Were there many percussion firearms west of the Great Plains before 1850?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
3,112
Reaction score
2,782
I am currently reading a series of fiction buckskin themed books that are ca. 1840. In the Rockies, the author has given almost everyone had a Hawken rifle, lots of them. Yes, fiction. But, personally, if I had been there then I would still go with a flinter. Those guys crossed a lot of creeks, rivers and such and got caught in the open during heavy storms. Once your caps are wet your rifle becomes a club.
I've read that real Hawkins were much more expensive than "regular" guns; They would even be mentioned by name in inventories, whereas common types would be listed as just rifles.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
1,676
Location
Living in the Past
A rifle of quality would very likely cost 1-2 months wages whereas a common rifle, or especially smoothbore would be far more economical for the common man (household). The likelihood of an average settler or pioneer owning a Hawken brand rifle would be almost nil, even into the plains era. I suspect most would have purchased a flint then had a simple conversion done when finances allowed.
Walk
 

Seth I.

36 Cl.
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
96
Location
Illinois
We should try to stick with fact rather than lore. Has anyone here seen actual records supporting the above statements? Certainly some of the more mass produced rifles from Leman and others were almost certainly cheaper, but gun prices fluctuated a lot depending on when, where, and by whom they were being sold. For example, a Trade Gun at the trading post on Rock Island in 1820 cost the Sauk and Mesquakie $20-$25. On the flipside, if you are looking at what the companies paid for guns, they sound much cheaper: Leman's trade rifles were bought in bulk from $6.89-$8.00 each in following decades, but that isn't what they cost the end users. For example, some records show similar rifles for around $12 retail.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
2,486
Reaction score
1,932
Nearly every soldier in the US Army was armed with a Flintlock musket during the Mexican war. Except specialized Rifle units.

The Ordnance Dept didn't want to risk the Army being left useless by percussion cap supply issues and there were still armories full of barrels of Flints in inventory, along with 10's of thousands of Flintlocks from previous wars. It was kind of a no-brainer supply issue. Use what you have plenty of.

Like was said, commercial supplies were flowing pretty well out West by the 1840's and you figure, a few tins of caps would keep you going for probably a few years of hunting. I don't think frontier people were just capping off rounds willy nilly, probably 1 or 2 shots per week to harvest meat or in the rare Indian fight, obviously a few more. I'd think if you could purchase gunpowder and lead, you could purchase tins of caps.

Also, people used what they had and rifles were expensive , and also converting a flintlock was not something everyone was able to do , or wanted to spend $$ on . If you were an average Joe with a flintlock rifle you'd probably have just kept using it.

It's not the West but it's worth noting that the US Army and the Confederate Army was still issuing flintlock muskets well after the start of the Civil War, and they were used by both sides in some capacity until Lee's surrender. A functional weapon was a functional weapon, just like out West.
 
Last edited:
Top