Half stock hawkin flintlock time period

[sarcasmn]

I have an early Hawken Rifle, .50 Cal De Haas barrel hooked breech halfstock curly maple Chambers Ketland flint lock with iron trim made by Mike Compton. I was wondering what time period this rifle would be appropriate for?

 

[ol vern]

say around 2016 or so :haha: :haha:

 

[Grenadier1758]

While I was thinking 1970, the builder was making a fantasy gun to represent what might have been a Hawken flintlock of the 1830's.

Since there are no existing flint Hawken half stock rifles, a version of your replica can't be shown to have existed.

 

[Tom Compton]

And there is no proof one wasn't made - so 1830 is a good choice.

 

[Claude Mathis]

And there is no proof one wasn't made - so 1830 is a good choice.

Not to beat this horse again, but...

There's no "proof" that Daniel Boone didn't drive a chariot, but we don't evaluate history using that type of logic. :wink:

 

[nwtradegun]

are you sure it is a reprisitaion of a hawken and not some some trade rifle, ie leman, derringer etc.

 

[Rick Boylan]

:rotf: :hatsoff:

 

[kodiakmarine]

To most of us, the name Hawken is the most abused and misapplied in the history of firearms. I will try to explain and offer a soluution.

Only a small percentage of Hawken rifles has survived. The Hawken brothers definitely made at least a few full stock flintlock rifles, and I don't see it as a stretch to think they might have made a half stock flinter, although one has never been found.

What strikes me as not authentic is the use of a Ketland lock. I believe the Hawkens used only locks of domestic manufacture. I think your rifle would fit well in the 1830s, but I would not call it a Hawken.

This was a time when the number of rifle makers had increased substantially. Many small makers tried to get a piece nof the trade rifle business, but could not compete in price with large makers such as Henry and Derringer. The result was a fair number of oddball, or non typical, rifles ending up in the mountains at this time. Simply call your rifle a half stock trade rifle and you will be in good shape historically.

Good luck and have fun. - John

 

[galamb]

T

What strikes me as not authentic is the use of a Ketland lock. I believe the Hawkens used only locks of domestic manufacture. I think your rifle would fit well in the 1830s, but I would not call it a Hawken.

I have to disagree with this statement. They learned the trade from their father and he was not picky at all about what lock he put on a rifle. While it is true that "later on" they used locks predominately built in their own shop, that was not always the case - domestic OR imported was fair game.

Existing rifles are "dressed" with some of the following locks:

Golcher (including Jos., James or simply Golcher)

H.E. Leman

A. Meier & Co.

Tryon

Ashmore (including one marked R. Ashmore) which were absolutely British made locks

Gemmer (built in the Hawken shop)

Wolf & Bishop

Kingsland & Co. - another English made lock

W.H. Brown

Wilkes

And they were building half stocks by the mid 1830's (1836 Atcheson rifle where the date was known was a half stock)

 

[kodiakmarine]

I stand corrected. You have obviously seen more Hawkens than I have. I do think that "trade rifle" is the best term to use whenever there is doubt about any feature being authentically Hawken. - John

 

[LaBonte]

I stand corrected. You have obviously seen more Hawkens than I have. I do think that "trade rifle" is the best term to use whenever there is doubt about any feature being authentically Hawken. - John

Why not the term used at the time - mountain rifle (what collector's now call plains rifle and yes there might be confusion with the Southern Mountain Rifle.) A Hawken Shop ad from the 1850's lists mountain and California rifles for sale. (always wondered if those California rifles were designed for sea otter hunting?)
And yes the Hawken Shop and many more builders of the era used imported English locks a lot - from high quality to el cheapos called hardware store locks by collectors.
As or a half-stock Hawken flinter - not beyond the realm of possibilities by far, but if you want such a style rifle than there are examples by other makers such as the half-stock flinter built in Texas circa 1840, http://www.texasguntrade.com/texassportingrifles.htm just scroll down to - An original flintlock rifle that appears to have been stocked in Houston as early as 1840 and stamped G. ERICHSON HOUSTON. TEXAS
Other examples of period half-stock flint rifles are the Tatham Indian rifles built in England. Here's a link to the the beautiful modern copy made by Jerry Huddleston who posts here. http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2008/07/jerry-huddleston.html

 

[kodiakmarine]

Thanks for the links. They help to illustrate the variety of rifles that came from the smaller shops. I really like that Huddleston rifle. He sure does nice work. - John

 

[tenngun]

And there is no proof one wasn't made - so 1830 is a good choice.

Not to beat this horse again, but...

There's no "proof" that Daniel Boone didn't drive a chariot, but we don't evaluate history using that type of logic. :wink:

If you walked in to the shop in 1830 laid $25 on the counter and said I want a Fl half stock rife, Sam would have said yes sir, be ready in a month or so.
Half stocks were getting popular when flints were out of style. It's the same time that the half stock Hawkins were being made the western jornals are talking more and more about precussion. It is unlikely any one would have got one.
Boone may haved had a chariot he just would of called it a surry or a buck board.

 

[galamb]

If you walked in to the shop in 1830 laid $25 on the counter and said I want a Fl half stock rife, Sam would have said yes sir, be ready in a month or so.

Maybe - what if you walked into a Chevy dealer, smacked down 100K and said "I want a 4 door, 4 wheel drive Corvette".

The answer you get might just be the same words that might have come out of Sam's mouth at the request for the flinter.

Both "builds" are/were POSSIBLE but...

Without the tapes from the security camera at the Hawken shop, we will never know. :grin:

 

[tenngun]

I think we were saying the same thing, anyway I'm agreeing.

 

[Lonegun1894]

I don't see any reason why a similar rifle wouldn't have existed, but as the others have said, weather or not it had the name "Hawken" stamped on it is what is causing a lot of the arguments. Say it was made by another maker, with design elements, um, borrowed, from the Hawken Shop guns. How many comments have we all read here about parts being reused, so an older style lock is believable. I can also see a FL being chosen by someone who doesn't get to town or supplies often because making caps at home isn't often done today either.

So what if our OP had walked into some other smaller local shop somewhere, put the same $25 mentioned earlier on the counter, and asked for a "Hawken-like" rifle with one of the new-fangled half-stocks, but that the builder use the lock he brought that served his grandfather so well? :hmm: :blah:

 

[Rifleman1776]

the name Hawken is the most abused and misapplied in the history of firearms

And misspelled. :shocked2:

 

[tenngun]

Well they and dad and grand dad spelled it three or four different ways

 

[Tom Compton]

If you walked in to the shop in 1830 laid $25 on the counter and said I want a Fl half stock rife, Sam would have said yes sir, be ready in a month or so.

Maybe - what if you walked into a Chevy dealer, smacked down 100K and said "I want a 4 door, 4 wheel drive Corvette".

The answer you get might just be the same words that might have come out of Sam's mouth at the request for the flinter.

Both "builds" are/were POSSIBLE but...

Without the tapes from the security camera at the Hawken shop, we will never know. :grin:

I agree GA we'll probably never know. But the analogy with a Chevy dealer and a Corvette is way off. The Hawkens were not a dealer. They were makers, custom and semi custom. I also agree that at some point in the era when flintlocks were phasing out Hawken went to percussion only. I've heard of a letter to that effect. Stating they no longer or don't make flintlocks to me indicates they previously did make flintlocks. My lack of Hawken history is showing here but didn't father, Jake and Sam make rifles prior to the advent of percussion? So are all of those Hawken made guns not "Hawken"s?

Someone also mentioned new tangled half stocks. 1803 Harper's Ferry comes to mind.

"We don't think that way". I'm sure y'all don't but we do.
TC

 

[galamb]

This discussion always seems to mish/mash things that don't necessarily belong together.

If the question IS, would a rifle such as described by the OP be something that might have been seen and carried in the West in the early 1830's I would say absolutely.

Guys didn't go west because they were flush with cash, most went to try and scratch out a living. They took with them every manner of rifle because it was all they had or all they could afford.

Some of the limited information that can be taken from the various industrial census taken in the 1820's and 30's tend to show that "repairs" to rifles outnumbered rifle builds (in the one and two man shops) by at least 10 to 1.

So it absolutely would be plausible and probable that someone might have, what was originally a full stocked flint rifle that was reworked into a half stock due to damage or had the stock and barrel cut down a little to make it more agile and they most probably carried them into the mountains in 1830.

I also agree that at least Sam Hawken built flint rifles - I have seen a couple. They look like the Maryland rifles his father built. I have never personally seen any evidence that Jake built a rifle all by himself. The one that is said to be in existence has been debunked by Hawken scholars far more familiar than me.

I just don't get why many think that the Hawken shop would NEVER turn down a request to build a flinter - repair one sure, but there is no evidence that they would build one in the Plains/Mountain style. I don't find it far fetched that if you came in asking for that, that they would direct you across the street to Dimick's shop or one of the other half dozen builders in St. Louis.

Yes, it would be turning down business, but given that in their heyday they were "farming work out", it's not like they were hurting for business.

My point about the Corvette is exactly the same. Yes, GM is "capable" of building a 4 door model, but just because someone offers the cash doesn't mean they will for no other reason then "they just don't build one that way".

And by the time that the brothers were cranking out half stock Plains rifles perhaps they had decided that to "protect the integrity and function of their rifles" that they would only offer them in the "state of the art" percussion.

I just don't see that as far fetched. Think of our custom builders today - some will only build in flint or only in given schools and they, like the Hawken's are relying on their rifle builds to pay the rent in some cases.

Or just maybe all those half stocked Hawken Plains flint rifles are carefully stored in cases in the back of Davy's chariot :rotf: