Author Topic: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles  (Read 17723 times)

jwh1947

  • Guest
A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« on: August 17, 2009, 04:42:47 AM »
From the pre-Rev period onward, Harris Ferry, the forerunner of present-day Harrisburg, PA, was an important crossing point on the mile-wide Susquehanna River.  Also, many woodland Indian paths were nearby.  There were early gunsmiths in the region.  James Chambers worked at Fort Hunter, just north of Harris Ferry, and was killed there in 1763 in an Indian attack.  The area also had golden age grand masters but they are few in number.  At this time, the Harrisburg area was still an outpost compared to York and Lancaster.  The trade and commerce expanded at a later date in Harrisburg as it did in Dauphin County as a whole.  Actually, there has been little written about Dauphin County guns, and less yet about those originating in Harrrisburg and the contiguous townships.

A bit of background may help someone unfamiliar with the territory to understand the issues pertaining to these rifles.  First, in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in Its Golden Age Kindig, being one of the first to comment on the school, did enter some misleading material which was later rectified by Dr. Shumway in his annotated editions.  While it is true that the school presents fewer distinctive regional characteristics than many of the other classic schools, Kindig included and gave much importance to Peter Berry as a Dauphin County builder.  Actually, Berry worked in Annville, now Lebanon County, which has always been considered as part of the "Pa. Dutch" region.  He would have been more appropriately linked to N. Beyer who had a shop likely about a 5 minute horse ride away in South Annville Township.  Incidentally, the following issue often complicates studies of local guns.  At first, all the area west of Bucks and Chester County was considered to be part of Lancaster County.  It ran the whole way to the western end of the Commonwealth.  In 1785 Dauphin County was carved out of Lancaster County, being named for the King of France's son.  In 1813 Lebanon County was partitioned from Lancaster and a small sliver of Dauphin County.  Hence a man like Beyer was a tax payer in three counties over his lifetime and he never moved an inch. 

Now for some more orientation.  The county is bisected by the Blue Mountain Range, creating two distinct areas.  Northern Dauphin County  had its important makers, and some of them were relatively early.  Leonard Reedy of Gratz comes to mind, as does Peter Bellis who worked out of Lykens.  To the south of the mountains is Lower Dauphin County (LDC), encompassing Harrisburg, Lower Paxton Twp., Swatara Twp., Hanover Twp. and Derry Twp. (Hershey).  Included is Middletown, the oldest incorporated municipality in the county, taking its name for being in the middle of Lancaster and Carlisle on the old original PA "turnpike."

In brief, you can expect to see more Berks Co. influence and upper-Susquehanna-type motifs on the upper-county guns, and, by split decision, I would generalize that Lancaster was more of an influence on lower-county guns.  This is likely the case not only due to geography, but because several important lower county builders apprenticed in Lancaster.  For instance, John Brooks and Christian Siple both worked in Lancaster prior to moving to the region.  Siple was an apprentice of Jacob Haeffer. 

Now back to the main subject.  As there is relatively little information available on Harrisburg/LDC firearms, here's a start.  For this area, perhaps the most important grand master of the golden age was Martin Shell.  You can view several fine M. Shells in Kindig's book.  Note the small number of golden age Dauphin guns that appear in his book.  He didn't run across many.  Hasty conclusions are often drawn from this and the paucity of other documentation that the guns were not very definitive or important, and that the region must have played a small role in the development and production of the rifles. 

Nothing could be farther from the truth.  The fact is, Harrisburg's greatest contributions were post-golden age.  Harrisburg developed later than its sister cities, but when it did develop there was still a need for firearms, and now Harrisburg was the "jumping off point" for those headed for the frontier.  Business must have been brisk, because Dr. Shumway listed no less than sixty-four (64) documented lower county gunsmiths in his unpublished list of 1972.  I am not including those who lived north of the mountains.  Shumway planned a book on Dauphin guns, but, according to him, the problem was that there were not that many guns to photograph at the time and so the project got put on a back burner.

Yes, when placed side-by-side, Dauphin guns are less homogeneous than a similar grouping of, say, Lancaster or Lehigh guns.  Individuality prevailed.  Some of the regular characteristics of post-golden age Hbg./LDC rifles are longer-than-normal barrels for this time period, sleekness of architecture, and absence of extreme embellishment.  Off center patch boxes are not uncommon, but not as blatant as what Kindig mentions, as he probably had Peter Berry in mind when he accentuated that detail.  Patch boxes, when they are there, are normally well done with simple engraving.  The engraving is often light and graceful.  An exception is the engraving of John Shell, who really cut in deeply, reminiscent of M. Fordney but with a less accomplished hand.  Patch boxes normally consist of 4 pieces and the sideplates are often thin and bowed, with exposed wood between them and the lid. 

Harrisburg products have surfaced in my lifetime on more than one occasion on routes west of town heading toward Pittsburgh, and as far south as Winchester, VA heading down the mountain range.  This comes as no surprise to me as Harrisburg was, at that time, a place to supply one's self for entry into the frontier.  Many of these guns carried south and west were likely used up and mutilated, as usual. Incidentally, people who collect stoneware have traced similar routes for the movement of Harrisburg pottery. 

Below is a list of the most important Harrisburg/LDC gunsmiths, in my opinion, with brief comments.  All warrant further research; perhaps a master's thesis topic for a history/American studies major.  Also, it would be great to see this forum come up with more pictures of guns by these makers.  This would be a useful addition to the understanding of these rifles.  Personally, I would like to have more support for, or be proven wrong on some of my generalizations.  That's how research works; let the facts speak for themselves.  Right now we need to amass a photo bank of these specimens for further study.  This is something wherein the Internet may be of value.

Selected list of LDC gunsmiths:

John Brooks, worked in early 1800's in Hbg.  Started in Lancaster.
Amos Early, Lower Paxton/Hanover Twps.  Worked w/ J. Shell.  Died 1904.
John Ford, Listed from 1830's in Hbg.  Supt. of armory here, too. Died 1862.
David Glassbrenner, Hbg., Worked from 1820's. Died 1872.
Philip Heckard, Lower Paxton, Active through 1850's, Lower Paxton Twp.
Benedict Imhoff.  1780-1800 era, Middletown and contiguous townships.
Kelker and Brothers. Lock makers, Harrisburg, 1840's
Christian Klein. Early 1800's. Died 1825.
George Kunkle, 1830-1860, Hbg., Died 1869
Simon Lingle, 1850, Derry Twp. (Hershey area).
Jacob Roop, Sr. 1805, Lower Paxton
Jacob Roop, Jr. 1820 era, Lower Paxton
Daniel Shell, Lower Paxton, Died 1864
John Shell, his brother, Lower Paxton/Hanover Twps. Died 1871
Martin Shell, their father, master of Rev. era, Lower Paxton Twp. 1737-1796
Christian Siple, Middletown/Swatara Twp., Died circa 1827.
Jacob Snevely (Snavely), active circa 1810, Harrisburg.

I know of extant specimens for all of these makers with the exception of Benedict Imhoff.

A series of quick snapshots of a signed J. Snevely should eventually get melded with this report.  Snevely worked in Harrisburg.  We've known of him for a while; he was listed in Henry Kauffman's 1960 book. The rifle is 57" overall with a 13"pull.  It has a 42 1/2" full-octagon barrel, straight rifled, .50 cal.  Light, functional, well built rifle.  The percussion conversion was neatly done on a flint lock plate made by John Walker.  Walker worked in Lancaster Boro so the specimen is pure Pennsylvania.  Clean breaks have been repaired; no replaced wood.  An honest gun. 

Click on the link below to see some pictures:
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=6215.0


« Last Edit: November 27, 2019, 09:21:39 PM by Dennis Glazener »

Offline mr. no gold

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2654
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2009, 08:30:19 AM »
Thank you, Wayne for posting some great history on what has to be the least understood school/region of the Kentucky Rifle gunmaking era. Much appreciated! Explains why some of the guns look like Lancaster, others like Berks and still others having a Lehigh look to them.
You did a lot of work on this and it was very generous of you to share it.
If you haven't see it yet, there is an auction advertisment for Cowan's that has what must be the finest rifle that John Shell produced in his lifetime. Haven't seen any others quite like it; not even John Brooks at his best (I have seen his best) doesn't come close.
Again, thank you and we will look forward to subsequent addtions to what you have presented here.
Best regards-Dick
 

Offline Majorjoel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2009, 01:17:50 PM »
Many thanks to you Wayne for taking the time to share your information and knowledge regarding this mostly un-published\un-written about school of gunmaking. The majority of builders here are what we would call "later" smiths of the late flintlock going well into the percussion era and even some overlapping the breech loading periods. I have to really amplify your discussion on the geography here with the northern areas separated from the Harrisburg southern townships by the blue mountain range. It is easy today to overlook the fact that geography plays a major role on the styles of gun building and what regional aspects bleed over from one place to another. I look forward to more discussion here and hope anyone with examples of rifles from this area by these makers Wayne has listed will chime in and give us a glimse  ;D.  YHS..........Joel 
Joel Hall

Offline Karl Kunkel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2009, 04:26:05 AM »
Wayne,

Thanks for sharing your research and knowledge, much appreciated and enjoyed.  I also would like to thank you for posting your chapters on the Hummelstown Gun factory.
Kunk

Offline eastwind

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2009, 06:18:34 PM »
Wayne: Good comments on the Harrisburg /Dauphin rifles-and thanks for sharing it.
   But I have a small, perhaps someday important, observation to make that has haunted my Berks County research efforts for some years.  I now have sufficient evidence that the gunsmith, Benedict Imhoff was indeed a maker working in Berks County, although a number of writers have placed him in the Harrisburg area, just as you have.
  I believe the Dauphin County conclusion comes from a mistaken attribution to the towns- Middletown - (4 towns of which still exist in Pennsylvania) and that of today's Womelsdorf, Berks County. Until about 1790, Womelsdorf was named "Middletown", as an identity to its mid-location from Reading to Harrisburg. At about that same time Bonewitz, Figthorn, Fricker and maybe Reedy and a Benedict Imhoff worked in Womelsdorf/Middletown, Berks County.
   The 1800 census of Heidelberg Township, Middletown/Womelsdorf shows Benedict Imhoff as being a resident of Womelsdorf, ironically listed just above John Bonewitz name. The Pennsylvania Archives shows an inhabitant of Middletown, Berks County as being : "Imhoff, Benedict, gunsmith". Additionally, Rupps' History of Berks and Lebanon also shows Imhoff as a gunsmith in Womelsdorf(Middletown). Apparently, Imhoff was also a Doctor, which may be the only gunsmith who practiced both professions, which maybe why we see so few Imhoff made guns, since I would have to assume the medical practice paid better. Years shown indicate Imhoff was older than Bonewitz and who is to say he may have trained Bonewitz?
   Another interesting point about Imhoff is that Nicholas Beyer's Mother was Imhoff's Daughter. Of course Beyer worked only few short miles into (now) Lebanon County. Another possible apprenticeship we know nothing about.
Like you-I have been unable to find an Imhoff rifle for my Berks County Long Rifle Exhibit coming up, even though an example of every other known Womelsdorf gunsmith will be in the show-including the rare Anthony Fricker rifle. Someday we may find a rifle by Imhoff which could tell us more about Bonewitz and maybe even Beyer... but dont hold thy breath.
Just wanted to clear the air on where Imhoff probably worked... if you have something of Imhoff also working in Dauphin County--please let me know.
  Hope you did OK at the Morphy Auction, I saw trouble coming when I had to park in the weeds.
Hope you can make the Berks County show in Reading next month.
Patrick Hornberger
Patrick Hornberger

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2009, 05:46:54 AM »
Good point, Pat, and I cannot immediately refute it.  It is an issue warranting further work.  I recall seeing some primary tax documentation somewhere that puts him in Swatara Twp., too.  That is contiguous to the borough Middletown, Dauphin Co., PA.  Also, I can tell you for a fact that George has Imhoff on his 1972 list of Dauphin County makers.  George's team was researching Dauphin County archives, not Berks county ones, when they compiled the list.  Is not Beyer's stompin' grounds in S. Annville Twp. substantially closer to Middletown, DC, than it is to Womelsdorf/Reading?  Can you come up with a court or tax record or a will inventory, indenture, or church record that establishes that he worked down in Berks?  That would be a start.  I buy into the notion that he worked both places, as Pennsylvania Archives puts him in Heidelberg Twp., Berks Co. Incidentally, Poorman worked out of Heidelberg, and Kindig has him listed as a Dauphin County maker.  We're takling border territory here, maybe down to what side of the lane the shop was on.  All the best.  Yes, I wouldn't miss your display.  Wayne

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2009, 06:28:52 AM »
Addendum to above just to add confusion to the morass that is the old whereabouts of phantom gunsmith Benedict Imhoff.  There's a Heidelberg Twp., in Lebanon Co. as well as a Heidelberg Twp., Berks.  And, for that matter more Heidelberg Twps. on the way through Lehigh to Allentown.  Did Rupp get his details right on this one?  He was a seminal historian and a good one, but it would not be the first mistake he made.  For that matter, the Archives were recorded by men and printed by state printers with hand-set type.  I always like to start there and then build with specific cross references from county archives.  Guess it's back to the state library and the court house.    Incidentally the entire Pennsylvania Archives is up on the WWW.  An education in itself, for those few who don't mind sifting through volumes and who have the time.   Keep me posted.  Where are all the grad assistants when I need one?  Wayne

Offline eastwind

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2009, 03:34:54 PM »
Wayne:
   As I mentioned previously, I do have a Pennsylvania Archives record "County of Berks 1784- Inhabitants of Middletown, Heidelberg Twns."--(that is the exact wording). This record shows an "Imhoff, Benedict, gunsmith" (it does say: 'gunsmith") living in the Township with "one cattle" and no land at the time.

And again: the 1800 Census shows a Benedict Imhoff living in Heidelberg Township, Berks--apparently next door or very near to John Bonewitz, whose name is right below Imhoff's in the record.  A sub-heading on that same record also states in the census takers same handwriting: "Womelsdorf or Middle Town, Heidelberg Township", so there is no doubt of the exact location.

These two credible records are positive proof that a gunsmith named Benedict Imhoff worked in Womelsdorf, BERKS COUNTY, for some years. Of course its possible he worked in another area---but no one has come up with anything credible to indicate that...compared to the records in favor of his working in Berks County.
   
   Incidentally, Sam Dyke--who we now know made some misguided conclusions (as we all do), among his many keen observations-also stated that Imhoff worked in Womelsdorf in the Winter 1968 issue of the Journal of the Lancaster County Historical Society, when he wrote about john Beck.

I'm not familiar with any evidence Shumway has about Imhoff working outside of Berks County, but I suspect we would know of it if he found any other record/s.

Based on the above written records -my conclusion is that Imhoff should be considered a Berks County gunsmith[/b] .... until someone else comes up with similar records showing he worked elsewhere.

I agree with you on the Heidelberg Township confusion---probably half the counties in Pennsylvania have one and in fact - Berks has a Lower - an Upper and a plain ole Heidelberg Township, where Womelsdorf is located.

And I'm anxious to hear of anything more on Imhoff---and you will probably agree that he apparently did not make many guns (or never signed them) since we never see any. Secondly, and this should be a challenge--with Imhoff so close to  and a contemporary of Bonewitz---was there a working relationship between the two??? Most interesting....
I'll look for you in Reading.
PatH
Patrick Hornberger

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2009, 07:09:04 PM »
Sure, I'm willing to at least share until we know more.  The fact that he was not a landowner in the Berks census may lend credence to the notion that he was, or became an itinerant, as many others did.  I would not go to war over this one, but I would suggest couching  terminology on the subject with a tentative bent.  While we are on the subject, how would you list Beyer?Lancaster, Lebanon and Dauphin could all claim bragging rights...and could document it with primary sources.  Schools are fabricated constructs of the 20th century.  County borders are also man made and not permanent.  Sometimes, perhaps, and myself included, we get too bound up in our own intellectual framework and fail to remember that it is all built on artificial, and perhaps superficial, classification systems.  Let's face it, we have just lived through the immaculate conception of a new school in our lifetime--Allemangal, or whatever, which a sizable percentage of the research community questions fundamentally.  The last chapter on any of this stuff has not been written.  Great discussion...always willing to learn, question and doubt.  Thanks, Pat, for your contribution.  Did not mean to pee on your parade, Tim, but it is a perfect case in point that new issues, ideas, and notions tend to direct the way we think about things.  JWH 

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2009, 08:04:05 PM »
Perhaps, when one responds to his own post, he is talking too much.  But, fear not, I'm well experienced at it.  After the last post, I had a flash of insight.  Pat, I have constructed a solution for our dilemma.  We shall establish a new sub-school.  It shall be dubbed "The Tulpehocken School."  The limits are delineated in 17th Century terms, as we used with the Indians.  Standing at the Tulpehocken Creek, any gunsmith working in view from east to west "as far as the setting sun can be seen" can qualify as a member of the school.  No need for definitive identifying details;  we'll just look for commonalities from what shows up and let it all emerge with our direction.  Any Berks/Dauphin/Lebanon  makers that we cannot pin-point under the old, antequated system of classification based on contemporary county borders we put into Tulpehocken.  I believe Benedict Imhoff may have been their grand master.  Then there's Poorman and I claim rights on old man Derr.  When in doubt, people will need to bring their specimens to either you or me for critical analysis.  We can "read" their rifle for them and determine, ex officio, if, or if not, a particular piece is worthy of inclusion in our school.  Without us there would be no school, so we are the sole annointed Tulpehocken shamans.  Maybe our associates would refrain from questioning us, for fear of being offensive, so in, say 50 years, we're all dead, but newbes are speaking with reverence about the old Tulpehocken school.  Now back to serious work.  All the best, JWH

whearter

  • Guest
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2010, 11:05:17 PM »
A few words on your listing for George "Kunkle", gunsmith of Harrisburg. He is my greatgreatgreatgreat-grandfather. The family name is really CUNKLE, but it is often butchered in census records. He was born on 01 March 1795 in Shenandoah, VA.  and was an active gunsmith from 1840 to 1861 until Civil War mass production caused him to learn his brother's trade as a locksmith. He died 09 JULY 1870 and is buried in the Old Harrisburg Cemetery by the Capital bridge.
I have never seen any of his rifles, but I note that you or others have found some still existing. Would you be willing to supply the location of the person or museum where one could be viewed?

Offline JTR

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2010, 04:46:11 AM »
Welcome to the forum, Whearter!

I have a George Cunkle rifle.  :o
It's a fairly plane gun, but well made. I'll take a few pictures tomorrow and post them here.

John
« Last Edit: October 20, 2010, 04:57:09 AM by JTR »
John Robbins

whearter

  • Guest
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2010, 07:17:15 AM »
Dear JTR,

I note your location as Southern CA. I'm in metro-Phoenix but over in your region several times yearly. Perhaps as we become acquainted, I might see the rifle in person. My brother is the true collector, but he resides back in Reading, PA (Berks County).  WILLIAM

Offline whitebear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 837
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2010, 06:55:09 PM »
whearter,  I am not meaning to correct you on your family's name.  Could the name be of German descent?  The reason I ask is my MIL's name was Corn but in times past it was anglicised from Korn to Corn.  Again not meaning any offence just curious.
In the beginning God...
Georgia - God's vacation spot

Offline JTR

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2010, 09:06:39 PM »
William,
I posted the pictures in a new thread titled G. Cunkle rifle.
Let me know if you'd like any other pictures of it, or email me at jtrrobbins@msn.com if you'd like me to send you the pictures in high resolution.

As Hurricane has asked, if you have any family history on good ol' George, please post it here for us!

John
John Robbins

whearter

  • Guest
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2010, 12:35:31 AM »
George Cunkle- regarding the name spelling in Pennsylvania, Kunkle, Kunkel, and Conkle are more common.
Cunkle was an uncommon varient. I've traced it back as far as 1792-4 to New Market, Shenandoah, VA. in property deeds and it is consistently spelled that way.

Family names have always bee at the mercy of the census taker who often would spell it phoentically. My family began as Haertter in 1831 Pennsylvania. By the Civil War, the kids had changed their last names to Heartter, Hearter, and Harter with one holdout of Haertter.

Offline Karl Kunkel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2010, 03:32:08 AM »
wheater,

I passed on the info you provided to my sister, who has been researching our family.  She has come across some ancestors whose spelling was listed in records as Cunkle, and Gonkel.  What was George's brother's name (the locksmith)?  Did he also reside in Harrisburg? If I recall many of our early family settled in northern York County, PA.  Just south of current Pinchot State Park.
Kunk

Offline Dr. Tim-Boone

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6538
  • I Like this hat!!
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2010, 03:38:49 AM »
JTR's rifle has a nice Dauphin/Lebanon architecture to it. It would be nice to know who he learned his trade from.

seems to me that following the trail of apprentice to master etc is at least as fascinating as trying to label the guns geographically..Much more difficult I guess, eh?
De Oppresso Liber
Marietta, GA

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others. – William Allen White

Learning is not compulsory...........neither is survival! - W. Edwards Deming

whearter

  • Guest
Cunkle gunsmiths of Dauphin County, PA.
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2015, 02:27:39 AM »
Regarding the brothers of George Cunkle, there were two: Leonard Gr. Cunkle (1798-1872) and John Leonard Cunkle (1789-1863). All 3 brothers, at one time or another, are described as gunsmiths, locksmiths, or whitesmiths. I've found photos of a pistol by Leonard G. as well as kitchen utensils (his whitesmith talents). They may all have been trained by their father, Jacob Cunkle/Conkle/Gonkel (1758-1823). He was a Revolutionary War Soldier (private, 6th Bat., 8th Company of Capt. Robert Ramsey- PA. Archives, 5th Series, V.7,p.603) and in the post War militia (1787- private, Capt. Jacob Meily's Company, Dauphin County (PA) militia; PA. Archives,series 6, V.3, pp.366-7).
As were his 3 sons, he was a smith. In his obituary (Oracle of Dauphin County" -11/15/1823), he is listed as."Mr. Jacob Kunkle (Cunkle), Locksmith of this borough, aged 66 years".
Regarding his apprentice, his name was James Bowman Campbell (1805-1856), brother of Nancy Campbell (1802-1857), George Cunkle's wife.

Offline J Hicks

  • Starting Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2024, 11:57:40 AM »
I'm making my first flintlock muzzleloader, using a Pecatonica stock, .45 cal with swamped barrel, thinking I'm leaning it to "late Lancaster"  Tonight 8 Aug 2024 I was doing family history research and discovered that three generations of Welch lived in, first, born 1685 Lancaster Co PA & died in Sudbury, second born 1704 Lebanon Township & died 1754 in Harrisburg, and the last born 1733 Paxtang (sic), Dauphin, PA born 1733. & died 1764.  If the last mentioned owed a long rifle what school now would it have resembled?

Offline cshirsch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
Re: A few comments on Harrisburg/Dauphin County rifles
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2024, 03:36:17 PM »
Rifle by SHELL & EARLEY.  Images of John Shell and Amos Earley are included.  There was a little restoration work on the rear of the barrel. The photos were taken before the aging was complete.
















« Last Edit: August 09, 2024, 03:51:56 PM by cshirsch »