"Earliest" dated longrife

[Longknife]

 I was recently reading Dillons' "The Kentucky Rifle" and he stated that there is an American Longrifle dated 1728. Where can I find Info nad pictures??? Thanks, Ed

[Mike Brooks]

Dillon's book is hopelessly outdated. Don't believe anything you read in it.

[Stophel]

Lots of phony signatures and dates there....

So far, the earliest date on an American rifle is 1761.  The Schreidt gun.  There may be some that still exist that are earlier, but none are dated.

Now, there are New England guns that are dated way back, though...

[Mike R]

Dillon was misled by some early fake dates put on some rifles to fool collectors.  Alot of stuff in the book is OK though--just be careful of his dating of things. The 1761 Schreit rifle is often pointed out to be the earliest 'dated' rifle--that is rifle with a date inscribed  on it everyone believes --however there is at least one other rifle with a 1750s date that may be real. Plus there are several undated rifles that qualify as likely 1750s-60s guns.  Most if not all rifles in use in America in the 1720s [very few] came from europe.

[Mike Brooks]

The 1761 Schreit rifle is often pointed out to be the earliest 'dated' rifle--that is rifle with a date inscribed  on it everyone believes

Not everybody believes that date...there's alot about that gun that is more than a little screwy dewey.

[Stan]

I have examined the Schrite several times & am convinced the date is correct. HOWEVER the rifle  originally had a stepped wrist, & the trigger guard is new.

[Tom Currie]

From my understanding RCA 17, possibly a Christian Spring made rifle, has the roman numerals LVII or LVIX insribed on the brass plate inlet into barrel. This would be either 1757 or 1759.   

[flintriflesmith]

From my understanding RCA 17, possibly a Christian Spring made rifle, has the roman numerals LVII or LVIX insribed on the brass plate inlet into barrel. This would be either 1757 or 1759.   

Tom,
Not everyone believes that those marks are a date or that it is being read correctly. When it was on display at the KRA show there was considerable discussion about other possibilities. Very hard to tell in the lighting in that display room.
Gary

[Tom Currie]

Gary, I know that is open to interpretation and should have mentioned that. Did not mean it as a definitive statement. But at least it's more than we have on many early rifles.

One thing about dating on barrels is that they could have been restocked. So then you need to be sure the stocking/carving/engraving was done by the signer, or have enough proof the barrel is original to the stock. An example of this would be the curious IAD Rothenberg on the Edward Marshall Rifle..

[bluenoser]

From my understanding RCA 17, possibly a Christian Spring made rifle, has the roman numerals LVII or LVIX insribed on the brass plate inlet into barrel. This would be either 1757 or 1759.   

If I remember my latin, 59 would be LIX.  1759 would be MDCCLIX.  A "V" (which represents 5) would not normally appear before an "X" (which represents 10).   

[Dphariss]

I was recently reading Dillons' "The Kentucky Rifle" and he stated that there is an American Longrifle dated 1728. Where can I find Info nad pictures??? Thanks, Ed

They used to date rifles too early. Now I think they date some too late. When the Revolution Centennial arrived in 1876 the faking of Rev war stuff really took off it would seem.
Books like Dillon's and others from the same time have some good information but a lot of stuff IS dated some of the stuff is priceless. But the reader has to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff.
Ned Roberts has some questionable stuff in "The ML Caplock Rifle"  but most books do.
Dan

[Mike R]

The 1761 Schreit rifle is often pointed out to be the earliest 'dated' rifle--that is rifle with a date inscribed  on it everyone believes

Not everybody believes that date...there's alot about that gun that is more than a little screwy dewey.

yeah, after I wrote that I regretted it but was too lazy to fix it. Should have said "most" experts agree the date is correct. But aspects of the rifle may have been altered from original. I was thinking of another rifle with 1750-something engraved in the box that some have touted.

[Mike Brooks]

The 1761 Schreit rifle is often pointed out to be the earliest 'dated' rifle--that is rifle with a date inscribed  on it everyone believes

Not everybody believes that date...there's alot about that gun that is more than a little screwy dewey.

yeah, after I wrote that I regretted it but was too lazy to fix it. Should have said "most" experts agree the date is correct. But aspects of the rifle may have been altered from original. I was thinking of another rifle with 1750-something engraved in the box that some have touted.

I believe that gun was heavily altered to make it more salable to the American KY collectors market. I under stand it had a different trigger guard and a stepped wrist when it got here from a collection in England. Why would anyone do such a radical change? I believe the engraving on the buttplate and carving behind the cheek piece to be suspect also.
 Of course, what do I know? 

[rich pierce]

The "Musician's rifle" possibly made at Bethlehem has a date scratched inside the patchbox IIRC that is 1756.

[lexington1]

What do you guys think of the John Schneider rifle (RCA 85)? Do you think the date is legitimate on it? Several years ago a vitually identical rifle was for sale in a shop in Gettysburg. It had 'John Schneider' engraved on the lid. The thing is it had a much later 4 piece patchbox, which I am quite sure was original to the gun. It was also very petite, not at all like I would expect from an early gun. Otherwise it was quite obvious that it was made by the same hand.

[rich pierce]

That's an interesting rifle, out of the mainstream.  Hard to say whether a fella like that would make them the same for a long time- he might.    Most folk-art PA rifles are later than that scratched date.  But whoever owns it has a real gem there regardless of the date.

[mr. no gold]

If any of you have a set of auction catalogs from the Bonham & Butterfield Auction published for the William Renwick Collection of tucson, AZ, you should find a photograph, or mention, of the John Schreit 1761, rifle. A western collector/dealer previewed that collection and saw the rifle, as did the monied eastern gentlemen. They all saw it as a German Jaeger, and turned their attention to the other pieces; Neihart 1787, Rupp rifles, Yorks, and so on. My friend realizing that he had serious competition on the fine pieces looked the Schreit over again and realized that he must be looking at an early Kentucky Rifle; when it sold, he bought it for a pittance, a fraction of what the other pieces sold for. Subsequent research revealed who Schreit really was.
When found, the gun had some deficiencies which I do not exactly recall (this was the late 60s or early 70s, a long time ago now.
But, I do understand and recollect that the triggerguard was a heavy carved (Germanic type) wood guard; there was a pronounced step in the wrist; the lock and sideplate may have been missing; not sure on these details.
My informant sold the gun to a big time Ohio collector, now deceased, who may have had the depredation/restoration done. Most of the engraving seen on the rifle today was seen on the rifle then.
Needless to say, when the rifle resurfaced it was modernized somewhat to conform to the notions of what a 'good rifle' should look like.
Today the gun is in the hands of one of the most serious of collectors and I doubt that it will ever be offered for sale again. Many would say too bad about the work on it, but how many of us own the earliest dated true KY?
I have examined the "Antes" rifle which has Roman Letters/Numerals in a barrel cartouch which the owner feels represents the date in Roman of 1754. The gun is quite an early smooth rifle with no patchbox. Hard to say on this one.
Guess that is enough for now.
Dick

[Longknife]

No Gold, That rifle has been discussed here many times before and I had heard about the auction flyer but have never been able get a copy. Someone here even stated that it MAY have had a wooden guard, now we hear that it did! I believe all here would surely appreciate it if anyone could find and post a picture of that gun in its original state!!!!...Thanks, Ed

[Mike Brooks]

If any of you have a set of auction catalogs from the Bonham & Butterfield Auction published for the William Renwick Collection of tucson, AZ, you should find a photograph, or mention, of the John Schreit 1761, rifle. A western collector/dealer previewed that collection and saw the rifle, as did the monied eastern gentlemen. They all saw it as a German Jaeger, and turned their attention to the other pieces; Neihart 1787, Rupp rifles, Yorks, and so on. My friend realizing that he had serious competition on the fine pieces looked the Schreit over again and realized that he must be looking at an early Kentucky Rifle; when it sold, he bought it for a pittance, a fraction of what the other pieces sold for. Subsequent research revealed who Schreit really was.
When found, the gun had some deficiencies which I do not exactly recall (this was the late 60s or early 70s, a long time ago now.
But, I do understand and recollect that the triggerguard was a heavy carved (Germanic type) wood guard; there was a pronounced step in the wrist; the lock and sideplate may have been missing; not sure on these details.
My informant sold the gun to a big time Ohio collector, now deceased, who may have had the depredation/restoration done. Most of the engraving seen on the rifle today was seen on the rifle then.
Needless to say, when the rifle resurfaced it was modernized somewhat to conform to the notions of what a 'good rifle' should look like.
Today the gun is in the hands of one of the most serious of collectors and I doubt that it will ever be offered for sale again. Many would say too bad about the work on it, but how many of us own the earliest dated true KY?
I have examined the "Antes" rifle which has Roman Letters/Numerals in a barrel cartouch which the owner feels represents the date in Roman of 1754. The gun is quite an early smooth rifle with no patchbox. Hard to say on this one.
Guess that is enough for now.
Dick

I would have loved to have seen this gun in it's unaltered condition.  I have had a hard time even looking at pictures of this rifle since I heard the stories of it's alterations. Such a sad story.

[Don Getz]

What about the Christian Oerter rifles?   Don't they have a year on top of the barrel along with his name?   Or is this just
an old age dream.......I don't have my RCA in front of me..........Don

[Tom Currie]

Don you aren't dreaming. The Oerter's are signed from 1774 until 1777 I think . Some of my favorites. It's a shame we only have about 5 examples of his work to view.

[Dphariss]

If any of you have a set of auction catalogs from the Bonham & Butterfield Auction published for the William Renwick Collection of tucson, AZ, you should find a photograph, or mention, of the John Schreit 1761, rifle. A western collector/dealer previewed that collection and saw the rifle, as did the monied eastern gentlemen. They all saw it as a German Jaeger, and turned their attention to the other pieces; Neihart 1787, Rupp rifles, Yorks, and so on. My friend realizing that he had serious competition on the fine pieces looked the Schreit over again and realized that he must be looking at an early Kentucky Rifle; when it sold, he bought it for a pittance, a fraction of what the other pieces sold for. Subsequent research revealed who Schreit really was.
When found, the gun had some deficiencies which I do not exactly recall (this was the late 60s or early 70s, a long time ago now.
But, I do understand and recollect that the triggerguard was a heavy carved (Germanic type) wood guard; there was a pronounced step in the wrist; the lock and sideplate may have been missing; not sure on these details.
My informant sold the gun to a big time Ohio collector, now deceased, who may have had the depredation/restoration done. Most of the engraving seen on the rifle today was seen on the rifle then.
Needless to say, when the rifle resurfaced it was modernized somewhat to conform to the notions of what a 'good rifle' should look like.
Today the gun is in the hands of one of the most serious of collectors and I doubt that it will ever be offered for sale again. Many would say too bad about the work on it, but how many of us own the earliest dated true KY?
I have examined the "Antes" rifle which has Roman Letters/Numerals in a barrel cartouch which the owner feels represents the date in Roman of 1754. The gun is quite an early smooth rifle with no patchbox. Hard to say on this one.
Guess that is enough for now.
Dick

 I would have loved to have seen this gun in it's unaltered condition.  I have had a hard time even looking at pictures of this rifle since I heard the stories of it's alterations. Such a sad story.

Kinda like someone finding some missing link type fossil then running it through a crusher because he wanted that color gravel for his garden path.
Even sadder is that this is not the only time this has happened, or so I am told.
Dan

[mr. no gold]

Dan is correct; the brass triggerguard does not appear to be the same one that was on the rifle after it was first shown, (after the auction). The engraving is even different.
It was always a wonderment to me as to why Wm. Renwick even owned it. Perhaps because of the date. In many respects, his collection of KY rifles was what the Locke Collection was to Colts. The fact that it was dated may have influenced him and it does have a maple stock.
 I was priviliged to see the gun once upon a time, and held it. It was puzzling as to why the barrel had surface erosion that was not consistent with the rest of the rifle, although I have since owned pieces with similar condition. Probably all in how they were stored, and wood doesn't rust.
Anyway, I never was fortunate enough to get the catalogs, either. Wish now I had because Renwick owned some of the finest of the best. The Neihart, 1787 being a good example.
Hope one of you out there, somewhere will turn up a set.
Dick 

[mr. no gold]

One further recollection on the Renwick Collection: a sizable portion of the KY Rifle collection was comprised of fine flintlock swivel breech rifles. These were split off and donated to the Smithsonian, in WDC, to offset estate tax obligations. They are safely locked up there and to my knowledge, have never been seen since. Don't know if legitimate researchers can gain access or not. Interestingly, congressemen and senators can, and do, requisition such
items, in public ownership, to decorate their offices, if they wish. Sometimes, they even take them home when they leave office. Tip O'Neill's estate had an Aaron Willard tall case clock that he had pulled out of the Library of Congress for his office decor. He had taken it home when he left office even though it was public property. 'Divine right of kings' here?
Dick
 

[Eric Kettenburg]

Before everyone gets all hot and horny over the Schreit wooden guard, let's clarify what we mean by 'wooden guard.'  I was shown an auction catalog photo several years ago and the guard that was on the gun looked like a mid-19th century German wood or horn 'scheutzen' guard.  All the weird fingerrests etc.  It surely was not original to the gun.  What was evident was that the gun had a bit more of a step at the wrist.  Not crazy like the lion-carved rifles, but more than is there now.  I'm not sure if these are the same photos to which Dick is referring.  If not then just consider this another stage the poor old rifle went through.