DIFFERENCES: Early Virgina vs. Isaac Haines ?

[tg]

" I wish to hell Don would have just called it a Lancaster and let it go at that"

Amen to that, the barrel length has become "the" determining factor with Haines guns it appears,this is not uncommon though with the internet and flodd of info sharing folks are getting a bit more sophisticated about thew who and what of the replica guns compared top originals and are slowly finding out a lot of previously unknown facts, another gun that takes a beating is the French Fusil made in the town/armory of Tulle, the only real way to know if the gun is a "Tulle" (I hate that as a descriptive name) is to have the name somewhere on the gun, typically on the lock, I suspect that 90% of the "Tulle" guns around today do not have the name of the armory on them, at any rate I have drifted off topic so I'll end my sermon now.

 

[blacksmithman64]

AMEN, BROTHER!

 

[Mike Brooks]

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/qq4/StumblinWolf/Picture019.jpg

What in particular makes this a "Haines" rifle? Not picking on you, just want to get on common ground.

 

[blacksmithman64]

Like I said, I ain't no gunbuilder.I'm just a common guy that notices little differentiations.From what I see, Lancasters are slim guns all through.Well made.More drop in the butt. Haines are beefier, more straight in the butt and not as fancy. And from the earliest date I can document from, maybe he was trying to capitalize on a cheap rifle to be used for the Continentals? Purely speculation.

 

[roundball]

I noticed Chambers website has a Haines and a Virginia...assuming they are correct renditions, they show the differences more clearly to me...just flipping back and forth between the photos the Haines stock has a lot more drop than the Virginia...

 

[blacksmithman64]

:hmm: Now I'm gonna go have to check that out! I'm no expert on the haines, but I do like the way they handle over a lancaster.But I'm a big fella and don't like to crawl all over a gun just to shoot it! But both haines guns I saw were bulkier and less droppy.Shoot roundball, I might have to go get me a Haines built!Now heres a dilemma. That Jim Chambers Haines Looks nothing like my I. haines from Golden Age,yer right, it drops way more than a lancaster on his guns. Maybe thats why golden age went out of business?! Oh Geez what the h#@% am I shooting!?

 

[Mike Brooks]

Haines worked in Lancaster co. His guns are Lancaster guns. He worked there the same time as Dickert,Gonter, Graef etc. Used the same stock profiles , architecture and brass mounts.
An undecorated and unsigned Dickert is going to look exactly like an undecorated and unsigned Haines.
Get a hold of Shumways books and have a look. :thumbsup:

 

[Okwaho]

This has been a most interesting thread on primarily lancaster guns and particularly guns made by Isaac Haines.I also heard about Virginia guns but since so called "early Virginia"guns are so far removed from early Lancaster guns as to seem like comparisons between apples and grapefruits I will stick to Lancaster guns.I couldn't help but notice in this thread an almost complete ignoring of the evolutionary process involving the guns and their makers. Jacob Dickert is an excellent example.Absent the signature and trade mark simple stacked C scrolls carving favored by him it would be difficult to realize that RCA rifles no.48,49,and 50 and particularly 49 were made by the same man as Nos. 67and 67. To simply refer to a Dickert rifle as such isn't enough. One needs to refer to early middle,and late period Dickert rifles.The same is true of other makers whose work spaned multiple decades and resulted in numerous guns being built over a long period of time.Some such as J.P.Beck changed their style very little while others such as George Schreyer{Schroyer}Sr.were constantly seeking new avenues of ornamentation. One need only look at the Pea Picker gun with its wildly fanciful carving to appreciate the seemingly unlimited bounds of creative decoration. "George Schreyer Sr.and Jr. Gunsmiths of Hanover" by George Shumway, No.7 PP.52-55

There is another gun shown in Shumway's "Rifles of Colonial America". This is No.114,the "Free Born" gun which is included in Vol.II, "Rifles of uncertain origin". This gun is also shown in the americanhistoric services.com web site I would very much like to hear comments concerning the possible approximate date of manufacture and the possible maker as well where the gun might have been made.Shumway wasn't sure whether the gun was made in Pennsylvania or in the South.Any other thoughts on the gun would be appreciated so have at it.
:hmm: :v

 

[nchawkeye]

John Bivens attributed this gun to a maker in Spartanburg, SC...I can't remember who it was, but I'll try to rememmber where I read this...
I believe he thought it was made in the 1775-1780
era...The gun and it's owner were captured and sent to England (I believe at the battle of Camden)and that's where the lock was changed...

 

[Okwaho]

nchawkeye, you are confusing this rifle with No.121,John Thomas' Rifle which gun is now in England.John suggesteded that James Robertson of Spartanburg,S.C.might have been the maker of No.121.

 

[nchawkeye]

You're right, sorry, I was at work...

The Free Born is the one that has a verse from Acts, where Paul told the Roman soldier that he was free born...

 

[rich pierce]

The difficulty in these discussions is that folks talk about "Haines" when they really mean, "one of the kits marketed as a Haines" and "early Virginia" when they mean, "one of the kits marketed as an early Virginia rifle", and "Lancaster" when they mean, "one of the kits marketed as "Lancaster". Don't consider perusing catalogues, whether paper or online, to be "research". Even kits that are well patterned after originals just don't come with more than a paragraph or two of explanation of what they represent. And for sure they don't address the variation among guns of any geographical location or timeframe. That's OK- those who offer the kits know that folks will do their own research if it interests them, and won't if they are not interested.

I'll try to reinforce some points already well made by Mike, Tg and Okwaho.

A Lancaster rifle is a rifle made in Lancaster County Pennsylvania during the original period of black powder muzzleloading guns. In other words, it could be a robust, early 1740's flintlock or a 1860's percussion half stock rifle. There was tremendous variation within Lancaster rifles and even by any one maker over time and even in one period. As Okwaho mentioned, look at an early and late Dickert and they are very different. Throw in a Fainot and a Newcomer and a Fordney and now you've got some real variation. Of course an original Haines is a Lancaster rifle because he worked there. There are some traits common to what is known as the "Lancaster style" longrifle and they include straight top and bottom lines to the buttstock, often a daisy patchbox or a variation thereof, and some common styles of furniture.

Nobody knows much what early Virginia rifles looks like since "Virginia" encompasses a lot of territory and there are few early examples that can be nailed down to a specific Virginia locale and timeframe. The best folks can do is offer a kit that represents something that could have been made in Virginia in the F&I War to Revoluitionary War periods. But we have far less of an idea what the variation was among early Virginia guns than we do about early Lancaster guns. More signed rifles that could be clearly linked to Lancaster have survived. And the Lancaster styled rifles were recognizable enough and so prized that the English made trade rifles patterned after them to sell to Native Americans.

Going forward, maybe we could talk about "the Track Haines" or "The Chambers Early Virginia" etc or refer to a specific original so we know what we're really discussing.

For those who don't know the history, as Mike Brooks alluded, current "Haines" kits are generic sort of Golden Age Lancaster styled rifles with somewhat shorter barrels than originals of the 1780-1790 period. These kits were simply called "Haines" as a marketing tool to indicate the general timeframe the kit style represents.

 

[roundball]

When I opened this thread with a simple question my expectation was that a common theme would quickly emerge ticking off 3-4 obvious differences between the two style 'names' I asked about...and unless I've overlooked them, that still hasn't happened.

But this thread has turned out to be pretty interesting as I really don't know much about history of these various Flintlocks...still don't...but even learning basics things like a Lancaster carries that name based on "where" the style had its roots...vs. an Isaac Haines carries that name based on the "who" of the roots of its style...the early and late Dickerts so called due to the different styles built by the same guy at different periods of his life...didn't know stuff like that 48 hours ago.

( but I'm still not up for a 1200 mile round trip to Tip Curtis :grin: )

 

[rich pierce]

I guess we're saying, "It's not that simple". Kit makers make stuff up and they each make up different stuff.

If we are talking about kits with these names:
A Haines as offered by 6 different sources will generally have a buttplate that is about 1 and 3/4" wide and has some curvature. It will come with a Siler lock, generally, and either a straight or swamped barrel not more than 1" at the breech and 38-42" long. Brass furniture, curly maple stock. Sideplate and guard will be based on original Isaac Haines examples. Calibers may run from .45 to .54. Usually we'll see a brass patchbox styled after an Isaac Haines original.

An "Early Virginia" rifle kit as offered by various kit suppliers will vary widely as this is a more generic term and so kit suppliers can make something up that fits their notion. The Chambers Mark Silver based kit is a good interpretation of what a pre-1775 exceptionally fine Virginia rifle could look like. Others offer less expensive kits that are more generic in styling. Depending on the supplier, you will often find a large, English styled lock, a long swamped or straight (to save $, not historically correct) barrel thick at the breech, a stock with the wrist extending through the buttstock more like English guns, and a sliding wooden patchbox. Some will offer steel furniture. Most would agree that in general, an English lock will be found more often on a Virginia rifle, and a Germanic lock will be the norm (with many exceptions) on a Pennsylvania rifle.

Most all the kits will turn into fine reliable shooting arms and if handling, fit, weight, etc are your main criteria, your best bet is to call a supplier up and say, "I want to build a x pound flintlock rifle in .xx caliber that has Y" drop at the comb, has a xx" long barrel, and is muzzle (heavy for offhand target shooting or light for easy carrying). Which of your offerings would best suit my needs?