Schreit RCA#18 alterations

[flintriflesmith]

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

[bgf]

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.

[JTR]

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

[Ian Pratt]

 I had somehow missed seeing that the pictures had been posted - thank you very much Gary for taking the time to do this

[tallbear]

Gary
Thanks for posting this.Clears up alot of ?'s .

All the best!!!

Mitch

[Collector]

IMO, bfg is, correct.  If you look carefully at the rear portion of the trigger guard, it's apparent, that the 'step' (off of the wrist) was not modified.   Rather the rear portion of the brass trigger guard is not flush (maybe not even inlet,) but rather was recessed to provide for the minor 'step' in the stock, which 'smooths-out' the step in the stock and gives the impression that the bottom of the stock is straight, instead of 'stepped.'  Very, very smart on the restorer's part.  A very sophisticated optical illusion.  If you look at and compare Gary's photo #5 and #8 (from the top,) you'll see the wooden step still exists and the recess in the rear portion of the brass triggerguard, for yourself.  Don't just look, but study the very, very small variations in color and 'texture.'

This is the most depth and sharing of information, on the Schreit longrifle that I have EVER seen or experienced.  I'm glad that it's being shared with us common layman.      

[James]

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.

[Jim Kibler]

Look at the width of the molding.  There's no question material has been removed.

[James]

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.

[Jim Kibler]

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.  

[bgf]

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.

[Jim Kibler]

 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

[Lucky R A]

    "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...

[bgf]

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.

[Tom Currie]

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. 

[JTR]

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! 

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?

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. 

John 

[DaveM]

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.

[smshea]

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. 

[flintriflesmith]

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

[smshea]

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 

[smshea]

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 . 

[JDK]

....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.

[Eric Kettenburg]

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.

[Eric Kettenburg]

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!

[rich pierce]

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.