doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion German & Austrian Sporting Guns @ doublegunshop.com Importer E. C. Schmidt, of Boston, MA

I have seen a total of 4 Schmidt guns (including this one), probably some overlap with Daryl's obserations (maybe a lot of overlap :-)). I own one of those guns. All four were unengraved (unless you count the engraving on a couple of screw heads and the word "SAFE" on the safety).

Ken

I reexamined the photograph earlier posted that depicts the 10-bore E. C. Schmidt's barrel flats and the area a tad forward of the same, looking more carefully for Lindner marks. I now perceive there is but the "HAL" stamp, sans a suggestion of any interceding crossbar above the usual crossed pistols, on the underside of both barrels just forward of the barrel flats and immediately below the respective proof stamps just above. Indeed, I am very glad that these marks were noticed by Raimey, and I stand corrected on this point, where I had wrongly stated there was no attribution to Lindner evidenced by the Schmidt 10-bore gun.

I have read elsewhere that the "HAL" trademark stamp appears by itself occasionally. Regardless of how this determinative stamp is depicted here, the stamp establishes the gun at least passed through Lindner's skilled hands, though where applied and to what degree I cannot say. For that estimate of masterly attention, I would rely on the probable appearance and overall finish of this gun when new. When I envision this 10-bore as a new gun, I see a very plain-finished, undecorated domestic gun designed for and purpose-built to withstand hard use and some abuse, yet continue to perform admirably.

It seems more obvious than I earlier thought that this 10-bore gun was imported into the U.S. and finished, to the degree we can view for ourselves, in accordance with the prevailing U.S. standards of the time. This also helps one better understand the configuration anomalies previously mentioned, if we are persuaded that this gun was finished in the U.S. and not in Europe to their standards and tastes.

The unanswered questions concern when the gun was imported and when it was finished or completed. Should we expect to see country of origin stamps on an unfinished imported gun, which when it entered the U.S. was not as a completed single unit but instead reduced to its several unfinished constituent parts, having been so reduced in the country of origin for business reasons prior to its importation? What was lawful to do during these decades of our national history? And if this was once the way to conduct business, when did the practice begin, and when (and where) and why did it stop?

There is a right-side intercepting safety screw (See the full length photograph above that shows such a screw.) on the upper part of the gun's action body, which presence is duplicated on the action body's upper left-side. I cannot tell from the several photographs provided to me, however, whether or not the gun has a hidden crossbolt. If I had to venture an educated guess, I would say that it is not hidden, but is as typical: push the top-lever to the side and the finely fitted square crossbolt emerges slightly from the left-side ball fence.

My grateful thanks to all who have so graciously provided the perceptive and informed opinions, as well as the wealth of information addressing E. C. Schmidt guns generally, in their posts. I am greatly impressed, humbled by and appreciative of all your efforts, and for your time and kind consideration.

With my


Best regards to all,

Edwardian

Me thinks it has a hidden rectangular 3rd fastner and is a very rare sporting weapon including bore size. If I'm not mistaken Joseph Jakob turned out a few 10 bores. And also that as I mentioned earlier that Daly, either thru B�ker or Schoverling's contacts, was the key for sourcing. It's a pretty easy fall back position & I'd hazard a guess that the bulk of the Suhl-esk sporting weapons, not including some Belgian outliers or that Francotte was the source for the APUN stamp, were made on the backs of the most talented pool of Suhl, and possibly Z-M, mechanics. Seeing that Schmidt worked @ Schaefer, I see no reason he would change the modus operandi. Daly's outlets are going to continue to capitalize on the value of the expertise of the Suhl talent pool & then add some intrinsic features like choke, shooting performace, maybe weight reduction, etc. that they deem essential. Now Lindner was either most capable or he could recognize quality from being around other mechanics who could turn out examples that oozed of quality. His touchmark of either Crown over crossed sidearms or HAL over crossed sidearms is a quality control stamp. It just isn't possible that he could have attributed significant effort to every piece that wears his mark. So he too had a most talented merry band of mechanics.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Golcher Nr. 1741 & C.F. Schilling, St. Louis, offerings included 10 bores also:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...true#Post253264

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Do we have any evidence that Shoverling, Daly, and Gales actually had any significant gunsmith employees on site ? I cannot remember any information on that.

We do have S D and G relationships with several gunsmiths who actually made a living at it with their own businesses. We have Schaefer, T. Golcher, later Schmidt, Overbaugh, and others. I wonder if any work S D and G needed in the US was farmed out to others like above. I'm sure I have missed a few names. All of these names seemed to have a Lindner connection. Was all of that through Daly ?

Yes, Charles Daly, et al, was the string that binds them all. I hope we one day find S,D&G's ledgers. I am curious who there sourcing lines might have been prior to Schoverling & Daly.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

To my knowledge, SD&G never directly employed any gunmakers in their retail locations. William R. Schaefer, however, employed several "gunmakers" (or "gunsmiths" as they were noted in period census records), mostly German immigrants (including E.C.. Schmidt). Period publications discuss Schaefer's rather large shop and the gunmaking that went on within. The shop was mostly destroyed in a fire in 1893.

Yeah according the Fire Marshall the fire was started by a match being dropped into some packing material. Would be nice to know what the names & address were on the shipping box. I haven't really searched to see if any of Daly's outlets are listed in travel logs from the U.S. of A. to Europe. If the logs are devoid of the names of our merry lot of American makers I just don't see how they would have direct sourcing lines to Europe.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Ken:
Any idea of W.R. Schaefer's output? How did he compare to S,D&G, 10 to one, 100 to one or more? I just don't recall seeing all that many W.R. Schaefer examples so to what might Schaefer's gunmakers been engaged?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

If I were to guess, and it would be just a swag as there is not enough Schaefer data, is that the ratio of Prussian Dalys to Schaefer guns is somewhere north of 10:1. Schaefer was in business for approx. 40 years compared to the Prussian Daly period of approx. 65 years. And obviously the SD&G concern was significantly larger.

In addition to making guns, Schaefer's team also did repairs, conversions, etc. Schaefer also did considerable business supporting competitive rifle shooters. And since these guns were pretty pricey, the relatively small volume of production would still be enough to keep the 3 - 6 workers he employed busy.

Again, just a swag, but to have a number to debate, I'd go with 10:1, maybe a little higher.

Ken