Anyone heard of Kashtuk 1792 Contract rifle?

Discussion in 'Vendors and Manufacturers' started by Columbus, Mar 16, 2019.

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Mar 16, 2019 #1

    Columbus

    Columbus

    Columbus

    32 Cal.

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    20
  2. Mar 16, 2019 #2

    plmeek

    plmeek

    plmeek

    40 Cal.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Never heard of Kashtuk.

    How familiar are you with the 1792 Contract rifle? The Rifle Shoppe has a good summary of known info about them and the 1807 Contract rifle.

    Not all collectors agree about "there are no known surviving examples that can be positively identified as a 1792 Contract Rifle". Edward R. Flanagan believes he has one. See his ASAC paper linked below.

    http://americansocietyofarmscollect...92-and-1807-contract-rifles-B097_Flanagan.pdf

    As far as Kashtuk's version is concerned, since there is uncertainty about what they looked like, it's hard to comment on whether it is historically correct or not. I can comment some on their construction, but first I will have to qualify my statements on account of their poor photography which distorts the images of their guns.

    In this image, they have left way too much wood on the rear of the lock panel and a little too much wood along the bottom and in the front of the lock panel. They appear to be using a Harper's Ferry lock, possibly from RE Davis, and a Harper's Ferry 1803 trigger guard. They have also attached a sling swivel. They are obviously trying to make this rifle look like what Lewis & Clark might have taken on their expedition instead of a 1792 Contract rifle in its original configuration.
    [​IMG]

    This photo appears to be a different rifle as the lock panel looks much slimmer and there is no sling swivel. The patch box seems too large, though. We only get a glimpse of the forearm in front of the lock, but it appears to be slab sided.
    [​IMG]

    This photo of the lower entry pipe also suggests that the forearm is slab sided, but it could be the angle of the lighting. Forearm sure looks flat on the bottom to me, though.
    [​IMG]

    Here is where it's hard to tell if we are seeing lens distortion in the photo or poor construction of the rifle. Notice how the butt plate return or extension doesn't appear to line up with the comb of the stock.
    [​IMG]

    My impression is that Kashtuk has tried to copy Don Stith's version of a Lewis & Clark 1792 Contract rifle.

    The conventional wisdom is that the 1792 Contract rifles would be indistinguishable from a typical late period Lancaster or York county or Philadelphia rifle, since that's where the contract builders worked.

    I'm not that impressed with their other models, either. Their Virginia/Penn style longrifle has an odd looking patch box. Some might like it, so it might be a matter of taste. Then there is that really fat lock panel again and maybe another slab sided forearm.
    [​IMG]

    Their carving leaves a lot to be desired, also.
    [​IMG]

    I could go on about some of the other models, but I think you get the message. The builder could benefit considerably by studying original rifles more closely and relying less on photos and other peoples' contemporary interpretations.

    Upon reflection, I suppose I'm being kind of harsh on them. In the end, you get what you pay for. Their prices are low/reasonable by custom builder standards. To get much better will cost more.
     
  3. Mar 16, 2019 #3

    plmeek

    plmeek

    plmeek

    40 Cal.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Looks like a couple of pictures didn't come through. I'll try a different approach.

    This photo appears to be a different rifle as the lock panel looks much slimmer and there is no sling swivel. The patch box seems too large, though. We only get a glimpse of the forearm in front of the lock, but it appears to be slab sided.
    upload_2019-3-16_12-56-30.png

    This photo of the lower entry pipe also suggests that the forearm is slab sided, but it could be the angle of the lighting. Forearm sure looks flat on the bottom to me, though.
    upload_2019-3-16_12-55-19.png
     
  4. Apr 16, 2019 #4

    Stantheman86

    Stantheman86

    Stantheman86

    32 Cal. MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    174
    Their stuff looks to me , to be in that area that's a cut above Pedersoli but below a "real" custom long gun made by a master builder.

    But the prices really aren't bad and their rifles are nice looking. I would definitely buy that 1792 Contract Rifle.

    In my opinion if I'm buying a custom muzzleloader I want something rifled that I can target shoot with. If they offered flintlock rifled pistols that would definitely be something I'd go for.

    Paying $1500-2000 for a custom smoothbore isn't something I'd do.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white