Hawkin rifles

[dave524]

The Hawken rifle is maybe a concept made in the 70's by a movie and marketing professionals in the firearms industry. BTW my CVA Mountain has steel buttplate and trigger guard and pewter nosecap and patchbox and browned finish, made in USA.

 

[S.Kenton]

what do you want to know.

Just the barrel length, rate of twist and over all length of the rifle.. she's a looker for sure!!

 

[RedFeather]

I'm wondering if the original poster is sorry he asked his question in the first place? Or maybe he gave up on the thread long ago and went off to shoot his whatever?

Here's what I've taken from this discussion. If you want to go do mountain man reenacting or have a near genuine experience, get a Hawken REPLICA (look that word up before using) or copy of a period-correct gun one would expect to encounter back during the "shining times". If you aren't into that scene, get yourself a generic, traditionally STYLED muzzle loader.

I wonder what an actual mountain man would have made of a T/C Hawken? You might be surprised.

 

[Wes/Tex]

They'd probably figure it was just one of the fancy New England, shiny, half-stock rifles everybody was Ooohing over!

 

[54ball]

By the way, here's a great example by a true artist:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/282855/post/1315481/hl//fromsearch/1/

Herb has done work that most of us mere mortals can only dream of creating.

I think the subject's been beat to death, though, & I'm unlikey to convince anyone otherwise. Suffice to say that I & some others think that the T/C, Zoli, & the rest of the "Hawken" types are more of an 1850s-60s generic half-stock plains rifle, rather than anything that came from the St. Louis shop of the Hawken bros.

Rod

Oh no Rod, quite the opposite my Hawken rifle expert friend... I'm SO on board. OK, then THIS is the gun YOU want to say is THE Hawken Rifle? And only it! Then no other gun with any variation will be a Hawken. Is that what you'd like us all to agree to!? Examples:


brass mounted some were brass mounted
one barrel keysome, especially the Missouri squirrel rifles had one key, I'm sure some were pinned
no entry thimble for the ramrod some, even a few the venerable mountain types, had a one piece pewter cap
butt plate has a different profile most 19th Century rifles had a deeper crescent and corresponding drop, that's typical to nearly all rifles of the period
different trigger guard the Hawkens on a great many of their rifles used a design common on English sporting rifles, that being a scroll type guard where the guard is screwed into the set trigger plate, Some of the local trade rifles may have used a simpler arrangement
breech not the same On a lot of their rifles, the Hawkens would commonly use a snail type patent breech, another feature of the English sporting rifles, sometimes they would use a bar lock and breech, sometimes a drum and of course flint on their early fullstocks
barrel may be thinner, thicker, longer, shorter, and heavier or lighter As typical with most rifles of the period most barrels were longer than 32"
stocks material must be fancy maple maple is a very good stock wood but like most makers other woods most likely were used too, such as walnut or cherry
front and rear sights must be exactly the same As with most rifles of the period simple notched iron sights were used as were buckhorns and adjustable leaf sights on the later rifles, as typical of the period low dovetailed silver leaf sights were used on the front
forestock same length and shape forestock length would vary on the type of rifle
same exact wrist shape a Hawken feature especially on the mountain rifles was a long breech tang that was secured to the trigger plate. This sandwich of steel made that type of Hawken very strong in the usually weak wrist
no other more minor differences OH but there is


Trust me when I say everyone, expert and novice alike, is waiting for this "knowing" answer...

Ah a fine CVA Mountain rifle, arguably the best product ever to come out of Connecticut Valley Arms. I would like to have one. I should have bought one of the special reissue editions for my brother in the mid 90s.

Lets compare this rifle to a Hawken or any rifle of the period.
Double keyed, pewter style cap, respectable barrel length, leaf adjustable sights, percussion drum, crescent butt, looks to be plain maple stock, case colored lock, set triggers and Leman style triggerguard. You can tell that CVA tried to incorporate the features of Leman, Hawken and Dimick into this rifle.

The following are shortcomings of this rifle compared to a 19th Century piece. The first I'll mention is architecture. What nearly all the factory made rifles suffer from is poor architecture. Some modern brands are better than others, and even some original rifles had poor architecture but by and large Hawken and Leman had striking architecture on all their guns, especially Hawken.

What catches my first is the lock and wrist area.
The wrist is too thick.
The lock is too small.
The lock panels look too large, maybe the smallish lock.
There is too much wood above the lock making that portion of the rifle look crudely finished.
That area would look much better if the wood was rounded down from the tang to meet the lock panel.
The buttstoack needs just a little more drop, if so that may help the shaping of the wrist.
The comb is not right. It would help if the wrist flowed into the buttstock with more detail accenting the comb. The architecture here is just not good.
The crescent needs to be deeper to accent the comb. I would prefer brass or iron, the Hawkens used case colored iron butt plates a lot.
The barrel is set a little too deep.
The forestock should feather into the barrel side flat.
Where the forestock meets the front of the lock panels is not ideal and could flow better.
Too much wood and cap below the the ramrod.

Most of these items may seem trivial but even the Hawken squirrel rifles had good architecture.

While the Thompson may look a little better around the lock it still falls short in architecture. So does the Lyman and even the Pedersoli. Both of those have the overall shape to a degree but they still lack that architecture and that is what makes a Hawken a Hawken.

 

[Shine]

33 inch barrel,50 inches overall, slower than 66 twist rate that's all I know about that. It likes heavy charges. 105 grs of 2ffg is the accuracy load :shocked2:

 

[galamb]

"I wonder what an actual mountain man would have made of a T/C Hawken? You might be surprised."

I think many of us would be shocked at their reaction.

We fantasize about what it was like - create images in our minds - hang onto the history as if was somehow "magical".

Some of us want rifles that are near "screw for screw" replica's, others need nothing more than a name association to meet our needs/wants.

For the mountain man it was probably nothing more than a simple tool that they needed to do their job and help them survive - on par with a "box cutter" carried by a warehouse worker.

Just look at the famous "Kit Carson" as an example of mountain man, Indian fighter, Western Scout and genuine "folk hero".

He was born during the flintlock era. His early rifles were most certainly flintlock.

As caplock's became widely available he "switched". He got a Hawken because it was the "Cadillac" of the day. He needed it to do his "job", any "romantic notions" probably had little to do with the decision.

For when technology improved he certainly had no issue hangin' it up to use an 1866 Springfield.

He didn't say "whoooaaa now, I want something historically correct here".

So in response to your question, if he had seen a T/C, Lyman, CVA and a "real" Hawken lying beside each other in the "mountain pawn shop", I'm fairly certain he would have walked out with the original.

He wanted the best tool for the job. The "original" is just a whole lot "more rifle".

 

[Rod Lassey]

54ball, you've covered it better than I could---Thank you.

RedFeather--"I'm wondering if the original poster is sorry he asked his question in the first place? Or maybe he gave up on the thread long ago and went off to shoot his whatever?"

I'm afraid so, that's usually the case when these mud-slinging sessions start. I hope he's having fun with his rifle. One thing about the quasi-Hawkens, they often shoot very well.

dave524--
"The Hawken rifle is maybe a concept made in the 70's by a movie and marketing professionals in the firearms industry."

As we know it today, very true. When Mr. Center gave that name to his new rifle, it was a stroke of marketing genius. There is some issue with who was first--Val Forgett also claimed to be the first to call his generic half-stock a Hawken. Be that as it may, it certainly worked, they sold like hotcakes. Perhaps if Dimmick or Beauvais had been better known, they would have picked one of those names? Still wouldn't look like an original, though.

Alden--you're just being snarky and arguing in circles. I don't know what to say---I can lead a horse to water, and all that, but you can believe what you please. :youcrazy:
Just to make you happy, the next time I'm down at the BBHC or the Museum of the Fur Trade, I'll tell them that those Hawkens they have displayed don't exist---at least according to you. I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that...

Rod

 

[don hepler]

Now that is a beautiful Hawken rifle. I shoot in a club with "Don Stith" and I have seen rifles built from blue printed real Hawken rifles, that Don owns.

 

[RedFeather]

:surrender:
Yeah, the original Hawkens were probably the best available for what they were built to do. But, honestly, does it really matter what a company slaps onto a rifle barrel or box label? The Hawken brothers are long since dead and, were they able to see into the future, might have been amused or even pleased. Of course, they woukd know that CVA, Lyman and, especially, T/C guns are inferior. Stubb twist barrels are the best! Shucks, EVERYONE knows that. :haha:

 

[Alden]

...the next time I'm down at the BBHC or the Museum of the Fur Trade, I'll tell them that those Hawkens they have displayed don't exist ---at least according to you. I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that...

Rod

Since you claim to understand the thread... Rod, you're trapped by your misrepresentation of what I've been saying and your intentional misdirections. You have to say, in your own words, "Hawkens," plural, because THERE IS NO SINGLE (even Rocky Mountain) HAWKEN RIFLE, and if there was, they'd have ONE on display. Same reason .54Ball's review is interesting but of limited import and use. Why?

As I thought "the knowing" would glean from my reiteration of variables one could use .54Ball's very own list to compare one no-two-alike, custom-made, orignal Hawken rifle to another at random and "prove" that either one is not the "real" Hawken compared to the other. Give us a third original and you'd "prove" neither of the first two are "Hawkens" if you can be intellectually honest!

If I had to take out a micrometer to defend most of my attacks, apparently made by people to elevate themselves in their own or another parrot's mind, against new posters and/or shooters about modern commercial "Hawkens," proclaiming them inadequate and cautioning them not to delude themselves or use the name "Hawken" I'd be ashamed. That grace doesn't seem to afflict the elitists here though.

I understand and appreciate the detail. Truly. But it is reprehensible when such minor (and obviously-so to the naked eye) differences are so often employed as a tactic by people who usually just want to raise themselves to a laughable big-fish/small-pond level of "internet expertise" by knocking down others and their arms.

 

[RedFeather]

If you guys were transported back to a real rendevous, y'all would be passed out/punched out by now. Hmmmmm....I wonder if some here would quaff a pint or two of that authentic rot gut they used to pack in? Yes, it's amazing the size of the bladders here. Wake me when the contest is over.....sometime next year? :wink:

 

[Alden]

Ahhh, everyone's a brother and our open and honest dialogue, raising the state of the art and/or community is all in the family. Sure, I want a couple of these guys to take a DNA test, but...

 

[Rod Lassey]

Not knocking anyone----if you had actually read my posts, you would know I own one. A CVA rifle, of very early 1980s vintage, my very first ML rifle. .45 caliber, half-stock, I even converted it from percussion to flint (and that includes dealing with the drum-that-screws-into-the-breechplug affair, and the metric threads--yes, it can be done!) I shot that for years, numerous rabbits, squirrels, and even deer fell to it. Say what you want about those old CVAs, but don't call them inaccuarate. 60 grains 3f under a patched roundball, and the thing was a tack driver.

However, I ALWAYS knew it for what it was---a 1980s representation of a very generic plains-type rifle, and a not very good representation, at that. I never deluded myself into thinking it was anything else, and I knew perfectly well it was no Hawken. Didn't stop me from having fun and sending a mine full of lead downrange.

When I wanted something more historically correct, I was able to purchase a used representation of a J.J. Henry rifle, that would have been correct for the Upper Missouri fur trade of the latter 1830s (and yes, my Henry is instantly recognizable as such, don't go claiming there's no such thing, now). Within the last couple of years, I wanted something that was correct for an earlier period, that's when my 1810 era Deringer rifle took place.

You see, it's always been a progression with me, and my goal is historical accuracy. I know others don't care a whit about history, and just like to get out and shoot, or go hunting, and are just as happy with what they've got as I was with my old CVA.

I guess you can call your T/C a for-real, honest-to-God gen-u-wine Hawken, or whatever. You could also claim that it's a dead-nuts copy of an English half-stock percussion sporting rifle---it bears just as much resemblence to the latter as the former. But, in the end, you're only kidding yourself.

Rod

 

[Alden]

Not knocking anyone...

A CVA rifle...

I ALWAYS knew it for... a very generic plains-type rifle, and a not very good representation, at that... never deluded myself... it was no Hawken...

something more historically correct... my 1810 era Deringer rifle [built by a "gunsmith" in between making camp furniture, trunks, boxes and sewing shirts -- OK!].

...my goal is historical accuracy... others don't care a whit about history... as I was with my old CVA.

Rod

Whew, glad you're not knocking anyone. But...

erthay is onay uchsay ingthay as "the" Awkinhay Ifleray! The feature-similar CVA Mountain Rifle may be an almost exact commercial replica of one of the all custom, no-two-alike, original Hawken Rocky Mountain guns made for all you know, which you don't and no-one really could except to critique them, and even more oddly their owners, on the internet.

 

[galamb]

I think we are on to something here.

No two original Hawken's were identical - of that there is little disagreement.

Given that it is entirely possible that just maybe the CVA Hawken more than accurately reflects, to well over 99.9% of certainty, an original - since "THE" rifle doesn't exist.

The only issue with that line of thinking is - then how do you account for all the CVA Hawken's with a serial number greater than #1?

While that ONE could certainly represent an original - which were ALL different, all those that follow are mere copies which could never have been made.

They would all have to be "different" in order to be "classified" are potentially "original".

So is #2 simply a copy of #1, since it is identical in every way to number 1 which is an impossibility under the "rules" of what constitutes an original.

You can't have it both ways. If all Hawken's are different, then no two production guns can be the same and still be considered "accurate" - they would have to changed one or many small things in each rifle, lest they break "the rule".

 

[Alden]

To translate and repeat what you are saying in American...

...since there is no single The Hawken Rifle whereby any model mass-produced Hawken style rifle cannot be a reproduction of them all, then, conversely, if there is more than a single reproduction Hawken style rifle of any type than all but the first cannot be addequate reproductions in the Hawken vein.

Galamb, "all science trembles before the searing logic of your fiery intellect."

:shake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFc3DDTPXXo

 

[galamb]

Perhaps not, but it got a response from you...

And after all, it is you who is making that argument...

 

[mjulihn]

Let's keep it civil here, boys...

 

[Brian6396]

Really?
Hawken is the model name. Nothing more nothing less.
so what if it's not made in the 1800s, its got a sexy stock, lots of shiny brass and just looks cool.

are we gona make two puddles debating which body style or year is the only real chevy camero? :rotf: