Why are the "Hawken" style Rifles more popular
- Thread starter deerslayer303
- Start date
Dragonflydf
New member
Here are mine
Good evening folks. Sorry this is going to be long but I had to work today .
Also considering that by this time the crescent butt plate had evolved in the states and became very popular over the flatter early but plates which held on in Europe. Which is more probable , the 1803 or this which had basically been unchanged but for its ignition for some 150 years . Add into that the heavy bored Ashley gun and for at least my part . I think it may be very probable that this is what influenced them as much if not more then the 1803
Most of what we knew about Johnson / Johnston , who’s actual name by the way was John Garrison . Was based on two books , Liver eater Johnson and the so called biography , Crow Killer. Of which the movie was loosely based . Of which I very much like by the way
However sadly both are more dime store novels then actual historical accounts . Much of what they depict either has been show to not have happened . don’t happened in the way depicted , taken out of context , or simply made up as was not uncommon .. How many know that that Johnson was a military deserter . Not just once but recorded 2 times and suspected to have deserted 3 times . That he also was a sheriff not once but twice . that’s where he became know for his use of lever actions , colt revolvers and sharps rifles .
The Museum up in Cody had a very nice exhibit on Johnson back in ??? I think it 2007 or 2008 . As I recall there was only one muzzleloader in that block and it was a leeman
. I bet you that with your knowledge of vehicles . A person could replace a Toyota emblem with a Chevy bow tie and you would know it not a Chevy.
Regardless of what the car lot told the person who bought it . I know a couple of fellas who could probably pop the hood and tell you not only what plant but in what country the vehicle was made .
that’s what im getting at here .
Its not that these production guns are not good guns . Its that they are marked or called hawkens for marketing purposes . Frankly they did a very good job in that as the vast majority today simply see a ½ stock and say ; Hawkens
IE kinda like saying , I own a revolver .
Normally I try and help anyone I can concerning the CVA , Traditions , Jukar Thompson guns . IMO for what they cost , they are reasonable guns .
But also in fairness to the folks over there , what your seeing is a large % of the top historic gun makers and a vast amount of knowledge that when I started out , you either paid to get or apprenticed to get .
While for the most part on the serface we seem to get along , there are divisions. The big one is those of us that don’t try and recreate copies of originals and those that strive to .
But its fun and we all can learn from each other
bedbugbilly
I can find nothing wrong with what you say . I would agree 100% . The problem I have is when folks try and proclaim the prowess of a given gun or design when factually its not what they have .. Just come right out and say . I got a TC hawkens or a CVA ST Louis hawkens and it’s a great gun.
To that ill say ;AGREEED!!!!!.
But when someone comes out and says ; I have a porsh 911 and it’s a great car ……….. then shows a photo of a VW with a modified front clip, ,,,,, im sorry but im going what the !!!?????
No different then if someone proclaimed their 1851 brass framed Pieta or Uberti to be proof of just how good the 1851 colt was .
. Nice guns fellas . For the record the only ½ stock muzzleloader I have ever owned , was a CVA St Louis with both 50 and 54 cal barrels . The stock was blond .
Made a lot of Plains rifles since then and made new stocks even more.
here is one i did a couple years ago . NO its not a hawkens , its a plains rifle . imspired by an Erichson
Good question . I don’t know that I would say that either brother was more familiar with the European sporting rifles . Did they know of them , I would say most certainly . Had they seen them . Considering their family background I could not see where they could not have . Especially when you consider the fur brigades they were being ask to out fit and those who for the most part often had the authority to contract .
Also considering that by this time the crescent butt plate had evolved in the states and became very popular over the flatter early but plates which held on in Europe. Which is more probable , the 1803 or this which had basically been unchanged but for its ignition for some 150 years . Add into that the heavy bored Ashley gun and for at least my part . I think it may be very probable that this is what influenced them as much if not more then the 1803
Most of what we knew about Johnson / Johnston , who’s actual name by the way was John Garrison . Was based on two books , Liver eater Johnson and the so called biography , Crow Killer. Of which the movie was loosely based . Of which I very much like by the way
However sadly both are more dime store novels then actual historical accounts . Much of what they depict either has been show to not have happened . don’t happened in the way depicted , taken out of context , or simply made up as was not uncommon .. How many know that that Johnson was a military deserter . Not just once but recorded 2 times and suspected to have deserted 3 times . That he also was a sheriff not once but twice . that’s where he became know for his use of lever actions , colt revolvers and sharps rifles .
The Museum up in Cody had a very nice exhibit on Johnson back in ??? I think it 2007 or 2008 . As I recall there was only one muzzleloader in that block and it was a leeman
hand made guns are always slightly different it cannot be helped . However what they all have is unique similarities that lead us to the maker or at least give us a very good idea of the possible maker . Changing a patch box , the carving or replace a trigger guard with one from a different gun , doesn’t change the individual uniqueness
. I bet you that with your knowledge of vehicles . A person could replace a Toyota emblem with a Chevy bow tie and you would know it not a Chevy.
Regardless of what the car lot told the person who bought it . I know a couple of fellas who could probably pop the hood and tell you not only what plant but in what country the vehicle was made .
that’s what im getting at here .
Its not that these production guns are not good guns . Its that they are marked or called hawkens for marketing purposes . Frankly they did a very good job in that as the vast majority today simply see a ½ stock and say ; Hawkens
Yep some would call it that . But it is a hawkens gun . But then Kentucky would be generic as to what it factually would be when it came down to the maker or the individual school that maker followed .
IE kinda like saying , I own a revolver .
YEP! . But its not as bad as it used to be . Now days you just don’t get comments .
Normally I try and help anyone I can concerning the CVA , Traditions , Jukar Thompson guns . IMO for what they cost , they are reasonable guns .
But also in fairness to the folks over there , what your seeing is a large % of the top historic gun makers and a vast amount of knowledge that when I started out , you either paid to get or apprenticed to get .
While for the most part on the serface we seem to get along , there are divisions. The big one is those of us that don’t try and recreate copies of originals and those that strive to .
But its fun and we all can learn from each other
bedbugbilly
I can find nothing wrong with what you say . I would agree 100% . The problem I have is when folks try and proclaim the prowess of a given gun or design when factually its not what they have .. Just come right out and say . I got a TC hawkens or a CVA ST Louis hawkens and it’s a great gun.
To that ill say ;AGREEED!!!!!.
But when someone comes out and says ; I have a porsh 911 and it’s a great car ……….. then shows a photo of a VW with a modified front clip, ,,,,, im sorry but im going what the !!!?????
No different then if someone proclaimed their 1851 brass framed Pieta or Uberti to be proof of just how good the 1851 colt was .
. Nice guns fellas . For the record the only ½ stock muzzleloader I have ever owned , was a CVA St Louis with both 50 and 54 cal barrels . The stock was blond .
Made a lot of Plains rifles since then and made new stocks even more.
here is one i did a couple years ago . NO its not a hawkens , its a plains rifle . imspired by an Erichson
Last edited:
If you are referring to the line where JJ had Hatchet Jacks rifle and he said "its a 30 caliber but its a Hawken" I have read that this is not a gun with a a .30 bore.
What it meant was that it was a 30 balls to the pound bore size. That works out to about a .530 sized bore. I read this somewhere but I'll be danged if I remember where. But it makes sense. I really doubt those guys knew anything about fractions of an inch.
The Dixie catalog has a piece talking about bore sizes and how each change in caliber jumped the ball weight by about double. For those old timers with limited knowledge about math that way of explaining bore sizes would make sense.
Model12Win
Moderator
That doesn't make sense.
Jeremiah was glad to get Jack's .50 caliber Hawken to replace his .30 caliber. If I remember right, could be wrong.
Oh, by the way, it was also just a movie.
Jeremiah was glad to get Jack's .50 caliber Hawken to replace his .30 caliber. If I remember right, could be wrong.
Oh, by the way, it was also just a movie.
I think your confusing two different parts of the movie . Jeremiah didn’t come across hatchet Jack after he had purchased is so called 30 .
30 balls per lb "around 56 cal " is larger then a 50 which is 38 balls per pound.
The accepted norm for hawkens made rifles was of large bore . However according to Don Stith there were smaller bores in the 38-40 cal range . But they were late guns for the local St Louis trade , which is represented in the photos I posted
32 caliber: (.310) 048g—approx 146 balls/pound
36 caliber: (.360) 071g—-approx 98 balls/pound
40 caliber: (.395) 092g—-approx 76 balls/pound
45 caliber: (.445) 133g—-approx 52 balls/pound
50 caliber: (.498) 180g—-approx 38 balls/pound
54 caliber: (.535) 220g—-approx 32 balls/pound
58 caliber: (.560) 280g—-approx 25 balls/pound
62 caliber: (.610) 341g—-approx 20 balls/pound
69 caliber: (.678) 468g—-approx 15 balls/pound
75 caliber: (.715) 545g—-approx 13 balls/pound
for you full stock folks. which begs the question as to if their plains rifles were simply cut down verssions of what their family had been building for some time
Last edited:
