AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: rich pierce on May 05, 2025, 01:22:59 AM
-
Jim Kibler brought up the idea of “studying originals” here. I decided to put this original offering in Gun Building but we can move it to Antique Collecting. I am interested in approaching the subject from a gun builders view.
To kick things off, here is an original rifle built by Jacob Dickert of Lancaster Pennsylvania, probably built around 1770 plus or minus. It was for sale here if you want to see and read from the auction catalogue. https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/83/1121/revolutionary-war-era-jacob-dickert-flintlock-american-longrifle
This may be a video of this exact rifle. https://youtu.be/qG302gtc4s4?si=_TzgW9Da3vQVi_in
This rifle is also close to or the same as #48 in George Shumway’s Rifles of Colonial America.
Instead of me trying to compose a summary of its features that stand out to me, perhaps we could discuss:
What immediately says “early American longrifle” when you see it?
What says “Lancaster”?
What says “Dickert”?
Other things?
(https://i.ibb.co/Jjjg05qv/IMG-4075.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QvvtzrkP)
(https://i.ibb.co/kVSRymDZ/IMG-4077.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JWsfd3pZ)
(https://i.ibb.co/xSSjZptQ/IMG-4074.png) (https://ibb.co/3yyNKD9H)
(https://i.ibb.co/mVRtZ36G/IMG-4076.jpg) (https://ibb.co/W4HF8Lg6)
(https://i.ibb.co/wZ75CbD5/IMG-4078.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XfDcpdmc)
Anyone interested in a biographical sketch of Jacob Dickert’s life would find this interesting. https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entries/jacob-dickert/
-
Come on, someone has to start!
-
Rich, I think two things that say early are the patchbox and the triggers. I think it's fairly well known that the patchbox is one used by Dickert on early guns.
That style of trigger has had plenty of discussion here in the past. Maybe when I get some time I will try to look up some of those discussions. I'm pretty busy the next few days.
Somebody else jump in now that I have broken the ice.
Joe Stein
-
Are there any other Longrifles with the straight rear trigger? I can’t recall any at the moment?
-
So, what about the box design would suggest it’s an “early” feature?
-
Keep in mind one mission of this forum is education, and there are thousands of members who read but never post. Pointing out what may be obvious to some can be very helpful to many we’ve never met.
-
As one of the guys yall are teaching, this is my take. To me, (not much experience but learning) the wide butt plate and thicker wrist seem to point to an early gun, the set triggers look like what I’ve seen on some early 1700’s jaeger rifles. The trigger guard also seems early to me. When I say early I’m thinking 1760’s-1770’s. I assume the flat lock with no adornments and no rollers can be early attributes but could also say colonial made vs imported?
-
Rich, I think two things that say early are the patchbox and the triggers. I think it's fairly well known that the patchbox is one used by Dickert on early guns.
That style of trigger has had plenty of discussion here in the past. Maybe when I get some time I will try to look up some of those discussions. I'm pretty busy the next few days.
Somebody else jump in now that I have broken the ice.
Joe Stein
Joe, that type of flat rear set trigger is very rare. I can think of one other on an American-made gun, shown in one of the books on Moravian guns. Also very early.
(Added in edit) Joe, that box really is pre- Golden Age in so many ways. I think many students guesstimate that the daisy patchbox common to many Golden Age Lancaster rifles may have emerged by the start of the Revolutionary War. Or, at the latest, by the early post-war years. The box on this one is atypical and looks like it had no offspring. Seems Dickert abandoned it as opposed to expanding on it in his later builds.
I hope others will reply to comments as well. It’s meant to be a round table discussion.
-
As one of the guys yall are teaching, this is my take. To me, (not much experience but learning) the wide butt plate and thicker wrist seem to point to an early gun, the set triggers look like what I’ve seen on some early 1700’s jaeger rifles. The trigger guard also seems early to me. When I say early I’m thinking 1760’s-1770’s. I assume the flat lock with no adornments and no rollers can be early attributes but could also say colonial made vs imported?
Yep, in my experience that trigger type is rare here but more common on European rifles of the early to mid 1700s. We can’t know if they were new or recycled when Dickert stocked this gun. The buttstock, 5” deep and over 2” wide, is rarely seen on guns reliably dated to 1790 and later. It also has little curvature, but is not as flat as buttplates found on some other rifles thought to be contemporary with this one.
The guard looks fairly early with a grip rail that is not snugged up to the wrist, but it lacks anything that screams early, such as finials at the ends that are more decorative.
-
The architecture of the stock has always told me what county or school the gun was made in. The underline of this rifle looks like Lancaster, but the comb doesn't. There is a J.P. Beck with that same style comb and why they did that I have no idea. Other Beck rifles and I don't believe any other Dickert rifles are made this way. Until we have a time machine it will only be a guess as to why, but does anyone have a good guess? Al
-
I believe the Dickert rifle pictured is a twin to RCA 48. Almost identical except for the comb and engraving on the box. I attempted a rendition of this gun back in 2018 using a Davis set trigger. I ended up making the rear straight trigger from an old file. Another interesting aspect of this piece that I haven't seen anywhere else is the nose of the lockplate has an astragal arch. For what it's worth, the straight grip rail on the triggerguard may be HC, but absolutely stinks for gun handling.
(https://i.ibb.co/wr01ZXPP/P1000378.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Pzm8snPP)
-
I believe the Dickert rifle pictured is a twin to RCA 48. Almost identical except for the comb and engraving on the box. I attempted a rendition of this gun back in 2018 using a Davis set trigger. I ended up making the rear straight trigger from an old file. Another interesting aspect of this piece that I haven't seen anywhere else is the nose of the lockplate has an astragal arch. For what it's worth, the straight grip rail on the triggerguard may be HC, but absolutely stinks for gun handling.
(https://i.ibb.co/wr01ZXPP/P1000378.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Pzm8snPP)
Tommy, by coincidence, the lock signed A Albrecht shares that astragal arch nose.
-
To my eye that comb profile looks like it may have been altered later in life.
-
To my eye that comb profile looks like it may have been altered later in life.
Agree, it looks like there is wood loss on the comb from above the front of the patchbox to the junction with the wrist. Even without that possible wood loss, it seems like the nose of the comb would be pretty low before dropping to the wrist. If we compare the buttstock on this Dickert to that of the Albrecht Lancaster style buttstock, there are some significant differences. Is this an earlier style of Dickert architecture or a one-off to fit a specific customer? I don’t know how much that might have been done.
-
Thanks for starting this discussion Rich. My favorite rifles are the early ones.
There is a signed Dickert on page 125 of Moravian Gun Making that is very similar to this one. It also has the straight triggers and the same patch box. What tells me this is an early rifle is the wide butt plate, the patch box which has simple engraving and a fleur-de-lis finial. The lock looks Germanic. Also the very common C scroll carving behind the cheek piece looks like other early rifles like Albrecht or Antes.
-
Discussing originals is always of interest to me, but like most, don't have access to them to handle in person. The next best thing has been books and the internet which has added to my knowledge; especially the quality of photography available from the Auctions.
Regarding the rifle in this thread, It is actually RCA #49 after restoration. The forestock, lock and triggers are not original to this rifle as pictured in Shumway. Also the comb irregularity is wear or damage, I'm convinced it had a typical straight dickert/lancaster style comb when new.
I haven't built many rifles but my requirements for an early generic, say pre 1782(independence) would be a barrel 1 1/8 OR 1 1/16 at breech, no longer than 42in and 54 cal or larger. Buttplate min 1 7/8 wide by 5 in min heel to toe and flat or almost flat. stock with 2 1/4 to 2 5/8 drop at heel, possibly a stepped wrist, some minimal carving, wooden or simple brass patchbox lightly engraved. barrel pinned as opposed to wedges. My lock choice would be a Davis early colonial for the 1 1/8 or Chambers dale johnson for the 1 1/16
Steve
-
To my eye that comb profile looks like it may have been altered later in life.
Yes. The auction write-up linked above mentions the nose of the stock's comb was lowered "slightly" during it's period of use. IMHO, I think it was lowered more that "slightly". I agree with Steve.
What immediately says “early American longrifle” when you see it?
The patchbox has been mentioned and I agree. To me the box has a lot of the features of it's predecessor, the sliding wood patchbox lid, with it's narrow base, nearly parallel sides, domed shape and it's blunt-nosed forward end. In the very slight flair at the base of the side rails I see the beginning of the evolution to the later and more tri-angular pathboxes.
What says “Lancaster”?
To me it's that classic triangular shaped butt stock. Extend the straight line of the lower edge of the stock toward the lock and extend the straight line of the comb toward the lock and the lines intersect at the center of the lock. (Well, they would have if someone hadn't rasped off the comb on this rifle.)
What says “Dickert”?
I know other old masters used them, but for me it's the back to back C-scrolls behind the cheek piece. Dickert's are just perfect.
Ron
-
One good starting point exercise might be to talk about what features distinguish these longrifles from European counterparts of the same period. Any takers?
-
Not all early (pre-War) work is a club. Just keep that in mind - it took me a while to come to grips with that.
John Schneider 1776 being a case in point.
-
Not all early (pre-War) work is a club. Just keep that in mind - it took me a while to come to grips with that.
John Schneider 1776 being a case in point.
Eric, that one could be great to discuss. Do you have pictures?
-
I did but I can no longer find them. I had old hard-copy color photos at 8X10 and some large b/w from George, some that weren't in the book. I don't know where they are but I don't remember loaning them to anyone and I simply can't find them here. It's a very slender, skinny piece with a barrel that is just under an inch at the breech, but there is some decent meat through the cheek. The singular time that I was able to get a good look at it, I was quite impressed with its creativity and it has all the hallmarks of genuine age and use. It's quite a fantastic rifle that is generally overlooked in any discussion of 'wartime' rifles.
Also (and this may stir up some controversy) pretty much everyone who can trace their lineage back to a Schneider/Snyder surname claims descendance, but unfortunately Schneider/Snyder was an unbelievably common surname in SEPA and "John" sure doesn't help. I have yet to see *documentable* information as to specifically who or where he was. Not saying it's not out there, but I haven't seen it. *Period* documentation, not 'Ancestry' documentation or oral familial history.
-
We don't have any early Dickert's in the Library here to compare, but we do have a nice 1790/1800ish Dickert to use as a later rifle to compare to this early one.
This gun has had some restoration, but all the important parts are generally original; The barrel was stretched, the lock reconverted to flint, etc. But overall, it's what most Dickerts looked like 20 or 30 years after the early one was made. One major exception would be the outstanding cheek side carving on this rifle.
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=22664.0
-
(https://i.ibb.co/n8YtJwy7/cvrx01b.png) (https://ibb.co/gFfhKr8S)
modern reproduction of Schneider rifle. descendant measured, photographed, original and other than barrel and lock got it pretty close.
I can post more pictures if anyone wants to discuss this rifle.
Steve
-
How about Kindig #18 for a slender wrist.
-
Hello Rich,
I usually am here to read and learn but I saw your post before anyone responded with answers except for the request that somebody needs to start. Ha.
I’m a real novice but for decades my first love of flintlock longrifles was this early Lancaster rifle.
To me, the triangle straight top and bottom of the but has a Lancaster style, and angles all scream Lancaster to me.
The wider, flatter butt shape and cap scream early vs more later skinnier and curved like the same Lancaster showed 20-30 years later.
The domed matchbox looks like Dickert or Isaac Haines. But it’s more primitive style with basic, simple, more primitive engraving again spell “Early” to me.
The trigger looks like the early German Jagers types and the lock looks to have more early German style to my eyes and the lock just looks earlier by larger, longer, and less refined style.
The barrel sizes of earlier guns are often larger across the flats at rear and muzzle than later guns at least from what I have noted.
Again, I’m just a novice compared to so many artisans here but I’ve looked at many “early Lancaster” style guns and these stand out to me.
Oh, the C scrolls seem to more closely resemble the Lancaster styles to me.
Great topic.
Thanks
Bryan
-
Good stuff. Next: what do you like about it besides it being an early Dickert that says “early”?
My reactions :
Great architecture (if there hadn’t been wood loss at the nose of the comb) with clear Lancaster styling
Not my favorite patchbox. I’d prefer the Dickert-attributed box that lost its gun
Cheekpiece carving is excellent and foundational
Unlike the Marshall rifle or RCA 19 and others that could pass for provincial Germanic guns, this feels American-made, 100% to me. I wish I could point out exactly why besides the brass box.
-
I'm 1500 miles from my modest library at the moment, so I cannot give specifics as to a particular book. Most of the Dickerts being discussed here are his best efforts. He also made guns for military use and the one that comes to mind is in one of Whisker's book. I bring that up because I believe he probably made many unadorned rifles which are lost to time.
RCA 1 shows an Issac Haines that at best can be described as a modest rifle. Luckily it survives and shows the basic Lancaster traits without the bling.
I do not recollect the specific number in the RCA book.
-
I'm 1500 miles from my modest library at the moment, so I cannot give specifics as to a particular book. Most of the Dickerts being discussed here are his best efforts. He also made guns for military use and the one that comes to mind is in one of Whisker's book. I bring that up because I believe he probably made many unadorned rifles which are lost to time.
RCA 1 shows an Issac Haines that at best can be described as a modest rifle. Luckily it survives and shows the basic Lancaster traits without the bling.
I do not recollect the specific number in the RCA book.
Agree, this is high end and many were plainer and later.
-
What separates American from European pieces?
Hinged metal box
Curly maple for stock (small chance of finding this on a European piece)
Generally longer barrel
Next comes characteristic details that are assignable to particular makers from signatures etc...
-
What separates American from European pieces?
Hinged metal box
Curly maple for stock (small chance of finding this on a European piece)
Generally longer barrel
Next comes characteristic details that are assignable to particular makers from signatures etc...
Jim, do the guard and side plate on this Dickert fit well into the variability of these elements in contemporaneous European rifles?
(https://i.ibb.co/N2hnbXvY/IMG-4078.jpg) (https://ibb.co/232YHw9K)
-
The sideplate is certainly an iconic form that is often seen on American pieces and it certainly speaks to us. I don't know if the squared off shape is ever seen on European pieces, but I think you do see some. Probably not with this exact form, though.
The guard is certainly racier than most European examples and has to me trended in the iconic longrifle design. Squared off finials with facets are seen on European examples though.
My 2 cents anyway....
-
To my eye that comb profile looks like it may have been altered later in life.
Agree, it looks like there is wood loss on the comb from above the front of the patchbox to the junction with the wrist. Even without that possible wood loss, it seems like the nose of the comb would be pretty low before dropping to the wrist. If we compare the buttstock on this Dickert to that of the Albrecht Lancaster style buttstock, there are some significant differences. Is this an earlier style of Dickert architecture or a one-off to fit a specific customer? I don’t know how much that might have been done.
I've seen this Dickert before and have always wondered about the comb. Was it made that way, was it worn down over time, was it damaged, or was it altered intentionally?
Here's the first gun I ever built, many moons ago, that was supposed to be a Dickert style. The comb was equal parts inspired by Dickert examples such as the one shown in this thread, and not knowing exactly what I was doing.
(https://i.ibb.co/VFvr1c6/IMG-8832.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hGKh6J0)
-
Lonewolf, Nice job. You got the engraving basics on the patchbox down pretty well!
(https://i.ibb.co/9kNgfkDT/Dickert.webp) (https://ibb.co/5g64zg08)
-
I am a Dickert fan. My family goes back to Lancaster, PA, and I'd like to think that one of my ancestors owned one.
I've seen pics in books. I bid on one at auction, but sadly, could not afford it. I love to look at pics of them on the internet any chance I get.
Thanks for this thread.
-
Rich, I think two things that say early are the patchbox and the triggers. I think it's fairly well known that the patchbox is one used by Dickert on early guns.
That style of trigger has had plenty of discussion here in the past. Maybe when I get some time I will try to look up some of those discussions. I'm pretty busy the next few days.
Somebody else jump in now that I have broken the ice.
Joe Stein
Joe, that type of flat rear set trigger is very rare. I can think of one other on an American-made gun, shown in one of the books on Moravian guns. Also very early.
(Added in edit) Joe, that box really is pre- Golden Age in so many ways. I think many students guesstimate that the daisy patchbox common to many Golden Age Lancaster rifles may have emerged by the start of the Revolutionary War. Or, at the latest, by the early post-war years. The box on this one is atypical and looks like it had no offspring. Seems Dickert abandoned it as opposed to expanding on it in his later builds.
I hope others will reply to comments as well. It’s meant to be a round table discussion.
Rich Pierce and Jim Kibler, I haven't been ignoring you. I posted here and then ended up taking my daughter to the hospital and being away until now. At this point I am still too busy with caring for her.
-
Hoping things go well, Joe.
-
The sideplate is certainly an iconic form that is often seen on American pieces and it certainly speaks to us. I don't know if the squared off shape is ever seen on European pieces, but I think you do see some. Probably not with this exact form, though.
The guard is certainly racier than most European examples and has to me trended in the iconic longrifle design. Squared off finials with facets are seen on European examples though.
My 2 cents anyway....
My 2 cents on the tiggers, maybe the owner had an issue with his trigger finger, maybe it was smaller or he lost half of it? Sometimes you’ve gotta think outside the universe of guns.
Nick
-
I'm late to the party on this one.
I notice on this forum very few comment to posts. I'm hesitant to comment most times because while yes, flintlock guns is one of my biggest interests, there's a ton of people on here who like to put you in your place rather quick. I'm young compared to most (35) so I don't have the knowledge most of you do, at least in some things like schools, builders etc. I've discussed this issue of why I don't post much on here, or comment on here to members of ALR while in person with them. Anyhow now that I got that out here, and you know why I don't spend much time on here, I'll take a stab at it. And prepare to likely get put in my place lol.
I think what "says" that this gun is early to me is the thicker wrist. It has what I would say is an earlier lock with more of a banana shape lock plate and I must add that I love it!
It says Lancaster to me from the straight comb and straight line from toe up to the wrist.
Thats all I got.
I love this gun and I've looked at Ethans video more than once just because I have not had the time or opportunity to handle originals as much as I wish I could so I like video over pictures as it gives me different angles to observe so I can improve my builds to look more like just that...an original.
One thing I'll note, it could be from wear rather than how it was built but I gotta give more contrast from that comb into the wrist. I just dont like the look of that. Do you think it was from use or shaped that way?
-
Thanks for weighing in. I’m thinking the comb was modified for a second owner.
-
I'm late to the party on this one.
I notice on this forum very few comment to posts. I'm hesitant to comment most times because while yes, flintlock guns is one of my biggest interests, there's a ton of people on here who like to put you in your place rather quick. I'm young compared to most (35) so I don't have the knowledge most of you do, at least in some things like schools, builders etc. I've discussed this issue of why I don't post much on here, or comment on here to members of ALR while in person with them. Anyhow now that I got that out here, and you know why I don't spend much time on here, I'll take a stab at it. And prepare to likely get put in my place lol.
All of the seasoned masters on here were once young and inexperienced. I'm in my late 40s but still consider myself to be young in this hobby and I ask more than my fair share of "dumb questions". We need more guys in their 30s and 40s to carry on the sport, so I would encourage you to post more and not to be intimidated. We'll be the old timers before we know it and we won't know what we're talking about then if we don't venture out of our comfort zones and be vulnerable now.