• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Early Lancaster vs. Late Lancaster?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
These terms are used to market kits. Are you mostly interested in the kits or the originals?

Most “early Lancaster rifle” kits share features with Lancaster rifles of 1775-1790 or so. Some builders updated their styles during this timeframe and some stuck to an earlier style. Expect a tall wide buttplate with little curvature, options for a sliding wooden patchbox, and a pointy-tailed late 1700s-style lock. Perhaps a Chambers Siler or Dale Johnson or Golden Age lock.

“Late Lancaster” kits represent Lancaster rifles of the 1810-30 era for the most part. Expect a narrower buttplate with more curvature (crescent-shaped to some extent), a brass patchbox, narrower guard, and possibly a smaller lock with a little “teat” at the rear. Chambers Late Ketland for example.

Keep in mind that a WIDE variety of rifles were made by individual gunsmiths across both timeframes. I’m much more interested in building rifles based on particular originals made by particular builders.

My early Lancaster taste runs to Fainot’s work. He had his own style. Finishing up my second gun based on his work now.

I’ll probably build a later Lancaster rifle based on Melchior Fordney’s rifles at some point.
 
Good explanation, Rich. Probably worth noting that some companies offer kits that are more representative of the periods you describe than other companies.
 
I wish more high quality late flintlock period kits were offered. The Chambers and Kibler kits are all earlier than I would like. A high quality 1820 Armstrong would be really nice.
 
I like certain features of many of the styles but haven't found any I'm completely satisfied with. The So. Mtn Rifle has come the closest so far but do not really care for the hooked butt's that look correct on them. I think I'm going to stop caring how well I can mimic a certain style and period correct look and just put together a rifle that suits what I like. That is precisely what those original makers did in their eras of time.
 
I like certain features of many of the styles but haven't found any I'm completely satisfied with. The So. Mtn Rifle has come the closest so far but do not really care for the hooked butt's that look correct on them. I think I'm going to stop caring how well I can mimic a certain style and period correct look and just put together a rifle that suits what I like. That is precisely what those original makers did in their eras of time.

This is exactly how I feel. There are things from all kinds of rifles from all time periods and places that I like but at the end of the day I just want to build rifles that I like, in my own style not necessarily in someone elses.
 
Putting a definite date on a School of gun isn't like identifying cars, IMO. I think Rich put it very well with some timelines to go by. But I'm guessing a couple years either way would be a safe bet. I don't see a "Late Lancaster" taking part in the Revolution. The War of 1812, sure.
My eye has been drawn to the Isaac Haines Early Lancaster rifle, something about it speaks to me.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone. Would any of the "late" guns have caught the tail end of the Revolution? And I am interested in the originals Rich. Thanks,- Larry

The later style with narrower curved buttplate, narrower guard, and later lock didn’t appear till 30 or more years after the Revolutionary War. Any Lancaster rifle made before 1790 would have none of these features.
 
Though I am all into the details it’s likely that for most historical re-enactments and certainly all rondys, about any fullstock flintlock will be welcome. There are very few strictly juried events. And when in the woods hunting, it’s whatever timeframe you want - till a jet flies overhead.
 
Another good lock for the early Lancaster style is the L&R Queen Anne lock that I have on mind. The originals came in by the barrel load from the mid-1600's and since gunsmiths were prohibited from building locks (doesn't mean some of them didn't, particularly in remote areas) they were commonly used in early American Longrifles. Of course their availability disappeared at the initiation of hostilities in 1775 or so. I have an L&R Queen Anne lock in my Early Lancaster, and that particular L&R lock is super reliable and not particular at all about how you load it.

By comparison, the lock on my Traditions Pennsylvania Longrifle likes its small pan to be filled only half way and banked away from the vent (quick flick of the wrist to the right does that just fine). Then it will go off all the time. It's a much smaller lock, more like what you would see on a pistol. The Queen Anne lock doesn't care whether you put a lot or a little powder in the pan, as long as you have a decent slicing angle with your flint on the frizzen giving you good sparks. She goes off every time. Some folks call this the "banana lock" but that is a rather derogatory term for it as I found out when I asked a builder about it. As I said, my Early Lancaster uses that Queen Anne lock and I love it.

Twisted_1in66 :thumb:
Dan
 
Though I am all into the details it’s likely that for most historical re-enactments and certainly all rondys, about any fullstock flintlock will be welcome. There are very few strictly juried events. And when in the woods hunting, it’s whatever timeframe you want - till a jet flies overhead.
I did a lot of reenactments while I was living in VT (8-years) and VA (10-years). Not much since I moved to Washington state. You are absolutely correct about reenactments and rondy's allowing just about any full-stock flint lock. So if that's all you can afford to get started, just get started.

My first flintlock was a Traditions Pennsylvania Longrifle that I bought because it advertised that some group said it was good for Rev War era. Haven't been able to ever find that group, but that rifle is absolutely NOT a Rev War era longrifle. Rather it is a Golden-Age type that came after the war when the market for longrifles was disappearing and all the gunsmiths were trying to make their work stand out from the crowd. So these Golden Age longrifles were typically extensively decorated. Even though you could see the extensive decor on this rifle at a good distance, I was never refused participation with it and often got nice comments about it (has a fairly heavily figured walnut stock, which is unusual). I pickled the barrel on it, which made it look older and of course replaced the adjustable sight with primitive ones. Then I just used it and used it.

Of course, my gun-building buddy told me all about how wrong it was for Rev War era it when he first saw it, but I used it anyhow and never had a problem. And he's the one who suggested pickling the barrel, which we did in the open air outside at his blacksmith shop (farrier by trade). That was cool!

A few years later I bought my Early Lancaster rifle from "tg" who was a member of this list for many years. Since that time I have had lots of builders comment not only on how nicely it was made but also how historically accurate of a representation it was. Even though it's about 4" longer than my Traditions longrifle it's about 2-lbs lighter and has a swamped barrel so it is nicely balanced and not nose heavy at all.

One other thing about the early long rifles. They first came out with either no patch box or a sliding wooden patchbox. Carving on the early rifles (F&I era) was often just incise carving whereas by 1775/1776, Rococo relief carving was typical.

Twisted_1in66 :thumb:
Dan
 
Last edited:
Not being really knowledgeable about styles of rifles built in certain areas or times, if I was going to build one I would build it to suit myself and my requirements. I'd build it to make myself happy with it.
 
Not being really knowledgeable about styles of rifles built in certain areas or times, if I was going to build one I would build it to suit myself and my requirements. I'd build it to make myself happy with it.
A little off topic but not entirely, here are a couple of pictures that show the major differences between the various "schools" of the Pennsylvania longrifles.

Look mainly at the shape of the top (comb) of the butt and the curvature along the bottom of the butt. Also, some stocks like the Bedford have a very large amount of drop at the heel of the stock. Others, not so much.

The Lancaster comb is rather straight. It is the shape used by most of the modern sporting rifles made today.
The
StockshapesWeb.jpg


stockschools.jpg
 
Like other artists - yes, longrifles are art - builders had their "periods"; and rather than some sort of abrupt change there was a more gradual experimentation with designs. "Styles" are a modern concept as no such idea was bandied about back then. Early? Late? who's to say what "late" is.
 
Like other artists - yes, longrifles are art - builders had their "periods"; and rather than some sort of abrupt change there was a more gradual experimentation with designs. "Styles" are a modern concept as no such idea was bandied about back then. Early? Late? who's to say what "late" is.

Parts can be readily dated. Trends in architecture can be dated.

Example: no fins on 1930s and 1940s American cars. If a 1957 Chevy showed up in a WWII movie, everyone would notice. No, not every late 50s car had fins but most of us could tell any mid 1940s car from most any mid 1960s car. Same time span as 1775 to 1795.

Show me an original American flintlock rifle and I can date it within 15 years. 50 years of study of originals will do that.
 
so what school of thought would a full stock H.Leman flinter be from?
they sure seem to have a small curve butt plate barley fits my arm?
 
Back
Top