Early

[Mike Brooks]

Such an annoying term.... It gets tossed around here alot, and thought we might just discuss what it actually means in reguards to colonial made rifles.
Early Lancaster and Early Virginia are most commonly heard. In this case, what does it mean? Earlier than what? A time line needs established before we can call anything early. I personally would call any Lancaster rifle made before 1770 early. There are a couple surviving examples made by Dickert shown in Shumways books.
Many people think much earlier when they use the term. Many want an "F&I war" rifle. That's a real tough one, and I'm asked to build these all the time. Here's my solution to the problem of "early" when applied to the elusive F&I war rifle.
I try to use alot of contenental european influence. Many times I approuch this with a "restock" in mind. I like to use an unbridled frizzen for these. wide butt, at least 2" to 2 1/4". I try to avoid following any identifiable "school". Barrels that are large at the breech are good, at least 1 1/8", 1 1/4 or better is even better. Either long or short is correct. Caliber should be fairly large, .54 or larger. Buttstocks should have a slightly "pregnant" appearance.
Here's my interpretation of an "F&I" gun. Discuss as you will.... http://www.fowlingguns.com/burrifle.html

 

[Mike Brooks]

Here's another, although not so early, more like the close of the F&I war. This is a copy of one of the "haga" rifles. Some of these are pretty early , others not so much...possibly none of them made by haga. :wink: http://www.fowlingguns.com/rifle3.html
This is a far more evolved colonial gun than the other gun I linked above.

 

[mazo kid]

Mike, those are some beautiful pieces of artistry. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: I have trouble separating the various "schools" let alone "early". I don't have the training or experience to distinguish the various subtleties and nuances...thanks for posting your thoughts.

 

[Captjoel]

Mike, I think you just put the "P" "H" in period, and historical correctness! :hatsoff:

 

[Ken Cormier]

I don't know the difference between early and late . BUT I do know that those weapons are NICE

 

[Trot]

Mike, thanks, Great subject,early is used so often I am sometimes not sure if some people stop and think just what it means.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Mike, thanks, Great subject,early is used so often I am sometimes not sure if some people stop and think just what it means.

Exactly. Lets say we put a Lancaster and a french hunting gun that were both built in 1760 side by side. One would be very early, the other would be very late, but both built the same year....

 

[Mike Brooks]

I don't know the difference between early and late . BUT I do know that those weapons are NICE

Thanks, but I could have just as easily linked to kettenburgs or Martin's guns to illistrate the point. I do appreciate the kind words though. :bow:

 

[Jason Lewis]

Mike, thanks, Great subject,early is used so often I am sometimes not sure if some people stop and think just what it means.

Exactly. Lets say we put a Lancaster and a french hunting gun that were both built in 1760 side by side. One would be very early, the other would be very late, but both built the same year....

forgive me, but which is which?

 

[Capt. Jas.]

"Early" is so subjective and only relevant with a certain time frame in mind. This leaves plenty of room for use as a marketing ploy to generate business. I prefer not to use it if I can.
Just saw a website a few minutes ago listing an "Early English" round face flintlock. Poppycock! It may be earlier than a first quarter 19th century English flintlock but it ain't early in my mind.


Mike, you gave a good example using the two guns.

That gun in the first link you posted seems pretty solidly made but that's some mighty low end wood. :grin:

 

[roundball]

Yes, a good question for sure...

My entry level dealings have been with guns made by TVM that are referred to on their website as Early Virginias...so that's what I call them. Some take issue with TVM calling them that and the only problem I have with that is that they never go on to substantiate the details of why, which always leaves me a little suspect...so it'll be interesting if consensus is reached here on even that one example.
:hmm:
Bottom line for me is that they're exactly what I ordered...well built, attractive, reliable, Flintlocks made with quality components from the likes of Rice, Chambers, Davis, for my personal shooting and hunting enjoyment, etc...simply outstanding long rifles for me.

BUT...I have wondered...similar to the fact that there are references to Early and late Lancasters...why I've never seen a reference to a Late Virginia ??
Was there never such a thing as a "Late Virginia", like the Late Lancaster with a slimmer butt, etc?
Was the so called Early Virgina simply short lived and never evolved?

(And I still think history related threads like this one should take place down in the historical section :wink: )

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Beautiful work and a question that needs to be answered. Too many just have no idea and use words so unwisely.

And those two examples are hands down some of the best work around, no doubt about it - very clean and surprisingly simple in appearance for the period they represent. I admire both you and Eric Kettenburg, you each say a lot with your work. We all have to remember that only years of research coupled with a high degree of craftsmanship and a large amount of artistic ability will accomplish what you do.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

....I still think history related threads like this one should take place down in the historical section :wink: )

A good post overall Roundball, but why make the statement I quoted? This subject can be appropriate under the topics of gunsmithing, history or in a general muzzleloading forum. Everyone benefits. :hatsoff:

 

[Mike Brooks]

(And I still think history related threads like this one should take place down in the historical section )

I saw this as general information more than historical information. besides, I never read the historical board as I'm not that interested in 18th century items other than guns. The historical board seems to cover too wide a range for those interested only in guns....never been too worried about 18th century underwear and stuff... :haha:
Virginia, Early? Late? I could use the same measuring stick for both the Lancaster and Virginia guns. Although, Lancaster is a very specific areaor school and Virginia is an entire territory and combination of possibleseveral dozen schools, which makes 'Early Virginia" an even more inadequet description.
Late Virginia? You'd have to set some perameters. Late flint? late cap lock?
Buy books, read. :thumbsup:

 

[hunts4deer]

I think "early" can be a good descriptive term if applied appropriately to a style where there is a difference between the appearance or style as made early or late in the period.

I think that, where there was a "school" or style that spanned a definite, limited time period, and that style had a documented beginning and ending point, and there is an evolution to that style that can be seen over the course of time, then to say it is an early version of the XYZ school makes sense.

Lets say that gun maker Mr. jones started making guns that looked more like a Jaeger in his early career, but ended up slimming down the stocks over time, lengthening the barrels, lightening the gun overall by the end of his 40 years of gun making. Then you would have an early Jones and a late Jones style.

But I suspect the term has been so misused that quite often it adds no real value to the description.

 

[roundball]

Early Lancaster and Early Virginia are most commonly heard. In this case, what does it mean? Earlier than what?

You asked the question to start this thread.

Here's your own answer right back at you:

Buy Books, Read !!

:wink:

 

[jsn]

To me the 1700's are the hayday for flintlocks anything after 1800 is late, anything prior to 1700 is early :thumbsup:

 

[Muskeg Stomper]

Love the features of the first rifle example; the swell of the cheek piece and general architecture of the butt stock, the round lock face, and the trigger and trigger guard configuration. The European features do speak EARLY to me. Good though provoking thread going here...

 

[Muskeg Stomper]

Forgot to add a "LOL" to CPT Jas' low end wood comment....

 

[tg]

Good post Mike the term is realy a marketing ploy now,I think that the pre rev war is what I cosider early for longrifles in most areas, the problem I see with most vendors including TVM is that they call their guns early without anything to suggest what makes them early or what time they think is early very vague but sounds cool to the unknowing public, it is not up to the customer or anyone else to provide information to validate or refute a vendors claims it is to the vendor to provide info with the product that defines the time and what puts such a gun in that time when talking about a term like early which has no univeraly accepted meaning, as for most of the early Virginia guns I have seen nothing by the vendors to suggest what makes them from Virgina or what makes them early and what early is with the exception of Chambers Faber and Brooks Kleete gun, but these sources are in a different realm than TVM, Sitting Fox and similar vendors many in this range have write ups with many guns that were obviously not done by a gun history student which is troubling to me when I see so many people buying into the hype they push, buying a gun and tossing a term around that they have no validation for or understanding of the where/when docums. and especially when thinking they are good to go for the F&I war.I wish the term would either be treated fairly and hopnestly by all vendors or just put on the shelf and left out of the decription.