Yes, very similar. Billy Dixon used a borrowed Model 1874 Sharps rifle chambered in the "Big Fifty", otherwise known as the .50-2.5" or .50-100. Many today believe that the "Big Fifty" was a .50-3.25", or .50-140, but Sharps never chambered that round, nor any round on a 3.25" case. The Brits did, as the ".450-3 1/4" Express", but that was an entirely different round than the American .45-3.25" (which was an early "wildcat" round being chambered by various gunsmiths in their customers' rifles in the late 1880's).

Interestingly, Sharps never referred to their chamberings as .45-70, .45-90, or anything like that. Their reference, rather than powder charge (the second number in those designations), was case length. Their .45-70 was a .45-2.1", their .45-90 was a .45-2.4", and so forth. Theirs was a more accurate way to delineate between the various case lengths of the day, especially when powder charges varied.

A great example is their .45-2.6", their original "Creedmore" match chambering. It held 100 grains of powder and fired a 550 grain bullet. They only offered it for about a year (it is one of the rarest of the original chamberings) before shortening the case to 2.4". It still held 100 grains of powder, still fired a 550 grain bullet, and still had the same overall length. There was just less bullet seated down into the case, for less neck tension, which they found to be an advantage. Both were ".45-100's" by others' nomenclature, but the newer case was .2" shorter. Confusing, unless you use case length instead of powder charge.

The pace of development in those years (1860's-1880's) was pretty remarkable. I mentioned I was shooting 100 grains of powder in my .54 caliber muzzle loader. This drives a patched round ball to that 1,943 fps, but even at .54 caliber, that round ball only weighs 230 grains. Same as a standard hardball load in a .45 auto, just much faster. That was "big medicine" up until about 1865 or so, about as good as we had available for buffalo, elk, brown bear, and other denizens of the West.

Christian Sharps's rifle helped redefine what "big medicine" really was. They were so vastly more effective on big animals than the lowly patched round ball that there really was no comparison. .45 caliber rifles shooting 500 grain and heavier bullets, .50 caliber rifles shooting bullets up to 700 grains (although 450 grains was the most commonly used in the Big Fifty). Especially once ranges increase, the heavy, elongated bullets and their superior ballistic coefficients changed the game entirely.

This photo illustrates what happened. On the far right is a .54 caliber round ball, weighing 230 grains. Left to right are three .45 caliber cartridges, the 2.1", 2.4", and 2.6". The two bullets are 500 and 540 grains respectively. They more or less represent the powder charges that would be used in the .54 muzzle loader as well. But just look at the differences in projectiles - those long, heavy for caliber bullets just "carry" so much better, hit so much harder, and penetrate so much more deeply.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1663719642.jpg

It's no wonder riflemen dropped their round ball muzzle loaders en masse when they saw what these modern breech loading cartridge guns could do. Never mind they were faster to reload, they were so much more effective on game (and man) at so much greater ranges it was immediately "game over" for the muzzle loader.

Billy Dixon simply could not have made that shot with a round ball...

Here are the rifles, one of my 1874 Sharps (in .45-2.6") and my new Hawken. Both have 34" tapered octagon barrels (about 1 1/8" at the breech, about 1" at the muzzle), with the Hawken coming in at about 11 pounds and the Sharps at about 14 pounds by virtue of having a much smaller hole in the barrel.

Both were "state of the art" in their day, which was maybe 25 years between them. The Hawken of this pattern dates from the 1850's, when Sam was building them on his own after his brother Jacob had passed. The Sharps was, of course, 1874.

The heyday of the Hawken actually lasted much longer than that of the Sharps. The Hawken, and its very similar competitors, ruled the roost from the 1830's through the 1860's, so maybe 35-40 years before giving in to the modern breech loaders. The Sharps, however, only had about a 15 year run, before competitors like Winchester and Marlin were able to offer repeaters in the bigger rifle calibers. As long as repeaters were the smaller "pistol" sized rounds, like the .44-40, the big single shots had a place. But boy, once the repeaters could match their power, it was "game over" for them as well.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1663721434.jpg

The Sharps shown is very, very similar to what Billy Dixon would have used.

Thanks for the update and info Jeff. Excellent as always!

Nice, thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Well about the 45-150, about 5 or 6 years ago we had a fellow come out to our monthly muzzle loader match with a Sharps 45-150 which had been his grandfathers and he had hunted in Africa and some places in Europe with it and even killed a buffalo. The fellow and his brothers had a couple dozen cases a dozen bullets but no wads or powder or primers. Well, I had the black powder and found several wads in my large range box so it was suggested to try it out. The largest powder measure I have is 120 grains (have 70, 80, 90, 100, ETC) and one of the guys had his cap and ball revolvers so he had Cream of Wheat as no way we were going to load 140 grains of powder and manually put in several large rifle primers, loaded 120 grains of powder, topped off with Cream of Wheat, then a fiber wad. The 560 grain bullets were lubed and actually could be pushed into those cases fairly easily.

He got ready and everybody including half the shooters from the 300 yard range came to watch. He had to be shown how to drop the block after half cocking and then inserting the loaded round. Slammed the cocking lever home, cocked it and let fly! There was a huge boom, huge cloud of smoke and at least he hit the large hill we have as aa back drop. The rifle went up about 45 degrees and that was about the happiest person I had seen in years (since my daughter shot a 50 cal Desert Eagle)!
He shot the other 3 loads we had done for him and one of the other shooter had a go with one shot and then we cleaned the gun for him. It was a monster and I did NOT try to buy it.
John

Well, another day at the range, more lessons learned. I was pretty sure I would have to re-sight this rifle having acquired my first set of glasses and, well, I was right. This is proving to be the case with my open sighted rifles. My peep sighted rifles appear unaffected.

What was happening prior to getting my glasses is that I wasn't really seeing the front sight as well as I thought, and I was holding a good deal more of it up in the rear notch, just so I could see it. Now that I can see them much better, my open sighted rifles are all shooting low. Easy fix - just file the front sight down. I wound up taking .012" off of this one to get the point of impact where I want it at 100 yards with a full hunting charge.

Speaking of which, I started playing around with patch material and lube. For really heavy charges, I've always used commercially available, pre-cut patches .015" thick. We can buy them dry and apply the lube of our choice, or buy them pre-lubed with something like Wonder Lube. That's what I used for initial load development.

Today, I tried one of my favorite patch and lube combinations that I use for lighter plinking loads. For these, I buy a material known as "pillow ticking" by the yard from the fabric store. We cut this stuff into strips and then, to patch a ball with it, simply seat the ball just flush with the muzzle, over the strip of pillow ticking, and cut it out on the muzzle. Lots of guys just put the end of the strip in their mouth and chew on it a bit, getting it wet with spit while they are measuring and pouring the powder charge. Myself, I like to use Goop - the hand cleaner we get at the auto parts store - to lube the pillow ticking. At about five bucks per yard, and not much more for a really big tub of Goop, this method runs pennies on the dollar to buying commercially pre-cut, pre-lubed patches. And it works great, the Goop effectively cleaning the bore every time we ram a new ball down it.

But, alas, I found its limits today. Started blowing patches at only 80 grains of powder. It simply would not shoot with this patch material and lube with a heavy hunting charge. Which is fine, I'll be plinking with 60-70 grains anyway. For the full charge, I simply went back to the pre-cut, pre-lubed patches, and even went one step further. I added a lubricated felt wad under the patched ball, just to be sure.

Here is a photo that shows the two different methods, laid out side by side. On the left is the felt wad, along with a round ball sitting on the pre-cut patch. To the right is a roll of pillow ticking, a round ball, and the "patch knife" I use to cut the pillow ticking on the muzzle. The wooden tool is a "short starter", used to start the ball first into, then down the bore. The stubby little nub starts it just flush, where we trim the patch, then the long leg rams it down far enough to switch to the ram rod.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1666222401.jpg

So, well, now I know what it needs as far as a full hunting charge, and what I can get away with just for plinking. Spend the "big bucks" on the commercial stuff when I hunt with it, cheap out on the fabric store / auto shop stuff for day to day plinking. I can live with that.

Update on the rifle:

I've been shooting it with the traditional "buckhorn" style rear sight, having determined after finishing the rifle to give that style a fair shake. While I didn't dislike it, and was able to shoot just fine with it, I finally decided to replace it with a more "modern" Patridge style flat topped rear sight.

The "buckhorn" just seemed to me to kind of dominate the back half of the rifle, appearing at times like more or less an afterthought. That, and it always seemed rather "snaggy", just looking for things to catch on. So, I acquired a second rear sight and simply cut the "horns" off of it.

I like it. It just fits the rifle better, at least to my eye. And it is still "period correct", as many shooters of the day didn't like buckhorns either.

With the buckhorn:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1680644142.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1680644142.jpg

Without the buckhorn:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1680644142.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1680644142.jpg

Oh, and by the way, I'm starting on my third box of .535" round balls (100 to the box), so over 200 rounds through it already. I've settled on two loads.

My "plinking" load is that round ball with the cut on the muzzle .015" thick pillow ticking patch lubed with Goop, seated over 50 grains of Swiss 1.5 Fg. It shoots to the sights at about 60 yards, 4" low at 100. No idea what velocity might be, and really don't care.

My "hunting" load is the same ball, but different patching. I use a commercially cut .015" thick patch pre-lubed with Wonder Lube over a similarly pre-lubed 1/4" thick felt wad (I use this different patch material, lube, and additional felt wad because the pillow ticking/Goop combination blows through with this stiff powder charge, resulting in occasional flyers). This is seated over 100 grains of Swiss 1.5 Fg for almost 2,000 fps at the muzzle. This load is dead on the sights at 125 yards, and about 2" high at 100, dropping about 4" at 150 yards.

Both loads have proven to group at about 2 MOA out to as far as I've shot it, which is about 150 yards. I can load the "plinking" load all day long without ever having to wipe the bore, and I can load the "hunting" load over a dozen times before I have to wipe.

To say I am happy with this rifle would be a massive understatement. I am, admittedly, somewhat jaded after a lifetime of playing with all manner of firearm, so it is the very rare example that manages to exceed all expectations. This one has done so, in spades. I think it's a keeper...

Tsk tsk tsk....for shame..this is not a correct Haw.ken...

While you have the B wedge plates and nose cap in the white...the rest of the furniture should be cased...Hawken tended to have blued B's...and there is a swell in the stock that tapers down into the butt plate..

But the big boo boo is that you have more than 1/8" of wood below the lock plate..

Following is a vid by noted Haw.ken expert Robert Wood.fill on what a correct Hawken should look like. He has been at it for 50 years...and has recently written a book on the Ha.wken..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iap2rZ7-3L0&t=456s

Some years back I bought a Pur..dy St.alking rifle in 62 C built by him...for about 1k...ya wana talk about having mad dog spoon building skills...amazing work. In the vid he mentions having a booth at Friendship next to Ho.mer Dan.gler...another legendary builder...I have a HD spoon that I bought from a friend of mines estate auction...

What sparked my recent interest in Haw ken is the fact that I pu 2 custom built bp's (out of 6) at an upstate n..y auction. a unmarked Hawken that is very close to being correct..and a A..M marked Shim..mel...I was apparently the only one who knew who A..M is..cause I got that one for a good price..A..M is 42 spoon back-ordered...Since all the spoons out of that lil correction were quality pieces by well known builders I have been trying to figure out the likely builder of the Hawken.. hence the research.

In doing the research I found out who R Wood..fill is

Ah, tabby... you should obtain a copy of Mr. Woodfill's book. Or, better yet, correspond with him. While you are at it, get in touch with Mr. Roberts, proprietor of The Hawken Shop. The first thing either will tell you is that there is only one absolute when dealing with these rifles - that there are no absolutes.

I pre-ordered one of Mr. Woodfill's books and, I believe, was delivered one of the first copies published. This, after having corresponded with him as one of the few noted experts in the field.

As far as Mr. Roberts (who, after having become friends over the course of this journey I now feel privileged to address as "Greg") he lives a scant hour north of me. We have discussed the intricacies of these rifles at length over the course of several years.

Yes, most had blued barrels. Some were browned. Yes, most had color case hardened locks, tangs, sometimes trigger guards and butt plates. And barrel keys and escutcheons. But, some were blued, some were browned, some left in the white. Some had the "fish belly" profile from the back of the trigger guard to the toe of the stock, but most actually did not. They all had this "fish belly" from the front of the trigger guard to the nose cap, an "authentication" feature you missed in your less than cursory research. These were "bespoke" rifles, built to order. Efficeincies were realized by ordering parts from the industry suppliers, but they were still very much what we would call "custom" rifles today. Triple the cost of the next ones down the ladder.

Other very significant features you missed (likely because they don't show up in a ten minute YouTube video) are the forward taper of the lock plate flat and the opposing flat on the left side. How about the soft solder filling of the gap formed by the concave top of the under rib against the bottom barrel flat at the muzzle? Or the slanted interface of the back of the barrel to the tang? Let's not forget the fact that the tang is actually through bolted to the trigger plate, thereby reinforcing the wrist in a manner provided by no other rifle, where the tang and trigger plate are held by separate wood screws into the wrist, providing no additional strength. These were notable identifying features of these rifles. There are many more. Maybe you can do some real research and let us know what the rest of them might be... Cheap reproductions lack these features...

Both men, the two foremost acknowledged experts in this field, will be very quick to point out the false "absolutes" too often espoused by those who desire to portray themselves as "experts" regarding all things Hawken. Congratulations, you managed to check most of their boxes.

I find the sting of admonishment to be exhilarating, much like the slap of the strap across bare buttocks....Whew...Ohhh Mommy I have been a naughty little boy..

I have not handled the originals enough to become really familar with them..I have had a Carlos Gove rifle that was in rough shape...I shoot a Great Western Rifle Works...in 40 C..

I tend to like the contemporary makers which is a world onto itself.. With each builder the form may vary from piece to piece but a signature does develope...

I have a Ohio style contemp flinter by Larry Bryner...which arrived broken at the wrist...later I saw and bought an unsigned flinter and could tell by the details that Bryner did the work. I called him about it, where he told me that sometimes the client didn't want it signed..and that he couldn't remember the rifle as he had done so many over the years...

I have a pair of rifle that I bought out of an estate auction in Yakima...an English style percussion sporting/target and an English style half stock flinter...both exceptional high grade work..both unsigned... I would think Don H Brown...but the auctioneer if I recall correctly was saying they were made by or for a Doctor... Either way..

I used to know an Art restorer in LA who did work for all the somebodies in LA....He would never look at a the signature on a painting to know who it was by... he could tell by the brush stroke and colour pallet... I got to the point where I stumbled over a coupla unsigned pieces in the dark that I was able to tell who the artist was.

Ah, I love you, tabby, you know that. Endless respect for your depth and breadth of collectible firearms knowledge. It's not often I get to push you down the stairs. You don't seem any the worse for wear and tear...

Jeff - Question about your patch knife: What is purpose of the keyhole feature on the heel of the blade?

I learned to shoot black-powder using pillow ticking for the patch. I don't like the taste. Thanks for the tip on Goop - I may try that.

It's purely decorative, no real purpose. It's an original Green River knife (still in production), which was kind of ubiquitous during the fur trade era. Many of the yearly mountain Rendezvous, the big "trade fair" wherein trappers traded furs for goods were held on the Green River. Really, any knife will work. Many like to use a straight razor. They are pretty traditional as well.

Water pump lubricant (water soluble oil) is a good cleaner and patch lubricant. And it is cheap.

An old hand showed me that over 40 years ago.

That Gove and Great Western half stock that I shoot came out of a Missouri estate of a guy whose dad owned and shot it...he passed in the early 1960's..

Either that or water soluble machine coolant/cutting fluid. Mix 50/50 with water. We call it "moose milk".