RIFLES: TYPICALLY, NON-TYPICAL PART 1

Non-typical Rifles from Beyond 1840 (Top to Bottom): Illinois or Ohio built mountain rifle circa 1850, English percussion “Indian Gift” rifle circa1840, Lehman attributed circa 1845 longrifle

J.J. Henry, H.E. Lehman, and J.S. Hawken…All of these names as we think about them, flash an image of a classic fur trade era firearm across our mind's eye. Images of the half stock, heavy barrel of the Hawken rifle, the large English scroll trigger-guard of the J.J. Henry, the heavily tacked Lehman Indian trade rifle, all have become “branded” on our brains as classic guns associated with the fur trapper.

I will say that I am not a “gun expert,” but know enough to look at the traits of historic firearms and see the nuances in the different examples out there. My argument here is that a good fur trade rifle can easily be assembled to resemble the hundreds of “non-typical” examples out there form parts at dealers like “track of the wolf” or “the rifle shop.”  With careful attention to details on DOCUMENTABLE examples, you can easily make up an authentic and accurate rifle that surpasses many of those sold “off the rack” today that is just as historic as any custom gun builder can make for you.

A classic Rocky Mountain fur trade rifle (1820-40) should have a straight barrel or maybe even swamped. A resilient 19^th century flintlock, a full stock is more prevalent for a classic, but as the era beyond 1840 progressed, half stock weapons gained favor with some. Furniture would be sparse and often of brass or a mixture of iron and brass. Patch and cap boxes began to be used interchangeably but, may have had none at all.  Older “colonial” features like wooden patch box covers, octagonal to round barrels, and heavy curvilinear carving would have been abandoned. Yet, as sure as I write this, one could find examples with beautiful carving and engraving work.  What is important is the style of the renderings.

I approach my hobby from my museum background. I guess that is a shortcoming to some, but I think it forces me to look outside the historical box when looking at artifacts. Having the privilege of handling and examining many real fur trade era guns, something struck me early on when viewing the collections. What struck me is that there were many non-typical fur trade associated weapons than those that fit the classic lines or at least that is what I am seeing in my work.

Whether field altered or cobbled together from parts to fill orders for fur posts and outfitters at "jumping off points," the artifacts I have seen so far seem to lack the classic compositions and components which we all aspire to carry. Don’t get me wrong, the classic are out there but they don’t seem to be reflected en masse in collections or exist in altered states of condition.

One exception to this which isn’t a rifle, is the pattern of the Barnett trade gun and its’ many copies. I have seen many altered specimens and classic percussion retro-fits. The traditional pattern demanded by indigenous clientele and made by several firms, doesn’t change much throughout the Fur Trade era and even beyond.

What I hope to look at here are examples from collections and some I have looked at available from brokers and auctions, that don’t jive with our perceptions of fur trade rifles.  We all strive to buy the best gun we can afford, just as the original frontiersmen did. But as the frontier opened up in the mid-1830’s the demand for firearms increased and made it possible for the market to be flooded with guns that don’t fit the classic “perception” of the fur trade.

The pieces that are examined here are examples of those rifles that don’t fit the “classic” lines of their production (pictured above)

The Illinois or Ohio built “mountain rifle” circa 1850, first in the line-up, is very similar to my original from the same area but from a decade earlier and mimics the classic “mountain rifle” of the Hawken clan. It seems pretty clear that in the “civilized” markets that the evolution in firearms technology contrasts the tastes and preferences of the traditional fur trader, who preferred flint weapons until much later. These percussion guns were more readily used in the east prior to 1840, while the trappers preferred the familiarity of the flintlock ignition system. There are many arguable reasons for this, but it is clear that in the east these guns were being produced in greater numbers by the mid-1830s and seeping onto the frontier. Similar rifles were still in production beyond 1860.

The very rugged and little known English “Indian Gift” percussion rifle circa 1840, was sold by the Canadian government and likely the HBc. from the 1840’s on.  Joe Meek, Oregon’s famous Mountain Man and Territorial Marshall carried one he received reportedly, at Fort Vancouver. He even named it!  What is fascinating is that these are altered specimens of the famous Baker Rifle, which have been shortened and fitted with new stocks, with military features removed and back-action locks. These were finished with sporting furniture and details.[i]  In 1842 these were listed as “rifles chiefs” and distributed throughout Canada and as “Indian Presents” along with hats, coats and ribbons.[ii]

Finally, H.E. Lehman apparently produced many guns for the trade under government contract[iii] that didn’t fit what we imagine as the classic “Indian rifle” style. I have been shopping for an original Lehman rifle to add to my own collection and there appears to be many variations in furniture and caliber. The specimens currently for sale range in odd calibers from .35-.42. The one pictured above has a “Henry” style patch box. I have seen 3 now without any toe, butt, or side plates as well as lacking nose caps.

Some rifle have no concrete provenance. Many of these working rifles have been converted from flintlock to percussion. Among these examples are converions from flintlocks to percussion which seems common as the rifles changed hands over time. One example I have looked at recently is marked “Barnett” and is clearly a retrofit from the original lock with remnants of the pan and the round faced trade gun lockplate with a new percussion hammer. Another is an example with a “Goulcher” lock. You can clearly see the old flintlock oriented touch hole and new lock placement.  Both weapons have a drum and nipple inserted into the original flintlock touch hole.[iv] 

So it would seem once again, that historic reality is stranger than fiction. The rifles that are out there for collecting and in the dark vaults of museums, often don’t reflect the classic designs that we all aspire to own as reeanctors. My opinion is that many simple rifles like these were wielded expertly on the American Frontier for a long period of time and changed hands and ignition systems as they survived or traded hands with various owners.  Just as significant, is that many of the "famous" rifle types which have been immortalized mostly by popular culture, are not typical of the working trapper but of the truly famous and affluent. I think of the various Jim Bridger and Kit Carson attributed rifles and guns, which exemplifiy their later careers beyond the rocky mountain fur trade era. The reality maybe that many more "non-typical" rifles were out there than are given credit for.

Next time, I will look at “guns” that are often overlooked in place of their more accepted styles. I will eventually look at examples in paintings, ledgers, and art from famous depictions of trappers, including some odd looking depictions of pistols.

Happy New Year to all far and wide!

---

[i] Egles, Ross,  Gifts for Indians Percussion Guns and Rifles Before 1842

[ii] ibid.

[iii] Russell Carl P.  Firearms traps and tools of the Mountain Men. U of New Mexico P. 1967. 2: 72-73.

[iv]  Rifles featured at John Gunderson Antique Militaria;  www.gundersonmilitaria.com/longarm.html

Yet Another Mountainy Man Blog?

Why another “mountain man blog?” Well first, you won’t find a rehash of history here in the terms of chronological data. Nor, do I intend to write solely about what is in my pack, where I got my rifle, etc.  Sure, I may do just that, but this primarily is my attempt to open the minds of many out there to the reality, that the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade and the people associated with it, simply didn’t vanish at the end of the last renedezvous on Horse Creek in July, of 1840.

Where I live in the Pacific Northwest, there remained plenty of work for these men. People new to the region, willing to exploit their talents, hired them to fill numerous frontier jobs which often expanded their roles in pioneer communities. By the mid-1830s the “Trade” itself was shifting east and towards the Upper Missouri buffalo robe trade, and the overland trail was becoming more traveled as people trickled and then flooded into Oregon territory and eventually, into California. Many forget that within our own nation’s borders the British Hudson’s Bay Company, was still thriving in the west for another 20 years!

The reenacting hobby which I and many others embrace has done many disservices in the name of establishing “authenticity guidelines” for “historic” events, many with good intentions.  These in a innocent way, rob history of its’ full story and have been assumed to be indicative of the period.  The idea that in 1840 the mountaineers simply packed up their stuff and went home is a complete fallacy. As a professional historian this, for me, violates the holistic nature of research.

I have observed that most enthusiasts only seem to focus on one kind of gun, rifle, trap, buckskin clothing, etc. as defined by popular research or even what their buddy has been using.  Work in the museum field long enough and you come to realize there are many “non-typical” artifacts in collections all over the world. While artwork of the time defines many choices for clothing and equipment, the artifact record shows there were many more choices and variables than the average reenactor pays attention to.

I am not trying to get anyone’s “pantaloons in a wad.”  To the contrary, I enjoy my fellow reenactor’s efforts thoroughly.  We all love this hobby for what it gives back to us in camaraderie and hours of fun and enthrallment. Neither am I trying to justify the use of a revolver in my kit or other items too “cowboy” for the hobby prior to 1840.  There are plenty of years between this and the rise of “cowboy culture,” and colt’s revolver to justify doing so for me.

Therefore, rather than subscribe solely to the guidelines of  “Rondyvoo culture” I will investigate the material culture of the “mountain men” as the era of the western fur trade’s closure, which started to show signs of diminishing returns in the 1830s, through the opening of the west in 1860. This is simply a benchmark date range, which I may violate as necessary. Some will say “But Bill, that ain’t classic mountain man stuff.” Yet, I whole-heartedly disagree. Besides there are plenty of folk writing about A.J. Miller paintings and ledger books.

Until the end of the 1850’s the mountain man was very much clinging to his way of life. Many remained in the wilderness or became citizens of frontier communities or made a living by leading others overland to them. There is much knowledge tied into the art and artifact that can be gleaned from the period of the post rendezvous era. All one need do is read emigrant accounts of trappers and realize these guys kept going with what they new best or some semblance of it. Yet, they also diversified into other pursuits in order to adapt and survive.

Hopefully you will see that the reality is much more fascinating than the popular depictions of bearded, pelt clad codgers climbing mountains in search of pelts and living alone in the wilderness.

For the real “mountaineer” was much more than a hero of the west. He was an “average Joe” in his own mind, trying to make a living in what could be likened to the first “gold rush.” His way of life had become mythologized back home and abroad. But make no mistake; the average trapper was just that, average. He wanted to make a living and find or go “home” once he made enough cash, wherever he determined “home” to be.  This was the job of resilient men with at least some sense of industry, who were not hunkered up with rheumatism but, were in good physical shape and relatively young. 

There was little romance to being a trapper. The job was dirty, cold, and often involved taxing labor and constant vigilance.  Few in numbers as they were (perhaps a couple of thousand during the hwole period), it is with little effort that one can see why those who truly succeeded became famous. Trapping on the shoulder seasons of winter, wading into frozen water to check traps and then across the snow back to camp, all the while adapting to the environment, evading tribes hostile to their presence, and competing with wild animals makes it abundantly obvious. No one would do this job if it didn’t at least have the potential to pay well and possibly gain greater fortune.

So what will you find here? I intend to write posts about my ramblings through research and the mountains themselves. This site is for educational purposes and if I find new art, information, or artifacts associated to the period, I will post them here.

I may also write about my fictitious persona I use in first-person Living History work for museums and interpretive centers.  He’s an “average Joe” who hails from “Missourah,” and is my alter-ego in this period. Like so many of his kin, a workaday “plainsman” who has joined the Rocky Mountain fur trade a tad too late.

Thanks for reading and enjoy the posts. Hopefully, I can shed some new light on an era still shrouded in mythology.

Detail of William Tylee Ranney's  "Advice on the Prairie" 1853,  for which this blog is named.