-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
early lancaster pictures
- Thread starter bowkill
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
hanshi
Cannon
The rubber cement alluded to was meant as a way of insuring the FITTED nosecap wouldn't come off in thick brush. Cheezy? What about folks who put in shims, switch sights, shorten lock bolts, cone/crown barrels, etc., etc. even on expensive custom guns. That doesn't mean they, too, were built by careless, cut corner builders.
I've never had a fitted nosecap come off accidentally; they are fitted snugly yet can be removed without a lot of work. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone expressing reservations concerning this method of attachment, and even that was partly hypothetical. It's basically a "tire kicking" situation, nothing more.
Now for those who like to nitpick, see the gun in the flesh THEN make judgement (and keep it to yourself), please! You don't go into a man's or a woman's home and start pointing out things you dislike or would do differently. So don't look at a PICTURE of an owners flinter (an attractive one to boot) and tell him it's trash, not built well, needs this or that. It belongs to him and is obviously what he wants. When you build yours you can show a photo (as Tg did) and point out things you'd do differently, now. Anybody ever heard the word "SHAME"?
I've never had a fitted nosecap come off accidentally; they are fitted snugly yet can be removed without a lot of work. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone expressing reservations concerning this method of attachment, and even that was partly hypothetical. It's basically a "tire kicking" situation, nothing more.
Now for those who like to nitpick, see the gun in the flesh THEN make judgement (and keep it to yourself), please! You don't go into a man's or a woman's home and start pointing out things you dislike or would do differently. So don't look at a PICTURE of an owners flinter (an attractive one to boot) and tell him it's trash, not built well, needs this or that. It belongs to him and is obviously what he wants. When you build yours you can show a photo (as Tg did) and point out things you'd do differently, now. Anybody ever heard the word "SHAME"?
Hanshi....
I attribute this to the age you and I share. We are longer in the tooth then some of these gents. And harken back to a time where it was honorable to encourage folks to partake of our common interest. It was a time of re-discovery of the lost arts of the Black. Folks back then tried to build on every bit of success or newly discovered knowledge....They were promising times...
Unlike much of today, where so many of the folks that came on the heels of those that broke the path in front of themselves...see fit to tear apart the trail blazed ahead of them.....
Steve
I attribute this to the age you and I share. We are longer in the tooth then some of these gents. And harken back to a time where it was honorable to encourage folks to partake of our common interest. It was a time of re-discovery of the lost arts of the Black. Folks back then tried to build on every bit of success or newly discovered knowledge....They were promising times...
Unlike much of today, where so many of the folks that came on the heels of those that broke the path in front of themselves...see fit to tear apart the trail blazed ahead of them.....
Steve
A number of years ago, Dixie Gunworks published the general shape of the different Pennsylvania schools butts.
These are drawn on the outline of the stock blank Dixie was selling at the time.
When looking at these pictures notice the top and underside of the butts shape and how they fare into the wrist and how the wrist blends into the body of the stock.
These drawings will hopefully help folks to see the subtle differences between the schools.
These are drawn on the outline of the stock blank Dixie was selling at the time.
When looking at these pictures notice the top and underside of the butts shape and how they fare into the wrist and how the wrist blends into the body of the stock.
These drawings will hopefully help folks to see the subtle differences between the schools.
Thanks for the nice words hanshi, and tg, and everyone else. I bought this gun second hand even though it was never shot or even had the hammer dropped. I might have changed a few things on it if i was ordering it from the builder. But i would not change builders, The work on this gun is very nice. it might not be totally pc but i dont care. I love the gun the way it is. And once i finish sighting it in it will make a hell of a companion for rendezvous and hunts. I personally have seen many nasty builds on this forum but i would never ever post anything bad about another mans gun.........
hanshi said:
fort fireman
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 715
- Reaction score
- 2
I would be tickled to death if I could build a gun that looked that good. Even with all those "PROBLEMS" :grin:
You to TG. Very good looking rifle. :thumbsup: To bad you sold it to someone other than me. :grin:
You to TG. Very good looking rifle. :thumbsup: To bad you sold it to someone other than me. :grin:
I have not seen those for a long time,I always thought it was over simplified trying to use just stock architecture to fit a gun to a school. I think it is safe to say that different folks will see different things in any gun, some have a lot more experience in the what is what about these guns than others and will see things others do not, most of the guns will shoot fine and give the owner years of service, but at times it is hard not to bring somethings to attention for the sake showing the difference twixt what was and wasn't, there are some standard from some periods/styles that are deal breakers if deviated from if the PC/HC game is an issue and most experience gun buffs will look to that as part of the "review" of any gun. The majority of pre 1800 guns that are being carried likely have straight barrels (PC deal breaker) and the late flint southern guns have Siler locks (another deal breaker)but it will not alter the quality of the gun all else being equal, most all of us have room to learn about these guns and threads like this often are ways it happens unfortunately at the expense of a member who probably does not care for the PC or the details others see which will not be an issue with the guns usability. I have no problems when someone offeres comments on my guns that may be less than favorable as I look at it as a way to learn, I have along the way figured to due the learning first then the buying or building this is the key to the whole PC/HC quality issue.The point here is to learn as much as you can and make informed choices you may still buy the "early Virginia" with a straight barrel, 1800 lock, Williams peep sight, but you knew what it all was when compared to the originals going in.I suggest that folks do not take comments about the level of workmanship or authenticity to much to heart and use it as a jumping point to learn about these wonderfull pieces of history.
Early JP Beck is an early Lancaster (Lebanon was part of Lancaster IIRC). The books are in MT I am at MCRD San Diego right now.
Fordney is very very late. He was killed in 1846.
His stock design is classic Lancaster though if you are looking for the "classic" Landcaster but its not Rev-war either.
Dan
Fordney is very very late. He was killed in 1846.
His stock design is classic Lancaster though if you are looking for the "classic" Landcaster but its not Rev-war either.
Dan
lot of different styles, the but stocks are easy for me to tell the dif, but the upper wrist and the stock form it self,is hard to tell. thanks for the info i can tell i got home work to do. some things one can not jump into, and this is one of them. too many styles too choose from :shocked2:
hanshi
Cannon
You have a point, there, gizamo. I guess we both came up in the old ways. Old fashion, that's me. I'm told by friends, and my wife, that I have a somewhat seldom encountered code of honor. My skin is fairly thick and my ego is not easily bruised. It's easy to forget sometimes that not everyone sees things the same way.
When I've had guns built the number one requirement has always been that they look and perform to my satisfaction. HC/PC was just a general concern and a distant one at that. I don't reinact so it doesn't bother me to be told my flinters aren't PC. I find this information educational. But nothing about them-lock, barrel, finish, etc, is "wrong". My two Lancasters are GS mounted because I like the way it looks on them. My fowler is probably PC but that is simply by chance not design. My .40 Lancaster is done in GS and is striking; exactly the look I wanted, swamped barrel and all.
When I've had guns built the number one requirement has always been that they look and perform to my satisfaction. HC/PC was just a general concern and a distant one at that. I don't reinact so it doesn't bother me to be told my flinters aren't PC. I find this information educational. But nothing about them-lock, barrel, finish, etc, is "wrong". My two Lancasters are GS mounted because I like the way it looks on them. My fowler is probably PC but that is simply by chance not design. My .40 Lancaster is done in GS and is striking; exactly the look I wanted, swamped barrel and all.
Hi All,
I'd be interested in a PC/HC critque on my rifle named Ruth as posted in the 1st page of this thread.
In all fairness, this was NOT a build to PC project. The builder and I collaborated on what I wanted vs. what he suggested. I was trying to achieve a rifle that may have been carried by an established Pennsylvania farmer who also hunts meat for his table. No fancy carving, no fancy patchbox (I use a bag/horn).
I was NOT trying to be PC at all, just interested in the opinion of the forum.
An honest critique is all I ask, so let it all out please.
Thanks
Finnwolf
I'd be interested in a PC/HC critque on my rifle named Ruth as posted in the 1st page of this thread.
In all fairness, this was NOT a build to PC project. The builder and I collaborated on what I wanted vs. what he suggested. I was trying to achieve a rifle that may have been carried by an established Pennsylvania farmer who also hunts meat for his table. No fancy carving, no fancy patchbox (I use a bag/horn).
I was NOT trying to be PC at all, just interested in the opinion of the forum.
An honest critique is all I ask, so let it all out please.
Thanks
Finnwolf
excess650
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 635
Dan Phariss said:
J P Beck wouldn't have been a gunsmith until the late 1760s (born 1751).
Melchior Fordney was taxed as a gunsmith starting in 1807, so still in the "Golden Age".
Caleb, Robert, and John Baker were most likely the earliest Lancaster gunsmiths, beginning around 1717(Lancaster County was formed from Chester County in 1729).
Jacob Dickert's family moved to Lancaster in 1756, by which time he was likely an apprentice.
Isaac and Philip LeFevre, Philip Feree, and Christopher Breidenhart were either working as gunsmiths, or already deceased by the mid 1750s.
Others like Graeff, DeHuff, Roesser, etc show up as gunsmiths in the late 1760s to early 1770s.
I guess its a matter of perspective as to what is early and late.
"I guess its a matter of perspective as to what is early and late."
Most often folks seem to make the early/late break at 1780, not always but this is the time usually used.Some shcool the 1780 date would be early for that particular school so there is some wiggle room, I have thought that when one asks about and "early" gun they state the time period they have in mind, I have seen lots of Early Virginia threads with straight barrels and Siler locks which would not fit in most definitions of Early Virginia (F&I) as many of these are purchased for use in that era.
Most often folks seem to make the early/late break at 1780, not always but this is the time usually used.Some shcool the 1780 date would be early for that particular school so there is some wiggle room, I have thought that when one asks about and "early" gun they state the time period they have in mind, I have seen lots of Early Virginia threads with straight barrels and Siler locks which would not fit in most definitions of Early Virginia (F&I) as many of these are purchased for use in that era.
I agree that there are many different things that go into what constitutes the features of the various longrifle "schools" but the many different photos of rifles that are known to have been made in many of the various Pennsylvania counties seem to support the general stock shapes shown in the pictures I posted.
I feel that it is one of the basic starting places when someone wants to determine what "style" of Kentucky a gun is.
I posted those pictures because someone asked what the general features of a Lancaster Rifle was and one of the more obvious features is the straight comb on the stock, somewhat similar to modern guns. The bottom of the stock is also straight, especially when compared with the generous curve along the bottom of a Buck county rifle.
I could go on noting the differences between these general forms but if our members study the shapes I'm sure they can see the differences.
Anyway, to me, the general shape of the stock is the starting place. Lock styles, Trigger Guard styles, Patchbox styles and Butt Plate styles varied somewhat between the different Gunsmiths and the time in History but the general shapes didn't change much over the years.
I feel that it is one of the basic starting places when someone wants to determine what "style" of Kentucky a gun is.
I posted those pictures because someone asked what the general features of a Lancaster Rifle was and one of the more obvious features is the straight comb on the stock, somewhat similar to modern guns. The bottom of the stock is also straight, especially when compared with the generous curve along the bottom of a Buck county rifle.
I could go on noting the differences between these general forms but if our members study the shapes I'm sure they can see the differences.
Anyway, to me, the general shape of the stock is the starting place. Lock styles, Trigger Guard styles, Patchbox styles and Butt Plate styles varied somewhat between the different Gunsmiths and the time in History but the general shapes didn't change much over the years.
excess650 said:
Yes but once back to 1750-1760 nobody really knows what a Lancaster gun looked like. The question WAS about PHOTOS after all, so we are kinda stuck with what we have PHOTOS of. If you have a PHOTO of a DATED and/or signed Lancaster rifle that was made 1730-1750 I would love to see it.
There is a "Resor" in "Steel Canvas" that is thought to predate 1770. Brass patchbox and all.
I was referring to PHOTOS people could look at. So one must use AVAILABLE photos of the earliest known examples.
If you will look you will note that I said Fordney was very very late. I mentioned him since the buttstock profile is what most people associate with Landcaster.
Photos of the early JP Becks, or Dickert's are a pretty good guide. Until something earlier turns up.
Dan
fort fireman said:
No fort fireman...it's not too bad he sold it to someone other than you because I'm the one who bought it! :grin: :grin: :grin:
She is a beauty and she works flawlessly. I might also mention that she is beautifully balanced and weighs about 2 lbs. less than the shorter, nose-heavy Traditions PA longrifle that was my first flintlock.
Now, if people would just stop trying to buy her from me! :rotf:
Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
