Schreit RCA#18 alterations

[Stophel]

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"!    

Besides, it looks like about a sixteenth....

 

[mr. no gold]

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

[bgf]

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.

[54Bucks]

 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.

[bgf]

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.