• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Hawkin rifles

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Galamb, that's just a list of arguments to be started. Every one of your "differences" pretends, for reasons of rationalizing internet parroting, that they don't also hold true from every ORIGINAL Hawken rifle from gun to gun, day to day, year to year, decade to decade, brother to brother, etc. What nonsense! They were sometimes different from modern guns and each other in any, and maybe many, of those things but never each always. In your own world there is no true Hawken rifle other than that it properly has the name stamped on it.

Here's one you missed: "Hawkens were flintlocks." That's as true as anything you wrote the way you want to spin this. And why do so many?

The posts here have mostly been to say that the generic reproductions are illegitimate. Bastards! It makes people who are more knowledgeable about actual Hawkens than the OP, and who would more narrowly define them than what the modern traditional gun has become to be known as, feel good. No; better!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go take an aspirin and wipe my eyes with a kleenex, then cut the scotch tape on my derringer and shoot minie balls out of it.

:shake:
 
I see, we should use the George Orwell standards to interpret similarity:

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
 
Well, I think I see the anaolgy you are trying to make about a leftist's circuitous self-defined straw-man propaganda.

There can be no juxtaposition of similarities when one of the class of items to be compared is variable and so disimilar from the broad range of examples of itself. I say without fear of contradiction that modern "Hawkens" are more consistant and definable than the things whose name they are generically referred to but which were, in their own time, similarly a class of rifle.

Ooops -- some Hawkens were smoothbore! Now none of the modern production ones are so the latter must all be pronounced poor, faithless, copies that have nothing to do with the originals!!!

It's like comparing a Springfield 1903 to Mausers... You need to be more specific and then you'll still have to determine, if you are honest, yeah, that's what they were based on.
 
Perhaps one of you could remark on the accuracy of Ned Roberts writings. I am a bit confused as to the information listed in this thread concerning the physical characteristics of an original Hawkens rifle and the picture of the Hawkins rifles shown in Roberts book “ The muzzeloading Cap Lock Rifle”. He shows a picture of one labeled “Jacob Hawken, Silver Mounted “Plains Rifle,” 45 calibre, 28-inch barrel, weight 12 pounds.” There is a second picture labeled “ S. Hawken, St. Louis,” Plains Rifle, 45 calibre, 28 inch barrel, weight 10 ¼ pounds”. Both are half stock. The first rifle has a single key the second appears to have a single key but the picture is poor. Both rifles are different. Different shaped butt plates, different furniture and the trigger guards are totally different. Do you suppose maybe they really never made two the same? If in fact the rifles shown in Robert’s book are actual pictures of Hawkens rifles then obviously some were constructed with single keys, some with silver furniture, some with 28 inch barrels, different trigger guards, butt plates etc. If this was the case then to produce a replica one would have to specify which original he was actually copying wouldn’t he. I doubt if many of their rifles are even in existence today. Who knows, they may even have made one special order rifle that looked exactly like a TC. Wouldn’t that be funny. Just some thoughts after reading through this thread.
Stan
 
Don Stith, who could be considered a Hawken expert recently commented on those very rifles you note.

He stated they were built for the local trade and were not the same as their plains rifles and the majority that he has documented were 38 caliber.

He also noted: "One little oddity that some of you might enjoy. Some of these Squirrel rifles, or local guns used hardware store locks that were precut for a drum. Then a piece was dovetailed in the plate to fill the drum notch and refiled to fit the patent breech. Generally they were not hooked breech, but patent breech with a short fixed tang".

Take it for what you will and draw your own conclusions.
 
That's my point Stanley.

Much of these holier-than-thou assaults on modern commercial "Hawkens" are pretty meaningless if not rather spurious, argumentative, childish, and counter-productive to a forum and the hobby, especially to new and potential shooters... Not that most of the experts have anything better in the gun rack than my .50 CVA Mountain Rifle.

This anti-commercial-Hawkens knee-jerk rhetoric by so many bright people to anyone who dares mention one is as common today in blackpowder postings as "9mm vs. .45" articles were back in the 1980's and "Which is better; AR or AK" in the '90's -- it is relentless and pointless!

After that we just need for someone to remind us, again, that the trigger guard on a Jap Bess is a little flat on the bottom with the attitude that we should therefore just throw it into the fireplace.
 
galamb said:
A few years back I was one that just had to have a "true replica" - had to build it myself (couldn't afford one from one of the recognized builders) and it still wouldn't pass the "sniff test" - it's near impossible to get off the shelf components that are "correct".

It was built from a plan, reflecting Kit Carson's Hawken with a fair degree of accuracy.

I got Oregon barrel to custom make the 31" tapered 1 1/8" to 1", 54 cal barrel.

I tried to find the "most correct" castings for all the furniture etc and had visions of doing some "serious bambi hunting" in the eastern hardwoods where I live and hunt.

The problem was the rifle ended up weighing 10 1/2 pounds - try humping that over dense, rough ground for any period of time.

Realized it's a "mountain/plains rifle" meant to be carried by the horse, not the rider :)

Sold it and used it to fund a couple of "more suitable" rifles and have never looked back - got my Hawken "fix" (plus going to start work shortly on a Christian Hawken, Maryland rifle - a much more suitable "hawken" for my purposes).

And agree, the Great Plains by Lyman is fairly "indicative" of a plains rifle flavored in the style of Hawken, Dimick etc.

The couple of Hawken's by Pedersoli are actually fairly representative and probably the closest you would find in an "off the shelf" version today - not cheap - they do start at around 1000 bucks and would not stand up to the scrutiny of a true Hawken "student", but their "Rocky Mountain or Missouri River" versions in fancy maple are beautiful rifles...


I hunted with 3 rifles this year, my Swivel Breech FL Kentucky at 11 pounds, my m1 Garand and Savage LRP that weights 11 without the scope. I'm 63 and the Savage was a butt kicker at one point when my son shot an elk. But I am way out of shape too and where I hunt is 4000 ft plus (out on the plains, which are not flat here) and more than that when it gets steep in the mountains.
P1000983_1.jpg


But I lead a pretty active life in my younger days and some of it has carried over. Some of it may genetics, dad is 87 and has a trap line out in Northern WY right now.
I find that walking 4-5 miles 2-3 times a week or more before hunting season works wonders even if on flat land. But as we age joint problems can arrise too.
If the hunter wants a light weight 7-8 pound rifle then get one, but don't pretend its a traditional ML. The American rifles were just not that light in the first half of the 19th C. 8 was pretty light in the 18th c. The barrel materials were not very trust worthy and the advent of better powder in the early 19th c (and it improved all the time) resulted in heavier barrel profiles. The percussion system with its more energetic ignition cycle produced more pressure. Some people were shooting cloth patched Picker/Sugar loaf bullets that further increased the breech pressure. So the barrel weight was a safety factor. The English using better material, high grade damascus and generally lighter powder charges made lighter rifles. But these were above the pay grade of most Americans.
So there were REASONS why the rifles were heavy. It was not just a fad.
But since they were, a light weight rifle is at best, marginally traditional. Though a 1" straight barrel is perfectly OK in a 50-54 Hawken and makes for a lighter rifle in 32-36" lengths.

Dan
 
Cynthialee said:
I don't understand the aversion that you guys have to a heavy gun. My hiking about gun weighs in at about 11.5 lbs. I have lighter ones, but I am trying to get a work out when I hike so weighted down is a good plan.
Good for you girl! What many folks fail to remember is that most of the trappers wandering around was on horse or mule back. Gun weight wasn't quite as much of a factor. Also remember folks, their loading theory was if you figure to see a really big critter...double the load. Once got to shoot a genuine Hawkens rifle owned by a San Antonio collector. It was nearly a .55 bore, possibly a refreshed barrel bore at some time. The accuracy load seemed to be about 95 grains of FFg. So we tried the "Big Critter" theory. You'll be glad you've got a heavy rifle when 200 grains goes "Bang!"
 
So, one moral of the story is the commercial "Hawken" rifles, which aren't light, have a lighter barrel than many, maybe even most but not all, originals that people today will actually buy and shoot. Which you eschew. O.K. Know I appreciate that information, even the opinion. I know you could probably mine the ore and build your own from scratch Dan, truly, but you don't buy a commercial Hawken then.

I have indoor plumbing and, though that may rub some critics the wrong way as well, I'm keepin' that too.

Another moral of the story is Dan and CynthiaLee are in better shape than I am. I hate even parading with one of the first imported made-in-India LLP Besses. You guys don't eat grits by any chance, do you?
 
Alden said:
Much of these holier-than-thou assaults on modern commercial "Hawkens" are pretty meaningless if not rather spurious, argumentative,,,,,,.
I fail to see in this topic where that is actually happening,
Your the only one going off in a manner as you are saying;
"argumentative, childish, and counter-productive to a forum". :idunno:

The modern factory rifles that have called themselves "Hawkens" for decades have indeed played a huge roll in our hobby.
But as several have said here, they resemble the Hawkens brothers rifles like Apples resemble Oranges. Or as your trying to use AR's resemble AK's,,
Your right, it is pointless. For those that do care there is a huge difference.
Just like a 9mm and a 45,, if all you want is a pistol, both are the same. But there are some out there that want a Colt Walker
 
That's what I got....Hot dang, a TC Squirrel rifle.
Oh, that's right it's a Cherokee.
 
Seems to me the original post said, "What are the differences between an original Hawkin and our modern replicas?..."

Many of us have tried to point out the major differences without showing any negative prejudice towards the modern guns but a few seem to think criticizing the answers and the people who made them is more fun than answering the original question? :hmm:

There have even been comments made saying that people were belittling the people who owns one of the new rifles.
I haven't seen that even once in this topic. :idunno:

Could it be that some are reading things "between the lines" that they want to see?

Hopefully we can stick to mentioning the differences between the current "Hawkens" rifles and the original without criticizing the people posting their comments. :)
 
I really do not care what people shoot. I know that a lot of people have bought and used various mass produced rifles and like them.
But I get somewhat jaded when someone asks what an original gun is supposed to be/if the mass produced "Hawkin" is correct and when told the TRUTH the whining starts in some quarters because someone is upset that they are shooting an ugly rifle that is reality is not traditional in one way or several.

So far as "heavy" guns.
I am sorry that original rifles are heavier than a LW Model 70 in 270. But thats not what they are. They are representative of their era. Reasonably accurate copies are of similar weight, they have to be to be correct.
Using one of these gives a the person an INSIGHT into the past.
However, if the only reason for having a ML rifle is to squeak by getting into some re-enactment, where the gun is just a prop to fill out a costume, or to take part in some "muzzleloader season" then how screwed up and ugly the thing is becomes irrelevant. I like the "American Rifle" from the 1700s onward. The good ones are works of art in form and decoration (or even if not decorated). So when some company makes a "muzzleloader" as cheap as possible with modernized stocks and assembly processes that are scary I am supposed to be all gaa-gaa because lots of people bought them?
I like the lines, I like the form, I like the shaping and contours of the "American rifle". But the mass produced guns simply cannot do this with off the street parts assemblers. Some buyers however, cannot tell a well shaped stock form a somewhat rounded 2x4 or don't want to. Trust me. So if someone states its poorly shaped or shaped as a modern rifle the owners of the things start whining or get huffy and attack.
Then there are the "experts". A friend and mentor who started making MLs before I was born was laughing about how he could hand a rifle to a customer and he would instantly know more about it than he who had MADE THE RIFLE.
So I get a little tired of the whining and "experts".
People want a "traditional rifle" but they don't know what it looks like, or they think its too heavy when its probably just right. But its heavier than their Ithaca or their bolt action "mountain rifle" so they whine about that.
Never mind they could loose 5 pounds of lard and it would more than make up the difference in weight.
Then the ones that can't tell a corner from a curve will get on a high horse and point out that THEIR misshapen MLer is not because after all THEY own it :doh: In reality its just a cookie cutter gun and there are thousands just like generally designed to look like a modern rifle as much as possible so its familiar to the Wal-Mart customer. OR its supposedly a "tradtional" rifle but machine sanding or sanding with a drum or belt sander simply cannot reproduce the shape. I know I used to do this some years back on brass suppository guns and I hated it. But it paid the rent. It will work on some "modern" designs but not on a Kentucky or a Hawken. But there is no time or skill to properly shape a ML stock and then sell the gun at Wal-Mart.

THEN when it won't go off because the hammer is misaligned, they whine. Or the hammer blows off the nipple and it erodes before it should cause the lock is designed to sell CHEAP by someone with no idea of what its supposed REALLY do other than pop a cap. Then they whine when hammer goes to 1/2 cock when shot and put on a “vented” nipple :doh: . A modern construct to "eliminate" a problem caused by locks designed to be cheap but not fully functional as a percussion lock is supposed to be. But since most buyers have no IDEA what is good or bad in a lock if the gun goes bang most of the time they can sell them by the thousands at less than what good set of parts costs. Besides some clueless gunwriter recommended the vented nipple. :rotf: Along with a lot of other "stuff" that is not needed or is even harmful, but they have these advertisers to keep happy...
So if someone points out any of this, which is irrefutable, the users get defensive and start making snide comments about things they have not taken the time to understand or about the character of the person pointing out the shortcommings.
When they commandeered the Hawken name when the gun looked nothing like a Hawken it irritated a lot of people who were shooting MLs at the time. (Kinda like the plastic stocked inline "MLs" taking over ML seasons that people had spent a lot of time on back in the 60s when they had to prove a traditional ML would kill a deer to get a season.) A friend of mine had written a number of magazine articles and published a book on the Hawken and the name was "hot" so it got slapped on for advertising purposes. Now if you mention "Hawken" here 1/2 the readers or more think its some mass produced POS. Its like rewriting history.

Anyway life is too short to shoot ugly guns. So I don't. Unless its a brass suppository gun many of these are SUPPOSED to be ugly.

Dan
 
This has gotten twisted sideways and tainted in spots. Geez, Louise, I doubt too many here seriously think a T/C Hawken is just like a real Hawken. But, then, I can't buy that they "look like a modern rifle", either. Maybe if you are 130 years old. Modern to me starts at 1898 Mausers and goes up from there. Since true, honest to God Hawkens are about as rare as hens' teeth, not to mention priced out of reason, I'm thankful that old-style muzzle loaders are available, be they cookie cuttered or one-offs by a talented 'smith. That, I want to believe, is the main point here. Modern "replicas" are not really replicas, just old style guns.
 
Each hawken was hand made and a lot of Hawkens didnt look like our classic Hawken.I wish more makes would do what lymen did with the GPR, and just call it a plains rifle or plains and mountian gun. I kinda kringe when I hear hawken applied to a moderen gun,or kentucky rifle,or derringer.Still the less expensive modren gun that looks nothing like a classic hawken is often the only thing affordable.
As i stated on other post we should all strive to be 100 % authentic,But since none of us can do that we need to cut each other some slack.
To Cynthialee I have to say lugging my 10 lbs rifle throught the ozark hills(a Leman full stock)I am as proud as punch for my 6 lbs NWG or my 7 lbs fusil.I dont know if I'm old or wimpy or just old and wimpy. You go girl!
 
Stanley said:
Perhaps one of you could remark on the accuracy of Ned Roberts writings. I am a bit confused as to the information listed in this thread concerning the physical characteristics of an original Hawkens rifle and the picture of the Hawkins rifles shown in Roberts book “ The muzzeloading Cap Lock Rifle”. He shows a picture of one labeled “Jacob Hawken, Silver Mounted “Plains Rifle,” 45 calibre, 28-inch barrel, weight 12 pounds.” There is a second picture labeled “ S. Hawken, St. Louis,” Plains Rifle, 45 calibre, 28 inch barrel, weight 10 ¼ pounds”. Both are half stock. The first rifle has a single key the second appears to have a single key but the picture is poor. Both rifles are different. Different shaped butt plates, different furniture and the trigger guards are totally different. Do you suppose maybe they really never made two the same? If in fact the rifles shown in Robert’s book are actual pictures of Hawkens rifles then obviously some were constructed with single keys, some with silver furniture, some with 28 inch barrels, different trigger guards, butt plates etc. If this was the case then to produce a replica one would have to specify which original he was actually copying wouldn’t he. I doubt if many of their rifles are even in existence today. Who knows, they may even have made one special order rifle that looked exactly like a TC. Wouldn’t that be funny. Just some thoughts after reading through this thread.
Stan


I think they just made what ever the customer wanted, just like many do today.
 
Rat Trapper said:
I think they just made what ever the customer wanted, just like many do today.

Sure they did, they were "custom builders" - made their rifles one or a few at a time (did have a couple employees), but certainly not a production line.

And maybe there is even a rifle out there that you could lay beside one of the contemporary offerings and say "hey, that looks pretty close" - it just hasn't been found.

You would think that a company marketing to the masses, if they were honestly trying to capture the essence of an original, instead of just capitalize on the fad, would have patterned after one of the more "famous" rifles which were certainly known, displayed, well documented. At least they would have tried to get close.

Wouldn't it make more sense to pattern after one of the "famous" Hawken rifles?

Kit Carson - 31" tapered barrel - 54 Cal
Jim Bridger - 36" tapered barrel - 53 Cal
Mario Modena - 34 3/4" barrel - 50 cal
Andrew Sublette - 38" swamped - 58 cal
Tom Toben - 38 3/4" barrel (1 1/16" atf) 54 cal
George Atcheson - 37" swamped - 54 cal silver mounted
Moses White - 38" barrel - 54 cal silver mounted

That's what fans of Robert Redford's character "bought into" when they saw the movie and, like the character "just had to have one".

They weren't looking for Florenz Dieckmann's single keyed, 38 caliber "farm rifle" that Sam built for him in the 1850's, they wanted a "mountain man's rifle".

And if they hadn't hung the name "Hawken" on their offering there would be little to argue about.

Consider if in the movie the quote would have been a Dickert instead, we would no doubt be debating if there was a Dickert out there that looks like that "St. Louis Hawken"...
 
I think the common production guns that are STILL being knocked here as having no acceptable resemblance to the original, LOL, do look like their namesake, i.e. my 33" or even my 28". And I think ol' Samuel and Jacob would say the same thing.
 
"Did I make that one"? Samuel Hawken
"I think it was me." Jacob Hawken
"Oh. Well, finish your grits and hang the "Custom Guns -- No-Two-Alike" sign in the window." Samuel Hawken
"Geez, I hope nobody ever exactly reproduces 'our' gun." Jacob Hawken
"What, are you dense or something!?" Samuel Hawken

 
RedFeather said:
This has gotten twisted sideways and tainted in spots. Geez, Louise, I doubt too many here seriously think a T/C Hawken is just like a real Hawken. But, then, I can't buy that they "look like a modern rifle", either. Maybe if you are 130 years old. Modern to me starts at 1898 Mausers and goes up from there. Since true, honest to God Hawkens are about as rare as hens' teeth, not to mention priced out of reason, I'm thankful that old-style muzzle loaders are available, be they cookie cuttered or one-offs by a talented 'smith. That, I want to believe, is the main point here. Modern "replicas" are not really replicas, just old style guns.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :hatsoff: :hatsoff: :hatsoff:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top