1803 Harper's Ferry Rifle

[crockett]

What was the earliest RIFLE made at Harper's Ferry? I thought before the 1803 Rifle the only rifles used by the military were "Contract" rifles supplied by private makers.
The reason I ask is that I am currently reading DeVOTO's Lewis & Clark Expedition. In this edition there is mention of extra locks made at Harper's Ferry for the rifles on the Expedition. There is also mention of shooting the rifles in front of NDN tribes to show them the better accuracy of their rifles compared to the fusils or "guns" of the NDNs.
I realize nothing is etched in stone but most folks claim the L&C Exp. carried "Contract" rifles but that doesn't seem to jibe with the idea extra locks were made at Harper's Ferry for the rifles. There has also been some speculation that the 1803 Rifle may have had early proto-types that were taken on the L&C Exp.
Let me restate all this a bit, as to my thinking..
1. If contract rifles were carried it seems that new, "best of the best" would be selected. If extra locks were needed, it seems the private contractor supplying the rifles would have made the locks.
2. If prior to the 1803 Rifle only muskets were made at Harper's Ferry, it seems the only locks they would have or easily make would be large musket locks.
3. On the contract rifles- I thought there was minor variation between the various suppliers. A replacement lock for one contract rifle might be a little different in shape than another supplier's contract rifle.

 

[Grenadier1758]

These rifles are shrouded in the fog of lack of documentation and Lewis' own failure to indicate what rifles he left Harper's Ferry. He left with rifles and 15 locks. At that time production at Harper's Ferry was developing an interchangeable parts system and the locks were the first part of that development.

Harper's Ferry did not get the authorization to produce the 1803 rifle until well after Lewis left. Lewis however did have presidential authorization to have Harper's Ferry produce what he wanted them to make. His records focus on the collapsible boat, the 15 spare locks and the tool sets for the rifles.

The Corps of Discovery was heading off into unknown territory. Yes, French and English employees of the Hudson Bay Company had been there 15 years before and written about the western half of the North American Continent. Jefferson and Lewis were well aware of the Hudson Bay explorations. It doesn't seem likely that Lewis would have wanted to get the contract rifles from the Harper's Ferry stores that were listed as unserviceable even if they were to be refreshed. Then again production of the 1803 rifle was perhaps in development and any early production would not have been authorized.

It is tantalizing that the Rifle Shoppe has seen a rifle that has the basic architecture of an 1803 rifle with the serial number 15. It is covered in an 1800 US Short Rifle article.

Lewis was well aware of the large game and the presence of the "white bears" that we call grizzlies out on the prairie. He would have wanted a rifle capable of use against the large game. It may well be that preproduction rifles were produced at Harper's Ferry but never documented in the production records. We will never know.

I am beginning to believe that Lewis was provided 15 preproduction US Short Rifles that were undocumented in the records.

 

[Artificer]

Is there documentation that Harpers Ferry supplied spare parts for the rifle locks OR were just replacement locks provided? If Harpers Ferry supplied spare parts for the locks, then it is MUCH more probable they made the locks and very possibly/probably the rifles as well.

Contractors used dies to forge form lock parts into and thus even the raw parts could be made into "quasi-interchangeable" parts. However, Harpers Ferry would not have those dies, but made their own dies.

Also, since it has been years since I read anything on the Corps of Discovery, was there a Harpers Ferry trained Artificer or gunsmith that was known to have gone with them?

Gus

 

[Grenadier1758]

There were at lest two members of the corps of discovery that served as blacksmiths and gunsmiths.

Private John Shields was so highly thought of as the artist who kept the guns functional that he was recommended for a bonus.

The other private acknowledged as a gunsmith was William Bratton.

Both were recruited as part of the 9 young men from Kentucky. While they had skills as a gunsmith I don't think they were Harper's Ferry trained artificers.

 

[Zonie]

Some tidbits from Flayderman's Guide:

Funds for the building of Harpers Ferry in Virginia and Springfield Armory in Massachusetts was made by the Government in 1794.

Harpers Ferry started production in 1800 when they started producing muskets similar to Springfield's Model 1795 Musket, "Charleville Pattern" (one of the names used for it).
Harpers Ferry made muskets were different are several different ways.

An attempt to create interchangeability of parts began in 1812.
The model 1816 musket had the first real interchangeability requirement but standardized guages were not supplied until 1830.

1792 Contract Flintlock Rifles delivered = approx 1500. 1794 Contract = approx 2000 delivered thru 1807.

3000 Rifle size locks were purchased by the Government from Thomas Ketland & Co in 1800 with at least 1500 delivered in that year.
No one knows where they went but it is suggested they were used on rifles which were gifted to the American Indians.

Contract rifles "Locks varied in contour styling, being the early Germanic type, typical Kentucky style lock...."

I see no reference of Harpers Ferry making rifles of any kind until the 1803 rifle started production.

I suppose it is possible that Harpers Ferry selected a lock shape/size that would fit the Contract Rifles and then produced enough new locks to refit the guns at hand plus the 15 spare locks.

It does make you wonder though, doesn't it?

 

[crockett]

Well it is interesting to speculate. What jumped out at me was the way Lewis wrote, locks "Made at Harper's Ferry". He could have been wrong, they could have been privately made locks in storage there but if made at Harper's Ferry they would surely have been so stamped (I think). As stated, all the contract rifles differed a little, you could probably fit a generic lock to a rifle needing it, inlet a little different if the replacement was larger but the sense I get is that the locks were drop in replacements. There obviously had to be some sort of lead time on any new production so even if the 1803 wasn't put into production in 1803 the question is why was it called 1803? There must have been some proto-types lying around. As stated, without sound documentation we may never know.
The other thing I didn't realize, in the DeVoto edition he says there were five volumes of notes from Lewis & Clark and most folks would never buy the entire set so that is why there are all these 1 volume editions that differ. I wonder if one actually read all 5 volumes if there might be more references that could solve the mystery.

 

[54ball]

I am beginning to believe that Lewis was provided 15 preproduction US Short Rifles that were undocumented in the records.

According to some sources that have reviewed existing M-1803 Documentation, the 1st order for the 1803 rifle was for 4000. 4015 were documented as being produced in the first run.

With that said I have not seen this "documentation".

 

[Artificer]

Great Info,

Thank you.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I wonder if Harpers Ferry "pre-fitted" a spare lock to each rifle rather than just supplying 15 spare locks? This would have been almost mandatory had the rifles been Contract Rifles and especially had they not all come from the same maker.

The biggest problem I envisage would be either the location of current threaded holes in the lock plates for side plate screws or trying to drill side plate screw holes in replacement lock plates out on the trip. Harpers Ferry could also have ensured the lock plates from both the completed guns and the spare locks were close enough in size to switch without major fitting. Actually I would presume they actually tried the spare locks in the rifles, to make sure they functioned correctly in them.

Now had Harpers Ferry made all the rifles and spare locks, they could or probably did have a drilling template for all the holes in the lock plates. The added benefit would have been all the threads in the holes for similar screws would have been the same. This was a HUGE deal because there was no such thing as standardized threads per inch taps and dies at that time. Further, and if necessary, repair parts could more easily have come from cannibalizing parts from spare locks.

I would love to see a list of Artificer/Gunsmith tools that were supplied for the trip. That could tell us a lot about what kind of maintenance they could have done on the trip.

Gus

 

[crockett]

That was my thinking. Just having "spare" locks. If the rifles were contract from more than one manufacturer I suppose a spare lock could be fitted but it seems to me more sensible that the spares were capable of being fitted to the rifles carried by the L&C Exp. As said, if a template was used to locate the holes, etc- even if the final parts of the lock were hand filed- you still had what would be a "drop in" replacement for the time.
On the 1803 U.S. Rifle. There must be some records on its development, the dates when the design was first written down or settled upon, etc.
Some of that had to be prior to 1803 (it seems) and before the U.S. Army accepted it there must have been some samples, test demonstrations, etc. I was at Harper's Ferry a few years ago and spoke to the "Historian" who was really a tour guide IMHO. I wasn't able to find anyone who had a really good knowledge on this.
I started out thinking the rifles were 1803's then all the discussion and I got thinking maybe they were contract rifles, now I'm wondering if they were actually 1803's after all. These L&C Exp. 1803's- as proto-types (if that's what they were) there might have been some slight differences from the final 1803.

 

[nwtradegun]

there was a post ????????? that they used 1795 cantract muskets fitted with new locks. don't take this as the gosphul.

 

[BrownBear]

Some of that had to be prior to 1803 (it seems) and before the U.S. Army accepted it there must have been some samples, test demonstrations, etc.

I started out thinking the rifles were 1803's then all the discussion and I got thinking maybe they were contract rifles, now I'm wondering if they were actually 1803's after all. These L&C Exp. 1803's- as proto-types (if that's what they were) there might have been some slight differences from the final 1803.

My mind has run down about the same path.

I know for a fact that there were lots of test versions and prototypes being built and handled and shot before adoption of any gun by the military. The new models don't just suddenly appear on paper and the military buys them sight unseen.

Bud of mine has the perfect example, though Springfield Armory and a cartridge gun. Back in the 1940's he came across a kinda weird trapdoor in someone's closet and bought it for $5, thinking he'd use it for parts some day. Sat in his own closet for over 30 years until the NRA published an article about a particular Springfield trapdoor prototype, of which only 20 were turned out and never quite made it in that form to the army for testing. And how there was only one known to still exist. A trip to the closet confirmed that in fact TWO still existed. And no, I'm not passing out his name, and it's most definitely not for sale.

Name the gun, any gun, that was built for military use, adopted by the military or not. And there were prototypes floating around before any tests could start.

Makes and models and details of military arms don't appear out of nowhere, and they don't get set in dogma until the army signs a contract for them.

 

[Artificer]

There is documentation that before a rifle (or other small arm) was approved for production, that samples were actually brought to the Secretary of War from Harpers Ferry to Washington for examination and possible modifications on what he said, alone. Sometimes the Secretary of War ordered slight changes or asked for something to be made a bit differently before the rifles/guns were put into production. I know this was done on the M1814 and M1817 rifles, so I assume it could or was done on the M1803's as well.

Gus

 

[Zonie]

Somewhere I have something that says Henry Dearborn examined the prototype 1803 and made several recommendations for it before it went into production.


I don't recall exactly where I read that but I'll keep my eyes open for it.

Henry Dearborn, Secretary of War in 1803 is credited with issuing the basic requirements for the rifle, .54 caliber, 33" barrel...

 

[crockett]

Years ago I think most folks figured L&C had 1803's and then someone pointed out when the rifles went into production and so by default folks looked around at what other possible rifle it could have been and then latched on to the Contract Rifles since some were in storage, etc.
My thinking is that the L&C Exp. was a big deal, like us flying to the moon. You would think that all the newest, best equipment of the day would have been selected. Off hand, there isn't any thing pointing one way or the other that
I know of other than Lewis' note the replacement locks for the rifles were made at the Harper's Ferry Arsenal.

 

[Artificer]

Somewhere I have something that says Henry Dearborn examined the prototype 1803 and made several recommendations for it before it went into production.


I don't recall exactly where I read that but I'll keep my eyes open for it.

Henry Dearborn, Secretary of War in 1803 is credited with issuing the basic requirements for the rifle, .54 caliber, 33" barrel...

Now that you mention it, I think I have seen this in one of my books. Will check on this later on today.

Gus

 

[ThomasJosiahB]

I came across this in the Journals of Lewis and Clark which was in the DeVoto edition. "Saturday April 12, 1806 We caused all the men who had short rifles to carry them in order to be prepared for the natives should they make any attempt to rob or injure them." The writings on that day take up about a page and a half and definitely mention short rifles. Since it is plural, more than one man was carrying a short rifle. Too bad they didn't mention what short rifle, though. I strongly believe they carried pre-production 1803 Harper's Ferry short rifles.

 

[Black Hand]

Much controversy - 1792 Contract Rifle vs 1803 Harper's Ferry
http://www.westernexplorers.us/Firearms_of_Lewis_and_Clark.pdf or http://www.westernexplorers.us/Lewis-and-Clark-Expedition-firearms-summary.html
http://www.lewis-clark.org/article/2356
http://www.history.army.mil/LC/The%20Mission/Facts/rifles.htm

 

[Artificer]

OK, maybe I am not the only one who is a bit confused on when the guns were ordered and work actually began? I have some questions that may lead to a better understanding. Do I have the chronology correct from the quotes above?

“In a letter dated March 14, 1803, Henry Dearborn, Secretary of War, instructed the superintendent of the Harpers Ferry Armory, Joseph Perkins, to "make such arms & Iron work, as requested by Captain Meriwether Lewis."

“On March 16, 1803, a year and two months before the expedition headed up the Missouri River, Captain Meriwether Lewis arrived at the federal Armory at Harpers Ferry, then in Virginia, to arrange for military supplies needed by the expedition. President Thomas Jefferson and Lewis originally planned an expedition of fifteen men,1 and Lewis's list of requirements included “15 Rifles, 15 Powder Horns & pouches complete, 15 Pairs of Bullet Moulds, 15. do. of Wipers or Gun worms, 15 Ball screws, 24 Pipe Tomahawks, 24 large knives, Extra parts of Locks & tools for repairing arms, 15 Gun Slings, 500 best Flints ... 200 lbs Best rifle powder, 400 lbs Lead.”2 “

OK, so far this seems to tell us that Captain Lewis probably brought the authorization letter from Secretary Dearborn with him, when he (Lewis) arrived at the Harpers Ferry Arsenal? At least this seems to make sense to me.

The next part I am a bit hazy about.

“From the 18 May 1803 requisition receipt Lewis received from the arsenal, the 25 May 1803 letter from Secretary of War Henry Dearborn to the Superintendent of the Harpers Ferry Arsenal Joseph Perkin, and the 8 July 1803 letter from Lewis to Jefferson, it appears that Lewis had the arsenal shorten the barrels of 15 of the 1792 / 1794 rifles to between 33 and 36 inches and re-bored. He also had the gunsmiths add swivels to these weapons, and fit them with new locks. Additionally, Lewis purchased replacement locks and spare lock parts for each rifle.”

Does this mean the rifles and all equipment were done and Lewis signed the receipt for them just 2 months and 2 days after Lewis showed up with the authorization letter on 16 March? OR was this only the receipt for the requisition and the rifles and gear were not done yet?

The reason I ask is because Lewis wrote to Jefferson on 8 July that he had fired the rifles the day before? I assume Lewis would have fired the rifles before he left the Federal Arsenal to ensure they worked correctly, because if any problems came to light, the Arsenal would have fixed them.

I think it very important to know how much time the Arsenal workers had to make or modify the rifles and make the other accoutrements and spare locks. I would also love to know how many Artificers/Armourers were assigned to the project as that would also tell us a lot. Does anyone know how many of these workers were assigned?

Oh, another question I have is were the 15 locks requested actually separate/spare locks or were they replacement locks for the ones already on the rifles (if the rifles were M 1792 Contract Rifles)?

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I strongly believe they carried pre-production 1803 Harper's Ferry short rifles.

Well for that to have happened, and it is possible though that may be a remote possibility, there had to be 15 of them on hand, for 15 were ordered for the expedition.

Now unapproved rifle "patterns" we know were made for testing purposes, but you'd be talking about the production of 15 rifles, in addition to several prototypes made for inspection and testing. I doubt they made 15+ 1803 rifles for testing purposes, thus allowing Captain Lewis to take them. Plus with the records that "new" locks were ordered fitted to the expedition rifles, which would not have been the case if the Corps' rifles were brand new Harper's Ferry 1803's. Making it more likely they were modified 1792/1794 Contract Rifles.

LD