doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Is this gun original? Charles Lancaster

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):