"The Rifle" by Gary Paulsen (author of "Hatchet")

[Golden Hound]

When I was a kid, I had to read The Hatchet for a class in elementary school. We also read another book by that same author, The Rifle. I recently was walking in a bookstore and I saw the book sitting there in the "Required Reading For School" section, and I remembered the story. The book tells the story of a Revolutionary War-era musket which was handed down to many different generations, eventually winding up in the hands of a guy in the present day who mounts it on the wall above his fireplace.

At the end of the book, sparks from his fireplace fly up into the rifle and ignite the powder (which just happened to be in there, and still live, after more than 200 years,) sending a musketball (which just happened to be in there - nobody bothered taking it out) flying out of the rifle and into the house next door, killing their son. (!!!)

Has anyone else read this? Did anyone else have to read it in school like me?

 

[Nolo]

Right, 'cause a musketball could REALLY travel through all that.
Musketballs can't go through 2x4s.
I've shot them.

 

[Golden Hound]

I think it went through the glass of one window and into another. Still ridiculous.

 

[Owen Sparks]

What happened in The Hatchet? Did it fly off the handle and take out a buss load of nuns?

"If only we had stronger hatchet laws...for the children"

 

[Nolo]

I like Gary Paulsen a lot less now...

 

[Don Gwinn]

Paulsen's been using rifles for a LONG time. He knows guns pretty well. He isn't exactly trying to make a point about guns there--he's trying more to say something about the kind of people we are now, as compared to the kind of people "we" were when that rifle was new. If you read the thing and don't forget about the first half when you read the second half, it's clear that Paulsen understands the gunsmith, the hunter, and the sniper--he has a genuine affection for a "sweet" rifle. He just laments that people who know nothing about a rifle--people who don't even check to see if it's loaded before they put it on their mantel--end up with tools that kept men alive in hard times.

The topic came up at the last Sangamon Co. Rifle Ass'n meeting--people who've bought fascinating historical guns from the descendants of men who used them to make history--for next to nothing, and from people who clearly didn't care. It was just something they didn't have room on the wall to hang as far as they were concerned.

If you don't like that one, check out The Matchlock Gun. Schools don't always like that one, but it won the Newberry Medal so it's hard to exclude it.

 

[230RN]

At the end of the book, sparks from his fireplace fly up into the rifle and ignite the powder (which just happened to be in there, and still live, after more than 200 years)...

And these sparks got into the powder exactly how?

I'll go along with the powder still being active after 200 years, but...

I wondered how come such a story got into a modern reading curriculum, but when I got to the end, I saw why.

Yet more propaganda!

A contrived ending probably added on for the sake of sales to our wonderful modern education system.

 

[Duke Junior]

What happened in The Hatchet? Did it fly off the handle and take out a buss load of nuns?

No,Hatchet is neutral on guns.A 12 year boy survives a plane crash in the Canadian wilderness for several months, using his hatchet and his ingenuity to stay alive, alone in the wild.The hatchet was a gift from his Mom to take on the trip.
The only other passenger,the pilot, dies from a heart attack while aflight.The boy manages to land the plane himself.
Then the struggle begins.A fine piece of work for children 10 and up,IMO.

 

[bogie]

I could see it happening... Not likely, but happening.

I wonder how many muzzle-loading guns are out there that are essentially "live?" Guys, if you have an old smokepole, get the ramrod, and see how far it goes down the barrel. Then measure that against the side of the barrel... If it looks like there's a difference, they make compressed gas dealies that'll remove the ball/charge for you, without the danger of having to fire a possibly old/structurally compromised weapon.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Hatchet isn't quite neutral. In it, Brian expresses Paulsen's own bias against guns. You have to understand that Paulsen is a hunter and woodsman at heart. That's the only use he really sees for a gun at all--and he prefers a bow when he can use one in the woods. A gun disturbs the movement and sound of the woods. And that's true, especially in a place where people don't shoot much.

If you want to teach kids to write and be good readers, though, Paulsen is a good man to have on your side. He can tell a story, and he's good at telling it in a way that draws in kids at the toughest age, right at that transition between elementary and middle school. There aren't a lot of very authentic adventure stories being written nowadays, but when Paulsen's character eats raw turtle eggs to survive, or spends all day trying to spear a fish with his handmade forked spear to survive, the description is dead on because Paulsen did it, too.

The guy also more or less raised himself from an early age. His parents were alive but not around. He turned out pretty well, considering.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Gary Paulson is the wilderness version of John Steinbeck. Excellent author.

 

[Duke Junior]

Hatchet isn't quite neutral. In it, Brian expresses Paulsen's own bias against guns.

You have a valid point,Don.But Paulsen,to me, comes across as someone that if another tool,the axe,the hatchet,the bow are not available or not practical, and your existence is at stake, use the gun.
It's obviously not the line of first defense for him.
A fine storyteller,we'll certainly agree on that.

 

[General Geoff]

The book tells the story of a Revolutionary War-era musket

So which is it? A rifle or a musket?

 

[230RN]

230RN:

And these sparks got into the powder exactly how?

Bogie:

I could see it happening... Not likely, but happening.

THe only way I can see it happening is if it was a flintlock and somebody left the pan charged.

And the frizzen up.

Or somebody left the hammer up on a percussion model and a very clever ninja-spark insinuated itself down the nipple hole. As Seinfeld said, "That... is one magic loogie." Or spark.

And I too, wondered whether it was a musket or a rifle, but I ascribed that to OP's misinterpretation or soemthing.

Disclaimer: I have not read it. But going from the remarks herein, it still sounds like the author caved in to market demands of the potential customers --the very anti-gun school system --and "had" to add some negative thing about firearms at the end of the tale and had to really do some stretching and contriving to use this method of having the otherwise inert object go off.

Can anyone pull some quotes from this part of the book? I'd really like to see what kind of literary gyrations he had to go through to make this even remotely plausible.

And fifty will get you eighty that the original version had the rifle just hanging on the wall above the fireplace... in comfortable retirement. A suitable denouement.

I've got four twenty dollar bills that say that. Anyone want to hold the stakes?

 

[NoirFan]

Responding to 230RN’s post above:

I think you are reading a bit too much into it. When the main character of Hatchet picks up the gun at the end it is disorienting because it is a foreign object to him. He has used a bow to survive for so long that the idea of a weapon which can kill with a press of the finger seems alien and obtrusive. He has the same thought about the metal pots and pans he retrieves from the plane; they make carrying water easy, where before this mundane task had been difficult. It is a fantastically written scene.

Sorry, I don't have the book in front of me so I can't quote it, but there is nothing remotely "anti-gun" about it.

 

[EHCRain10]

I read both books as a preteen and really enjoyed them, I didnt see any slant for or against guns in either but then again I was 10 or 12 years old at the time. Guess its time to reread them.

 

[VirgilCaine]

The "alternate sequel", Brian's Winter, opens after he's able to retrieve the survival gear from the plane.
He uses up a lot of the survival rifle's ammunition shooting rabbits and such, and then, IIRC, firing pin breaks. He has to get used to using his small bow again.

Very good books.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

If I remember correctly it was an AR-7 in Hatchet. He uses the gun for quite some time in the sequel, but the firing pin breaks as has been mentioned before. The gun in The Rifle is a flintlock rifle that was left loaded with grease sealing the touch hole in the pan. An ember flies out of the fire and melts the grease and ignites the charge IIRC. IT does have a happy ending because after they throw the scary baby killing gun into the river, a gunny goes and fishes it out and the story closes with him wondering how well it shoots (which is awesome because if you read the book you know it is the uber-flintlock sniper's rifle).

 

[Cosmoline]

Also, the sad fact is people have shot each other accidentally with mantle flintlocks.

And yes a flint rifle WILL blow through 2x4's. It can blow through a brown bear. A .58 caliber PRB is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Mr White]

What a cool coincidence that I read this thread all the way thru. I got to Duke Jr's post and realized that this is the book my 11 yo son is reading. I knew nothing about Gary Paulson. My son is actually reading "Brian's Winter" but was telling me the other day about Hatchet and how he really liked that book and how much he likes Brian's winter so far. I'll tell him about "The Rifle". Thanks!

 

[Nolo]

And yes a flint rifle WILL blow through 2x4's. It can blow through a brown bear. A .58 caliber PRB is nothing to sneeze at.

While not a flintlock, I shot a .58 caliber 1853 Enfield three-bander at some two-by-fours (there were, obviously, targets in front of them. Mostly shirts).
After multiple firings of the weapon, it would not go through the 2x4s.
You gotta remember, though it is a .58 caliber weapon, it's using roundball, which means that the projectile weighs maybe 200 grains.
Add to that the fact that you are pushing that thing, at best, at 900 fps, with no jacket or anything to keep the bullet together...
It will occasionally go through 2x4s. Not with regularity, and I could not see it going through two houses, unless they were, like, apartments made out of 1 sheet of drywall.
They are really horrifically weak weapons. (I still would not want to be shot with one, though)
But they won't go through people all the way, much less a brown bear.
Also a ridiculously inaccurate weapon.
I tried and tried and tried to get a group with it... no such luck. I think I got them all onto 11.5x8" paper once, though. At... 100 feet!

 

[Cosmoline]

Nolo, was the original story talking about a tight-bore revolutionary era RIFLE or a CW era RIFLE MUSKET? There are real differences in velocity between those two. The former requires considerable muscle to load and wedges the ball in very tight. It can also tolerate a higher powder charge. A .58 PRB out of a true rifle or even a properly loaded rifle musket will go much faster than 900 fps. 1,300 to 1,400 or even 1,500 is entirely possible at the muzzle. Remember, in a rifle you can load with 100, 110, 120 grains of ffg or more because the barrel and breach are so much stouter than a musket or rifle musket. That's why they weigh so much more. They are absolutely terrible weapons to face on the battlefield, as many an arrogant officer discovered during the Revolutionary, Napoleonic and Civil Wars. Also, the .58 is shooting a RB of 279 grains, not 200 grains.

I don't have a .58 right now, but I'm willing to bet my .54 Tryon shooting PRB would blow a 2x4 apart--assuming it didn't just pick it up and carry it down range.

They are really horrifically weak weapons.

?? I have to wonder what charge you were loading that three band with. And whether you've seen the famous photos of what was left of CW soldiers after taking a Minnie ball. The drawback of ML's is not a lack of killing powder or penetration. The drawback, aside from reloading speed, is that the projectiles lose velocity and power very quickly compared with later spizer loads. Or compared with modern spitzer sabots, for that matter. At close range they are devestating weapons.

 

[woodfiend]

I am so glad that you posted this. This is the best book that I have read by Gary Paulsen (well, equal to Guts, which is his true stories that inspired his books). It was so interesting. And I do think that a musket of that caliber and make could have ballistics like that.

 

[Wes Janson]

I can't remember the name of it, but the story I remember from growing up which really was anti-gun involved some girl's father being killed by an errant rifle round from miles away, while up on the roof repairing shingles. I seem to recall the book going on for a while about how horrible the whole thing was, and somewhere along in there I lost interest and pitched it.

 

[Nolo]

Nolo, was the original story talking about a tight-bore revolutionary era RIFLE or a CW era RIFLE MUSKET? There are real differences in velocity between those two. The former requires considerable muscle to load and wedges the ball in very tight. It can also tolerate a higher powder charge. A .58 PRB out of a true rifle or even a properly loaded rifle musket will go much faster than 900 fps. 1,300 to 1,400 or even 1,500 is entirely possible at the muzzle. Remember, in a rifle you can load with 100, 110, 120 grains of ffg or more because the barrel and breach are so much stouter than a musket or rifle musket. That's why they weigh so much more. They are absolutely terrible weapons to face on the battlefield, as many an arrogant officer discovered during the Revolutionary, Napoleonic and Civil Wars. Also, the .58 is shooting a RB of 279 grains, not 200 grains.

I don't have a .58 right now, but I'm willing to bet my .54 Tryon shooting PRB would blow a 2x4 apart--assuming it didn't just pick it up and carry it down range.

Well, that's an equivalent question to "was he using a High-Point or an M700?"
I don't know.
Judging by what I've heard, it's more probable that it's a rifle (and thus perfectly capable of going through walls, etc.). But that wasn't my understanding earlier.
However, I don't know.

?? I have to wonder what charge you were loading that three band with. And whether you've seen the famous photos of what was left of CW soldiers after taking a Minnie ball. The drawback of ML's is not a lack of killing powder or penetration. The drawback, aside from reloading speed, is that the projectiles lose velocity and power very quickly compared with later spizer loads. Or compared with modern spitzer sabots, for that matter. At close range they are devestating weapons.

The difference in damage between a Minie ball and a roundball is enormous.
Not only does the Minie ball reach a much higher velocity because of the superior gas seal, it is also decently heavier, and apt to tumble (from what I understand).
We were shooting roundballs. Not Minie balls.
Ulysses S. Grant was not called "the Butcher" because he put men to die. It's because of the fact that he was willing to fully engage in combat (and not get discouraged by the enormous losses incurred) with the WMD of the day, the Minie ball.
A rifled musket shooting roundball and a rifled musket shooting Minie ball are like night and day.
As far as I know, the rifles were at full-charge, i.e., standard load for the day. This was a Civil War re-enactment camp, set early in the war. Thus, we didn't shoot any Minie balls.