Hawken Rifles, Prohibited, Why??

[LonesomePigeon]

If you did get a Thompson/Center Hawken there is an easy rear sight, buckhorn style, that looks a lot better and easily screws in where the original rear sight went. You'll have to cut or file a notch in the sight and you will have to polish and blue or brown the sight if you want.

http://www.thegunworks.com/custprodgun.cfm?ProductID=906&do=detail&Cat2Option=yes

[LonesomePigeon]

I should note, I don't know if the rear sight I posted above is approved. I just put one on my T/C because I didn't like the modern sights and I think it looks better now.

[Professor Marvel]

Thanks for the kind words Oregon Bill! I always enjoy the opportunity to babble 

I should note, I don't know if the rear sight I posted above is approved. I just put one on my T/C because I didn't like the modern sights and I think it looks better now.

Well sir, it is not adjustable, and a dead ringer for one of several period buckhorn sights!

So lets see what dave and gabriel think

A belated happy various saints days , especially Saint Lucy, because who doesn?t like having girls bring
Pastries whilst balancing a crown of flaming candles on their head? (What could go wrong, ehh?)
And
Merry Christmas

[Kent Shootwell]

Often we tend to look to narrowly at what we think of as a Hawken. From the research of many and the few existing rifles in good condition the Hawkens varied a fair amount. Some features that seems common are blued barrels, color case hardened locks and breech, and varnished stocks. Other details that are illustrated in the book ?the Peacemakers? by Wilson are sliver cap box and a trigger guard much like a TC Hawken. On page 49 is a very heavy Sam Hawken rifle with an English style lock, checkered grip, varnished stock and a tang sight. This one belonged to Kit Carson, surely a frontiersman.

[Tsalagidave]

Merry Christmas everyone.
I think that as long as the sights are documented as period to the place & time, I have no argument against their presence in authentic living history. I recently went back and forth with an old associate who, despite his vast historic knowledge, has an image in his head of what history should look like.

I think that establishing a "certain look" while shunning other documented period items because "they don't look right" is a reenactorism that runs contrary to what we are trying to do here.  Along as any item is correct to the period and location, I'm fine with it. (*Note: This is still not an invitation to bring crazy items like Samurai Swords or Puckle Guns to the Mountain Man event...)

-Dave

[Niederlander]

Dave, you bring up an interesting point, and something I noticed when I first got interested in Cowboy Shooting.  When it came to clothes, it seemed people got stuck on a very few designs they'd seen mostly in movies.  I saw on websites such truisms that 19th Century shirts were all pullovers and that full button front shirts didn't exist then.  All you had to do was look at a bunch of actual period photographs to know this was simply not true.  Hats were another thing that didn't match what I saw in photographs.  It occurred to me then that photographs and contemporary descriptions were the most reliable things we have to know what was actually there. It's much too easy to get into our own fantasy version of what was done and used, and research is really the only antidote to that problem.  I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Oregon Bill]

Much truth in your words, Dave and Niederlander.
Hats are an entire subject unto themselves once you start looking at period photos. I often catch myself looking at a Victorian-era image and listening to a little voice in my head that says "That hat is ridiculous and I wouldn't be caught dead in it."  The fact is clothing HAD TO WORK FOR THE WEARER in those times. Something to shade your head and neck was not a fashion statement; it was a working tool.
There's a wonderful story by Johnny Meadows, who had quite a career as a lawman here in south-central New Mexico, and wrote a wonderful memoir titled "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid as I Knew Them."
Meadows was traveling by horse to Fort Sumner and happened to lose his hat. When he stumbled into town after three days without a hat on the plains, he flopped down on his bedroll under a tree with a handkerchief over his badly burned face. A young cowboy happened by and noting his predicament, got him a room and arranged for "old lady Maxwell" to look in on him and doctor his face. A few days of this and Meadows was on the road to recovery, when the young cowboy gave Meadows an old Stetson of his so that he would not go hatless again. The kind young cowboy was William Bonney.

[Tascosa Joe]

I hope we did not offend Lord McKenzie as he never posted after his first question. 

Hats are a whole subject in themselves.  A few years back Delmonico posted a huge number of photographs from the Nebraska Territory.  The hats covered every thing you could ever think of as a brimmed head cover.  The problem with most of our plains photos is most were taken in the last quarter of the 19th century into the first 2 decades of the 20th.  This is a generalization so don't beat me.

[Lord Eoin MacKenzie]

   Thanks for the excellent info.   Right now, I will soon have an 1853 Enfield for my BP rifle.   I am also thinking about a Baker rifle.   Thanks again.  (you can see I like military firearms)

[Niederlander]

Good choice, Sir!  I think there were probably a lot of military rifles on the frontier, as most were very reliable, powerful, accurate, and probably most importantly, available!  I'd personally love to have a Harpers Ferry 1803 and an 1841 Mississippi.  (As usual, not being independently wealthy has impeded on my wants..........)

[Yellowhouse Sam]

Evidently there was a lot of everything taken....longrifles from the East.  Most were quickly modified or traded i expect to make them easier to tote on horseback  I have a LH Tennessee halfstock  perc. 50 cal with the SC guard and deep crescent buttplate.  I installed the LH Leman caplock on it and its a no frills hunting rifle except for the pewter nosecap under a 32 in barrel   I wish I had a nickel for every nimrod that asked about my beloved Carolina rifle and hear "Thats sure a fine lookin Hawken there!" 

[greyhawk]

Gents
I spent some time in the "museum of the fur trade" in Chadron Nebraska - we could call that visit - dispelling the myth of the modern Hawken - or something similar - dont recall seeing a genuine hawken (they proly had one I just dont reecall it) Racks and racks of old mountain man guns - many with documented history to the original owner.

FWIW heres my impression of the mountain man firearm
1)its a FLINTLOCK a big heavy reliable military size flinter like a siler or such 
2) 50 cal dont cut the mustard - these are 54 to 62 calibre - big heavy barrel guns 32 to 36 inch barrel
3) mostly half stock but no shortage of full wood guns

maybe I didnt see what I was lookin at but I came out of there thinking those old boys meant business when they went west

[Blair]

Here are some interesting facts, pre 1780, about guns made in Colonial Williamsburg, VA.
Only about 1 in 10 arms manufactured by local gun shops were Rifled firearms. These ranged in calibers from .50 to .55.
The other firearms for the most part were smooth bore (fowlers) which ranged in caliber from .62 (about 20 gage) to .72 (12 gage). These arms could use ball, buck shot, buck & ball or shot. They would also meet the requirements for Militia service within the Colony.
I hope this info may help.
My best,
Blair