Group,

I've been looking at a pair of guns for awhile and have been having a polite conversation with the owner of this pair of guns:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=265581118

Lets avoid discussion of value and price for this exercise.

The things I saw that didn't match my reference materials, personal collection and known examples was as follows:

1. I'd never seen original Lancasters that had their signature 15 Line Per Inch flat top checkering cut with diamond bevels before. Anyone able to show support for this being original?

2. The short trigger bow tang seems inconsistent with an English stock, making me believe the tang was for a Prince of Wales grip that was subsequently notched and made into a straight grip.

3. All of the original lancasters I've seen had nearly exhibition grade walnut, does the wood look original?

4. Originality of the case. Has anyone seen an original lancaster case that was NOT green baize before?

5. Originality of the case. Has anyone seen a Lancaster that had a tiny maker's label? (see the glue damage to the case lid where the label originally was). Every cased Lancaster I've seen or owned had a huge wallpaper maker's label and then they had 3 additional small "care and use" labels for different aspects of the gun.

6. Sir Joseph Whitworth's Steel. Lancaster was the barrel maker to Manton and then Purdey the younger where he was going head-to-head against his competitor, Sir Joe. The gentleman offering these guns for sale claims he has literature indicating that Lancaster offered Whitworth barrels as an option. I've never seen such a set configured as-new and was wondering if anyone else has seen original Whitworths on a Lancaster?

7. Lancaster's patented Single Trigger of 1896 was usually configured with a prince of Wales grip. Does anyone have an example of a single triggered, original Lancaster that was configured with an English straight grip stock?

I'm a Lancaster fan and I just wanted to add to my knowledge of the maker. If anyone can providce additional data points regarding the guns above I'd be interested to know more.

Regards,

Rookhawk

1. I've seen Model A's with original pointed diamonds before, usually on guns made in the early 1900's.

2.1 I've never seen a Model A shotgun (rifles are a different story) with a POW stock, got a picture?
2.2 The wood seems appropriate, and no, not all Model A's had "exhibition" quality wood.
2.3 The trigger guard tangs do seem rather short, thats not to say they weren't ordered that way. Most all succesful English gun makers were like Burger King...you could have it your way.

3. When the Model A was being made at 151 New Bond St. The original Mr. Lancaster was dead, H.A.A. Thorn was using his name and they were no longer in the barrel making business. Even though the barrels on Thorns guns still carried the prestigous "CL" mark, the barrels were most certainly outsourced. Thomas Kilby would be more likely to have been a direct competitor with the original barrel maker Charles Lancaster. Sir Whitworth was much later (patented his process in 1874) and was never in "competition" with the original Charles Lancaster (barrel maker). When this pair was said to be made, in the early 20th century, Sir Whitworths FS most certainly would've been an option.

4. Don't know about the different colors of Baize used in Lancaster cases. I've seen green, blue and red. Very insignificant IMO.

5. What Lancasters have you owned or do you currently own? Can you post pics of them please?

Dustin

The much feared "wrist breaker" action isn't it?
I love Lancasters, up there with my top 3.

T

Just my gut, it's a "period" restock. The case looks familiar. Nonetheless, a handsome pair.

My $0.02

About 30 grande over priced...

One of my hunters had a Similar Lancaster this year, I have a pic somewhere if I can find it I'll post it.It was a nice gun, but I thought quite heavy...

All those period Lancasters were 'wrist breakers' area gun shoppe has had one, beautiful wood, metal, fit up- and maybe Rambo or "Da Ahrnoold" could easily open one, not me, and I ain't no 97 lb. weakling neither- but just as my favorite actor with his 20 LC Smiths (Bogie) would have said, after viewing the case with the three initials stamped thereon-- "A WOW finish"--Here's lookin' at you, kids!!! Waaay outta my price range, but the dealer is batting 1000% on the GunBusters Feedback tally sheet- for what that may be worth--

Not all "period" SLE Lancasters were wristbreakers. Even though externally all of the SLE's might have looked similar, some were not built as self openers, and some weren't equipped with ejectors.
The Wristbreaker was never hard to OPEN! Its not even that hard to close if you have the proper technique down.

Most 12 bore Wristbreaker aka Model A's wil be in the 6.5 to 6.12 range, never ever seen one that weighed in at 7 pounds. So "heavy", no not exactly.

And even though it creeps me out to no end when I agree with jOEy, he's right on the money regarding this pairs outrageous price tag.

Dustin

I have a "wristbreaker" and it is easy to open in spite of a dozen things happening at once:

Single trigger, auto-reset safety, assisted opening, ejector gun.

I hadn't even considered the idea that the gun was called wrist breaker because it hurt the owners wrist. I thought they were called that because there is hardly any wood in the gun after in letting and they are often proofed for 1-1/8 or 1-1/4 ounce. If any model of gun deserves a broken wrist from recoil, it is this patent.

I'll post some pics eventually.

The "Wristbreaker" could've been made in two different action types, sidelock or body action.

One thing for sure....the Wristbreaker is not a "assisted opener", it, along with the Beesley actioned Purdey are most definately self openers.

Rookhawk,
There is alot of wood at the head and plenty of bearing surface for the stock. The gun is robust the whole way around. There isn't much inletting that has to be done #1, there arent that many parts on the locks to let in #2, so right there you gain strength. I'm not quite sure where you got that bit from. Never seen a cracked Lancaster stock in the wrist area or around the locks. Plenty of strength there.

Strength.



Engineering brilliance. Simple, strong, well done.


The whole design, from the stock, action, and the system is fairly robust, the weak link if there is one probably lies in the Perkes ejector system. I'm not at all familiar with the single trigger, so I cannot comment on that.

Dustin

Dustin,

The single triggers are a different beast altogether with significant loss of wood. Quite a marvelous invention though. Amazing what they could come up with in 1896. 115 years old and still relevant.

They are? I'm interested in seeing what the difference is. I wonder how much more wood has been hogged out of the stock to accomodate the single trigger mechanism. If you have pics, please post them.

Do you have the patent # of the single trigger mechanism you keep refering to? I'd like to read more about it.

Dustin

Agree with Joe on the Price too...way over the top.

IMO over priced and at some point re-stocked.

LeFusil had asked for some other examples. The link below has pictures of my 1896 Charles Lancaster Best Grade, single trigger, opener, ejector. As you can see, the single trigger mechanism is ingenious, although it does result in loss of wood. The connection between the wood and the "boxlock" (lacking a better term) portion of the receiver resembles a tenon joint that is between 3/4" and 7/8" in thickness. While they do hold up, it is a remarkable amount of wood removed to accomodate the single trigger scheme and the sidelocks.

The gun is still a work in progress so I realize I'll get jabs over the gloss finish. It is hardening up now and in a month or two a rotstone will be taken to it to bring the color down to satin. The checkering was a hell of a project to recut as my stocker friend had to fabricate a flat top gouge that was exactly 15 LPI to retrace the existing checkering.

This particular gun also came to me with its original, fitted case and a few accessories. The stock is original and has a prince of Wales grip with the short tang. The double triggered guns I have and have seen had a very long tang/bow with two screws. Hence, my questions about the ones linked at the beginning of this thread appear to have been converted from POW to straight grip since the bow/tang looks wrong.






















[img:center]https://moritz.homeserver.com/PhotoViewer/files?album=album634605893294445000&path=%2fPhotos%2fGuns%2fLancaster%2fIMG_0177.JPG[/img]

A note about a pair of the aforementioned type of guns written to "Mr. Lancaster" (H.A.A. Thorn)

8 December, 1888

Dear Sir,

The four breech-loading hammerless guns you built for me are, in my opinion, as near perfection as is possible to get them. The pair of 20-bores (weight 5 pounds, 2 ounces), I have been using now nearly two years. I find them just as tight and sound as when new; I have never had any repairs except having the locks cleaned. The pair of 12-bores (6 pounds) are as good as the 20s.

Since using your guns, and receiving a few lessons from you at your splendid shooting grounds, my shooting in the field has so much improved that now I always make a good score, even at fast and difficult birds. With many thanks for the pains you have taken in making me such perfect fitting and fine shooting guns.

I am, gratefully yours,

ANNIE OAKLEY
(Little Sure Shot)

Regarding single triggers:

"Thorn's (Lancaster) patent No. 5517 for "Improvements in Single Trigger Guns" was sealed on 18 January, 1896.

The issue of "The Field" dated 1st June, 1895 had an expose on the patent entitled "Lancaster's One-Trigger Double Gun". Hence, although single triggers were first patented in 1789 and 1791, the first, safe, credible single trigger was the one created by Thorn. (Lancaster)

**I might add to all of this that it was very common for Lancaster's best guns to be proofed for 1-1/8 or even 1-1/4 ounce loads, making single trigger systems the more difficult to prevent double-discharge due to recoil. (it was a marketing ploy by Thorn to demonstrate confidence in his system)

My notes also show a second reference patent by James Smallman No. 13492 of 1896. Both this patent and the aforementioned one above were referenced in Lancaster's third patent of 28 January, 1904 No. 7046. (that patented system appears to have required less inletting)

hello,
serial no. 118** date gun as late 1902 /1903
i own original case from 1902 and lined in green.
most lancasters ive seen have average-good wood.
i am with jOe re value,maybe more so,but i am talking from british perspective
cheers
bill
mrwmartin

I have a 1903 Charles Lancaster and it is a VERY beautiful gun. Another poster said that a Lancaster trade label is large. So exactly what size is a Lancaster label circa 1903?

The correct label for that era (main label) would have likely measured:

8-5/8" wide by 7-1/2" tall.

The label would have featured the Lancaster coat of arms and at the bottom of the label "Inventor".

Typically, there would be three smaller labels included as well. A "shot charge card" would be a label roughly 5" tall x 3.5" wide that would specify the amount of Curtiss and Harvey powder to use with the gun.

An additional label in orange lettering was about 2-3/4" tall by 4-1/4" wide entitled "Hammerless Guns".

Lastly, there was a label of about 4-1/2" tall by 5" wide in orange ink that had a schematic on it entitled "Ejector Hammers on Forend". The brief description then explains how to prepare the forend to be attached to the barreled action during assembly.

Here is a visual example of the primary maker's label, albeit the reproduction is sized down considerably:




Here's a pretty good example of an original from your gun's era as well (note the small label to the right "Hammerless Guns" also):

Rookhawk:
Thank you for providing me the correct label size for my Lancaster. I now know that I have the correct label for my Lancaster, circa 1903.

Anyone:
Does anyone have any digital images (or could take any) of the remaining three labels that were mentioned in Rookhawk's post? I would very much like to copy them for my case.

HELLO,
i have case with all 4 original labels,i have taken photos
but do not have the mental capacity to post,however i can add them to an email and forward if you wish.
cheers
bill mrwmartin

I did find pics of a Charles Lancaster that hunted with us, But it is a boxlock (fine) and the pics lack enough detail to show much,,

Slightly off topic but I thought some of you would like the before and after.

I bought this gun early last year:

http://auctions.holtsauctioneers.com/asp...1&saletype=

And had it restored. The only thing left is to break down the oil stock sheen to satin.

https://moritz.homeserver.com/PhotoViewer/album634605893294445000/index.xml

She's been a nice gun to shoot and one of my better decisions. I was supposed to be selling off my collection but I had to add one net-new gun to the stable.