1792 Contract rifle

[pathfinder]

I emailed James Kochan this afternoon to ask his opinion on the use of 1792's in 1812. Here's his response.

"Since I don't at all subscribe to Frank Tait's BS about 1792 contract rifles, in which he takes a bunch of 1807 contract rifles with Harpers Ferry locks and states that they are updated 1792s, I am not certain that I can be of that much help. I have yet to see what has been definitiely established as a 1792 rifle and, in fact, I don't believe that there was really any specific pattern. As long as the rifles shared certain basic attributes, calibre, barrel, length, some basic accpeted tenants of construction and trim, a number of variants were probably turned in by rifle makers to complete the contracts.



Now, the so-called 1792 per Tait's article are really M807s, which of course we can widely document militia and Indian issue, so clear-sailing for you. I'm pretty convinced the Corps of Discovery had M1803 rifles--the early version which has now been well-documented to Cowan and Kellar."

Oddly when I first spoke to him several years ago, he was leaning more in the direction of '92 being the Lewis guns..........I'm so confused.

[sean]

Doug,

I don't want this discussion to devolve into the standard 1792/1803 debate because people generally argue over what they feel and think and not so much what the documentation says. However, I will make a couple quick comments on what your friend, James, has to say.

1) The terms 1807 and 1792/4 are modern constructs or names created my modern collectors. Those names refer to orders that were placed by the US Government for rifles. The orders for the so-called 1807s specify a very specific barrel. I do not have the exact wording in front of me, but it was something like "3 feet 2 inches and 1/3 square and 2/3 round" or 'square to the entry pipe". They also specified that there was little taper to the barrel and that it be 32 balls to the pound (~.53 cal). That barrel does not show up in the earlier contracts. Those were 40 balls to the pound and "square" or octagon. I don't have Tait's first article in front of me, but I recall that all of the guns in there had barrels fitting the latter specifications. I believe they are all mildly swamped octagon barrels (the ones that weren't shortened) and were all very close to 40 balls to the pound or .49-.50 cal.

2) Frank Tait has taken a lot of heat for that first article he did because it suggested something that a lot of people didn't want to hear. But he did do something in it that few articles in popular press do these days. He critically evaluated modern citations based on period sources. Take a look at the tail end of that paper where he cited all the literature he used and compare that with what's been produced by some of the people who are his biggest critics. That said, I will say that both sides of that argument have some substantial holes. Personally, I liked his first article and found the one on the 'short rifle' issue lacking and stretching.

Sean

[pathfinder]

Sean

I appreciate your time and effort addressing this issue. I have read just today both sides of the argument. Like you I don't find anything conclusive to convince me one way or the other. I wouldn't be surprised that the rifles in question looked nothing like the
'92 or the '03.......with the exception of the lock.

My real situation is the following. Karl Fisher who is a CLA builder of rifles, hawks, clubs and knives has been a good friend to me an to our ministry for a couple of years. Karl has terminal disease that could strike him down at any time. I had asked him what he would charge for a 1792.....just more or less as a throw away question......just thinking in my head about a gun I could use for a "Kentucky Mounted Rifle" impression"? I knew as a militia they probably supplied their own weapons, but most assuredly wouldn't have had the 1803, which was issued to the various US rifle regiments. So I was merely contemplating the possibilities. When I had emailed Karl, he responded that he had started a "1792 Contract rifle" rifle that the customer had ordered than backed out on. The gun's half done, so there may be some room to play with.................for instance Karl ordered a Davis HF lock, that he thinks he could replace the Siler lock with.

I would like one of Karl's long guns before he is no longer able to build.........I want to be a blessing to him. He is offering to sell it for $1000 rather than the $1800 he quoted for the original order. So I have a gun coming that may be better served as a "generic" gun rather than '92 Contract, which seems unlikely any survived into the 1812 era. The 1807 would have been the ticket but as the gun has already had barrel inletted, the .54 cal. octagon to round isn't an option.

I don't know if I am making myself very clear but again I do appreciate the effort you've put into trying to educate me. If you have any ideas or further suggestions, please advise.

[sean]

Doug,

It'll be a fine gun. People do get wrapped around the axle on the 1792/1803 L&C issue, but I did not assume you were. Enjoy your gun and post some pictures on here when you get it.

Sean

[pathfinder]

While I was trying to force a round peg into a square hole.....the guy who had originally ordered the gun came up with some money and wants Karl to go ahead and finish the rifle...............so I told him I would wait till later and get something very specific. I will probably have him build an early "Virginia" long rifle in a .62 caliber, with carving and engraving and such. My 1812 impression will be a mounted officer's impression, so all I need to do is pick up a pistol (which I had but sold, not thinking I would ever use it) and a saber. Anything fur trade I do for now will just be what I have always done, though I will add a bit more "Eastern" to my impression since I have put so much into my colonial thing.

However this has been a great discussion and I have learned as much as I did researching for several years when I was looking into L&C! Thanks again

Be Blessed! Doug!