[Jeff Higgins]

Sorry, cashflyer, but tabs is right on. I love both guns, having a stainless Old Army and a .54 caliber T/C Hawken myself, but neither has any sort of collector value. Their value lies in practical usefulness, as hunting and/or plinking guns, but not as collectors.

As tabs points out, neither is a copy of anything. The Hawken is more of a half stocked Pennsylvania rifle, or a German influenced Jaeger (literally "hunter") rifle of the east coast. Some Leman plains rifles may have looked somewhat like that, with the single barrel tennon, and even the odd Hawken had that (rather than its ubuitous double tennons), but even that is a stretch. The brass furniture was very, very rarely encountered on any sort of plains rifle, most being furnished in plain steel. Then those adjustable sights - far more useful to most than the traditional fixed sights, but most enthusiasts don't merely dislike them, they disdain them.

The Old Army has the same problem with its adjustable sights. No one likes 'em. To make matters worse, Ruger made a run in the last few years they made this gun that had a more traditional top strap style fixed sight and simple blade front. Those are the more desireable of the configurations.

All of that said, both are outstanding choices for the muzzle loader hunter. I bought my Hawken kist and built it at 16 years of age, and my Old Army just after turning 21. Both have been my companions of muzzle loader deer and elk hunts for just about three decades. The .54, shooting the 460 grain Lyman Great Plains bullet cast from pure lead at over 1500 fps, just plain works. I've killed more game with that rifle than all of my others combined. It shoots accurately and flat enough to be useful out to 150 yards or so, and it hits with authority.

The Ruger has accounted for untold grouse and several coyotes, plus providing a finishing shot or two when needed. For the first few cylinders, until it starts to foul, it's one of the most accurate handguns I own.