• 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.
C’non buddy- you’re ready for a good old fashioned scratch build and you know it!

Rich, you've seen my ramblings on the other long rifle board. I post my builds over there.

I made one Armstrong already. It was my first highly evolved scratchbuild. Armstrong was one of the best long rifle makers as far as the quality of work goes. To make an accurate replica most of the parts need to be modified or fabricated from scratch. My Armstrong is about a B+ on how it came out. The stock is too long for my current tastes. It pobably took me 200 hours.

IF homebody offered a decent parts set of correct parts I'd be on it. The Armstrong parts sets available only use straight barrels, the lock and furniture are all incorrect. I am not sure what they are but they are not John Armstrong replicas.

This goes for most parts sets. The parts are sort of close from as viewed from 10' away. They seem to use a stock precarve that is vaguely suggestive of a particular school and call lit a "whatever".

I have been building my way through a group of halfstock parts sets. After that I may well do another but better more HC Armstrong. The second one is usually easier because I do not need to reinvent the wheel again. .
 
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.

That's all well and good, but if you don't have an idea of what your finished rifle should look like, you'll be like Johnny Cash's Cadillac in One Piece at A Time.

I poured over Dillards book, and every other reference material I could find. I finally went to TOTW website, and clicked thru their color images of assembled kits. I found the Issac Haines EL and was hooked.
 
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?
I was thinking the same thing. They must have been either not as fat or as large of stature as we are now days. None of those butt hooks fit the uppper arm with winter cloths on and barely in shirt sleeves.
 
Very late Lancaster style. Past the period that Rich Pierce described as the Late Lancaster, 1810-1830. Henry Leman set up shop in 1834 and probably continue to make some flintlocks into the 1850's. He made rifles up to his death in 1887. Butt plates continued to get more narrow and some with even more crescent curve.
 
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.


That's kinda what I said, Rich, at least partially anyway. But I highly doubt that I could go in a shop in 1790 and buy an - early Lancaster (our term not theirs) - and go back in 1792 and buy a "late" Lancaster. I don't have any experience that approaches yours; but in studying rifles by a specific builder it appears few if any rifles are absolutely identical or show radical change. Just me, but when one gets down to it the idea of early/late seems largely ephemeral. I've also noticed how often it is that full consensus by authorities on any art object is simply not possible. I will admit that I am convinced you definitely can date old guns fairly closely.
 
Folks can confuse style with location. A Lancaster rifle is a Lancaster rifle not because of architecture but because it was made in Lancaster county. Any rifle made in Lancaster is by definition a Lancaster rifle. Leman rifles were made in Lancaster 1830s through the 1850s. So it’s a later rifle made in Lancaster.
 
Folks can confuse style with location. A Lancaster rifle is a Lancaster rifle not because of architecture but because it was made in Lancaster county. Any rifle made in Lancaster is by definition a Lancaster rifle. Leman rifles were made in Lancaster 1830s through the 1850s. So it’s a later rifle made in Lancaster.

Now you've got me confused. There is a Lancaster school or a particular architecture, right? It's generally associated with gunsmiths such as Jacob Dickert, Isaac Haines, J. P. Beck, and others. The architecture persisted from mid-1770's to well into the 1800's, though details changed over time such as butt, lock, and trigger guard, as you mentioned before. Gun makers outside of Lancaster, PA built rifles with Lancaster architecture, too, such as JJ Henry who made Lancaster pattern rifles for the fur trade and local trade in Boulton, near Nazareth, PA.

Ultimately, styles changed and architecture diffused in the 2nd and 3rd quarter of the 19th century. The triangular butt associated with the Lancaster school was adopted by gunsmiths in other regions such as western PA, Ohio, the Southern mountains, and St. Louis. It carried over into the cartridge era in the form of Winchester lever actions.

Henry Leman just caught the tail end of the identifiable Lancaster school with some of his rifles. He eventually developed his own identifiable elements we most associate with him, but he kept the triangular shaped butt on many of his later rifles, including his famous Indian rifles.
 
This much confusion over Lancaster rifles?? Come on, they're easy... downright boring, actually.

Wait til you start looking at Berks county rifles....
 
Phil,
Stereotypical architectural features of these so called “schools” are generalities. As you know it’s not like there was a guild in Lancaster that dictated “thou shall adhere to the triangular buttstock architecture or be case into the hinterlands.” Yes, the vast majority of Lancaster rifles have a triangular buttstock architecture, virtually indistinguishable from most York County rifles, a good many Lebanon County rifles, and so on. I sit here looking at “the Lancaster Long Rifle (at the Landis Valley Village and Farm Museum” book. There are a number of Lancaster rifles that you’d think were from Dauphin County or maybe Berks County (#54 by William Holtzworth. #19 Jacob Ferre. #53 Samuel Pannebecker. #55 by Michael Martin).

Some Lancaster rifles have a comb transition that is prominent and abrupt (Haines, Dickert, Fainot,Gonter, Newcomer, Fordney, Leman are examples). Others fade into the wrist much more subtly (Feree, John Shell, Sees, Brong, Christian Beck, Holtzworth). Some arc from the forward quarter of the comb line into the wrist (Michael Martin and so on).

They are all Lancaster rifles whether or not they exhibit the architectural stereotype because they were made in Lancaster County.
 
Last edited:
I’ll blather a little more. As I mentioned on page 1 most of the reason to talk about “early Lancaster” or “Late Lancaster” rifles is because of kit offerings or completed semi-custom gun offerings.

Some folks don’t delve into it or care whether their gun closely represents a Dickert or a Gumph for example, wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, and anyway, there are tons of unsigned originals that sure look like they were made in Lancaster county. Upside for a builder is they can make what represents a generic rifle, customize it to closely resemble a rifle by a particular maker, and so on.

Some Lancaster makers were so well known that some kits closely resembling their work are available - Dickert, Haines, Leman.

If I may put it in mountain man rifle parlance the terms early or late Lancaster rifle would be the same as saying “I’m going to build a St. Louis rifle for the western trade.”

When done it really would not look like a J&S Hawken, or an S Hawken, exactly, or a Dimick, exactly, or a Creamer, exactly. But it would have the look of a rifle made in St.Louis for the western trade.
 
I’ll blather a little more. As I mentioned on page 1 most of the reason to talk about “early Lancaster” or “Late Lancaster” rifles is because of kit offerings or completed semi-custom gun offerings.

Some folks don’t delve into it or care whether their gun closely represents a Dickert or a Gumph for example, wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, and anyway, there are tons of unsigned originals that sure look like they were made in Lancaster county. Upside for a builder is they can make what represents a generic rifle, customize it to closely resemble a rifle by a particular maker, and so on.

Some Lancaster makers were so well known that some kits closely resembling their work are available - Dickert, Haines, Leman.

If I may put it in mountain man rifle parlance the terms early or late Lancaster rifle would be the same as saying “I’m going to build a St. Louis rifle for the western trade.”

When done it really would not look like a J&S Hawken, or an S Hawken, exactly, or a Dimick, exactly, or a Creamer, exactly. But it would have the look of a rifle made in St.Louis for the western trade.

I agree completely with your take Rich. If and when I use the term "Early or Late" Lancaster it's to give an general impression of a composite's overall size and characteristics. I recently bought an 'Early Lancaster influenced by the work of John Newcomer' from Al Martin. To me his description reads as perhaps a beefier gun, not so adorned, with some Newcomer attributes such as the Newcomer cheekpiece which this gun has. With some composites that's as close a description as it seems you can give it.
 
The drawings I posted came from an old Dixie Gun Works catalog.
For years they printed these pictures in the section where they were selling pre-carved stocks and stock blanks. I haven't bought a new Dixie catalog for years so I don't know if they are still putting that picture into them or not now.
 
Rich, I understand that the concept of longrifle "schools" is passe. I also acknowledge that it is imperfect. It was a long time ago when Kindig and other collectors started noticing characteristics that rifles by different makers had in common and started grouping them into "schools". Kindig, being an antique furniture dealer, appreciated the artistic expressions in the longrifle. He and several others promoted the American longrifle as an art form. They naturally started to categorize many of the rifles as is common in art history and even scientific fields.

Kindig's 1960 Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age, George Shumway's Longrifles of Note, Pennsylvania from 1968, and James R. Johnston's 1976 Kentucky Rifles & Pistols 1750-1850 were organized around the concept of schools. But I don't think any of them meant for the concept to become a dogma. They knew the limitations of the concept and the exceptions.

Kindig had rifles in his massive collection that didn't fit in any of the schools. Shumway was aware of these and others in other collections.

As passe as the concept is today, I still see new books on southern rifles coming out that are doing pretty much the same thing in terms of categorization, though they may not use the term "schools".

I still find it useful. If I see a rifle at a gun show or a picture of one somewhere, I naturally look for characteristics that might help me understand where it was made and even when. This happens even before I know the name on the gun, if it has one. I bet you do too. We're using what we've learned about "schools" of longrifles to put a new-to-us rifle into context. We may be doing it consciously or unconsciously.

I liked your explanation of the "Early" versus "Late" Lancaster kits and guns being promoted by various companies or small business. And I share your frustrations with their inaccuracies, generalizations, and misuse of the terms for the sake of marketing.

We seemed to have touched a nerve with you, though, when the question was asked, "so what school of thought would a full stock H.Leman flinter be from?" I tried to answer it in terms of Leman's early rifles barely fitting in the "Late" Lancaster description, but I also tried to make the point, not to successfully, evidently, that he had a long career and most of his rifles don't fit. Leman pretty quickly developed his own style that kept some of the Lancaster architecture, but none of the other characteristics such as mounts and decoration.

This Leman rifle from Jim Gordon's collection very much fits the "Late" Lancaster style.

Lancaster Pattern Leman Rifle - low res.jpg


These, which are versions of Jack Brooks' bench copy of a Leman Indian rifle do not.

IMG-2633-crop-low-res.jpg


I have a Jacob Fordney original that also fits the "Late" Lancaster style. Fordney, by the way was a contemporary of Leman's being just four years his senior. Jacob apprenticed to Jacob Gumpf while Henry Leman apprenticed to Jacob's brother, Melchoir Fordney.

IMG-2544-crop.jpg


Jacob Fordney was an early proponent of the percussion system. In 1830, the year Fordney set up his first shop, he ran an advertisement saying, "Guns altered to the Percussion principle, and all other kinds of REPAIRING done in the best manner, and on the shortest notice." That makes it difficult to date my gun which is original percussion and not a conversion. It has an "M.M. MASLIN" marked lock, but that doesn't help much because Maslin was in business as either a lock maker or lock importer from 1822 to at least 1847 and probably later. The rifle could date anytime from the 1830's through the 1840's.

Many Jacob Fordney rifles have back action locks that would date to the 1850's and 1860's. The architecture on many of these deviates from the Lancaster style, but Jim Gordon has one Jacob Fordney with a back action lock that is very much in the "Late" Lancaster style in architecture and mounts. Some customers must have still preferred the old look even in a rifle built in the 1850's.
 
No nerve touched except this Covid thing has me on my last nerve.

The things that make me most uncomfortable are suppliers giving the impression that what they are offering is historic and should be a guide for those who have not studied original longrifles much. Sorta like the YouTube presentation mentioned recently. The details are important to me.

Some suppliers like Chambers, Kibler, and sone others do a good job of explaining “this kit is based on such and such.” I don’t know if the others just don’t know, don’t have good copy writers, or don’t care. Any of those 3 or all are fine except many customers assume the offerings are historic. My favorite beefs are iron furniture for Pennsylvania rifles and so on.

But, no worries, we’re good. I was hoping the St.Louis mountain man rifle would be a good analogy for you.
 
Great thread. Thought I would resurrect it to ask a question about barrel length.

How long are the barrels of the Leman guns above?

When would have 42” barrels have fallen out of style? Are there Lancaster styled guns made in the 1820s with 40/42” barrels?
 
There is also something else with the Late Lancaster, considered the "Golden age" of these rifles. Highly figured lumber, elaborate metal engraving and wood carving were meant to set these rifles apart and show off the builders skill in a competitive market.

HH
 
Back
Top