AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: rich pierce on June 06, 2025, 02:57:16 AM
-
This is the last of my “early Lancaster original rifles” series. George Fainot was a French gunsmith who worked his way to Lancaster after stints in the Hudson Valley (and I think in Canada before that). His work is distinctive and there are a number of surviving fowling pieces attributed to him and perhaps 3 rifles. I know of 1 gun signed by him. His complex patchboxes were unique in Pennsylvania. Though side opening like some Bucks County guns, his were integrated into a surround that contained all the elements in one unit - hinge, latch, and opening spring that functioned completely outside the gun. His side plates were also distinctive though occasionally found on guns attributed to other Lancaster gunsmiths, and one Fainot-signed rifle with a more “expected” Lancaster patchbox is shown below. Thus appears to be a quite robust rifle, perhaps made soon after arriving in Lancaster. Another peculiarity is that the lower edge of the buttplate forward extension is often tipped down on his guns that had patchbox surrounds that filled the buttstock at the buttplate. There are Woodbury school contemporary rifles that use some patchbox design elements similar to Fainot’s and a number of originals that surrounds. I’m not aware of any that incorporate all his patchbox design elements similar- side opening lid, integral latch and opening spring, all riveted together.
Over time his patchbox construction varied a bit. Some fowling pieces had patchboxes.
This extraordinary rifle is in our library here:https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=15403.0
(https://i.ibb.co/C5tds460/IMG-4271.webp) (https://ibb.co/99vX3BhY)
(https://i.ibb.co/S4ptspR8/IMG-4270.webp) (https://ibb.co/9kjb8jsL)
(https://i.ibb.co/Cp2Y3Cw8/IMG-4269.webp) (https://ibb.co/Q7dT3SJQ)
(https://i.ibb.co/hRrv0Zw8/IMG-4265.webp) (https://ibb.co/99BjPVSY)
(https://i.ibb.co/wrzvbcsg/IMG-4267.webp) (https://ibb.co/VpqKhwm9)
(https://i.ibb.co/fdgFW4mt/IMG-4268.webp) (https://ibb.co/5h043Bqv)
(https://i.ibb.co/8nSvPd1C/IMG-4272.webp) (https://ibb.co/zW09P7qM)
(https://i.ibb.co/Z1wf41F2/IMG-4273.webp) (https://ibb.co/sJDgxJNW)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xk7WTPVp/IMG-4274.webp) (https://ibb.co/R43gWK7P)
More typical Fainot side plate:
(https://i.ibb.co/GQsKP1ZS/IMG-0090.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PGT7Cb2H)
Please discuss Fainot’s work! And I do hope others will add original guns to discuss in this way.
-
Very interesting patchbox! Can you tell me what the rivets are for? I would like to see a clearer photo to see better how it works. Beautiful!
-
Quite possibly my favorite antique ever. What a spectacular piece of work.
W
-
Very interesting patchbox! Can you tell me what the rivets are for? I would like to see a clearer photo to see better how it works. Beautiful!
The rivets hold everything together. Here are Fainot boxes I’ve made.
(https://i.ibb.co/9HwtJgz4/IMG-0316.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zV8J1xj2)
(https://i.ibb.co/twfFk2rY/IMG-0319.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JWLg0pJr)
(https://i.ibb.co/Rkd2NKTG/IMG-0656.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5gwTk3hX)
(https://i.ibb.co/fYsQYrYp/IMG-0249.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d0R70k02)
(https://i.ibb.co/xqTzhKxG/IMG-2800.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZzDcdRqK)
-
Great write up, Rich! Great pairing with the KRA bulletin that came out this spring too.
Fainot is really interesting, if he comes from France, Possibly Canada, NY--he adapts to the Lancaster school of building quite quickly.
I believe that there is a book out there that says Christopher Gumpf was an apprentice to Messersmith when Fainot was also working in the shop?
-
What are the features you find attractive?
Any “how to” questions? I’ve built a couple.
-
What are the features you find attractive?
Any “how to” questions? I’ve built a couple.
Maybe a couple more pictures of the spring and hook assembly for the latch? I'm struggling to see what's going on there.
Great work. It's beautiful and That is a great design
-
What are the features you find attractive?
Any “how to” questions? I’ve built a couple.
Maybe a couple more pictures of the spring and hook assembly for the latch? I'm struggling to see what's going on there.
Great work. It's beautiful and That is a great design
Those guns are sold so no more pix. Let me explain best I can.
The spring is held in 2 places to secure it near the buttplate. From the topside look at the tiny sliver of steel showing next to the buttplate. That is anchor #1. Anchor #2 is a rivet. You can see it in the underside view. I had to imagine part of the spring. I needed a horizontal ledge that would engage the notched stud that is fastened to the lid. I might have been able to make it 1-piece.
The spring wants to push toward the patchbox cavity. It has a stud that protrudes up through the side plate where the cute button is soldered on. When the lid closes, the stud, which is angled like a chisel point on the underside of the lid, starts to compress the spring toward the side plate. Then the spring ledge pops into the notch in the stud. Everything has to be tight tolerances. Guess that’s always true.
(https://i.ibb.co/21cLg3L7/IMG-4279.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZpcwWzw6)
(https://i.ibb.co/0VMdM65J/IMG-4280.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Tq8F87yh)
-
Rich,
I'm seeing the hinge knuckles in your patchbox hinge, but Fainot's patchbox appears to have the knuckles hidden somehow. Can you explain the construction in that regard? I'm baffled and feeling somehow tricked or experiencing an illusion. Additionally, would the originals have been made of cast brass or sheet metal? The side plate and PB are exceptionally artistic to my eye. I've given in to the urge to copy that side plate several times on fowing pieces.
-
Great photos, all is clear now, thank you! Clever arrangement.
-
Rich,
I'm seeing the hinge knuckles in your patchbox hinge, but Fainot's patchbox appears to have the knuckles hidden somehow. Can you explain the construction in that regard? I'm baffled and feeling somehow tricked or experiencing an illusion. Additionally, would the originals have been made of cast brass or sheet metal? The side plate and PB are exceptionally artistic to my eye. I've given in to the urge to copy that side plate several times on fowing pieces.
Cast or sheet? I’m guessing sheet because otherwise if I was casting it I’d use fewer rivets and incorporate some things that otherwise are a bunch of LEGO pieces. He must have had a bucket of rivets.
On the hinge topic: Fainot used 2 types. One is a tube hinge which is integral with the lid. No interlocking knuckles. Just one tube with a hinge pin protruding from both ends. The hinge pin then rests in 2 U-shaped pintles riveted to the underside of the surround.
Some had knuckles with half the knuckles formed on the lid and half on the edge of the surround. That’s a nightmare.
I did a lot of studying and consulting with an owner of an original. A lot of looking at rivets and guessing what they were for.
(https://i.ibb.co/5gtkksSL/IMG-0051.jpg) (https://ibb.co/67V88DTF)
(https://i.ibb.co/JjQm3DnR/IMG-0089.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RTyYjR2p)
(https://i.ibb.co/TNT0GhK/IMG-0781.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6qZtSsv)
(https://i.ibb.co/1Y76Pyqb/IMG-0782.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ymdSZvyV)
(https://i.ibb.co/xKLtXBHW/IMG-0783.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nqmN6YC9)
-
Rich,
I'm seeing the hinge knuckles in your patchbox hinge, but Fainot's patchbox appears to have the knuckles hidden somehow. Can you explain the construction in that regard? I'm baffled and feeling somehow tricked or experiencing an illusion. Additionally, would the originals have been made of cast brass or sheet metal? The side plate and PB are exceptionally artistic to my eye. I've given in to the urge to copy that side plate several times on fowing pieces.
Cast or sheet? I’m guessing sheet because otherwise if I was casting it I’d use fewer rivets and incorporate some things that otherwise are a bunch of LEGO pieces. He must have had a bucket of rivets.
On the hinge topic: Fainot used 2 types. One is a tube hinge which is integral with the lid. No interlocking knuckles. Just one tube with a hinge pin protruding from both ends. The hinge pin then rests in 2 U-shaped pintles riveted to the underside of the surround.
Some had knuckles with half the knuckles formed on the lid and half on the edge of the surround. That’s a nightmare. BUT with this type there is no need for the hinge pin to extend out of the tube and be affixed to the underside of the surround using pintles or saddles or whatever they should be called.
I did a lot of studying and consulting with an owner of an original. A lot of looking at rivets and guessing what they were for.
(https://i.ibb.co/5gtkksSL/IMG-0051.jpg) (https://ibb.co/67V88DTF)
(https://i.ibb.co/JjQm3DnR/IMG-0089.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RTyYjR2p)
(https://i.ibb.co/TNT0GhK/IMG-0781.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6qZtSsv)
(https://i.ibb.co/1Y76Pyqb/IMG-0782.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ymdSZvyV)
(https://i.ibb.co/xKLtXBHW/IMG-0783.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nqmN6YC9)
-
The Oerter boxes are the same principle in castings, although the one thing they lack comparative to Fainot's approach is that the Oerter boxes utilize a separate release unattached to the box.
An interesting question that may spark some commentary: if a contemporary maker had built that first rifle pictured (top of thread) and offered it up for commentary here or perhaps 'judging' at Dixon's, how do you think that buttplate installation would be received?
-
Erick, the first thing I see when I look at the rifle at the top of the thread, is not the hinge on the patch box, but the hinge formed on the comb by the butt plate. I don't believe it can be attributed to the age of the rifle. I think it is more like that's the way it turned out and the rube that buys it won't even notice it. There is another one in these series of pictures that has a similar issue with the comb line which apparently Fainot tried to remedy the situation by adding a BP extension.
Interestingly there a couple of his other guns that have a pleasing comb line. It could be that it wasn't that important to him.
-
I’ve wondered if the angle of the buttplate is intentional. I realize it’s a crazy thought but the angle of the buttplate to toe and to comb are somehow made more similar with this approach. We have a patchbox surround that “wants” some symmetry? I still have trouble thinking a master builder can’t inlet a buttplate the way they want. We can only guess but I’ve seen it on 2 Fainot guns with patchboxes and none without.
-
I’ve wondered if the angle of the buttplate is intentional. I realize it’s a crazy thought but the angle of the buttplate to toe and to comb are somehow made more similar with this approach. We have a patchbox surround that “wants” some symmetry? I still have trouble thinking a master builder can’t inlet a buttplate the way they want. We can only guess but I’ve seen it on 2 Fainot guns with patchboxes and none without.
Personally, I don't believe that he did it by accident. IMHO his other work on those rifles is too skilled for it to be a repeated error. Maybe he did it to work better with the patch box
-
Rich,
Thanks for the additional Fainot pictures, which show more typical PB hinge knuckles. Looking closely at your first pictures, I can see the joint you describe, particularly about an eighth inch in from the left end of the hinge, and surely it is the same on the right. This is a unique and pleasing feature for me.
-
Rich,
Thanks for the additional Fainot pictures, which show more typical PB hinge knuckles. Looking closely at your first pictures, I can see the joint you describe, particularly about an eighth inch in from the left end of the hinge, and surely it is the same on the right. This is a unique and pleasing feature for me.
The interlocking, knuckle style of Fainot hinge has the one leaf of a separate hinge strip riveted to the lid and the other leaf of the hinge riveted to the underside of the surround. If I got it right. I looked at the rivets and this is what made sense to me.
(https://i.ibb.co/YTKTVnGT/IMG-0250.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3Y8YP6HY)
-
I’ve wondered if the angle of the buttplate is intentional. I realize it’s a crazy thought but the angle of the buttplate to toe and to comb are somehow made more similar with this approach. We have a patchbox surround that “wants” some symmetry? I still have trouble thinking a master builder can’t inlet a buttplate the way they want. We can only guess but I’ve seen it on 2 Fainot guns with patchboxes and none without.
I don't think it's a crazy thought at all. And utseabee beat me to it: I can't help but to see it as deliberate.
-
An interesting question that may spark some commentary: if a contemporary maker had built that first rifle pictured (top of thread) and offered it up for commentary here or perhaps 'judging' at Dixon's, how do you think that buttplate installation would be received?
Eric,
I've thought the same sort of question many times, about dozens of antiques.
Each to his own, but I appreciate a new rifle that is made to look just like an old one--"workmanlike" approach to details, style and techniques used in problem solving, approach to engraving, etc. So, I appreciate you asking the question.
Rich,
I was pleased to see that you copied the buttplate as it was. I agree with you guys that it seems intentional.
I was also pleased to see your fine work on the box mechanism, with rivets and "anchor" showing through the top, etc. If you had chosen to solder it all together instead of using the rivets, it would also have been nice, but I like it best that you chose to do it just like Fainot.
-
Well Erick your question about how it would have been received at Dixon's or here would have been negative. That is unless the builder was doing a bench copy of said rifle. If he wasn't I am sure there would have been plenty of critical commentary.
I am of the opinion that it wasn't that important to Fainot. Just like symmetry was not really all that important in the 18th century.
On the pictured rifles that had a different butt plate with integral comb extension, the only practical way to inlet it is to follow the comb line.
-
Well Erick your question about how it would have been received at Dixon's or here would have been negative. That is unless the builder was doing a bench copy of said rifle. If he wasn't I am sure there would have been plenty of critical commentary.
...
I'd guess alacran's observation about "unless the builder was doing a bench copy" is probably right.
How judges might respond to such a build might also depend on who the builder was and what he/she was trying to represent. If you, Eric, built this gun, I think people who admire your work would understand your approach, just as we understand Rich's. But if a newby built it, there's a chance that critics might eat him/her alive.
I'm speaking only about my own preferences here, but I'll say that these little details and irregularities are what give a piece personality. A modern piece that is "perfect" and "improved" in every detail will certainly demonstrate a type of skill, but, for me, the visual effect is sterile. I prefer to see personality. And IMHO, comprehension and mastery of those small details, so that they can be reproduced intentionally, shows an even higher level of skill. But as your question may imply, the critics and judges don't necessarily share that opinion or appreciate that approach.
-
Studying Originals could be a thread, and continued. I find them to be just wonderful.
DAve
-
Studying Originals could be a thread, and continued. I find them to be just wonderful.
DAve
I hope others start topics like these Lancaster ones. I’m nominating Soddy Daisy, JP Beck, early Lehighs, Sheets gunsmiths…. C’mon, folks!