Early and Late Lancaster Difference

[Swede50]

Anyone who can explain the difference between an Early and Late Lancaster.
I am looking to order parts to build one.
Is a chambers flint lock appropriate.
I would like to have a trigger I can set to make it a lighter pull.
I would like it to be in 54cal so if I get a chance to hunt Elk I would have enough ball size to do the job.
I had planned to buy one from Flintlock.com but
after reading some of the posts about the pre-inlet stocks I am not so sure.
I think I will go with a stock that does not have more than the barrel & ramrod channels inlet.
Your assistance will be appreciated.

 

[galamb]

You are asking a question that would take pages to answer.

Trying to group all the gun makers that were active in the Lancaster area from the early 1700's to the mid-1800's is a monumental task.

It's kinda like asking to explain the difference between 1980's and 1990's North American built cars - Fords? GM's? - get where I'm going here.

I realize that some of the "kits" out there are simply referred to as early and late.

They are a very generic style indicative of a number of early rifles from various makers or a number late styles by various makers.

The second thing that sticks out with your post is you say you want a 54 cal which is a pretty big caliber for a later rifle - the calibers were coming down in size as larger game was hunted out in the east.

One other note - you mention reading (negative) posts about flintlocks.com (????) - that is Jim/Barbie Chambers shop and arguably have some of the finest kits on the market, so not quite sure what you read or in what context.

But if you simply want a "late Lancaster" their kit or Track of the Wolf would be a good place to start.

And finally, many Lancaster gunsmiths used Germanic style locks. So a Siler would be appropriate but personally I would go with Chambers Golden Age which is period correct and little more "correct" than a Siler (which has been around for a long time and is a well proven lock - Chambers improved on it somewhat with their GA lock which is a little longer and a little quicker).

 

[nchawkeye]

As a general rule early Lancasters were more robust, thicker and straighter butt plates, more open trigger guards, usually a single trigger and sliding wood patch boxes...Calibers were generally larger as well...

 

[Stophel]

The "Early Lancaster" and "Late Lancaster" are nothing more than labels made up by companies selling precarved stocks. The term itself means absolutely nothing.

As a general rule (with basically all original longrifle types) the earlier in time you go, the thicker and more robust the stock will be. The later in time, the thinner and scrawnier it will be. The "Early" precarved stock is likely SLIGHTLY thicker than their "Late" stock (though most "Early" precarve stocks are still entirely too scrawny to really build much of an "early" gun with....). As for the differences between the two stock patterns from one maker, that maker would be the best one to ask. :wink:

Personally, I DESPISE the use of the terms "early" and "late"... it is very ambiguous and rather arbitrary. Put a date on it. If one wants to build a rifle representative of 1770, then say "1770". If one wants a gun from about 1810, then simply call it a ca. 1810 rifle. No confusion. No fuss, no muss.

 

[galamb]

Well put.

To expand on that, Pecatonica pre-carves for the "early" will take a 15/16" or 1" barrel so you could make it a 54 cal.

Their "late" Lancaster is cut for either a 13/16" or 7/8" barrel - so best you could go is 50 cal.

As stated, they are just "labels" with early kinda/sorta/sometimes referring to a Lancaster built before about 1780 (give or take a little).

By that definition a Dickert pre-carve would be "early" and looks quite a bit different than the "early" (generic) Lancaster. And the (much overdone) 38" swamped Issac Haines would ALSO be an early Lancaster and the three different stocks only have a passing resemblance to one another .

If you are going to build yourself I would suggest you take some more time to look at what "was" out there.

You can build whatever you want. Even a pre-carve with only the barrel and ram rod inlet can leave you quite a bit of room to turn it into one of many makers styles.

I think many of us hobby builders "build" for two reasons.

1) we are "cheap" and won't pay the price to have it done for us and,

2) it gives you the opportunity to go more "unique" than simply having a rifle that looks like 1000 others out there that came from places like TVM or the thousands that were produced by T/C, Lyman's etc.

To kinda paraphrase a bit of advice from "The Gunsmith of Grenville Co." -

If you say I want to build a "Lancaster" you will end up with a mess since you will be tempted to add a little of this/that and your "stew" may be unfit to eat if you add too many unrelated ingredients.

If you say I want to build a Lancaster as might have been built by Dickert in 1774 you will have something you are proud of.

 

[kaintuck]

Yeah, what stop hen said......1780 will be what you like...robust with big bore, maybe a 'Virginia' rifle....turn of the century and the war almost done everywhere, slim was in, as was smaller rifle bore, or smoothbore.......

Chambers would my 1st choice....then others.....or just call Tip Curtis and see what he has on the rack.....ready to shoot...

Marc

 

[Col. Batguano]

The "Early Lancaster" and "Late Lancaster" are nothing more than labels made up by companies selling precarved stocks. The term itself means absolutely nothing.

As a general rule (with basically all original longrifle types) the earlier in time you go, the thicker and more robust the stock will be. The later in time, the thinner and scrawnier it will be. The "Early" precarved stock is likely SLIGHTLY thicker than their "Late" stock (though most "Early" precarve stocks are still entirely too scrawny to really build much of an "early" gun with....). As for the differences between the two stock patterns from one maker, that maker would be the best one to ask. :wink:

Personally, I DESPISE the use of the terms "early" and "late"... it is very ambiguous and rather arbitrary. Put a date on it. If one wants to build a rifle representative of 1770, then say "1770". If one wants a gun from about 1810, then simply call it a ca. 1810 rifle. No confusion. No fuss, no muss.

:thumbsup: Very good synopsis. To add to that only slightly, I would suggest doing research on several specific makers (Isaac Haines for instance) and others of a certain time period to see what features you like best, in an appropriate caliber for what you want it for. For instance; do you like raised carving? That's generally pre 1800 stuff. Inlays to dominate the design / artistic impression? Post 1810. Incise carving spans them both. Wire? See what I mean? There's lots of things to consider, especially if you want to be HC / PC.

My guess is that you'll wind up making a form of a composite of features and styles that are generally PC, but borrow what you like from several of them regarding style and design. Do you like baroque or rococco style of engraving and carving? Generally, baroque is earlier of the 2, but elements of both can be see throughout the era.

The most important thing at this stage for you is to do research. Lots and lots of it, which you are doing. :hatsoff:

the most important thing in the build (besides execution and safety items) is getting the architecture "right". Great carving and engraving can't really make up for poor execution and architecture. The old "earrings on a pig" thing.

 

[Vaino]

Determining your choice isn't very complicated.....54 cal. kinda does it for you.

Opt for the Chambers Early Lancaster parts set and you'll be pleased. Quality Rice bbl, Chambers Golden Age flintlock, the best brass parts on the market and a well done precarved stock.

Have built 3 of these and although there have been some inletting over runs, none were serious.

You have a choice of a wooden or an extra cost brass Pbox and higher grades of wood.

The Bplate is a full 2" wide and very flat and the standard trigger guard will accept DSTs but aren't included in the "kit". The standard single trigger if properly located has yielded a 3-4 lb pull which is ideal for a hunting rifle.

Below is the first Chambers Early Lancaster that I built.....Good luck on you quest.....Fred

 

[Swede50]

Flehto: That is one sweet looking flintlock.
I use to do some wood carving when I was in high school back in 1974.
I have RA so my hands hurt to hold any small carving chisels.
I am looking for a kit/parts set that will be capable of making a hunting rifle that looks good but not to flashy.
I do not want a stock that when I put the lock in it is loose and sloppy fit.
I have a couple of books on flintlocks to refer to that have been mentioned on this post.
I am stuck on the .54cal I have a Lyman GPR percussion in .54 and a Knight MK85 in .54 along with a half a dozen other BP rifles in .50
My TC .50cal is a flint lock it looks nice but lacks the satisfaction of being more than just another generic flint lock.

 

[Vaino]

Perhaps you should be satisfied w/ your present MLers..or...buy a factory sand and assemble kit.

The various parts sets {"kits"} all requirre many hrs of "small tool" work and even a "plain" LR parts set isn't completed in a month. In fact for a "plain" LR parts set to be done so it
"looks good", some would spend 150-200 hrs.

Have never had a loose lock inlet on a Chambers precarve, although some areas of the lock inlet require addt'l work w/ small chisels....The lock doesn't just "fall in".

Due to your physical rquirements, assess wisely and buy a "kit" w/in your capabilities......Fred

 

[kaintuck]

Or call Tip Curtis and see what he has ready to ship~ he makes excellent hunting rifles, and at real reasonable price~as he buys wholesale~and build sthem in his spare time :wink:
marc

 

[Swede50]

Thinking about a Chambers Kit again thanks.

 

[Vaino]

Because of the quality components in a Chambers "kit", you'll find a satisfaction while building it and the end result will continue the satisfaction, irregardless of the amount of the embellishments. Good luck.....Fred