Thanks for the encouragement, Mark.
Leatherbelly, I suppose the box could have been added later, but if so, then I think it was added by the same hand as built the rest. The quality of craftsmanship is the same. The finish matches. The fit is perfect. As you know, at lot of times if a box is added later, things don’t match exactly. The new guy decides more decoration is needed, or the finish is better or worse, etc.
Whether or not it was added later, I don’t think there was ever a toe plate on this gun. The butt piece does overlap at the end, as you noted. (Some old rifles of this era did have the butt piece overlap just a bit, but in its current condition it overlaps a bit more than might be expected.) The excessive overlap seems to be because there was no toe plate.
I went back and looked at other photos. You are correct in noting that there is a lot of wear, leading to a slight contour in the last inch or so, but that degree of wear is only on the box side. There is a chip missing out of the corners on both sides of the toe. On the box side, it is a triangular chip, which makes the toe on that side look a bit rounded. On the cheek piece side, it is just a small rectangular chip, affecting only the last ¼ inch or so of the toe. (Once you know what to look for, this contrast is visible in the photo above, as well.)
On the cheek piece side, the lower edge is a consistent line all the way down (except for that last ¼ inch) without any sort of step or contour. And the molding is the same width all the way down, as well, which seems to indicate that there was no additional shaping of the toe done after the initial production.
The cover for the box button release is set into the wood (nailed in place). The wood to either side of it (along the molded edge of the toe) is the same dimension at that point as it is further up the stock.
If a button release was added afterward, after a toe plate was lost, then the smith could have just fitted the release cover on the surface, like a “regular” toe plate button release. (Thus replacing a lost toe plate and adding a box release at the same time. In that event, he might not have chosen to inlet the square cover down into the wood.)
Virginia. Yes.
Gusler has found two other rifles by the same hand. At least two of these are marked by the same stamps, with the letters “G B”. (This one is so marked.) In a MB article (see ref below) he shows details of one of these, a very nicely outfitted brass mounted rifle. He attributes GB’s work to the area of Rockbridge and Botetourt Counties.
One thing to note about the related, but brass mounted and engraved rifle. That is that “GB” was not a “simple” smith who was limited to working in iron. The brass rifle has a sand cast butt piece and a sand cast trigger guard, both of design very similar to the iron mounted rifle we have been discussing here. Such observations may lend strength to the idea that in some areas, at least, the choice of brass mounted and iron mounted was simply a matter of customer preference. (The fact that most antique iron mounted rifles are not engraved more than a small amount may indicate that there was also a difference in pricing.) The point of this comment is simply to say that we should not assume that a smith built a rifle in iron just because he lacked the skill to cast brass. “GB” seems to have been equally skilled in working with both brass and iron.
Ref:
Gusler, Wallace. 2012. August. Rifles by “GB” in the Step Toe Group, Rockbridge and Botetourt Counties, Virginia. Muzzle Blast. August. p 47-50.
