I think the earliest Oerter date I've seen is 1773. He obviously had been working long prior to that date, and had been running the CS shop for quite some time prior to that date.
Now, we can approach it from a perspective of, "why did he not sign work prior to 1773?" Alternately, we can also take into consideration that he did, and we as a collective group have not seen it due to destruction, private non-publicized ownership etc.
Albrecht signed at least one lock when working in Bethlehem. Was this prior to the CS shop? Was it during his tenure as manager of the Sun Inn (I personally doubt this). *IF* we assume he signed it prior to the CS shop, was he also signing work at CS and the simplistic answer to the question is that none have survived?
(the argument revolving around the 'short rifle' being set aside for the present)
Did he sign the lock simply to indicate manufacture of the overall gun, or did he sign it because he actually made the lock?
Did "pride" in manufacture increase as makers began making more of the individual components of the rifle as opposed to essentially 'stocking' rifles with purchased components?
I don't think these questions nor theories as to why/why not can be segregated into Moravian vs. non-Moravian camps. I think the only reason we tend to do so is due to the long-running belief (a misconception, as Scott has remarked) that there was some type of underlying religious tenet affecting the application or non-application of a signature. In reality these questions could apply to the majority of American arms up through the War period.
Maybe the 'explosion' of signatures following the War years was nothing more than aggressive advertising? Quite a surfeit of rifle makers, at that point, probably many more so than prior to the War.
If we want to get REALLY simplistic about it: many of the earlier rifles, or I should say rifles (Moravian and non-Moravian alike) we tend to view as "early" rifles generally are sans-engraving. Of course sometimes we see engraving on imported mounts, and we assume that engraving was executed in Europe. Maybe a number of earlier gunmakers were largely gun stockers by trade and had simply not been trained in engraving? In other words, no signature because they were crappy engravers.
John Schreit had no issues signing his work as early as 1761. Coincidentally, it also seems obvious that the guy liked to engrave.
Oerter's work - some of it - indicates a decent competence in engraving, certainly more than good enough to suit the work. Does this factor into why he very boldly chose to sign his work?
Just throwing wild ideas out there. It takes more effort and a bit more skill to sign a rifle barrel with graving tools - in my opinion - than it does to glue a piece of paper into a stringed instrument or dribble slip around a piece of redware. [I am NOT denigrating the actual work of a luthier or a potter! I am simply commenting on my opinion as to the work involved in the act of applying a signature!]
