Author Topic: ALR MUseum: George Schroyer, Sr. returns with his 3rd exhibit (090417-1)  (Read 2849 times)

Offline Hurricane ( of Virginia)

  • Library_mod
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2081
This third rifle appears in Shumways classic book on Schroyer but the patchbox is not shown. Here it is. Hard to believe there are three here in detail and color!

See all three Schroyer guns at this url.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?board=38.0

Please post your comments as a "reply" on this board.
Thanks
Hurricane
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 06:22:43 AM by hurricane »

Offline Tom Currie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
Nord, Thanks for posting pics of this rifle. Always wondered what the rest of that rifle looked like. I used that slim hunters star on my last completed rifle ( Schroyer) More variation again from Schroyer on the patchbox side plates. That's maybe what I like about him the most ! Well done on the conserative approach to restoration. 

Offline WElliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 593
Thanks for sharing this handsome rifle and the detailed notes on the restoration involved.  The restoration done to this rifle is appropriate to save and re-present a worthwhile American artifact which probably had "died in service" rather than remaining unused and pristine.  There are so few that have survived 200 years without suffering some loss or damage.  In my humble opinion, restoration which simply puts a rifle back together and does not enhance what was originally there, if disclosed to a purchaser, is appropriate and should be appreciated.  Sometimes there are changes which occurred in the service life of a rifle, such as a period-of-use repair, which should be left untouched. 

And then, there is the matter of reconversion. . . .  My view is that if the original flint plate is in place, a good reconversion may be appropriate.  If the lock itself has been changed and appears to have been on the rifle for many years of use, I am hesitant to slap a flintlock on it.  For example, I have a rifle in my collection which, during its period of use was converted from flintlock to percussion by changing the lock, adding a snail, shortening the barrel and making it a half-stock.  I look at it and conjecture how handsome and pleasing it must have been in original flint full-stock configuration, but I think it appropriate to simply leave it as it evolved during its lifetime of use.  Would it be wrong to stretch the barrel, put in a flintlock, remove the snail, and present it more as it originally appeared.  Maybe so, maybe not, but I have decided to leave it alone.

If, as is the case with this Schroyer, the lock is missing entirely and the rifle clearly was made in the flint period, it would be silly not to put a good flintlock replacement in place, and what was done by this owner is absolutely appropriate.  There is no doubt that some rifles which were originally percussion are now in a flint configuration, and that is most unfortunate.  Sometimes that is the result of lack of knowledge by an owner who decides to do that work, but sometimes, unfortunately, it stems from a desire to deceive.  The key, I think, is never to present a rifle as something that it was not originally, and to always disclose all restoration to a potential buyer.

Thanks for sharing this fine rifle and for using it to educate us all on restoration.

Wayne
Wayne Elliott