Differences between York and Lancaster school typical features

[Cossack]

I've been trying to differentiate these two schools.

My books at the moment are KRA's "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols" and Shumway's "Pennsylvania Longrifles of Note." Both show rifles from both schools and to my untrained eye they have similar profiles and features. What are the typical features that make a York look like a York as opposed to a Lancaster? Other than being a few miles apart, what makes them different "schools?" If somebody was building or selling a York rifle, what would you expect it to look like?

I've read somewhere that York rifles have more English influence. Where/how does that manifest itself in the features of the guns?

[Mike Brooks]

Get RCA I&II. Then get the relevant KRA discs.

[rich pierce]

Your resources are limited. As Mike said there’s a lot out there. Plus it’s not like a Lancaster builder failed “school” if their rifles were different from others made there.

What we are talking about in “schools” are characteristics commonly, but not universally, found in rifles from a particular area. Differences can be subtle.

Both Lancaster and York rifles commonly share a triangular buttstock with relatively straight comb and toe lines. Daisy patchboxes and a typical c-scroll pattern of carving are common but not universal on Lancaster rifles.  York County rifles often have distinctive tang carving typical of Schroyer’s rifles.  Patchboxes and carving are much more varied on York rifles.

[far55]

I asked this same question back in 2018 at the York County rifle symposium during the question and answer period, and did not get much of an answer. A while later a well known collector approached me and asked if I got my answer yet. I said "No", and asked him the difference when carving and patchbox design was taken out of the mix. He said " There is not a whole lot of difference". I asked this question of a current builder of rifles who has built both styles and he said he thought the York guns may be slimmer, but when I was looking at the guns on display at the symposium, there were several earlier guns (an Eister comes to mind), that had an earlier style thick wrist and butt stock. So, as in the Lancaster guns, time frame may dictate this.  Any specific York details that can be added would be appreciated.
Thanks, Roland

[Mike Brooks]

Yep, time frame is everything. You would probably have to narrow it down to a particular year to make any accurate comparisons.

[hanshi]

I always though "geography" was the only difference between them.

[WadePatton]

I always though "geography" was the only difference between them.

Shucks gnaw.

The more intensely we study, the more we find that time means a lot in the evolution of a school and also, in the guns made by a particular builder, assuming a long career.  And then we has to decide on where to draw the "early/late" dividing lines.

Just think how complicated we could make it if we had more surviving examples.     

[Cossack]

Are certain "English" features, such as English locks or English style tang carving, more common in York rifles as opposed to Lancaster at any given period?

I've never seen a roundfaced lock in a York rifle, although I have seen one in a Lancaster (Valentine Fondersmith). Would a roundfaced English lock be out of place on a York build?

[rich pierce]

Are you aware of our “museum” here? Some fine York rifles there.

[WESTbury]

Cossack

I'm sure that you will discover that the Bruce Miller Museum is a treasure trove of information, photographic and written, that should satisfy your curiosity.

As that some of my German ancestors, on my mother's side of the family, lived in Lancaster County in the 18th and 19th century, I am interested in Lancaster school rifles. I even have Graeff ancestors, sadly not John Graeff.

[Mike Brooks]

I wouldn't say there was anything particularly English about York or Lancaster rifles.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Golden age York guns often had more elaborate and pierced patch boxes and side plates than Lancaster guns.  They often had rear ramrod pipes that tapered and narrowed toward the breech. Some York makers also had a tendency to extend the stock almost straight back from the barrel for an inch or so and then start the arc downward. On some rifles this created a slight hump above the rear of the lock that I do not particularly find appealing. Eister and Zorger did that on some rifles.  The carved "C" scrolls and volutes tended to be distorted in a way that suggests movement to me.  I really like that feature because it makes the carving come alive rather than static decoration.

dave   

[Top Jaw]

It has always seemed to me that the forward part of the comb profile is more slender and concave on golden age York Co’s.  More so than Lancaster’s.  But I’m sure someone has an example that will bunk my observations. 🙂