Percussion or Flintlock?

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
75
Reaction score
56
MtnMn, while it may be true that there were no half stock, flintlock Hawkins there were half stock rifles in flintlock from other makers during the time period. Why not use one of those?
Just curious
 

MtnMan

45 Cal.
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
727
Reaction score
526
Location
Colorado
MtnMn, while it may be true that there were no half stock, flintlock Hawkins there were half stock rifles in flintlock from other makers during the time period. Why not use one of those?
Just curious

I'd need to see a picture of the real gun. I'd like to believe there was one but so far i've never seen one. It needs to be more than just a half stock flintlock. I know half stock guns go back before the Hawken but they weren't in the style of the plains guns.

To be honest though. I've pretty much settled on my Pedersoli Hawken will be the last gun I buy. I have 1000 RWS #11 caps which will probably last me the rest of my shooting/hunting days. I love the gun and the only negative is the barrel weight. It's tough on my back. I might have Bobby Hoyt bore it out to .54 or even .58 to lighten it up. I'm pretty much down to just hunting for bear now. The .58 PRB should be good on bear. Especially, at the short distance I can see primitive sights now. Now that I wrote it down the .58 sounds real good. Hopefully, the barrel has enough meat on it to go to a .58. A .58 280gr ball sounds better than the 177 gr .50 ball. :)
 

Grenadier1758

Cannon
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
6,893
Reaction score
3,778
Location
St. Louis, MO
I think this Manton half stock rifle would easily qualify as a great rifle. It was sold at auction in February of this year.

1619786320398.png


Its a 10 bore, 34" octagon barrel. Nice flat butt plate. Single trigger.

Yes, flint lock, half stock sporting rifles did exist in the early to mid 1800's.
 

MtnMan

45 Cal.
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
727
Reaction score
526
Location
Colorado
That shows the point I was making. That gun is more a long rifle with a half stock. Not close to a Hawken style gun.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
75
Reaction score
56
I do not have this picture thing figured out yet so forgive me for not sizing these correctly.

Pictures are of an original Tatham and Egg, They were in business from 1801 to 1814 so this gun was originally a flintlock and has been converted to percussion by someone with quite a bit of skill (except for that god awful hammer).
It is just a shade over 43" long OAL and is about a 62 caliber.
Of note is the two leaf rear sight and it has a single set trigger.
It has a huge cheek piece and had sling swivels originally.

Obviously it could very easily have been used in America as a flintlock, or one just like it.


Tatham &Egg sight.jpgTatham&Egg cheek piece.jpgTatham&Egg thumb piece.jpgTatham&Egg trigger.jpgthumbnail.jpgTatham&Egg.jpg
 

Rudyard

50 Cal.
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
920
Hammer dosn't look bad to me cheek piece style is, for an English gun unusual. Mabey ordered for a US user . Mountain Man scoffed at my 5 pound ideal rifle figured I was weak . & his 10 pound rifle a better bet .( I'de as lief carry a crow bar ). But each to his own
. Regards all round . Rudyard
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
75
Reaction score
56
Well Rudyard, the Tatham and Egg weighs 7lbs 10oz, right in the middle of your and MtnMn's ideals (I had to go weigh it!)

I haven't had it out of the safe in lots of years and forgot what a sweet rifle it is, balance is neigh on perfect and comes up to the shoulder for me like it was made for me.
I am really tempted to get it checked out and possibly shoot it as it has never been fired in the forty years I have owned it but if I damaged it in any way......
 

Rudyard

50 Cal.
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
920
Dear French Colonial The rifle looks fine to me I rather doubt it will fail your call but if it looks sound ,my guess is its fine I stocked up & used a barrel by Alonso Martinez He died in 1720 so it has to be three hundred years old shoots fine . bowled a rabbit in style not shot it since I do have a battery to choose from just wanted it to put the lock & brl into context rather than floating bits . Regards Rudyard
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
75
Reaction score
56
Rudyard, I agree, I have had a borescope down it and it appears fine, rifling believe it or not is still good. After it setting in the safe for 30 years I have brought it out and now I remember why I bought it. It is an excellent example of the English gunmakers art and although I would love to have it converted back to flint the conversion to percussion was very well done by a professional and is also part of its history. I am seriously considering pulling the breech plug for a more thorough inspection and then loading it up with some light loads and touching it off. If nothing else it gets some tender loving care it hasn't had in awhile.
 

MtnMan

45 Cal.
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
727
Reaction score
526
Location
Colorado
A 'purist' is a person in any walk of life who is able to make you feel inadequate in yours.

You do realize that almost everybody on this forum are called purists by the inline crowd. Does your description of a purist fit yourself too?
 

TFoley

62 Cal.
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
1,247
You do realize that almost everybody on this forum are called purists by the inline crowd. Does your description of a purist fit yourself too?
Nossir, it does not. My line is that I am happy that everybody does what pleases THEM most, not anybody else. As such I don't belittle the choices of others, no matter what style of shooting it might be.

I don't shoot any kind of inline, on account they are about as rare as horse eggs in the UK, and even supposing they were more common, I have a goodly collection of traditional guns, both nitro and BP, to satisfy my craving for either cap or primer popping. So, no, inlines don't appeal to me, but then nor does fishing, or eating Camenbert cheese.

Again, here in UK, we don't appear to have either the clear division of BP shooters into those who shoot inline and those who do not, or the very evident derision with which each 'side' views the other. We just don't have 'crowds' in the shooting sports here.
 

MtnMan

45 Cal.
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
727
Reaction score
526
Location
Colorado
Nossir, it does not. My line is that I am happy that everybody does what pleases THEM most, not anybody else. As such I don't belittle the choices of others, no matter what style of shooting it might be.

I don't shoot any kind of inline, on account they are about as rare as horse eggs in the UK, and even supposing they were more common, I have a goodly collection of traditional guns, both nitro and BP, to satisfy my craving for either cap or primer popping. So, no, inlines don't appeal to me, but then nor does fishing, or eating Camenbert cheese.

Again, here in UK, we don't appear to have either the clear division of BP shooters into those who shoot inline and those who do not, or the very evident derision with which each 'side' views the other. We just don't have 'crowds' in the shooting sports here.

So, how do you have such a strong opinion of what a purist is if you don't experience it first hand?

I've been called a purist all my life in fly fishing because I use bamboo rods, silk lines, and use dry flies. I do what pleases me and could care less what others do. Even so, a perfect stranger will walk past me while i'm fishing and say..........."Another purist" and snicker. I've also been called one because I use sidelocks, black powder, and round balls from strangers who don't know me.

So, your description of a purist is backwards. Maybe I am a purist but I sure don't do it for any other reason than I do what pleases me the most. I don't care enough about what someone else does to have any biased towards it.

You appear to have an attitude towards a purist. Even if you don't really know anything about them.

You're quote.

"A 'purist' is a person in any walk of life who is able to make you feel inadequate in yours."
 

TFoley

62 Cal.
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
1,247
So, how do you have such a strong opinion of what a purist is if you don't experience it first hand?

I've been called a purist all my life in fly fishing because I use bamboo rods, silk lines, and use dry flies. I do what pleases me and could care less what others do. Even so, a perfect stranger will walk past me while i'm fishing and say..........."Another purist" and snicker. I've also been called one because I use sidelocks, black powder, and round balls from strangers who don't know me.

So, your description of a purist is backwards. Maybe I am a purist but I sure don't do it for any other reason than I do what pleases me the most. I don't care enough about what someone else does to have any biased towards it.

You appear to have an attitude towards a purist. Even if you don't really know anything about them.

You're quote.

"A 'purist' is a person in any walk of life who is able to make you feel inadequate in yours."
Sir, I have no wish to engage you in semantics. I'm here to talk about guns, not MY attitudes to other people who talk about guns and might want to influence my choices of the guns I enjoy.

The only 'purists' I've ever encountered my life seem to have been intent on making me feel inadequate in my life-choices. There is, in my mind, a distinct difference in 'traditionalist' and 'purist'. A traditional painter uses old-style oils and turpentine, rather than acrylics and whatever it is that is used to thin them. A purist grinds his own pigments, makes his own brushes, and may, or may not - as his mind-set works - scorn those who do not. To me, your choice of fishing gear says 'traditionalist', not purist. A purist might make his own rods, make his own line and so on.

I guess that in the USA you are used to enduring public scorn such as you describe. Here in UK it is extremely unlikely to occur in any sport. Here, too, we all shoot what we want, free from people making snide remarks - it really does not happen.

I'm neither traditionalist nor purist with regard to shooting. I DO shoot guns made in the 1850's, but I couldn't make one myself. However, I DO cast the bullets I shoot from them, even if I don't make the powder that sends them to the target.

Let's not disagree on this forum. I don't have enough life or energy left to argue with you.
 

tenngun

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
15,373
Reaction score
6,818
Location
Republic mo
But with figures like John Johnston, Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, Hugh Glass and Theodore Roosevelt just to name a few of the men of the west who carried Hawken rifles I think it’s safe to say those that could afford them did.
Did Glass have one? I was unfamiliar with that. As I recall he died in ‘31 or 32(?)
Roosevelt went west after breech loaders were in common use. Was it his first gun out there?
 

tenngun

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
15,373
Reaction score
6,818
Location
Republic mo
Nobody is claiming that every trapper had a Hawken. How many would have to own one for it to be PC? Just one works for me but i'm sure it was way more than that.
RMF did buy Hawkens, not sure on the date but I’m thinking ‘34 on. However outnumbered by Pennsylvania makers.
I think there is a band wagon when we look at history tgat every one jumps on. Hawkens became real popular after Jeremiah Johnson and TC. Then the dyed in the capote traditionalist said nope nope real MM carried ( fill in the blank).
The mountain man’s choice? No but it was seen and is historically correct.
caps were in RMF ledgers by ‘30. Lots of Flints aboard the Arabia in ‘59.
 

MtnMan

45 Cal.
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
727
Reaction score
526
Location
Colorado
RMF did buy Hawkens, not sure on the date but I’m thinking ‘34 on. However outnumbered by Pennsylvania makers.
I think there is a band wagon when we look at history tgat every one jumps on. Hawkens became real popular after Jeremiah Johnson and TC. Then the dyed in the capote traditionalist said nope nope real MM carried ( fill in the blank).
The mountain man’s choice? No but it was seen and is historically correct.
caps were in RMF ledgers by ‘30. Lots of Flints aboard the Arabia in ‘59.

I use one because I fell in love with the Hawken from the first one I saw. Trapping never interested me in this life, so I go ahead and pick a persona that would be like me. I would have been a hunter because that's what I do today. My time period would get started when the fur trade died or at the end of it. Mid 30's.

I've never been a fan of the longrifle. I've only owned one nice one. An Isaac Haines. It was ok but it didn't push my buttons like a Hawken.
 

Rudyard

50 Cal.
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
920
Mr Baird has a lot to answer for with his myopic notions re Hawkens . Mr Russell sets the matter straight but by then the Hawken myth was too entrenched to alter things . No heavy gun appeals to me but ' Mountain Man' likes them . No accounting for taste . Though there might be if Hawken devotees had to carry one for mounths or even days (.Or hours away from a pickup !). Ive made two for customers but wouldn't have one as a gift . I would jump over a pile of Hawkens to get too one battered Mongolian matchlock But then like I say Theirs no accounting for taste ! Though Ive scambled over an awfull lot of mountains seldom less than a week & up to 18 days I didn't choose a Mongolian matchlock rather instead a variety of percussion ,flint ,Turkish Miguelet, Wheel lock, & even a matchlock rifle .(My make not Mongolian) I deduced a double flint converted to cap was the most versatile but still exceeded my preferred 5 to 6 pounds max .As you carry a gun more than you shoot it and most game is shot under 40 yards generally . Not saying " I ar a Mountain man trappin beaver on my mind & big rocks in my head !" No Ile leave that to others to claim.
Regards (playing Don Quiyote with my readers ) Rudyard
 

Latest posts

Top