• 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

Gemmer Hawken review

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Crazdgunman

32 Cal
Joined
Nov 9, 2022
Messages
30
Reaction score
89
Location
Montana USA
Just picked up a Gemmer Hawken, and thought I’d offer a review. This was my experience, yours may differ.



Ordered it from it’s new importer in La Grand Oregon, and was pleased to receive it is lightning fast time. Out of the box the fit of barrel into the channel wasn’t too inspiring. A bit of twisting in the forearm developed during shipping and storage perhaps, but that has improved now that the rifle is together. The fore end tip channel required a couple layers of brown fiber packing tape to get even bearing force on both wedges. The front trigger pull is pretty heavy (much more so than my TC Hawken), but after being set, is quite crisp and usable. The metalwork and inletting seemed fine for a factory produced gun in this price range. The rifle came with a simple but sturdy looking rear sight, adjustable for elevation, and a bold front sight. The barrel has a 1 in 60 inch twist, optimized for shooting patched ball.



A casual glance through the sights however showed no light on either side of the front post in the rear sight notch. Zilch. Zero. The rear sight notch was way too narrow, but a few minutes with a set of needle files and cold blue solved that issue. No biggie. At the first range session however, the Hornady .535 diameter ball (pushed with 90 grains of FFG and a 0.015 pre-lubed patch) impacted almost six inches low at 50 yards. And that was with the rear sight set to its maximum elevation. Still, with the conditions being pretty breezy and spreading the group horizontally, the group it shot with nine balls was 1.6 inches. I thought that showed potential. The patches were pristine, with no abrasions or burn-through.



So, back to the workbench, and after applying a micrometer and some high school trigonometry, I was a bit aghast. I basically had to lose almost half of my front sight height to get it to shoot on at fifty with the rear sight set in the middle of its adjustment. So, I filed away. Lots of metal dust and a bit of cold blue later, I was back in business.



Back to the shooting bench. Today, the winds were fairly still and at fifty yards off the bench she put five shots into 0.729 inches. Does that qualify her as “good”? I don’t know. I’m a serious shooter and have a lot of experience in different shooting disciplines, but this is only my third black powder weapon. Suffice it to say that I’m satisfied, and I’ll be dropping some big game this season with this rifle. Probably some small game as well.



Would I buy a Gemmer Hawken again? Yes, absolutely! But anybody doing so had better count on some serious file work. The sights are an issue.
6F223AC2-39FA-4407-A04E-7061D26F3011.jpg
 
Here's a formula that will help get real close when sighting in a rifle. I use a set of calipers to measure the front sight height off barrel.

Sight radius (distance from front to rear sight) X impact distance from zero / (divided by) distance to target = how much to move/ file sight.
"
Example, 24" (from front to rear sights), X 2"( impact from zero) = 48"divided by 1800" (50 yds. distance to target) =.026" to move to zero.
 
Nice review and fine shooting.

I would much rather have my gun come with a front sight that's too tall than one that's too short. I'd expect to be able to zero the rifle with the rear sight as low as possible then file the front sight to raise the POI at 50 yards.

@Boomerang, the Investarm-made guns are now imported by Muzzle-loaders.com. What used to be called the Lyman Great Plains Rifle is now marketed as the Gemmer Hawken.
 
Honest and thorough review, thanks. Looks like it definitely wants to shoot, should be a good gun for ya once you finish dialing it in. Agree with the sights, shouldn't need THAT much work to make them usable, don't mind filing down a frontsight though.
 
Actually the group isn't that bad for using only one powder charge. Yes, it is better to have the new rifle come with a front sight that is too tall and needs to be filed down to adjust the rifle to the shooter. Set the file aside and work at developing the desired load for what @Crazdgunman wants to shoot. Always get the group developed before filing the sights. Investarms rifles are notorious for having sharp edges on the lands that cut patches. It often takes 200, more or less, shots to smooth the edges of the lands so the patches hold together. So go to the range and fire a lot of shots to learn how to maintain your rifle for reliable firing and what sort of cleaning is needed between shots. Lots of opinions on the Forum about cleaning between shots.

Yes, load development is in order. The loads should start at about 65 grains (volume measure) and a five shot group is fired for evaluation. Clean the bore to have a consistent level of fouling taking care not to pack fouling into that chambered breech. Fire a cap to clear fouling from the chambered breech and flash channel and you are ready to increase the powder charge by 5 grains and fire five more rounds. The groups should tighten up until the optimum load is reached and then start to open up. I'll speculate that the best group will happen between 75 and 90 grains volume of 2Fg black powder.

Enjoy your new rifle.
 
Here's a formula that will help get real close when sighting in a rifle. I use a set of calipers to measure the front sight height off barrel.

Sight radius (distance from front to rear sight) X impact distance from zero / (divided by) distance to target = how much to move/ file sight.
"
Example, 24" (from front to rear sights), X 2"( impact from zero) = 48"divided by 1800" (50 yds. distance to target) =.026" to move to zero.
Indeed, you’re correct.

That’s the “high school trigonometry” I referred to.
 
Honest and thorough review, thanks. Looks like it definitely wants to shoot, should be a good gun for ya once you finish dialing it in. Agree with the sights, shouldn't need THAT much work to make them usable, don't mind filing down a frontsight though.
Yeah, I’m a gunsmith so it’s not a big deal.

But for a rifle with an adjustable rear sight to have such mismatched sights is just sloppy engineering.
 
Yeah, I’m a gunsmith so it’s not a big deal.

But for a rifle with an adjustable rear sight to have such mismatched sights is just sloppy engineering.
Yep, I agree, kinda what I meant. Filing front sight is no big deal, kinda have to be more then you need so able to sight in but the work he had to put into the back sight isn't right. Wouldn't expect that from a company putting out guns for as long as they have.
 
I would much rather have my gun come with a front sight that's too tall than one that's too short. I'd expect to be able to zero the rifle with the rear sight as low as possible then file the front sight to raise the POI at 50 yards.

Unfortunately I have, for the most part, come to the same conclusion. My Crockett Squirrel rifle, for whatever reason, hit very high from the factory. However, I had to file down the rear sight so much that it is just too darn short. My vision is not great but even others that shot my Crockett rifle stated it was difficult for them to get a good sight picture. Installed a somewhat similar but different sight as the stock rear sight and it too results in a very high POI. I was hoping the problem may have been the result of the stock rear sight but that was not to be.

I have a Tom A Hawks peep on order so hopefully that will save the day. If not, then it looks as if trying to find (or fab) a taller front sight will be in order.
 
Unfortunately I have, for the most part, come to the same conclusion. My Crockett Squirrel rifle, for whatever reason, hit very high from the factory. However, I had to file down the rear sight so much that it is just too darn short. My vision is not great but even others that shot my Crockett rifle stated it was difficult for them to get a good sight picture. Installed a somewhat similar but different sight as the stock rear sight and it too results in a very high POI. I was hoping the problem may have been the result of the stock rear sight but that was not to be.

I have a Tom A Hawks peep on order so hopefully that will save the day. If not, then it looks as if trying to find (or fab) a taller front sight will be in order.
Agreed, sloppy engineering.
 
Just to restate my position, yes, obviously a FIXED SIGHT rifle needs some extra height in the front sight so that the end user can adjust his Point Of Impact. No reasonable person is debating that.

But this rifle came with an ADJUSTABLE rear sight. Any elevation issue should have been within that range of adjustment. And if filing was needed, it certainly shouldn’t have been nearly a quarter inch of metal.

If we don’t talk about this sloppy engineering nothing will ever get done about it.
 
Back
Top