• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

The Horace Kephart Hawken

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Herb

54 Cal.
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
444
Horace Kephart was a firearms writer of the early 1900s. His book "Sporting Firearms and the Hawken Rifle, Rifles for Big Game and the Hunting Rifle" is a treasure of comparison details of rifles and calibers. There is good information on the Hawken family and their rifles. I got my copy from Half Price Books.

In 1894 he bought an unused Sam Hawken rifle, about 40 years old. He describes it as almost identical in appearance with the Kit Carson rifle, 10 1/2 pounds, length 59 3/4 inches, 34 inch barrel, about .52 caliber, a "very slow twist" taking a 217 grain ball.

His length was really 51 3/4 inches, the barrel really 33 3/8 inches long, which I deduced from other dimensions he gave. The rifle is very similar to Jim Bridger's Hawken, which he did not know about. Here is my copy of the Bridger Hawken compared to a full length photo of the Carson rifle.
Bridger 2 Carson full photo.JPG


But it was his shooting that interested me. He had a charger that held 41 grains of 2F Deadshot powder, and he shot multiple charges of that, 41 grains, 82, 123, 164 and 205 grains, using a greased linen patch and ball "which practically swaged into the barrel through that very slow twist" (it would have been one in 48 like most Hawkens- HT). He shot these loads off-hand, and the barrel fouled considerably "with these excessive charges". I have no idea why he did this.

What got me was his statement "With the 82 grain charge, I would land in the 12-inch black of the German ring target when aiming at top of bull, unless there was a wind blowing. This was at 200 yards."

So I copied his experiment, shooting from bench rest at 100 yards, using my Bridger copy with a 33 1/8 inch .54 caliber 1 1/8 inch barrel of one in 48 inch twist weighing 11 1/4 pounds, .526 Rush Creek roundballs from Track of the Wolf weighing 217 grains, (very good balls), and Goex 2F powder. I made a "charger" for 42 grains by mistake instead of 41. That is of no practical difference. I used .016 tan linen patching that crushes to .010, and of 34 shots fired, was able to find only 18 of them, the rest falling into a pile of cottonwood branches and leaves some idiot dumped in front of my bench. All patches were whole except for one torn. My lube was Murphy Oil Soap and alcohol. I seated the balls with a wet cleaning patch on the seater jag, not wiping between shots nor cleaning between increased powder charges. All loaded easily except for the 210 grains, that bore was gritty!

The 42 grain charge averaged 1085 fps for four shots, 52 fps spread, sighting in a new set of sights at 50 yards. Seven shots of 50 grains of Goex 3F, my standard sighting in load, were used to adjust the sights to group one-half inch low at 50 yards. They averaged 1251 fps with 121 fps spread. This one in 48 inch twist doesn't care much for light loads.

I shot the 84 grain load at 100 yards, where five shots averaged 1531 fps with 80 spread and grouped five and a half inches low. I adjusted the sight for lateral zero. Using Hornady's Ballistic Calculator, I adjusted the zero distance to bring the group to a 100 yard impact. That load would then strike 27.5 inches low at 200 yards, well below Kepart's 12 inch black bull. So he was holding his front sight up in the horns of the rear sight.

The 126 grain load averaged 1818 fps for five shots with 59 spread. That was a lot of recoil, but OK for a shot at an elk. For the next heavier loads, I wore a shoulder recoil pad and held a sawdust bag between the butt plate and me. I did not hold the rifle down on the sandbags, rested just behind the entry pipe. It was free to kick, and it did! I now used a 3/4 inch diameter thin leather over-powder wad, starting it about 1/4 inch into the bore so it would stay cupped to receive the patched ball. My one torn patch may have been from an OPW going in edgewise, but I don't know on what group. A photo of the first day's shooting.

Kephart test 84 126 168 grains 100 yards.JPG


The 168 grain load (four chargers of 42 grains each) averaged 2101/47 fps for four shots and 2091/76 for six shots the next day. These balls loaded OK with not much fouling. I got vertical dispersion in my groups and found I could not really see the top of the rear sight sharply enough. So for the second 100 yard session, I taped three-inch black stripes at 9, 12 and 3 o'clock on the target to help me hold the same elevation. I think it helped, but holding consistently through that much recoil might have been a factor.

I really agonized about shooting the next load, but if I wanted to check his report, figured I had to do it, shooting a five-charger load of 210 grains of 2F powder. As Kephart wrote, "the old gun reared and snorted, and the bore fouled considerably", and that was my experience. It took a lot of jabbing to get those balls seated. Three shots told me what I wanted to know, they averaged 2245 fps with 13 fps spread and grouped in 4.4 inches centered 9.4 inches high. The high group must be a result of the recoil, but I am not going to shoot any more of that load to examine this! Putting that result into the Hornady Ballistics Calculator showed a 215 yard zero, using a Ballistic Coefficient of .073. This is a grossly impractical load for any shooting, and I stoutly recommend against anyone else shooting any load over 120 grains, Lyman's handbook maximum. It has been done.

DSC06822.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Bridger 2 Kephart test 100 yard target frame.JPG
    Bridger 2 Kephart test 100 yard target frame.JPG
    98.4 KB · Views: 114
I had a lot of trouble with previewing this post. That last photo should have been different. Don't try this at home. If you left-click the photo, a sharper image comes up. If there is a little + sign, click that for a larger and sharper image.

Kephart test 168 210 grains target.JPG


Here is a graph of charge and velocity.

DSC06826.JPG
 
That was great, Herb! Thanks for posting!

I recently bought a leatherbound copy of the 2004 Firearms Classics Library reprint of Kephart's Sporting Firearms (including the article on the Hawken rifle) off AbeBooks for about $25 or $30. I was glad to get it. Kephart's experiments with this rifle are often quoted, and this book is the source.

I questioned some of his measurements, also. For one thing, he said the rifle was "...about .52 caliber, taking a 217-grain ball..." As you pointed out, this was the weight of your .526" balls, so if Kephart's data are correct, he was shooting oversized projectiles. I suspect his rifle was actually a .54.

Regarding the 41 grain powder charger, this volume would be exactly equivalent to one and one half drams. I recently discovered this was also the recommended load for Colt's .44 caliber revolvers, back in the day, and I wonder if Kephart was using a military revolver flask which just happened to have a 41 grain spout on it.

Thanks for posting. Your shooting tests are always informative.

Notchy Bob
 
Thanks, Notchy Bob. Boomerang, the Carson Hawken is always shown with the keys on the lock side. Don Helberg of the Masonic Lodge in Sante Fe where the rifle is kept, told Mountain Meek and my friend Bob last December that the keys are not pinned and were originally with the heads on the left side. Someone dismounted the barrel and replacd the keys with the heads on the right. I don't know how many Hawken keys are pinned, but the heads are always on the left so far as I know.
 
Hi Herb.
A very interesting study, because I have also read Horace Kephart's book, and specifically the article on the Hawken rifle. I was finally able to buy it even though I live in Spain. I would like to know how the "Hawken Rocky Mountain", manufactured by Pedersoli in caliber 54, performs with such heavy loads, or with the (lower) Swiss gunpowder equivalents of No. 3 (2 FF). Greetings from Spain and congratulations on your work.
 
Mulebrain, that is a very nice looking rifle. I really like the color. Hermanoshawken (nice name). I have not handled the Pedersoli Hawken, but if I know what it is, I kinda like the lines. It probably is a very good rifle. I strongly recommend against using these heavy loads in ANY rifle. I personally like 80 or 100 grains in deer or elk hunting. I used to use 120 grains of Goex 2F. Once you get up to 120 grains, that is about all the recoil one can handle and hope to shoot well off-hand at game. Any heavier charges might flatten the trajectory a little, but one can hold over with a lesser charge to hit rocks or milk jugs or pizza boxes out to 200 yards. Beyond that, any roundball trajectory drops so steeply that you learn that that is too far. Any wind really drifts the ball.

In the early 1980's we had a black powder shooting contest here. Doc White (owner of the Green River Rifle Works) and I were tied, so we kept backing up 10 yards to shoot again. When we got back to about 250 yards, I think I was holding over about three feet with my .45 Leman I'd built in Doc's shop. He won. But one of his employees is what I remember. He'd built a fullstock flintlock in .69 caliber and would load it up with such a heavy load that it would turn him around when he shot it. He liked that- for a couple of shots- but he never hit anything with it.

I don't know what Swiss No. 3 is. Here we have Swiss 3F, 2F and 1 1/2F. I don't care much for Swiss 3F, but 2F is a wonderful powder. I also don't have much use for Swiss 1 1/2F. If you want higher velocity, Swiss 2F is your powder.
In a .50 fullstock caplock antelope rifle I built with a 32 inch barrel, 100 grains by weight of Swiss 2F for three four-shot groups (12 shots) averaged 2020 fps with 51 spread. With a 31 inch .50 Carson Hawken, 8 shots averaged 1985/44. Not much difference. Adding 17 shots of Swiss 1 1/2F for both rifles, they averaged 1865/60 fps, 143 fps slower for the same 100 grain weight charge. I don't have such a comparison for .54 caliber. Thank you for writing.
 

Hi. Yes, the equivalents of Swiss black powder are those. Now in Spain we have run out of Swiss gunpowder, due to the Coronavirus epidemic, since it does not arrive from Switzerland. The No. 3, that is, the 2FF, is very good for heavy loads on rifles and also for muzzleloading shotguns.
In Spain for the Hawken Mountain manufactured by Dikar (CVA) in caliber 58, it is usually used to shoot a target at 100 meters (110 yards) 60 to 65 grains of Swiss gunpowder No. 3 (2 FF) and I for that rifle and to shoot at 50 meters (55 yards), I use between 55 to 60 grains. And in the target it groups very well with a 0.570 bullet (279 grains) and with a 0.575 (285 grains) bullet.
Regarding the range and accuracy of Hawken rifles, I have read in some books (like Joseph G. Rosa's on the weapons of the Far West) that a good marksman could hit up to 400 yards. I wonder, was it possible in the first half of the 19th century to kill a bison with a 54 or 58 caliber Hawken at that distance? By the way, that scene in the movie "Jeremiah Jhonson" is very pretty, and the recoil of the rifle knocks out Robert Redford.

I leave you two video, shooting me with my Hawken from 58 to 50 meters.




Greetings from Spain.












 
Last edited:
Thanks for the videos. No roundball muzzleloading .54 or .58 could deliberately hit a bison at 400 yards. Using Hornady's Ballistic Calculator and a 225 grain .530 ball with a Ballistic Coefficient of .075 at 1800 fps, here is the trajectory:

If zeroed at 100 yards, the ball would strike two feet low at 200 yards and 18 feet low at 400 yards. A five mph wind would drift the ball 4.5 feet and a 10 mph wind would drift it nine feet.

If zeroed at 200 yards, the ball would be a foot high at 100 yards and 13.8 feet low at 400 yards, same wind drift.

A .570 276 grain ball with a BC of .080 at 1800 fps with a 100 yard zero would be two feet low at 200 yards and 17 feet low at 400. A 10 mph wind drift would be 8.5 feet. With a 200 yard zero, it would be one foot high at 100 yards, 13 feet low at 400, and the wind drift would be 8.5 feet.

With a 32 inch barrel and an .080 wide front sight, the sight covers 12 feet in width at 400 yards. If the sight is .280 tall, it covers 42 feet in height. It would be impossible to aim at a specific animal.

My .526 ball with a BC of .073 at 2245 fps if zeroed at 200 yards would be 7.8 inches high at 100 yards and eleven feet low at 400 yards with a ten mph wind drift of nine feet.

Kephart Tells of Parkman killing an antelope at 204 yards, as if it was a big thing. He also writes of Chatillon killing two bison at over 150 yards, again no big thing. I think Kephart got into this heavy load testing as if they were necessary for those shots. Heavy loads are not necessary. You notice that he did not tell of hitting any targets with his heavy loads, but uses 82 grains for his 200 yard bullseye shooting.

For 200 yard antelope hunting, read my story "A Utah Pronghorn Hunt" in this forum's Hunting Journal. I also wrote that story for Muzzleloader Magazine in the November/December 2019 issue. I used 90 grains of Olde Eynsford 2F.
 
Thanks for your information. I know Francis Parkman's book, "The Oregon Trail". I have it in English and in a French edition, and I would like to translate it into Spanish. H. Chatillon's shots look very good. Then the Hawken were good rifles for patch and ball, but up to a range of up to 200 yards, and that in the hands of a very skilled marksman, who knew how to judge distances and the direction of the wind very well. Balázs Németh does this with the Pedersoli flintlock Jaeger rifle. Kind regards from Spain.
 
I need to tell the rest of this story. After posting this in September 2020, I realized I should not post about the heavy loads I used, less someone else use them. I know they are dangerous. So I posted to Meriwether and asked her to delete my thread. She did not do it. As a result of shooting those heavy loads, I damaged my spine (think whiplash). I had to have spinal surgery in March, 2022. Spinal stenosis. The surgeon removed the bulging disc between my third and fourth vertebrae (in my neck), inserted a spacer and four titanium screws to hold it in place. Now, over a year later, I still do not have full use of my hands. I can't play the guitar well or type with all my fingers. There is nothing to be gained by shooting loads over 120 grains of Goex2F in a well-built .54 caliber rifle. I built my Hawken and knew it could handle these heavy loads, but I did not consider my pore old spine. DO NOT SHOOT THESE HEAVY LOADS. There is nothing to be gained by their use.
 
One other thing…. I’ve recently seen a couple of charts showing the capacities for common brass cartridge cases. I haven’t tried to verify it yet, but the charts I have seen indicate an empty .45 Colt cartridge case, full to the top, holds exactly 41 grains of black powder, by volume.

Maybe Kephart was using an empty .45 Colt case as a powder measure. Forty-one grains seems like such an arbitrary amount, so there must have been a practical reason.

I need to re-read Kephart’s account of test-firing the old Hawken. I want to verify that measurement, also.

Notchy Bob
 
Herb, that was great work and info. Really appreciated. This may be a no brainer for more experienced shooters like yourself but could you tell me how you make certain that your over powder wad centers on the load when you put it down the barrel. I know when I set a prb that the patch is fixed in place, but wonder about drift with a loose patch by the time it arrives at the breech. And what is the best size for a .50 ? I have not used over powder wads for any loads yet, ball or conical, but since I am a constant experimenter, I have been considering doing so. I am not suffering accuracy problems with my rifles but have considered wads for hunting when my rifle might be loaded for quite a time during hunting season and I would want to protect the powder from any possible patch lube intrusion. Probably not a worry because my lube is not liquid except at higher temps that never occur while I am hunting but the thought has entered my mind. I am also wondering, if for practical hunting purposes, a simple half of a standard cotton ball might meet this need just as well. Rest assured, I have no interest in testing your heavy charges. I use a sub where 85 grains is a recommended max and all my rifles shoot best around 70 regardless of projectile. That would be about 80 grains of black. Muzzleloaders are fairly new to me, but I have been reloading multiple brass cartridges for 30 years including a modern Marlin 1895 and a real Remington Hepburn #3 Sporter given to me by my father. Both are in 45-70 and I have played w black powder with the Hepburn. Both rifles have taught me that you won't ever make a .270 Win out of these calibers/rifles so focus on what they do best and they will work as intended. Shooting high volume charges will rattle your teeth [or spine] more than necessary for killing game in the way that these projectiles function. As usual, your posts are a treasure. Thanks for doing the work. Sorry about your spine but it seems many pioneers are injured in their quest for knowledge. When the theoretical hits the ground, these things happen and it can spare others that pay attention. Thanks, SW
 
This is an old thread about an old subject that is still very interesting. Thanks for bringing it up again. We were talking about the Kephart Hawken yesterday at the range. I had my 54 caliber Plains Rifle with a Rice barrel in 66" twist. I haven't shot it enough to get the sight settings I want yet but I did have a chance to shoot a load through a chronograph. 80 grains of Goex FF and a .535 ball gave 1450 fps which is right in the ballpark with Herb's figures.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top