Pics of a post Rev. War Lancaster rifle

[tallbear]

Thanks guys.I'm learning.

I was shooting for about 1790's when I planned out the rifle.Rich did a nice job cleaning up the Gorhing casting that Reeves took from a signed Dickert about that period.

Mitch

 

[tallbear]

Since I was shooting for 1790's for this rifle anybody have any comments about the subject matter I used for the patchbox ??

Mitch

 

[Mike Brooks]

Since I was shooting for 1790's for this rifle anybody have any comments about the subject matter I used for the patchbox ??

Mitch

I like it. Quirky and really makes the rifle interesting. Very well executed and designed too. :thumbsup:

 

[Sunkmanitu Tanka]

WOW ! A stunning rifle, and a very informative thread! The last few days I am learning a lot here! Keep it up guys! :hatsoff:

 

[tallbear]

The point I was trying to get at is this.My rifle is supposed to be a 1790's gun.The patch box is a copy of several that show up on Lancaster guns.The only problem is the guns that these rifles show up on seem to be all 1800+ rifles.So I ask the question "Should this be concidered a 1790's rifle if the patch box is post 1800"

Mitch

 

[Rifleman1776]

I'm not qualified to speak on it's 'correctness'. It is a beautifully executed rifle. Mighty fine.
Is the stock 'cast-on'? Or is that a photo illusion in the from the top view?

 

[jdkerstetter]

Hey Mitch,

That patchbox had to come form somewhere, right?

Call this piece a prototype...or like in the car world a "concept rifle".

After all, we can't say that the earliest example of a rifle with this patchbox has turned up yet. :wink:

Still nice work!

Just enjoy, J.D.

 

[tallbear]

One thing I am trying to show is the difficulty or decisions a builder needs to make when trying to build a historically correct rifle for a particular period.Most reenactors try to reenact what was common not what coulda been.

My point is to draw a contrast between true custom builders and the "generic custom builders' who for the price they charge have neither the time or the interest to get the details right.Please don't take this as bashing the "Generic Custom builders" as they fill a definate need in the muzzsleloading community.I am trying to point to the differences so we can disscusse them without the bitter confrontations of previous disscussions.

Mitch

 

[jdkerstetter]

Hey, Careful throwing "historicaly correct" around. There are those here that want you to forge your own barrels and locks before you use it. :wink:

I get where your coming from and I still can't get over what a nice job you guys did on this gun.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[roundball]

Please don't take this as bashing the "Generic Custom builders" as they fill a definate need in the muzzsleloading community.

I am trying to point to the differences so we can disscusse them without the bitter confrontations of previous disscussions.

Mitch

An excellent post
:hatsoff:

 

[Robby]

I guess I'm guilty of bending the rules, Tguard's, Bplates in order to make a 'couldabeen' too. All I can say is you fellows did a really nice job, that is one beautiful gun in all respects, to my eye! :grin: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Robby

 

[jdkerstetter]

I don't have a problem with "could-a-beens"....as long as they aren't passed of as "was-bins"( ? ).

The House brothers command a hefty price tag for their "could-a-beens".

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[tallbear]

I don't have a problem with "could-a-beens"....as long as they aren't passed of as "was-bins"( ? ).

Good point.As a builder I have done both depending on the customer.I do think that it is important that if I present a rifle as HC for a particular school or period I need to be ready to defend what I have done.If I present this rifle as a Lancaster rifle circa 1790 I should expect that some would challenge the patchbox which is probably post 1800.The cheecpiece inlay is certainly post 1812 as it was copied from a woodcut circa 1814.These fact take nothing away from the gun just that with these elements it shouldn't be represented as a 1790 circa gun.

The whole point of these disscussions is to educate.If we stick our fingers in our ears and refuse to listen or debate how can we learn.

Mitch

 

[tallbear]

Let me throw another rifle into the mix.This iron mounted Virginia Rifle is a copy of a rifle that was featured in Muzzle Blast in an article by Wallace Gusler that i built a couple of years ago.It features a 2" thick butt and wooden patchbox lid and a stepped toe.These are early features and the "Generic Custon Gun" companies would have no problem selling this as a "Early Virginia" rifle.But if we look closly it features a lock that probably wasn't imported into this country until after 1800.
To represent this rifle as "Early"(whatever that is)I would be incorrect.

Mitch

 

[Robby]

Two things I don't do, bench copies and misrepresent what I do. I couldabeen a contender, Stella!
Oh yeah, one more thing I don't do, take myself too serious. :grin:
Robby

 

[kodiakmarine]

IMHO, and it truly is humble, I believe the maker is an artist and needs to be allowed his personal touches. I shy away from using the terms "repica" or "reproduction" unless copying a surviving original in every last detail. I prefer to say a piece is "representative" of a particular time and school. This is not as restrictive and allows for personal taste and touches. To my eye you succeded in producing a piece that is representative of the 1790s Lancasters. BTW, I love that rifle! :hatsoff:

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

The whole coulda/woulda thing is a tough one to navigate.

If in 200 years the folks of that time begin to look back and think of representing a period of time from say the 70's then cell phones, ipods, x-box consoles and such cannot show up, they just were not there.

Such is the point you've made with a 1790's styled rifle with an early 1800's styled patchbox.

With the piece you've shown I see a gunsmith that apprenticed in the 1780's and continued his style into the earlier parts of the 1800's.

Great rifle by the way.