AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: 54Bucks on September 15, 2011, 12:58:52 AM
-
I'm having a Schreit built in the near future and would like to know of any known alterations. Under another thread of mine recently it was mentioned that the trigger guard is not original and that the original was wood. My library is limited yet I've never seen any guns with wooden trigger guards. Also....are there any other surviving signed Schreit's or any guns unsigned thought to be made by Schreit? Judging only from the Schreit pics in Schumway's RCA book, the only obvious change was the minor repair at the butt toe. I would like to know of any alterations and whether or not they are opinion or documented.
Thanks
-
I only know scuttlebut that there may have been 2 phases of restoration/alteration. In addition to what you've said the original had a stepped wrist however subtle. I know of no similar rifles even casually associated with Schreit.
-
Despite, the apparent mauling that RCA18 has gone through, It's still a really cool rifle. Apparently, there is a photo from the 20's or 30's showing RCA18 prior to a 'restoration'. It did indeed have a Germanic bone or wood trigger guard. When it was discovered in England, it was altered to make it more salable and appeal to the public conception of what a Pennsylvania longrifle should be. It was also refinished.
The only other Schreit relic I'm aware of is a barrel or barrel fragment signed 'JOH SCHREIT 1762'
Too bad we don't have anything else. I reallying like his incised carving and engraving. It would be interesting to see more of his Reading work and any influence he had on other makers, Reading or elsewhere.
Ryan
-
The signed barrel that I have seen (actually owned for a time) was complete and interestingly enough is exactly the same length, breech and muzzle dimensions as the one on the rifle. The signature is barely ledgable and the date is the same as on the rifle. Made me wonder the odds of two barrels from the same year surviving or if the date was some sort on commemoration instead of the date of production.
I bought the barrel at the Baltimore Gun Show about 30 years ago and it was on a composite gun with French musket mounts and a curly maple stock. The stocking was done in the style of a musket and the barrel was held in place by the typical Charleville barrel bands. I remember that the front sight was smashed by the front barrel band.
I let the gun go and have lost track of it's present whereabouts. Like so many guns -- I wish I had kept it!
Gary
-
I was wondering the same things two nights ago while shrinking my list of which earlier gun I will be trying soon. Thanks for asking here. Jim
-
Thanks much for the input fellas. I sure would like Eric to step in if he has seen the Schreit!
Flintriflesmith- do you recall if that barrel also had the same muzzle treatment?
Looking at RCA#19 I see a few similar elements: size/shape of the box cover, wire pick/feather holder, lower butt molding w/trace or illusion of a step, and in particular the carving under the cheek being in relief
-
Do you really mean RCA 19, the one with the volute behind the cheekpiece? No feather holder, no carving below cheekpiece.
Regarding the Schreit rifle, this is a gun I'd like to use for inspiration as opposed to using it as a template for a photo-based copy.
-
Just one more thought - keep in mind that a wooden or bone guard appearing on the rifle in a mid-20th century photo/auction catalog may not not necessarily mean that it had one originally when built in the 18th century. Some of these early rifles, particularly ones that ended up in England after the war, underwent mutiple stages of alterations in their period of use - both here and in England - and then multiple restorations as they were sold in this century to collectors.
GM
-
Do you really mean RCA 19, the one with the volute behind the cheekpiece? No feather holder, no carving below cheekpiece.
Regarding the Schreit rifle, this is a gun I'd like to use for inspiration as opposed to using it as a template for a photo-based copy.
Yes RCA#19, I know it's a volute behind the cheek. What I find unusual is relief carving under the cheek. That wire under the cheek holds????? Not suggesting it's by Schreit, probably just something of a shared local element. I'm also using it as a model. I don't know how anyone can build a copy without the original and access to all dimensions and details.
Just one more thought - keep in mind that a wooden or bone guard appearing on the rifle in a mid-20th century photo/auction catalog may not not necessarily mean that it had one originally when built in the 18th century. Some of these early rifles, particularly ones that ended up in England after the war, underwent mutiple stages of alterations in their period of use - both here and in England - and then multiple restorations as they were sold in this century to collectors.
GM
I agree G-man, pinning down any alterations of guns made that long ago are nearly impossible. Including those based on comments about a 75 year old picture.
-
Another rumor....
I had read that there is an old English auction catalog showing this gun, with it's stepped wrist, and with an ugly Victorian (yes, I know, that's being redundant) swirly scrolly triggerguard.
To find that this gun originally had a wooden triggerguard would be freakin' awesome! It is not uncommon to see wood guards (and more rarely, horn guards) on German rifles. It is copying Italian style. ;) It would be great to know that this feature made it across the Atlantic for use on at least one gun!
-
Send me a PM and I will do what I can to put you in touch with someone who knows this gun better than anyone else I know. I have see and held the Schreit, but it was 20 years ago and my memory isn't reliable this far out. He was on the scene when the gun was 'discovered' and has the whole story.
Dick
-
For those of you interested in the Joh Schreit 1761 rifle, and for those who were kind enough to get in touch with me about it, here is what I learned on the subject of this gun.
I contacted Walter O'Connor about it, as he was in on the piece somewhat early although he never owned the gun. Here is what he told me:
The gun was placed with Wallis and Wallis Auction House in England, for sale; this was about 1970, or so. Walter said that if he had recognized what it was, he would have gone to England to attend to it. It was photographed in the 'as found' condition, and is shown in that auction catalog. He knows of no other early depiction of the rifle.
He said that it was sold to an English dealer of fine antique arms, who in turn sold it to a US collector. It has gone through seveal hands since.
Walter said that when found the gun had an elaborate, carved horn triggerguard, (shown in the auction catalog photos): he presumes that it was a Victorian change, (1800s), to the piece, as they may have presumed it to be a German Jaeger. He was definite that, in his mind, it was a late alteration to the gun. He knows his gun craft, its history and what it should have looked like, originally. I have never found him to be wrong, yet.
He noted that the gun had been cleaned on both wood, and metal, according to the British "museum polish" preference.
One of the first owners, (it has had several) had some restoration done; to wit, the toe, and the triggerguard returned to brass. There may have been a few other trifling things perhaps, but nothing injurious.
Walter was emphatic the the step in the wrist has not been changed, which comes as a big
surprise, as that one supposed to have been a major blunder. His words were: "There are no changes in its architecture."
Today, the gun is in the collection of a top end collector and it will likely stay there. Aside from the photos in the book, "Kentucky Rifles, 1750-1850." I am not sure how to get any more details, but a phone call, or inquiry, to the Winterthur Museum might yield some facts. The book does have some numbers which will be helpful. Surprise! It is a big gun.
So, if you build by current appearance, it won't be to far off of the original appearance.
Hope that this helps put to rest some myths, and off the mark beliefs, (some of which I have held too), about the gun and that you all show up here with some fine newly built Schreit rifles not too far down the road.
Best-Dick
-
That's super helpful, my friend!
-
Dick, Thank you for this information. Do you feel that the trigger guard shown on it in RCA I would be a reasonable example to go by in recreating this gun? Or could someone point me in the direction of an example that would be appropriate? Thanks, Jim
-
Jim-I understand that the triggerguard was changed to brass by one of the early US owners and that a later owner had master restorer, Brian LaMaster refashion a better one. Not sure whether this is factual or not.
If it were my project, I would go with the existing guard appearance. If you look at the Christians Spring guns, they are all early, and they have brass guards that typify what a guard would have been in that time period, (1760-11780). My best on your build!
Dick
-
That is great news on the Schreit rilfe. That gun has been the driving force, behind my future as a new builder? although I will most likely do a Chambers kit first. I talked to Brian LaMaster yesterday at the Meyerstown, show. I was happy to hear he did work on gun, he was very nice, seeing that I am just starting out. I WANT TO SAY, EVERYONE ON THIS SITE; give YOUR SELF a PAT ON the BACK, you have all been helpful, THANK-YOU, Best to you and yours; Ravenwolf;
-
Yet another question: RCA Vol I 2nd ed. states the bore as .60 cal. while Kentucky Rifles and Pistols pg. 113 gives .52 cal as the bore size. Do you know which is correct? Thanks, Jim
-
Here are the numbers from the book "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols, 1750-1850", page 113, Reading School Rifles, signed Joh Shreit, 1761.
Length is 58 & 3/4 inches. The octagon, swamped barrel is 43 & 5/16 inches long, .52 caliber rifled. Butt plate 2 & 1/2 inches. Relief and incised carved culy maple stock.
Now you have as much of the story as can be discerned at this moment.
Dick
-
My question regarding bore size is because I have a Rice 44" .62 cal. that I think would work well for my creation of the Schreit gun. Due to my inexperience I would like the opinions of those more knowledgeable as to whether this is an acceptable choice. The breech measurement given in RCA is 1 5/16", my barrel is only 1 1/8" at the breech. Thanks, Jim
-
Dick - before we consider this case closed, I have to respectfully disagree with your friend's assertion that the rifle's architecture has not been changed - I recently saw the earlier photograph from the auction you speak of, and to my recollection the gun most definitely had a stepped wrist. A couple others who post here also saw the photo, maybe they would care to back me up on this?
-
I too have seen the auction photo and my recollection is that it had a "step toe" at that time --- but that was many years ago, so my memory might be faulty. However, two of the photos in the RCA #1 book (page 87) show chisel cuts behind the rear trigger guard extension. I interpret those cuts as the remains of an inlet for a longer guard that has largely been cut away. If my interpretation is correct, even assuming an inlet of minimal depth , the toe line has been altered, in my opinion. I think the rifle now has yet another guard on it. Perhaps the newest guard covers or obliterates evidence of the original toe alteration?
-
I saw the auction catalog at the same time Ian did and I too recall seeing more of a step to the toe. I don't remember it clearly, but I believe it was present, though not extremely dramatic. The guard on the rifle when shown in the catalog was a percussion era one with a lot of spiral extensions etc. In looking at the side profile shown in RCA, the toe molding has a dramatic taper. It seems it would have a little more typical / reasonable shape if it once had a slight step toe as well.
Jim
-
Interesting!
So where did you guys see the photo of the catalog cover?
Can someone post it here?
John
-
The gun has had two brass guards on it while in the US. The existing one was put in place by Brian LaMaster and is as close to the original as you are likely to get. Shumway photographed the gun when the second owner had it, (with the first brass triggerguard). That individual may, or may not, have had the horn guard changed out. We know someone did.
As to the step: the rifle has a stepped wrist though it is not pronounced like some later Lehigh guns seemed to have. If it is shown in the catalog as such then produce the evidence so we can judge. I guess that until that happens, I have no reason not to go with Walter O'Connor's comments, especially since he was there, close to the inception, and he is widely considered an authority on early rifles, and Americana.
Dick
-
Hi Jay,
I wonder if those "cuts" behind the guard are the borders of a wood inlet used to fill the space. If so, we don't know how deep the inlet is and cannot use those marks to guess at the height of the step.
dave
-
As to the step: the rifle has a stepped wrist though it is not pronounced like some later Lehigh guns seemed to have. If it is shown in the catalog as such then produce the evidence so we can judge. I guess that until that happens, I have no reason not to go with Walter O'Connor's comments, especially since he was there, close to the inception, and he is widely considered an authority on early rifles, and Americana.
Dick
As to the step: The catalog that Ian and I mentioned was shown at a recent class held by Wallace Gusler. Based on this photo and more recent photos, his opinion is that the toe has been altered. So... on Wallace's authority, and the fact I saw the catalog myself, I have no reason to believe anything different. ;D
I will see if I can get a photo or scan of the catalog. The owner has a bit of an aversion to the Internet, so I don't know if it will happen though.
Jim
-
If I recall correctly, I saw the auction catalog photo in the upstairs break room of the gunshop at Colonial Williamsburg. I was working summers there in the early 1980's. The other guys in the room, likely Jon Laubach, Dave Wagner and/or George Suiter were discussing the alterations and I think it was Dave who directed my attention to the photos in RCA #1.
-
I'm not sure if there is anything more relevant to add here. I had a copy of the auction photo a few years ago, like an old xerox copy, and will have to see if I can find it. The scrolly guard on it at the time was definitely a mid or late 19th century add on, and while the auction photo is not all that great, one can DEFINITELY see that the gun at the time had a slightly more pronounced step than it now has. Not to get carried away - it looked like it maybe had around 1/8" more material where the rear of the guard would have attached. Kind of subtle. I also remember - very distinctly - being permitted to pick up the gun at a show about 8-9 years ago, and the reason I remember it so distinctly is because I think I ruptured a disc. ;D
-
And yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of Joh Schreit and his big 'pachuco,' 1761 rifle. We have all been at each others throats, and on the edges of our seats on this.
I sought out none other than Brian La Master who has generously given the information that is herein contained. Brian is the only person who will, (or can) admit to having laid restorative hands upon the gun and he has permitted his name to be used in this communique. He has also seen the auction photo.
Here is what he had to say:
The present owner put it into Brian's shop to do the following things. The bad toe repair was to be redone. When sent to him the existing repair was done in a light walnut, (could have been done in England). This he did, in appropriate maple. Now, the problem is gone.
The next item was to 'fix' the triggerguard correctly.
This is probably what we have been looking for. The guard Brian dealt with was put in to replace the 'Victorian' highly carved wood piece which was apparently perched on the toe surface. A hard knock would have carried it away, (recall that the first restorer proceeded to replace the wood one with a brass guard).
Brian carefully removed the latter and looked for the tab mortise on the rear and found none. He did see the 'tell tale' chisel marks that show in Shumway. It is his position that these were the index cuts for the original mortise and could have been covered up easily by extending the tab on the first replacement guard, (that did not happen).
He made a new guard based on one from Christians Spring and affixed it to the rifle. He extended the rear tab, and floated it on the surface without cutting a new mortise. It is now quite sturdy and covers the chisel cuts, as well.
Why was the mortise not present? Brian is convinced that the first restorer, (gone now, lovingly remembered, but who should have known better) took the toe down about 1/32 of an inch to take away the mortise, but did not remove enough to take out the chisel cuts, (too much). This reduced the toe molding just enough to produce a detectable change. Brian is adamant that no more was planed off, (he said that 1/8 inch would be too much), since it would have affected the toe line to a radical extent.
Brian commented that the butt plate on the Schreit is almost a double for those on the Christians Spring guns. He wondered if that is where old John got his hardware for the 1761 rifle. In considering that aspect, one has to ask if Schreit didn't influence makers at the Spring instead, since he was making guns almost 15 years earlier than most of the dated pieces, made at the latter location.
He observed that the carving on the Schreit rifle is very close to the incised work on early Bucks County rifles. Again, consider the earlier rifle, (1761). Dare we think that Joh Schreit was heavily involved in the beginnings of what is the Kentucky Rifle? Maybe one of the originators?
He has the dates on his side. And, we don't really know what the very early rifles looked like. There are some good possibilities here for further research.
Finally, Brian noted that much of the 'engraving' on the rifle was done by a gouge and a punch of some kind. He had to make one to complete the engraving on the guard.
Let me take a few more words to publically thank Brian for giving his time, patience, his perceptive eye, and expertise on the subject of this grand rifle, (which may be grander than we realize, or know).
Dick
-
Many thanks for getting us this information it lays to rest the question of just how much was removed from the wrist and the extent of what Brian was able to do for the project.
-
Didn't know anybody felt at one another's throats over this, my comments were not intended to inflame and I don't think anybody else who supported my suggestion intended to cause trouble either. I'm used to hair and meat flying when there's a fight so sometimes in cases like this I have to be told that there's a problem.
I build rifles every day and am very interested in restoration work. Have been learning a little at a time, but admittedly I don't yet have anywhere near the knowledge that Brian La Master does to tackle a job like the Schreit rifle. Brian does first rate work, and I applaud him for allowing you to describe the work he did on the gun.
I truly wish I had the auction photo so I could send you a copy of it. There was plainly more than 1/32 of an inch of wood removed from the step at the wrist, perhaps almost 1/8" in my estimation at the rear guard extension and then tapering back toward the toe. The difference in appearance was quite noticeable.
I unfortunately do not have a copy of the photo - hopefully somebody else will. I saw the photo just a couple of months ago. I know what I saw. That's all I got.
-
I wonder if maybe the angle of the camera to the gun might have made the step look more pronounced in the picture than it actually was?
We have a couple of well respected guys saying the wood removed was slight, yet the picture, according to those that have seen it, seems to tell a different story.
Anyone who has taken pictures knows that cameras can make things look a bit different than they really are!
John
-
Good points, but not the case here.
-
Ian, I tend to jest a lot and if you were put out over my crazy comments then I'm sorry, but not too much, (maybe, not at all). Life is like that. Ask JTR. He knows me, and knows that I think that there isn't a whole lot that is worth getting too serious over. Not at my age, anyway.
I would like to see the photo, and something in my head says that I have seen it a long time ago. Some of the Wallis and Wallis photos, I have seen, overall seem to be pretty good, but that was a long time ago and who knows?
Years and years ago, I recall a wonderful S. Lauck they sold and the photo was good. Not enough detail to suit me, but good enough for it to bring 30K when it sold. That gun was brought to the US. Been here 20 years, or more. Silver wire, carving and all!
Forgot that Brian also said that the bottom flat, (toe), was quite smooth and not somewhat rough as was the rest of the wood. He felt that was indicative of having been planed down some. My experience with originals has shown that area on most rifles to be somewhat rough, as well. This is not surefire, but usually applies.
I asked Brian if he was sure that the toe was reduced by only a thirtysecond and he explained that in his opinion, a mortise for a triggerguard tab would be only about that deep and that is all that had been removed. There was no attempt to go deep enough to remove the chisel
marks. So, there you have it. Since Brian was in the belly of the beast, I figure he knows.
You might take the issue up with him next time you see him. He is far more eloquent than I am and can explain it better. Anyway, if you find the photo, please do post it.
Dick
-
Exactly how much has been removed will probably never be precisely determined. I would agree that it is a noticable amount. Further, I'm not sure how wise it is to make an assumption based on a presumed mortice / outline depth. I have not seen the gun, but based on the photos, my feeling is that the toe changed more than 1/32". Maybe not 1/8" but more than 1/32". Just my thoughts...
Jim
-
If only John Schreit knew how important that 1/32 to 1/8" of wood would be! I am all for determining what an original actually looked like when built, so that comment is in jest.
The discussion does raise a question, which is, was John Schreit making step toe guns or straight toe guns? Perhaps that is also important to some of us. It is my understanding that in Europe at that time some rifle makers made step-toe guns and straight stocked guns, apparently around the same time and at the same place. Here, I do not know of solid evidence that was the case, though it is supposed that Albrecht made step-toe rifles early at Christians Spring and later at Lititz made a straight toe rifle.
Of course, what we really need is less speculation and about 200 signed, dated 1760's rifles to emerge from their graves.
-
First of all I want to thank those who contributed first hand information. And as someone who has already mentioned...... It is nearly impossible to determine specific details about the very old classic guns. Much passed down info. that's taken as accurate simply can't be verified. I would be very carefull when using original as a noun or a verb. As who can say what did or didn't transpire from the original state until now?
-
Sometime in the next couple of weeks I hope to scan and post the auction image. Unfortunately the original picture was of a group of overalls of 4 or 5 rifles so the detail will be at best fair.
Gary
-
Gary,
Consider taking a photo rather than a scan? Just a thought on how to possibly come away with a cleaner image? Either way, thank you for the consideration. tim
-
Tim,
I can try both but I have a high resolution MicroTech scanner that also has software that will help off-set the pattern of dots from the original printing. In a catalog that old it may have been printed at 180 DPI and if so there isn't going to be a lot of fine detail to retrieve. Modern art quality is often 600+ DPI.
In a best case sernario I could insert a "ruler/scale" to compare the width of the lower butt molding to some feature that hasn't changed. Time will tell.
Gary
-
I'll look forward to those photos. Hopefully you will include a timeframe for the auction also.
-
As promised I have scanned the rather poor copy of the picture of the Schreit rifle from the auction catalog. As I suspected the photcopy was high contrast and the original image was low in the number of dots per inch. I suspect it wasn't more than cheap magazine resolution is today.
The photos below start with the entire catalog page with four guns then "zoom in" on the detail of the wrist area. I've also included two images from pictures taken after the first round of "restoration" was done. In evaluating how much of the step was removed I suggest you look hard at the difference in the width of the lower butt moulding at the step from the old picture to the more recent.
Gary
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/Flintriflesmith/Schrite%20Rifle/Schriteallfourguns4web.jpg)
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/Flintriflesmith/Schrite%20Rifle/Schrite2A4web.jpg)
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/Flintriflesmith/Schrite%20Rifle/Schrite4A4web.jpg)
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/Flintriflesmith/Schrite%20Rifle/Schrite3A4web.jpg)
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/Flintriflesmith/Schrite%20Rifle/Schrite5A4web.jpg)
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/Flintriflesmith/Schrite%20Rifle/Schrite6A4web.jpg)
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/Flintriflesmith/Schrite%20Rifle/Schrite7A4web.jpg)
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c271/Flintriflesmith/Schrite%20Rifle/Schrite7Acropped4web.jpg)
-
Your photo series is great Gary. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Really appreciate it.
Jim
-
Gary, thanks for taking the time to do that. THe pictures are very informative as to the visual impact of the modification.
-
Well, I guess that pretty much answers the question of did RCA # 18 Schreit ever have a stepped wrist. More than half the original molding/step was removed in the various triggerguard replacements etc. I appreciate your efforts to help us understand the architecture of this grand rifle.
Ron
-
Thanks, Gary. That is much as I recall the photo, but there was some "memory drift" on my part pertaining to the guard in place at the time of auction. I didn't recall it being quite so 19th c. "scrolly".
-
To me, it appears that the slight step, was shaved down to remove the rear guard slight inlet to accommodate the new one which appears to be mounted proud on the stock. I wonder if wood was also removed with the switch from the original horn/wood grip. This last edit/fix was for sure an improvement, even though it was an adulteration of the original architecture.
Bill
-
I think I see why the step was removed - the replacement guard was not as long, and the rear return of the triggerguard would not fully 'land' on the step. So the worker simply removed the step to provide an adequate platform for the triggerguard.
Great photo's Gary, thanks!
-
To me, it appears that the slight step, was shaved down to remove the rear guard slight inlet to accommodate the new one which appears to be mounted proud on the stock. I wonder if wood was also removed with the switch from the original horn/wood grip. This last edit/fix was for sure an improvement, even though it was an adulteration of the original architecture.
Bill
I'm not seeing the third or fourth generation brass guard in the last three photos as mounted proud on the stock. It looks like a "regular" inlet up to the edge of the bevel to me.
Gary
-
It does look like the rear of TG may be inlet some, but that the return is a little short of the step. If I cock my eye the right way, it doesn't look like the step has changed so much as the "new" TG extends the toe line and obscures the step to some extent. Looking at the last two pictures, it seems like the wood of the step hasn't changed much at all, but from a distance, it looks like it has been reduced significantly because of the TG.
-
Well I'd say the pictures tell the tale!
I won't try to guess in inches, but it's obvious that the step was originally a least twice as big as it is now.
As for the reason that the step was trimmed,, I sincerely hope it wasn't done for the reason I'm thinking.....
Thanks for posting the pictures Gary
John
-
I had somehow missed seeing that the pictures had been posted - thank you very much Gary for taking the time to do this
-
Gary
Thanks for posting this.Clears up alot of ?'s .
All the best!!!
Mitch
-
It sure looks to me like the trigger guard has been shaped to mate with the step and give the appearance of no step. The trigger guard tang is stepped in reverse, as I see it.
-
Look at the width of the molding. There's no question material has been removed.
-
And yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of Joh Schreit and his big 'pachuco,' 1761 rifle. We have all been at each others throats, and on the edges of our seats on this.
I sought out none other than Brian La Master who has generously given the information that is herein contained. Brian is the only person who will, (or can) admit to having laid restorative hands upon the gun and he has permitted his name to be used in this communique. He has also seen the auction photo.
Here is what he had to say:
The present owner put it into Brian's shop to do the following things. The bad toe repair was to be redone. When sent to him the existing repair was done in a light walnut, (could have been done in England). This he did, in appropriate maple. Now, the problem is gone.
The next item was to 'fix' the triggerguard correctly.
This is probably what we have been looking for. The guard Brian dealt with was put in to replace the 'Victorian' highly carved wood piece which was apparently perched on the toe surface. A hard knock would have carried it away, (recall that the first restorer proceeded to replace the wood one with a brass guard).
Brian carefully removed the latter and looked for the tab mortise on the rear and found none. He did see the 'tell tale' chisel marks that show in Shumway. It is his position that these were the index cuts for the original mortise and could have been covered up easily by extending the tab on the first replacement guard, (that did not happen).
He made a new guard based on one from Christians Spring and affixed it to the rifle. He extended the rear tab, and floated it on the surface without cutting a new mortise. It is now quite sturdy and covers the chisel cuts, as well.
Why was the mortise not present? Brian is convinced that the first restorer, (gone now, lovingly remembered, but who should have known better) took the toe down about 1/32 of an inch to take away the mortise, but did not remove enough to take out the chisel cuts, (too much). This reduced the toe molding just enough to produce a detectable change. Brian is adamant that no more was planed off, (he said that 1/8 inch would be too much), since it would have affected the toe line to a radical extent.
Brian commented that the butt plate on the Schreit is almost a double for those on the Christians Spring guns. He wondered if that is where old John got his hardware for the 1761 rifle. In considering that aspect, one has to ask if Schreit didn't influence makers at the Spring instead, since he was making guns almost 15 years earlier than most of the dated pieces, made at the latter location.
He observed that the carving on the Schreit rifle is very close to the incised work on early Bucks County rifles. Again, consider the earlier rifle, (1761). Dare we think that Joh Schreit was heavily involved in the beginnings of what is the Kentucky Rifle? Maybe one of the originators?
He has the dates on his side. And, we don't really know what the very early rifles looked like. There are some good possibilities here for further research.
Finally, Brian noted that much of the 'engraving' on the rifle was done by a gouge and a punch of some kind. He had to make one to complete the engraving on the guard.
Let me take a few more words to publically thank Brian for giving his time, patience, his perceptive eye, and expertise on the subject of this grand rifle, (which may be grander than we realize, or know).
Dick
I believe that mr. no-gold's previous statement's regarding the 1/32" that was removed prior to Brian working on it and the appearance of a stepped trigger tang make up the difference in the pictures, but what do I know.
-
James,
As a reference point, look at the very back of the trigger guard extension. Look at the molding width in the before and after photos. The molding is less than half the original width after modification. With this the case, the amount removed is positively more than 1/32". No way the molding was only 1/16" to start with. ???
-
One thing I need cleared up: the pictures in RCA and here (in the before and after sequence) do not show the TG that Brian LaMaster made and put on, correct? If I understand what BL did, the current TG rail should be longer and the post/return should be at same place as the step, making it look much more like it did with the "curly" brass TG than it does with the next replacement brass TG in RCA. Does anyone have a current picture of this rifle or am I misunderstanding? I'm not acquainted with many big names in LR's, but if Brian LaMaster says amount removed from toe-line was on the order of 1/32", I would take that to the bank. The area around the rear TG tang is confusing; from looking at the portion near the butt, the width of molding does not appear to have been modified significantly, certainly nowhere near 1/8" as some have contended.
PS. I think the curly brass TG extends further back than the one in RCA, so the width of the molding at the rear of the TG's is hard to compare.
-
I'm not acquainted with many big names in LR's, but if Brian LaMaster says amount removed from toe-line was on the order of 1/32", I would take that to the bank. The area around the rear TG tang is confusing; from looking at the portion near the butt, the width of molding does not appear to have been modified significantly, certainly nowhere near 1/8" as some have contended.
bgf,
Did you read my previous post suggesting comparison molding width at the back of the guard extension? I really don't know how someone can argue with these photos? ??? Conservatively the original width is in the range of 3/16" at this location. In the "after modification" photo less than half of the molding remains. So with simple math, I see conservatively in the range of 3/32" being removed. If you don't agree with this, please explain what part of this arguement you don't feel is correct. Telling me and others to not trust our own eyes and blindly accept the words of another that you apparently hold in esteem is insulting.
Jim
-
"Horse Hockey!" as good ole Col. Potter used to say, In the first photos of the gun with the scrolly trigger guard the step is fully twice as deep as it on the later photo of the gun with the ill fitting trigger guard. Jim is spot on, if you have built and studied original stepped wrist guns you know well the molding/step is usually in the neighborhood of 1/4 height, perhaps a smidge less, but certainly more 1/16 inch. We are almost to the point of arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin... Perhaps Brian had to remove a 1/32 to clean up the mess from multiple previous trigger guard replacements. There is certainly precious little of the original step left at this point...
-
Jim,
I meant no insult, only that Brian is an honest workman and had it in his shop, while we are looking at pictures. Sorry if you took it differently or I spoke clumsily. Yes, there has been some removed, that was clear, but the TG in RCA also obscures the step significantly in my opinion; also differences in photo scale, lighting and camera angles make it difficult to determine exact measurements. I thought the aim of the thread had slowly evolved to determining what was actually done, and was stating my observations based on what I can see, for use or refutation by others as they see fit. The only reason I spoke up in the first place is because I saw it differently from what most were seeing (at least one poster even seemed to imply that the step is now missing entirely), and it seemed like the right thing to do, although I had (perhaps now justified) misgivings in doing so.
Lucky,
Again, I am simply not seeing it the same way, and was stating another possibility, and I think the photos are not reliable enough to make a definitive measurement, but will defer to your experience. Perhaps my argument is "horse hockey"; if so, that makes yours the stronger.
-
I'll offer my 2 bits. If the pictures with the scroll guard shows the original step, than there's not much step there 1/8 to 3/32 max sure doesnt look near a 1/4 inch to me. There's still some step there and I agree the shorter guard placement covers over what's left of the step in a way that the break in the step is not nearly as visible. So 1/32 to 1/16 removed from the toe line sounds about right for me.
-
Interesting that guys that have never seen the rifle in person consider themselves a better authority on the gun than two guys that have seen and handled the gun! :o
Not to mention arguing over 1/32nd of an inch, where one of the pictures is so fuzzy that the actual wood line is indistinct at best. ::)
Not to mention that 1/32 of an inch might not be exactly the same, one guy to another. Hold your thumb and forefinger 1/32nd of an inch apart, then measure it with a ruler. So how close were you? :o
Plus, I doubt that the 1/32nd of an inch in this discussion was ever stated with the intention of it ever being considered a hard, as measured, distance. ;)
I agree that the step is more or less half as large as it originally was, but I’ll not be so presumptuous or arrogant to argue it to a 32nd of an inch. ;D
John
-
I did a bit of digging on Schreit some time ago. One thing I think is interesting about his germanic rifle style is that I believe he was in PA as a small child, or possibly born here in pa, and hence would have been trained here. I used to have some notes but can't locate them. I believe his father Englebert Schreit was affiliated with the Ephrata Cloister, a small commune established in 1732 and is a historic site that you can visit today. At the time this would have been Cocalico Township Lancaster County, west of Reading in eastern Lanc county and is now Ephrata borough in Lanc county. His father Englebert died I believe in the early 1740's. The tax lists only go back to 1751 even though Cocalico township was established in 1729. Regarding the cloister I read that some of the inhabitants were celibate and lived a meager life in the "compound", while others were married and had normal occupations on adjacent farms. The latter basically supported the former financially. I think John's brother Casper was a gunsmith also, and stayed in the Cocalico area while John of course went to the town of Reading where he was taxed as early as 1756. Makes you wonder if he was trained by his father? Very few people lived in the Ephrata area at that time.
-
I hesitate to dive in here but what the heck. Some material has been removed, Brian has said as much. A 32nd perhaps a bit more is gone from the molding line to be sure. What is also true is that the Rear extention of the new guard where it turns down into the spur, is far forward of the older guard. Look at the second line of curl behind the beaver tail lock finial, in the newer pics the stripe comes straight down to the crotch of the guard. In the older pictures the Step and the the area where the rear extention and the spur meet is well back from there.
I'm not arguing with anyone, just pointing it out for reference. Personally I think that obscures the area of the step and combined with whatever Brian had to take off for clean up sake, makes the lack of step in the new pics look even more dramatic.
-
Jim,
You have summed it up very well. As I said when I posted the pictures, "look at the molding."
My guess is the same as yours -- that closer to an 1/8 was removed from the bottom line of the toe at the step.
The replacement triggerguard has nothing to do with it and can be ignored for the sake of this discussion.
The question that remains unanswered is what the first guard might have been like. The cutting away of the toe appears to have erased all the evidence--if there was anything definitive.
Smshea,
The pictures I posted were taken long before Brian did any work on this rifle. If he removed even more wood "for clean up sake" while putting on the fourth guard... Well, thats' another story.
Gary
-
Gary
No argument from me and I may be confused as to where in the chain of events those later pictures were taken. Am I wrong in that the guard In the newer pics you posted appear to be somewhat forward of the "Swirly" guard in the early photos?
Scott
-
Ya, I reread the thread....again. I was confused and thought the later pics were Post Brian and that was the most recent trigger guard.... Hard to keep up ;).
-
....Does anyone have a current picture of this rifle or am I misunderstanding? .....
"Berks County Longrifles & Gunmakers 1750-1900" by Patrick Hornberger 2009, page 36. 3 Pictures....full length, left and right side lock back. Beautiful color pictures in this book. And these pictures definitely have a different brass guard than those in RCA. J.D.K.
-
I'll just remove this one completely, because once edited the humor is lost (as it apparently was, anyway... ::) )
Post edited because mod received complaints.
Seriously?
Oh well.
-
We do all realize that currently we are working from grainy photographs, correct? I can only briefly recall my own opportunity to handle the rifle a number of years ago, but there obviously had been material removed and there no longer is much of a noticeable step left at all. Can we all agree on that? I do not believe the rifle as originally constructed was bellied or convex along the lower toe line. I find the best means by which to *estimate* (we are simply estimating here, after all) the amount of material removed is to simply compare the auction photo with current photos and compare the reduction in perceived molding depth. The key concept here is "perception," which is going to be different for each viewer.
I also believe that at whatever point the 19th century guard was installed, it is very possible that a small amount of material was removed to facilitate the fitting of that guard, so it's likely the assault upon the rifle began quite early.
VERY interesting information, Dave!
-
Note that it doesn't take much to achieve or eliminate the impression of a stepped wrist. Look closely at the Marshall rifle; the step is quite subtle compared to RCA 42 for example. I don't really care how much material was removed, but I am interested in if it was enough to make the buttstock toeline look straight instead of a stepped wrist. Looks that way to me.
-
You know, I've never measured the amount of step when I build a rifle with a stepped wrist.... "oh, about there" is how I measure!
For me, 1/32" is a LOT. I can see it. ;)
There was not a huge amount of step when it had the scrolly guard, but definitely more than now. Now there is still a little bit of a step. I am amazed that folks are arguing over whether it looks like 1/32" was taken off, or 1/8"! :D
Besides, it looks like about a sixteenth....
;D
-
Just for the record here, Brian did not remove any wood from the gun. He said that he mounted the guard on the surface at the rear tab and made it long enough to cover up the chisel marks. As to wood removed, my old eyes don't have their micrometer abilities anymore (did they ever? No!), but if you measure the molding at the toe and consider that to be an original dimension, it would make sense to maintain that measurement as a constant, forward to the wrist. This would make the molding edges parallel overall. The original photo suggests that may have been the case.
Have to throw in here with Chris and JTR. Aren't we arguing over 'angels dancing on the head of a pin?' But, a great discussion here, nonetheless, and it is much what one hopes for on the academic side of the Kentucky Rifle.
We all agree now that the gun has undergone alterations. Too bad, the principals involved knew better, but these things happen. I would not toss it out for that if it came into my hands, and it could be put back to what the old photo shows.
Gary, thank you for going to the trouble of posting the catalog photos. You are an 18th century man well adapted to the 21st century to have accomplished that feat.
Dick
-
Mr.NoGold,
I agree with almost everything you said, but I'm not sure we should assume the molding width is constant from toe to step. Many examples taper to varying degrees. See RCA 43, for example, where the taper is substantial. I'm assuming this one (#18) did "taper" toward the TG so that the molding was originally somewhat thinner at the TG than at the butt. The auction pictures seem to show this as well , I think, but perhaps I am seeing it wrong. I see now that if folks start with the assumption of the molding being a constant width, the estimate of amount removed at the step becomes substantially larger, but I was assuming some taper, and using the chisel marks to denote an upper limit of roughly 1/16" for the original TG inlet depth.
-
My turn! Forgetting the different opinions on the ammount of step or if originally there was a step. Humor me and look at the pics, especially the better pics in Rifles of Colonial America #18.
Look at the repaired/replaced piece of the butt stock toe from both sides. From the cheek side it appears to be quite small. From the patch box side it looks larger. From the box side the wavy carving on that repaired/replaced piece does not look to me to match the rest of the wavy carving that surrounds the box lid.
If you straight edge the lower butt molding from the butt plate forward from both sides you also get a different impression
My best guess is that the repaired/replaced toe of the butt stock was reason for affecting the lower butt molding line. One side more than the other. Which leads me to think that the original step was not as significant as the molding tends to lead the eye now.
-
My turn! Forgetting the different opinions on the ammount of step or if originally there was a step. Humor me and look at the pics, especially the better pics in Rifles of Colonial America #18.
Look at the repaired/replaced piece of the butt stock toe from both sides. From the cheek side it appears to be quite small. From the patch box side it looks larger. From the box side the wavy carving on that repaired/replaced piece does not look to me to match the rest of the wavy carving that surrounds the box lid.
If you straight edge the lower butt molding from the butt plate forward from both sides you also get a different impression
My best guess is that the repaired/replaced toe of the butt stock was reason for affecting the lower butt molding line. One side more than the other. Which leads me to think that the original step was not as significant as the molding tends to lead the eye now.
There does seem to be something different b/t the two sides, as far as the molding is concerned, but I don't know if it is camera/lighting angle or something like what you suggest. One other consideration is that the wrist transition area may be slightly wider/more rounded on the PB side and shadowing the molding more in some cases? The second picture on p. 89 appears to be from "below" and the molding is quite a bit more distinct, esp. the radius at the termination, whereas that part seems to thin and disappear almost entirely in some pictures.