post hawkin here

Very well stated loophole. There were numerous subtleties with the original Hawkens. They were all hand built. It's almost impossible to make any two alike.

I'm sure that both Don Stith and Don Lauer looked a good many originals over and started their blueprints from there. I could have 50 original Hawken halfstock rifles in front of me and I'll bet my next paycheck that no two will be exactly the same. I'll also bet that same paycheck that if 50 strangers saw those same 50 rifles, there would be no doubt in their minds that they were all of the same lineage.

 

Flyboy, honest disagreement is welcome. The two rifles in question on page 2 of Baird's book are fine examples of post 1842 rifles. Baird was a student and maybe a fine one at that but I wouldn't think him a Master. Baird's books were written with his research at that time and much has been uncovered through millions of hours of research by other competent students of the St. Louis rifles since Baird wrote those books. There is so much in Baird's books that has been disproven since their first publishing. I think Hanson and Don Stith are better bets as far as Masters go. You may want to discuss this rifle with Don Stith. I think it would be a interesting conversation for you. Don is a great guy and willing to share his knowledge with anyone who is interested.
Don

 

Don, I knew this was coming. And I appreciate your acceptance to honest disagreement. Although I feel myself to be well learned when it comes to the Hawken Rifles, I by no means claim to know it all. Far from it. I do take what John Baird said as close to the Gospel truth though.

Concerning Mr. Stith, I'm aware of the man. He put out an excellent blueprint of the Hawken Rifle. And yes, I'd love to talk to him. I'm certain that I'd learn a considerable more about that particular rifle.

To my way of thinking, life is a learning process. You never stop learning.

With that being said, let's continue this Hawken thread. :thumbsup:

 

[Bountyhunter]

My Santa Fe .53 Hawken. I built it in about '85.
It is marked .54 but is actually .53.

Aqua Fortis finish with 50 or so coats of hand rubbed linseed oil and beeswax. Browning was with Tracks Tru-Brown, then heated and swabbed with the linseed oil and beeswax while hot. That gave it a parkerized like finish that still sheds water.

This rifle has taken a deer almost every year since it was made. This buck was taken in 2004.


Bill

 

[faw3]

Got to clear up a goof I made it's Princeston that Baird was at not Yale. Ok I dont know a thing about Hawken but what I read. But! I was a history major/ min in art, and thats why I said I hadnt seen any two the same (pics). A thing not to long back in MB about the "Golden Mean" I think they call it, the only reason I dont have a GPR ( how many people will I piss off now) the buttstock is to small for the rest of the rifle, add a 1/2" top or bottom and it's near perfect, the Hawken is like this , and I'll have to ask Don about what Cooners said causei'll have to go with flyboy on this one. "B" did get to go over the Modena and pointed out to many little things that just make common sense, and I just am not a expert on the Hawken, even "B" changed his blueprints twice. I dont know how many Hawkens Dons taken apart as Baird got to, and havent seen anything in writeing(a book) that tell a another side, but Stith is easy to talk with, and doesnt talk down to someone(me anyway)so I will ask him about this one..why I dont know that just leaves how many 1000 to talk about, this is going to get REAL LONG before its over I hope. Zonie how could I pull up old Hawken things if it didnt startout about them . Thanks everone for getting into this. FRED :hatsoff:

 

[cayugad]

This is a .50 caliber Tradition's Woodsman Hawkins with a 1-66 twist barrel.

 

[rabbit03]

Hi Davy, sure is a fine photogragh of ol John L. Shame his eyes are finally going huh, he claims to not be able to see past 25 yds. Not too sure about that one since I shot next to him this past year in Brady and he wasn't having much trouble from what I could see. You don't reckon ol John L. is sandbagging do you?

rabbit03

 

[faw3]

I think he ment could't see anything unless it was past 25yds , he just mis spoke you know. I cant wait to see what kind of targets he puts up on the cross stick shoot ,Im thinking of useing my 1/2 scale 6 pounder, maybe that will get the job done. I guess Davy and John are haveing a time in San Antone starting tonight . Fred :hatsoff:

 

[faw3]

Bountyhunter this is my next Hawken (when it gets unloaded and sent to me) its a new 1985 TOTW "Curley Mapel" 53, TOTW added a few parts along with the trick stock, I'm useing the sme stain you did but they said it will leave the tiger lines yellow,red,red brown. Well I'll find out. Ive matched full page pics from MB in 85/86 and they did do a much cleaner looking stock than the Santa Fe or even my Ithaca, and I'm planning on doing even more to get it close to a "custom look. After this one the next and last will be a 1830/40 made from scrach that should keep this post going for the next year or two. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[faw3]

Cooner what kind of wood is your First Place Hawken? Fred :hatsoff:

 

Cooner what kind of wood is your First Place Hawken? Fred :hatsoff:

It's a curly sugar maple stock with nitric acid then rubbed out with OOO steel wool then Lancaster Maple stain over the top of that then seal then varnished and rubbed back with the palm of the hand between coats of varnish to knock off the high gloss.
Don

 

[faw3]

Thanks I read what you put up after the pics of it,the 2 guys at TOTW said if I could find Aquafortis (nitric acid) it also said to use it in the ad from 85. Ive done 7 or 8 rifles but nothing with wood like they claim it is, and I sure dont want to mess it up. I wonder how many kinds of curley maple are around, yours is "suger" what eles is out here? Anyway thank you much. Fred :hatsoff:

 

Nice looking rifle, and a very nice Buck. Congats!

 

Fred, is Don Stith thinking of having a book published on the Hawken Rifle? As Cooner was saying, there have been some new discveries made since Baird had his books published.

If this is the case I'd love to see the findings in print.

 

[Desert Rat]

It was mentioned earlier (much earlier) in this post that some original Hawkens or clones (still in the 1830-1850's) had brass furniture. How common was brass? I'm "Hawkenizing" a gun and was going to go with iron but leaving the brass would save a bunch of $$$. I'm still leaning towrds iron unless it was more common to see a brass mounted Hawken type rifles than I'm thinking.

PS. This thread has been great, it's been more informative and insightful than I could get out of a book.

 

[faw3]

I'm by no means the guy to ask and I'm sure Cooter or flyboy will give you a better answer, but you asked ..out of some 200 pics Ive seen in books I only saw 1with brass, also I dont know of anyone with a brass trigger guard like the Hawken and that 1 part really stands out over everything but the stock shape to me. Good luck on your build let us see what youv done. Fred :thumbsup:

 

[faw3]

I dont know of any but I wil ask. All I need is "Bs" first book and I think I got them all,maybe Cooner will have some for us to try. I go on search on the books part of this AOL thing and the last one is 55 new and up for the used ones, but it does lead to a lot of neat places to look thru. Fred :hatsoff:

 

There were rifles produced from the Hawken Shop that were brass mounted. They were generally made for local trade and of small caliber. generally of about 38 caliber.

Another rifle produced by the Hawken shop that was brass mounted was known as a Turkey Rifle. I t had barrels as long as 48 inches and weighed as much as 15 pounds. These rifles were generally around 56 caliber.

If a Mountain Rifle is what you want, stick with the iron furniture. That's what they were stocked with. As far as the nose cap goes you could also use poured pewter. It's authentic and it looks quite attractive!

 

Thanks I read what you put up after the pics of it,the 2 guys at TOTW said if I could find Aquafortis (nitric acid) it also said to use it in the ad from 85. Ive done 7 or 8 rifles but nothing with wood like they claim it is, and I sure dont want to mess it up. I wonder how many kinds of curley maple are around, yours is "suger" what eles is out here? Anyway thank you much. Fred :hatsoff:

There are several varieties of maple but the only two that are recommended for stocks are sugar and red maple. Silver maple is way too soft. There was a post that I read that someone used tru-brown by Birchwood Casey as you would use Nitric acid on maple stock wood. Wipe it on and then blush it with a hot air gun. I have never used Tru-Brown in such a way so I can't vouch for it personally. I mixed my own Nitric acid reagent and I think you will find several good recipes if you run a search on Nitric acid.
Don

 

Fred, is Don Stith thinking of having a book published on the Hawken Rifle? As Cooner was saying, there have been some new discveries made since Baird had his books published.

If this is the case I'd love to see the findings in print.

I have posted some findings in print on this forum but they have been poo-pooed because I haven't written a book? Do you need to see them in a book before you can recieve them as fact? I have talked to Don about writing a book but he is not interested or have the time, nor do I. Between Don Stith and I there is a collective of about 75 yrs of research and study of original Hawken rifles. Don nor I think of ourselves as Hawken experts but students of Hawken rifles. Nor are we the only two who have devoted attention to Hawken rifles but there are many others that own many Hawken rifles and have studied them as well. I do not own any original Hawken rifles myself but as I have said before, I have had the privelege to know those that have and have had the honor of handling many of these Hawken rifles in collections both public and private. The problem with a book is that once someones summations are in print they become gospel truth whether they are based in real fact or not. The real benefit of John Baird's book is the photos and the real documentation he shares in it. I speak here of the first book, "The Mountain Man's Choice." I know I am about to make a statement that will make me a lot of friends but here it is. The rest of that book is conjecture on his part and has been proven to be mostly the advancement of the Hawken Myth by repeating other writers of books that were not written during the RMFT era but published much later. On the other hand you have a scholarly work entitled, "The Hawken Rifle: Its Place in History" by Charles E. Hanson, Jr. that destroys many of these old myths about the Hawken rifle and does a fine job of setting the record straight. Many do not want to hear this because they have already fallen in love with the Hawken myth and don't want it to be discredited.
It was once a widely known fact that the world was flat until further study proved otherwise. Even in the face of this new information there were those who ridiculed and even put to death those who said the world was round. I share this to give you food for thought and that thought is: Old ideas die hard. Especially if they are romantic notions that have been repeated and expounded on over and over again. The flat to wrist guard is not an early guard, as in pre-1840. I rather wish it was. I like that guard and have built many rifles with that guard but I do not tell people they are buying a fur trade era Hawken. Those guards are only found on 1842-1855 rifles in conjunction with the "Late Guard" that drops away from the wrist and terminates in a ovaoid scroll. The only guard found on Hawkens that went to rondezvous (pre-1839)is the round scroll type that falls away from the wrist. There has always been a habit of collector's to place the earliest date possible on a rifle whether it is a Golden Age rifle or a later St. Louis rifle. I have seen hundreds od Golden Age longrifles that were some old guys rifle that was used in the French and Indian War or the Rev. War and never mind that the rifle in question wasn't even made until 1790 or worse 1825. But one can't change those minds either. In fact you better not even try because you'll get a good cussin' for your efforts. If you have no faith in what I have said then I would recommend you have a talk with Don Stith. He knows his stuff and he isn't trying to sell you a book. :grin: He will share NEW information with you as he has done with me. We have had some mighty fine conversations about this very topic.
Don :hatsoff: