the trigger guard grip rail that I see, or is it a leaf on the shrub behind it? I do see a single trigger, a "baluster" wrist, and a relatively flat buttplate, all consistent with British sporting rifles of the day, which sometimes also had "Hawken-esque" scrolls on the end of the trigger guard grip rail. Rindisbacher is known for his paintings of life in Canada, especially in the Red River country, all of which was the domain of the Hudson's Bay Company, which was extremely protective of its territory. This would support the belief that the man in the image is holding a British arm rather than a Hawken or any other type of American-made firearm. But, it is without doubt a flintlock half-stock.

Good find!

Notchy Bob

Click to expand...

Agreed on British origin however something doesn’t seem to add up. First from the minimal research I’ve done, the vast majority of firearms for trade in Canadas western fur trade was the Trade Gun, and only those in positions of somewhat power possessed the “sporting” rifles. Second, the Metis folks were thought of as quite low from both whites and natives, until well, well past the glory days of the fur trade. Which begs the question of “where/how did he acquire it from?” Is it possible the painting was from memory and “license” taken with some of the details?
Walk

kansas_volunteer said:

What seems to get overlooked in all these half-stock flintlock Hawken threads is that Jacob Hawken worked at Harpers Ferry for about 10 years starting in 1808. He may very well have had his hands on some of the later model 1803 rifles made during his time there. He definitely would have been familiar with the half-stock flintlock style rifle and have seen the advantages of them, just as the Army did. The knowledge of such rifles would have traveled with him to St. Louis when he went to join Sam already in business there. The Hawkens weren't just rifle makers, they sold lots of other goods and services. So, as has been pointed out, they made rifles to order, or to look at it another way every rifle they made was a one of a kind. Jake knew how to make half-stock flintlocks and if a customer wanted one, or even thought about having one made, Jake was the man who could do it, and could have steered customers in that direction. Half-stock flintlocks were being made in Ohio while Sam worked there. He would have been familiar with the style. Very few actuall Hawken rifles surive. Even fewer true flintlock Hawken survive. There's a rule in science that one should never generalize from the particular. To generalize and say no half-stock flint Hawkens were made, based on a particular surviving handful -- truly only a handful -- of full-stock flinters is a specious argument. No one can say with absolute certainty no half-stock flint Hawkens were ever made. But what can be said with certainty is the Hawken brothers both were exposed to half-stock flintlock guns before moving to St Loius, and knew well how to make them. If we could travel back in a time machine I think we would find them making, if only occasionally, half-stock flintlock rifles in St, Louis. I'd bet money on it.

Click to expand...

Every gunmaker of the era would have been exposed to at least one Jaeger rifle in his career. They were the progenitors of the Plains style half stocks: large calibre, short barrelled. Just what was needed for long treks on horseback and when perhaps having to deal with very large game that one might want to go down with one shot. The squirrel guns wouldn't cut it; poking .32 cal holes in a griz or buffalo might make for interesting times if not done exactly right. Sometimes bigger is better.

Well R.G.A Levinge wrote in 1847 advice for hunters in Canada. He was there working for or with HBC before ‘47. He told people to get a smoothbore ‘which throws a ball true at sixty yards, as most shots got in the woods was within that distance.”
How many rifles were available I don’t know, but In HBC controlled Canada it would seem some rifles were at least available.
Just to throw a wrench at the monkey, we don’t know that this pictured gun is a rifle. Half stock smoothies became popular at the same time.

Walkingeagle said:

Agreed on British origin however something doesn’t seem to add up. First from the minimal research I’ve done, the vast majority of firearms for trade in Canadas western fur trade was the Trade Gun, and only those in positions of somewhat power possessed the “sporting” rifles. Second, the Metis folks were thought of as quite low from both whites and natives, until well, well past the glory days of the fur trade. Which begs the question of “where/how did he acquire it from?” Is it possible the painting was from memory and “license” taken with some of the details?
Walk

Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments, Walkingeagle. Your points are well taken.

I would agree that the majority of guns traded to the Metis and native population of Canada were trade guns and smoothbores. However, as brother tenngun stated in Post #53, "Half stock smoothies became popular at the same time." In Trade Guns of the Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1970, author James S. Gooding offered the following (page 80):



Sorry the text is not complete in the photo, but it shows a delivery, in 1821, of 440 "NW Guns" in addition to a total of 30 (5 + 5 + 20) "Neat" fowling pieces, with "ribs," which would indicate half-stocks. He also shows photos of one, on page 77:



Sorry about the blurry image. Anyway, this is a half-stocked "fine gun." Note that in past times, "gun" meant a smoothbore. Rifles were called rifles.

Peter Rindisbacher, who painted that wonderful image of the Metis family, also made this drawing:



This clearly shows a half-stocked flintlock. The barrel appears to be round, rather than octagonal. The artist went to the trouble of showing us a checkered wrist and two lock bolts, yet he does not show a rear sight. I'm guessing it was probably a smoothbore.

One other thing that I was not going to mention, but since it came up, that painting of the Metis family was the subject of a little controversy a while back. Rindisbacher was Swiss, and came to Selkirk's Red River colony in 1821, and left in 1826. He was just a teenager when he arrived, but he had a widely recognized gift for painting. He didn't paint for free, either. At least some of his work was painted on commission. As for that image of the Metis family, it was one of several. Here is the image you showed us previously, with the half-stocked flintlock, that might be a rifle, or it might be a "fine gun.":



This is another image which appears to show the same man and woman, but this time with a boy:



It's hard to say much about the gun, except that it's a fullstock. The man is wearing his powder horn on the opposite side, and the lady is smoking a "Micmac" styled pipe instead of an elbow pipe, as in the first image.

Here is a third picture, for comparison:



This looks like the same family as above, but judging from the triggerguard on that firearm, I would say it's likely a Northwest gun. As an aside, the kid appears to be wearing a baseball cap.

Which weapon was the man actually carrying when the first sketch was made? Did he own two different guns? We don't know. However, we do know that Rindisbacher would sometimes employ some artistic license. I read an interview recently which indicated a patron wanted Rindisbacher to paint an image of his home and property, to show the folks back home. The man owned no cows, but wanted the artist to put some in the picture. The point being that young Rindisbacher might change a few details if it pleased the client.

I would recommend this monograph to anyone interested in Peter Rindisbacker or the Red River colony, or First Nations people of Canada. It is a 56 page PDF that includes a number of this painter's images: Rindisbacher in Manitoba This was where I found the image of "Hunting Wolves on the Prairie."

Anyway, I hope we can agree that there were half-stocked flintlocks in Canada in the first half of the 19th century. Did any of these make it down to St. Louis and into the Hawken shop for repair? Did the brothers Hawken get any inspiration from this type of long arm? I don't know. We do know that Canadian voyageurs carried a French lady all the way down the Mississippi in birchbark canoes, made a left turn at the river's mouth, and delivered the lady to her husband in Mobile. So, there were birchbark canoes in Mobile Bay at one point. Many things are possible.

I'm just wondering if we're going to start seeing baseball caps at upcoming rendezvous...

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

Is it a wheel hat?

tenngun said:

Is it a wheel hat?

Click to expand...

I would say not. There is a frontal view of the kid in the middle picture, which shows the cap conforming to the shape of his head. The third picture shows the bill sticking out over his forehead, and again shows the cap with a rounded profile, conforming to the shape of his head. I really don't have a dog in this particular hunt... I'm just an objective observer. However, it looks like what we would call a baseball cap these days. No telling what they called it then, but the image was painted some time between 1821 and 1826, if it was drawn from life. It may have been painted from memory, but I think Rindisbacher died in the mid-1830's. Maybe some early version of a Stormy Kromer cap. Wheel caps have a totally different profile, and a shorter bill.

Accepting a cap like that is a challenge, if we stick to our preconceptions, but there it is. That's kind of the gist of this thread... Do we accept the possibility of half-stock flintlock Hawkens, when there is no known, graphic, written, or artifactual evidence of their existence? Here is evidence of a cap we have never seen before in this context. Do we reject it out of hand because we have never seen one before? Everybody has some amount of "confirmation bias," which means a willingness to believe what you want to believe, in the absence of supporting evidence, as well as rejection of what we don't want to believe, in the presence of supporting evidence.

Like many others here, I am interested in history. One thing I have learned is that I need to keep my mind open to possibilities, but it's always good to get some additional, corroborating evidence before accepting something previously unknown as fact. Here is the possibility of a "baseball cap" prior to 1834. To prove it, we would need some more examples. To dis-prove it would require questioning the veracity of anything Rindisbacher painted.

Who knew historical study could get so philosophical?

Notchy Bob

I built two Lyman GPRs this past year. The first one in percussion which holds true to Lyman's design. The second one in flint which deviates from the standard GPR. Would a consigner have a rifle maker with a known style order something that deviated from that style? Perhaps if the price was right?

GPR flint looks great - I like your interpretation - standard looks good too!

brazosland said:

...It [flint halfstock] just seems to be the epitome of what modern technology would have brought to the frontier in the late 1820s...

The Hawkens were not young amateurs. And they were right on the front lines, so to speak, dealing with the user of the gun directly. I don’t see why they wouldn’t have made a more forward thinking gun that brought the best features to the table...

Click to expand...

brazosland,

I like your logic, but believe you are applying it to the wrong thing. Half stock, flintlock rifles and smoothbores were not new or modern technology in the late 1820s. The English had been making them since the 1780s. A few American gunmakers copied half stock, flintlock English sporting rifles in the early 1800s, too. They just didn't become very popular in America.

The new or modern technology in the late 1820s was the percussion ignition system. That's why some people think that the Hawken brothers' first half stock rifles were percussion. That would have been, as you say, the "more forward thinking gun that brought the best features to the table." The latest technology in the percussion system combined with the different look of a half stock would have really differentiated the Hawken brothers product from the typical full stock, flintlock rifle that was dominate in the St. Louis vicinity and in the Rocky Mountains at the time.

Not really proof, but it may be more than just coincidence--the popularity of the half stock rifle all across America seems to have developed hand-in-hand or at the same time as the popularity of the percussion system.

It's estimated approximately one percent of 1803 Harpers Ferry rifles survive, and there were thousands made. What if only one percent of flintlock Hawkens survive and there were probably no more than hundreds made. What were the other 99% or their flintlocks like? Seems like some could have been half stocks.