Original Hawken?

'74 · Post by **'74** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:12 pm

I'm surprised Pettit would try to peddle this as an original. He needs one of Baird's books. Nothing is right about it. No under rib, crappy stamp, breech plug, furniture, stock lines. Nope

pete · Post by **pete** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:52 pm

It might be and it might not be. On pg. 63 of Baird's book "Hawken Rifles The Mountain man's Choice" there's a photo of a Hawken "squirrel" rifle that doesn't have an under rib. The forend is similar to this one too. Also either in this same book or one of Hanson's I read that there are examples of Hawkens with sloppy stamping.
This one isn't a "squirrel" rifle and doesn't fit the typical Hawken profile but it is similar to what could be called a "non typical" Hawken.

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:14 pm

IF it is a Hawken its a percussion conversion of a flintlock. But I have my doubts that it is a Hawken, as the barrel should of been marked JS Hawken and all the letters would of been from the same stamp and in a straight line. The brass butt plate, and only one lock bolt are suspicious.

Brant Selb · Post by **Brant Selb** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:55 am

Interesting rifle, but I doubt it is a S. Hawken St. Louis rifle. I have seen many authenticated original guns out of the Hawken shop, and they came in many configurations including brass fittings, pewter nose caps, and single escutchens; this gun has all of the earmarks of some Hawken stamped "squirrel" rifles that I have seen but at .52 cal. it ain't no squirrel rifle! It has more qualities of a H.E. Dimick than a Hawken and more question marks than answers; at $12,000+ I'll pass---that stamping, OMG, is the worst I have ever seen. Let the buyer beware. I have owned an original S. Hawken, this rifle was not made by the same man.

Brant

Wagonmaker · Post by **Wagonmaker** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:37 am

Is it possible that "Made in China" is stamped somewhere on the underside of the barrel? Did Norinco do knockoffs back then?

arnie · Post by **arnie** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:38 pm

notice how the barrel is banged up and scratched but the lettering isnt .Arnie

Wagonmaker · Post by **Wagonmaker** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:02 pm

That did seem a little dubious to me.

I can't be one qualified to jump up and down to call it a hoax, but fortunately for me, the $12K required to find out has been earmarked for other things.

mygila · Post by **mygila** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:44 pm

Gents, the Hawken replica I built from a kit looks better than that specimen. The finish on the barrel looks like it was done with 60 grit sandpaper only. I can't believe even after all this time Hawken's finish would be that ROUGH. Didn't notice any rust either so the finish is just rough. Just an old abrasives salesman opinion. Mygila

Marathonman · Post by **Marathonman** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:40 am

Some of it might be original Hawken but restocked later and combined with other parts say 1880 or so? Maybe someone here would be willing to send the seller a question about it's authenticity and post the results? The barrel looks pretty good to me except for the stamping which looks to be of poor quality with the letters stamped individually and improperly spaced. The rear sight looks right on for Hawken production in my opinion.

Marathonman

Shiloh Rifle Forums

Original Hawken?

No way