Lancaster architecture, what we create vs reality (just an observation).

[JohnTyg]

The topic of the Landis Farm Museum rifle collection keeps showing up repeatedly in all these threads.

Seems obviously appropriate since everything we do is based on our perception of what we think the originals were like.   Is it possible that 200 years later we may sometimes get "offtrack" in some details of what we attempt to create, especially if we haven't studied (at least recently) the originals firsthand.

Just returned from a visit and since it was my first opportunity to view originals it was quite an eye opener.

What struck me most was how our perception might differ from the reality.  I recently posted my concerns regarding the appearance of the forearm of my interpretation of a Lancaster, thought it too heavy.  Certainly revealing 1/2 or more of the side flat will give a more slender appearance to the rifle, but is this really historically accurate on all guns?  It probably is on Lehigh rifles but is it on Lancasters??  Don Getz made this observation in a recent post in the antique collecting  section of the forum.

After visiting the museum I suspect it is not accurate that all Lancaster rifles had a slender forearm.  Many of the rifles shown have a quite heavy appearing forearm and some of the rifles fairly well buried the barrel in the front stock (Dickert's DC1677 marked rifle for example).  Going back to the Lancaster book on the Landis rifles with an open mind it is easier to see this.

On my current project think I'll focus on getting the wrist architecture to look as best as I can but may reevaluate any need to change the height of the forearm.

Don't mean to get too philosophical, I'm a rank beginner, but just my observation.  Plan another visit back to Landis before it closes in December.

John

[rich pierce]

I think that one philosophy is that we should emulate what was "best" about originals, or emulate the best originals, or both. A specific original may have a very appealing buttstock or cheekpiece architecture, but may not be exemplary in another area.  Of couse what is "best" is different from "what was done" and is also subjective. Some of what is perceived as best is what is understandable to the viewer.  Some styles of carving are like reading Arabic or Chinese to me.  I don't get it, know what they were trying. to achieve, or why they found it appealing.  Trying to wrap my 20th century mind around some things does not work.  Foe example, the Deschler rifle has carving I don't understand, same with some of the carving on RCA42, and even some of the carving by Berlin is confusing to me compared to Christians Spring style.

I'm getting off target, but it is too common to dismiss something as wrong or not done on originals w/o considering the diversity of originals.  The question I ask, is the contemporary work with a controversial feature well thought out and was that feature employed deliberately or not?  If not, if something was done because of a lack of seeing or study or practice in execution, maybe it is a flaw of sorts.

[Acer Saccharum]

Today we build to a 'norm'. A norm that is based on what? Dixon's Fair? John Bivins?

At the Landis museum, there is a latecomer, the 'Musician's Rifle', which is a robust early gun. On the sideplate view of the gun, the wood nearly comes up to the top corner of the side flat of the barrel. That would not fit today's 'norm', but it is certainly beautiful, and it works for this gun.

In my opinion, all the rules are subject to question. If you can put something together, and it's beautiful, you've pulled it off. Height of wood, forearm thickness, lock panels be !@*%&@. Make what WORKS, visually and mechanically.

This does not mean careless, it does not mean thoughtless. A gun, a painting, a woodcarving, all have to be deliberate acts.

I will look at a rifle/fowler, and immediately determine if I like it or not. It's not something I even have to think about, or be talked into liking it. I either like it or I don't. It's about materials, form and finish, primarily, and embellishment are complimentary treats.

The foundation of the gun is the FORM. That is what I see from a mile away. I am immediately am drawn or disinterested. Form of the gun is the foundation upon which the rest of the gun is built. You need to spend the time getting the form to where it pleases you. Don't rush this stage. If you're not sure what you're doing, build many guns. You will figure it out, if you're driven to do so.

The finish is so often neglected, but it's what the beholder sees, even before touching the gun. The finish is SO critical to the gun. To develop a good finish, and an appealing finish, takes time and artistry. Again, here is a place where 'norm' can creep in. Myths like: 'Guns should be finished like Judd Brennan's, or Allen Martin's, or Bill Shipman's.....' have no place in your build. Again, the finish is such a personal thing, one must determine for themselves what finish they want to use. Want a 'new' look? Used gun? Old, worn beaten gun? They all have their appeal. You must decide what you want to evoke, and try your best to achieve that look. It ain't easy. The finish is an art all unto itself.

With all this blathering, I forgot where I was going.....

[Acer Saccharum]

John, there is much philosophy behind gun building, or can be. To some, it may be simply a gun, but to me, gun building is a five volume historical fiction/romance novel.

Study that wrist/lockbutt/comb/breech area carefully. That is the heart and soul of a gun, the transitions, the volume, the blends, every little nuance makes the difference between a good gun and a fair one. Study the originals, but also look at some contemporaries, like Martin/Brooks/Kettenburg, to name a few. They bang those breeches.

[Mike Brooks]

You make me blush Acre.
 I think we use too small/light of barrels today on rifles and too big on fowling guns. Our rifle barrels have too much swamp. They handle well but don't give you "feel" of an 18th century gun or the architecture. Big breeches were the norm in the early period and they are rarely used today. Our barrel makers don't always want to make barrels with 1 1/4 breeches. We tend to make up for small breeches with thicker lock bolsters today which present it's own set of architectural problems, which we have worked around to the greatest extent. I could go on......

[JohnTyg]

I may be "blathering" as well, but was up all night on call.

So if the Yaeger "evolved" into the Pennsylvania,  What are we evolving the Lancaster to with our modern interpretations?

In other words if the "typical" Lancaster I see in the Landis museum display had a somewhat heavier treatment of the forearm  than the Lehigh, wouldn't I want the rifles I build today to reflect this? Even if it was not the best of the possible elements by todays eye.

Hope you all have a sense of humor regarding my possibly naive questions. I tend to really get obsessive about my outside work interests and hobbies (just ask my wife).  Where else can I work with my hands, tie art, philosophy, and history together, and bounce questions off persons with similar interest.

Acer, appreciate all your assistance.  Your'e right about the finish, much more thought to this aspect than I anticipated.  Really had to slow down towards the end of the build to think things through, which is what I am doing now.

Best regards to all,

John

[Acer Saccharum]

You make me blush Acre.
 I think we use too small/light of barrels today on rifles and too big on fowling guns. Our rifle barrels have too much swamp. They handle well but don't give you "feel" of an 18th century gun or the architecture. Big breeches were the norm in the early period and they are rarely used today. Our barrel makers don't always want to make barrels with 1 1/4 breeches. We tend to make up for small breeches with thicker lock bolsters today which present it's own set of architectural problems, which we have worked around to the greatest extent. I could go on......

Mike, I'd like to see a picture of how red you get.

It's all about working with what you have on hand, and if that's not suitable, make it so.

I'm in complete agreement on today's rifle barrels having too much swamp, and fowler bbls too heavy.

John, it's an interesting question 'What are we evolving to?' Evolution is a part of life, unavoidable. It happens every day, one thought at a time, planets and stars drift a little farther out(or in). The human takes in all the stimuli of past and present, and then turns out a product of blended origins. What is it?

The most important thing to remember in all of this is to have fun. If it ain't fun, don't do it.

Yeaughh! I am exploding!

[Acer Saccharum]

Then I go ahead and point out modern makers for good architecture? What's with that?

For one, there are may builders who I feel really 'nail it' as far as beauty and transitions go. There are just a handful of old builders, such as J.P. Beck, who I think just killed the architecture. He understood it. Jacob Kuntz, John Rupp, Andreas Albrecht, Neihart, Christian Oerter built some of my favorite antique guns.


and then, everyone made an 'off' gun. We all do that. It just doesn't work somehow.

So it's not a question or antique or contemporary, it's a question of 'nailing it', getting the architecture just right.

And, yes blushing, crusty, Mike Brooks hits it more often than not, as well as B Ship, A Mart, E Kett, Judd, iPratt, H House, all in their own ways.

in my opinion   

[JohnTyg]

Well:

My objective here is to not end up with something that looks like a boat oar with barrel and buttplate.

So... how deep do I inlet my barrel in my oar?   

[Acer Saccharum]

So if the Yaeger "evolved" into the Pennsylvania,  What are we evolving the Lancaster to with our modern interpretations?

In other words if the "typical" Lancaster I see in the Landis museum display had a somewhat heavier treatment of the forearm  than the Lehigh, wouldn't I want the rifles I build today to reflect this? Even if it was not the best of the possible elements by todays eye.

Not all Lehigh's are trim little beasties. Some are quite heavy, and clunky, but they still have many of the regional details that were in use in that area.

You may certainly build a Lancaster rifle to reflect a heavier look, and be perfectly OK with it. You've seen a bunch of antiques that are pretty stout. Is this a look you wish to replicate?

If that's what makes you happy, then go ahead and do it.

This is what it's all about.

If you'd rather build a slimmer gun, you can also do that. There are plenty of slim Lancasters.

Again, I can't stress it enough, keep looking at the antiques, every opportunity you can.  A great organization to join is the KRA (Kentucky Rifle Association), where you get hands-on viewing of many different antiques. Another event is the CLA yearly meeting and show(just ended). Gun shows are good, too.

The more you see, the more you'll know what you like and don't like. You'll be adding to your creative toolbox of ideas, which is just as important as you box of chisels.

[JohnTyg]

Acer,

Thanks,  (and for getting this back on track).
I had an honest question and the forum is a good sounding board.  Already getting some Ideas for what I would like to do next.

John

[rich pierce]

Well:

My objective here is to not end up with something that looks like a boat oar with barrel and buttplate.

So... how deep do I inlet my barrel in my oar?   

That depends on  whether you're basing your build ona particular Lancaster maker, or a particular gun or group of guns, and which characteristics appeal to you most, suit your parts best, or work together best.  I think generic guns (early Lancaster, etc) can be quite boring unless the builder incorporates something to think about or notice.

[JohnTyg]

Exactly,

Even though this is only my second gun have been trying to do something a little distinctive.

That's why I chose that "folksy" patchbox.  Have been using a relatively slender, somewhat plain appearing rifle, by Henry Albright as inspiration.  It's a heavier barrel than my Rice B weight but still looks slender, even if the forstock is a little high on the barrel.

This has all been very helpful.

John

[Don Getz]

Perhaps it was a mistake to mention the forends of those Lancaster guns.    While many of  you guys are building guns
to make a living, and make them appealing to your customers.  I will continue to cut the top of the forend down to below
the centerline of the side flat of the barrel.....why?   because it makes the gun look trimmer.   It would have to be a very
astute customer to ever pick this out.   One thing thing Aser pointed out was the fact that many of these guns had a rather heavy barrel, which did not have a lot of taper and flair.  Start to look at J.P.Beck barrels, most of them are about
an inch or smaller at the breech.   I said most, not all.  I think you will find this to be common on Golden Age guns.   The
38" barrels that we made came from the dimensions of the Edward Marshall barrel, which is close to the size of our
Transition D barrel.  The Marshall barrel is about  l.150" and has about the same taper and flair as our D weight barrel
which is only 1.125 at the breech.  We had to go slightly smaller in order to fit the blank into the fixture on our mill.  We
then did a C weight (1.063 breech), a B weight (1.000) at the breech, and an A weight (.950) at the breech.   All of these
have been good sellers.  Remember, we're only making our interpretation of a gun, most of us anyway...........Don

[JohnTyg]

Don,

Knew the topic might be a little controversial, but interesting to me.

As long as you brought up the topic of barrel profiles, have a question for you.

Several years ago (10), when I was planing this project I purchased an Orion barrel, because it was reasonably priced and was avaliable tapered; 50cal. and 1" at breach to 7/8 at muzzel.
I thought it might be easier to inlet but eventually set it aside and used a production swamped barrel. 

In the mean time as a side project I draw filed, hand swamped it (actually easier than it sounds) to 13/16 at the waist, it remains 7/8th at the muzzel.
It's a pretty profile to my eye, what type of rifle would it be appropriate for, if any??

John

[Acer Saccharum]

As Don wisely observed, we're all making interpretations. There are a few bench copies here and there, but they are quite rare. So use that barrel.

Tom

[Don Getz]

John.....If you now have a barrel that is 1" at the breech, down to 13/16", up to 7/8" at the muzzle I would think that it
should work well on any "Golden Age" gun.   I'm not exactly sure on what they consider to be the Golden Age, would
assume it to be about 1780-1820.  Anyone can correct me on this.   You said you filed it down from a straight taper?
That is not an easy task.   I have never done that but I have done a lot of filing in my lifetime.  When we went into the
barrel business, at least for the first year, we drawfiled every barrel.   When a barrel came off our tracer mill it was pretty
smooth, but we drawfiled them anyway.......could do one in about 20 minutes...........Don

[JohnTyg]

Don,

Posted some photos so you know I'm not pulling your leg.  Difficult to see the taper in the photos.  The Orion is resting alongside a 7/8' strait barrel for reference of the light gap between.  The hand swamped Orion is on the bottom.  Not as much work as you might think, going from a taper to swamped, not too bad, couple of afternoons.  1" breech to a waist of 13/16" about 18" to 5" ? from muzzle, then back to 7/8".  (It was nicely bottom taped and was easy to fit a plug.)

This is a hobby, I'd never make a living as I'm still in process on finishing only my second rifle.
This is a great way to get my mind off work.  Keeps my BP down and my mind relaxed.  My wife thinks I could have worse bad habits.

Sort of a pretty profile but wanted to save it until I had more experience.

John