Samuel Pletcher's rifle

[Larry Pletcher]

Good evening,
I have recently asked a gunmaker build a gun that would be in keeping with my great, great, great, great grandfather Samuel's time spent in Lancaster County from the late 1750's to 1790.  We agreed that the gun would be typical of a Lancaster rifle made shortly after the war's end to 1790 when Samuel left for Centre  Co.  The gun will be "in the style of" rather than a copy.  I lean toward Jacob Dickert's work and have looked at the examples in Shumway and Kindig.

The gunmaker asked me if I would like a wooden patch box or a brass one.  He felt that either would be in keeping with that period of time in Lancaster.  The Dickert rifles I have looked at used brass boxes,  with my favorite being  no. 67 in Shumway Vol. I.  The wood we'll be using is nice, so a sliding wooden box might be pretty cool as well.

I have plenty of time to make decisions like this, but am curious about your opinions.  My concern is that the rifle is one I would be proud to shoot and also be in keeping with Lancaster Co and that general time period. 

Any opinions welcome.

[Larry Luck]

Larry,
One of the nicest rifles I have ever handled (and got to shoot a couple times) is Gary Brumfield's wood patch box rifle.

Here is the link to his site:

http://www.flintriflesmith.com/GunshopEraGuns/73_wood_box.htm

You may be familiar with it.  Something similar with Lancaster architecture would be quite attractive.

My general impression is that some (more?) of the earlier rifles were built with fairly plain wood and the desire for spectacular wood was a later thing and maybe more closely associated with four piece brass boxes.  The earlier the period, the fewer examples you can draw from.  If your wood is dramatic, maybe a brass box is the way to go.  No right/wrong answer.

Larry Luck

[chapmans]

   Larry,
   Go with the wood, I don't think you will ever regret it.  Have the gunmaker make a spare out the same wood and fit, stain and finish it so if by chance you ever lose it while hunting you will have a replacement that matches. If you have a spare it means you will never lose the first one.
 Steve
   

[caliber45]

Hey, guys, I LIKE this new site. Great stuff! My two cents worth on the patchbox question: I ain't a particularly religious person, so you can substitute "God" in if you want: Nature made/makes some gorgeous patterns in wood, and IMHO, it's almost a "sin" to obliterate that figure and grain with a patchbox -- wood OR brass. But. then, I'm not bound by historic "correctness," either. I use parts that I find attractive, and that I think make an overall, graceful, gorgeous firearm. I think many of the early builders, and Samuel Colt (!) designed and built some beautifully "architectured" arms, and I'm trying to put together what pleases me, aesthetically and functionally. My two cents' worth. Enjoy 'em while you can; the cent is nearing extinction, too . . . -paulallen

[Larry Pletcher]

Larry,
One of the nicest rifles I have ever handled (and got to shoot a couple times) is Gary Brumfield's wood patch box rifle.

Here is the link to his site:

http://www.flintriflesmith.com/GunshopEraGuns/73_wood_box.htm

You may be familiar with it.  Something similar with Lancaster architecture would be quite attractive.

My general impression is that some (more?) of the earlier rifles were built with fairly plain wood and the desire for spectacular wood was a later thing and maybe more closely associated with four piece brass boxes.  The earlier the period, the fewer examples you can draw from.  If your wood is dramatic, maybe a brass box is the way to go.  No right/wrong answer.

Larry Luck

Larry,
I may have handled and shot that rifle at the Bowling Green Seminar behind Terry Leeper's house.  Can't be certain.  One of the reasons I hoped for a post Rev War time period was because of the likelyhood of prettier wood.  This piece has a nice narrow stripe pattern and woudl probably look fine with either type of box. Thanks for your comment. 
the other Larry

[Larry Pletcher]

   Larry,
   Go with the wood, I don't think you will ever regret it.  Have the gunmaker make a spare out the same wood and fit, stain and finish it so if by chance you ever lose it while hunting you will have a replacement that matches. If you have a spare it means you will never lose the first one.
 Steve
   

Steve,
I Like the spare wood idea.  If I go with the wood box,   I'll ask for the extra.  It would be a lot easier to make the second at the same time the rifle was being made.  Got an extra message going your way.

[flintriflesmith]

Larry,
I love and have used wood box rifles, including the 1973 production Larry Luck mentioned, at lot but for post Rev War Lancaster production I think a brass box would be more PC. Lancaster was one of those rifle building sites along the Great Wagon Road where the competition pushed the evolution in design. In areas off the "main drag" older designs seemed to linger.
Gary

[TENdriver]

Larry,  what part of Lancaster County was Samuel from?

[Larry Pletcher]

Larry,  what part of Lancaster County was Samuel from?

Samuel grew up on a farm owned by a Frederick Maynard near Safe Harbor SW of Lancaster.  I have seen it described as on Conestoga Creek.  He (1751)and brother Henry (1756) were very young when they arrived  by ship in Philly.  He apprenticed to a weaver in Lancaster at 12-13.

[AndyThomas]

As much as I like the wood boxes, I would go with a brass lid. The 1770 - 1790 period was a transitional period for patchboxes, from the wood lid to the metal one. After 1790, is when we see the Lancaster "daisy" emerge as THE Lancaster  style. I have built three Dickert style rifles, two with the RCA #48=49 box and one with the #66 brass lid shaped like a wood box. They all look good, but not "typical" of a Lancaster rifle.

I would suggest the #66 style. I think it's COOL! The look of a wood box, but made from brass.

Hope this helps,
Andy

[G-Man]

Larry - I agree the Dickert (No. 67 ) is  a great choice.  It is one of the great American longrifles out there - it just has everything.  You could take away all of the great touches on that gun and it could stand on its architecture alone.   I got to see that gun up close when Jim Johnson had it at his store (Golden Age) many times, along with that great Shroyer and the Verner and some other great guns as well, but that one is my favorite. 

According to the history associated with the gun it was reportedly carried on Crawford's Campaign by one of the western PA troops and used at the Battle of Sandusky, June 1782, which puts it into your timefreame.  One of the few pieces we have that was known to actually have "been there" on the Ohio Valley frontier, on top of being a superb piece that stands on its artistic merit alone.

Best regards and Happy Fourth everyone!

Guy

[Larry Pletcher]

Thank you for all your comments.  As I studied this I looked at the period from the end of the war to 1790 as a period of transition from wood to brass.   While I like both types of boxes I like Gary's argument for brass.  I hadn't thought of Lancaster as transportation center that being on the Great Wagon Road would make it.  I could see competition there could push development in many things including rifle-making.   

Choosing Dickert as a style is purely my own with no family historic facts as a reason.  Dickert and  Samuel were about the same age.  Dickert was supposed to have begun in Lancaster in 1769 (Shumway, I think).  This all makes it logical but purely speculating.  That is part of the fun with this project. 

Later this summer I hope to try to track down some of the places Samuel spent time.  In some cases that may be hard to do; in others a bit easler.  We'll see how that goes.  Good evening,