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
