Nitpick these guns?

[AZ-Robert]

I'm not in the market for another gun right now, but I still find myself browsing Track's site to see what is available. I figure if nothing else I'm getting ideas for that gun I'll get around to putting together myself one of these days. Anyway.... spotted two that look like "okay" deals and wondered what some of the experienced hands thought of the looks and prices on these specimens:

Lancaster (Dickert) .50

Lancaster (Dickert) .40 with 36" bbl

I figure I (as well as others) can learn from the comments you old hands can make on historical accuracy, architecture, etc.

Thanks.

 

They are both beautiful!

One thing that stands out to me, is that the lockplate is inletted too deep on both guns. The bevel of the lockplate is supposed to be above the wood, not below it.

 

[Geoff Jones]

AZ

Both look very nice....I would agree that the lock looks a little deep...particularly on the 40 cal. Lock panel shape seems a little boring to me...not too large necessarily, just not "flowing". Forearm and forend look nice and slim on both.

One thing bothers me regarding the 40 cal. The shot from the top looks as if there is cast[url] off...in[/url] the wrong direction! could be the photo...but if not, I bet it's not comfortable to shoot.

pricing is right with the market today...remember track's getting 30%!!!!
Geoff

 

[musketman]

One thing bothers me regarding the 40 cal. The shot from the top looks as if there is cast[url] off...in[/url] the wrong direction! could be the photo...but if not, I bet it's not comfortable to shoot.

I marked a line centered in the barrel flats and ran it back through the image of the stock...

It does appear to be off center...

View The Image

Maybe the stock maker designed it to fit himself, using his own measurements as a template...

 

Must be an occular dilussion, :rotf: as both the tang, and buttplate screw line up. I am not particularly fond of it because of the poop brown color, the 36" straight barrel(makes the proportions all wrong for a Dickert. Now if it were a 42" swamped, and a more traditional color, maybe) and compared to the .50 cal. for a third of the price less. Just my rambleings. Bill

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Looks to me like the comb is thinner on the cheek piece side--perhaps an attempt to give a little cast-off. Maybe the original stock blank was too thin to allow real cast-off?

 

[54JNoll]

Both are very nice. The .40 would be nicer to me if it had a swamped barrel. The carving is very well executed. 36 inches is short for proper archetecture for a Dickert.

For the cost I think the .50 is a better deal.

 

[TN.Frank]

I like 40cal but I'd never pay $2k for ANY gun. That being the case my nod would have to go to the 50cal. Still $1600 bucks is a lot of money. You can get a Jackie Brown for $800-$900 or Larry at ERA can make you something up for about the same price. Granted they'll not be as "fancy" but they'll shoot just as well. :hmm:

 

[nchawkeye]

Looks like he had problems on how to form the cheekpiece...and the incised carving is pretty crude...I would prefer no carving, compaired to what he has, and a better grade of wood...Not worth $1650...Maybe $1000...

 

[CrackStock]

Actually, the .50 looks better that the Dickerts that I have seen in books. I think that you would be hard pressed to get a gun with engraving and carving from much under $1,500. It seems that people possess machining skills, carving skills, or engraving skills, but the talents to do all three well are rare and expensive.

CS

 

[Pittsburghunter]

None of the stuff you mentioned caught my eyes I was wondering what the stainless screws were doing there.

 

[CrackStock]

Stainless? I was discussing the .50 and see no stainless on it.

I see some lock bolts with shiny silver ends, but that is to be expected when you cut them to fit and file them smooth. They darken quickly with use.

If you look at the other side, you see that the heads are browned.

As to the .40, I see a few in the white screws, but seriously doubt that these are stainless. They would be easily blued or browned in short order.

CS

 

[paulvallandigham]

I agree. Put a little vinegar on a cleaning patch and just touch those shiny ends, and let them sit for an hour. Then go back wipe the surface off with a patch soaked in water, dry it, and oil it. No more shine. If you don't have vinegar at home, then use a lemon, or apple, or orange, or any other kind of citrus fruit, or fruit juice. It doesn't take much to leave a nice patina.

 

[riverrat43]

I think I see the line of incised carving that goes from under the cheek piece back to the butt actually cutting into the butt plate on the 50. Should it?

 

[Stumpkiller]

Yes, though his "chatters" and the width varies. I'd burnish that down on the upper side and make it more of a radiused mortise. That would help to disguise the "wobbles". As mentioned by others earlier, it's pretty rough incise work.

Am I mistaken in feeling that's a Bedford style sideplate and a Bucks style patchbox on the other rifle; the .40? Not sure if Dickert went there. :winking: (Or ever made a "short" barrel in a .40, for that matter).

 

[dlemaster]

The one thing I noticed was the rear point of the lock moulding on the .50 Dickert is a little too high. the tail of the lock is close to the center of the wrist, but the moulding tail didn't get pulled down to a line from the center of the butt plate to the point of the lock tail.

Regards, Dave

 

[barebackjack]

Apparently somebody thought the .50 cal was nice, cuz its sold.

Boone

 

[AZ-Robert]

I figured it wouldn't take long. There is always room for improvement, but both of those looked like "okay" deals to me.