Next Build - Lancaster

[19283]

Howdy fellers,

I ordered my piece of wood, and have my eye on a .54 swamped barrel, and am thinking about my next build. I hear the term "Lancaster" used quite frequently when describing a rifle, but I'm still ensure exactly what physical attributes make a "Lancaster". Are there any good books, with lots of pictures of course, to help me along?

As someone said earlier...I'm trying to avoid the Rolls Royce grill on the Volkswagon Beetle look.... :rotf:

 

[Vaino]

"Rifles of Colonial America" has many Lancaster LRs by many different makers. Although the stock architecture of these various LRs is similar, the brass, Pboxes and carving do vary by maker.

A Lancaster is an excellent choice and should pose no problems asre shooting seeing the buttstock is comfortable and has survived into modern rifles.

Below is pictured my "version" of a generic .50 cal. Lancaster which is readily recognized as a Lancaster but incorporates features of a least 2 different makers.....Isaac Haines and John Brooks.

 

[galamb]

Traditional long rifles that were built in America's early days are (now - it's a modern concept) grouped into "Schools".

Lancaster is a School that encompasses (as noted above) the various builders in the Lancaster area of Pennsylvania that either "mimicked" each other or were influenced by each other that they shared enough common architecture that the rifles could be identified as coming from that area.

Jacob Dickert is one builder that (just might have) had the most significant influence on the Lancaster style (kinda the way artists paint in the style of a master etc).

Rifles from the York School (George Shroyer, Shreyer (different spellings) rifles as an example) look considerably different than Lancaster's even though they are only separated by about 25 miles (quite the walk in the late 1700's though).

While rifles from the Bedford School look pretty cool, they are not the nicest to shoot.

Most "shooters" that are perhaps best familiar with modern CF rifles would find Lancaster School (and in my opinion a J.P. Beck Lebanon/Lancaster rifle) or perhaps one of the Maryland Schools (John Armstong/Emmitsburg or Christian Hawken/Hagerstown schools) rifles the most "normal" feeling when put to the shoulder.

As has been noted, Rifles of Colonial America volumes 1 and 2 (aka RCA) are great sources but a little pricey.

Google is free and there is tons of info out there to at least let you figure out what you are interested in - then you can fork some cash for a book specific (maybe) to the school you want to emulate.

Or just ask here - between the bunch of us we can usually scratch up pics of just about anything that has ever been photographed - at least as far as longrifles go :grin:

 

[wattlebuster]

Beautiful rifle. I like the carving and stain :hatsoff:

 

[MSW]

if you don't already have a copy, I would recommend The Gunsmith of Grenville County by Peter Alexander. although this volume will set you back some coin, it's more than made up for in parts you don't ruin, time you don't spend waiting for the replacement pert, and time you don't spend in purgatory on account of the bad language. Mr. Alexander explains the sequence of building the rifle, which is full of 'lightbulb moments,' so I recommend that you read the book through before you start.

free advice: well worth the cost...

good luck with your project!

 

[Zonie]

The Lancaster style has a straight comb on the butt that is very similar to many modern bolt action rifle stocks.

The Reading style comb has a pronounced curve to it, often referred to as a "Roman nose".
Some of the Italian Kentucky rifles have this curve but they way overdid it.

This is an example of a Reading style butt



Below is a copy of a drawing from a Dixie Catalog that shows the differences in the shape of the butt on several different schools rifles.
The stock blank is the same in all of the drawings.

 

[19283]

Thanks everyone! Thanks to all the good advice, I think I'm slowly learning the nuances of the different schools. I really do like the look of the style with the pronounced comb drop, and/or Roman nose, but they don't look like they would be fun to shoot, in large calibers anyway.

 

[Pete G]

The Lancaster school uses several distinct features, the most noticeable being the triangular stock shape and long wrist. The upper and lower stock lines form a triangular shape with the apex being at the breech or closely thereabouts. When studying the various examples of antique rifles pay close attention to the shape and location of the nose of the comb. The carving pattern on a Lancaster is another of the distinctive features, usually consisting of two back to back C scrolls behind the cheek piece and sort of a fleur de lis type pattern behind the tang and entry pipe. Look up some of the Jacob Dickert details and you won't go wrong.

There is a fairly common Lancaster pattern side plate, but there can be several different trigger guard and butt plate patterns that can be considered correct. Find an existing rifle that you like the looks of and use it for guidance on your trigger guard and butt plate.

Although there are variations in patchbox designs, one of the Lancaster standards is the one with the daisy head finial. Be careful with the patchbox selection if you are buying a commercially made box. They are all based on fairly well know examples and getting the wrong style can make an otherwise well made rifle to look a little odd to someone who knows the difference.

I find that the study and planning is one of the more enjoyable aspects of rifle building, but maybe that's because I haven't had to fix any mistakes at that point; they are all in the future.

Good luck with your build and keep those tools sharp.

 

[Col. Batguano]

There's a reason that the Lancaster school is probably the most popular school to build. Chief among them is that it is probably one of the more comfortable ones to shoot, and architecture similar to modern guns adds to shooter familiarity.

The straight comb and belly lines, a butt plate return that sits on top of the stock, parallel lock panels, and clean c-scroll carving makes construction much more straight forward too.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the architecture of most Lancasters pretty similar, compared to Lehighs where there is great variation between makers in most of the above mentioned features.

 

[Vaino]

Straight is straight unlike curved outlines which can vary.

I enjoy building Lancaster LRs...they're very straight forward and most of the brass components can be purchased and will be appropriate.

My only objection of Lancaster LRs is that many use a "Daisy Headed" Pbox...don't like them and have a hard time finding other Pbox designs and still be w/in bounds of the Lancaster "school"......Fred

 

[Artificer]

How early do Lancaster Rifles go? Were any being made there in the 1740 - 50 time period?

Gus

 

[Rusty_Nail]

Howdy fellers,

I ordered my piece of wood, and have my eye on a .54 swamped barrel, and am thinking about my next build. I hear the term "Lancaster" used quite frequently when describing a rifle, but I'm still ensure exactly what physical attributes make a "Lancaster". Are there any good books, with lots of pictures of course, to help me along?

As someone said earlier...I'm trying to avoid the Rolls Royce grill on the Volkswagon Beetle look.... :rotf:

Though I am sure it does not show and tell everything about them, I liked this site when I first wanted to know about the rifles built in my home (outside of Lampeter). It shows a somewhat good silhouette of the stocks for the different "schools", and a brief explanation of each.

Cherry Tree Pa. Rifle Comparisons

The J.P. Beck should be under Lebanon/Lancaster, and I agree it is sacriledge to show Pedersoli rifles on a Pennsylvania Longrifle article! :shake: :nono:

 

[galamb]

Gus, I would "suspect" based on the following (which I will loosely paraphrase some research by Kindig)

Jacob Dickert was born in 1740. He (with his parents) initially settled in Berks county (1748) and then moved to Lancaster in 1756 where he (suspected) started his apprenticeship becoming a journeyman by 1761.

Now Kindig allows that he may have trained under a gunsmith from Berks, but (feels) a Lancaster gunsmith would be more likely.

If there was an established gunsmith in Lancaster to do Dickert's training in 1756 you might be able to stretch that to there being "some gun building" in (at least) the early 1750's.

George Shreyer (Shroyer) was apprenticing under Nicholas Hachen in Hanover in 1753 and Wolfgang Haga was building rifles at the same time in Reading - with Lancaster being "on the road" almost smack in the middle between both locations, it's probably very safe to say "somebody" was building in Lancaster at least as early as 1753.

I am not a "Lancaster student", but have no information in my mountain of notes that would indicate any rifle building in the 1740's - but again, never really looked..

 

[kaintuck]

pre revolutionary~ :hmm: built heavier than later 'golden era'....but kindigs book "Thoughts on kentucky rifles" would be a starting point....my sister wanted a early heavy looking one~ i think it turned out nice, and she was pleased......think thin germantic type i guess.....
marc n tomtom

 

[Birddog6]

Note to All: Not as a response to this post in particular, but to all Newbie builders.......

One thing to keep in mind (that few seldom do) til about 10 rifles to late.

FIT...... is the most important thing in shooting a rifle. Color, size, caliber, style, plain, fancy, etc,,,,, all of that may fill the Eye, but FIT is the most important of all.

Forget the books & etc. Go someplace that has a multitude of ML's on hand and actually SHOULDER some of them & find a style that fits YOU. Then buy a couple books that has that school of builds & decide on what you want from there.

It is a real pisser to spend $1000. and work 3-4 months & build a really nice rifle you will leave in the closet for the next 20 years simply because it doesn't fit you & you didn't check the styles out well.......

So now you still have your first rifle, and after 20+ years & it is still basically useless & you never shoot it or enjoy it, and all because you didn't want to take a days drive to some place & actually see & shoulder a variation...... But it is your money. :idunno:

Now some say "Good Lord that is a whole days drive away, then back". OK.... You are gonna spend $ 1000. & look at the dang thing for YEARS...... it IS worth some investigation.... :slap:

Keith Lisle

 

[b737tvc]

What kind of finish did you use?

Beaver T.

 

[Vaino]

After the stain is dry, a brisk rub w/ 0000 steel wool removes any unabsorbed surface stain.....the stained wood is not cloudy after the rub.

Then 2-3 generous wipe on/wipe off coats of LMF sealer w/ a 10-15 min soak time. A complete dry between coats and when the final coat is dry, a hard rub w/ the 0000 steel wool removes any surface sealer. The 10-15 mins is critical....you don't want it to set up, so keep checking it w/ your finger.

Then 2-3 sparse, finger rubbed in coats of Wahkon Bay Trucoat w/ a complete dry between coats. This finish eliminates having to rub back a glossy surface. The stock looks like there isn't any finish on it...but it's well sealed w/ most of the finish in the wood, not on it.....Fred

 

[b737tvc]

yes, thanks I keep getting that mirror glossy finish and its driving me up the wall. What was your sanding schedule.

Beaver T.

 

[Vaino]

You mean the final sanding and whiskering before applying stain? If so, I just use 220 grit wet/dry paper......Fred

 

[b737tvc]

Thanks Fred, by the way your build looks great!

Beaver T.