Personally, I don't like any conjecture or inferences from incomplete factual data when it comes to gun research. Unfortunately, even Burrard has way too much of this sort of misinformation.
"They probably did this because I think that is the way they should have done it."
Most gunmaking decisions were made for very simple reasons like: It was the most efficient way to do it, the method fit the tools at hand, or we call it that because that is what it looks like. Because so few of us have any clue what was efficient, what the real tools were, or where the names originated means we should be all the more wary of misrepresentation, or attaching our own notions or emotions to historic artifacts.
When it comes to so called journeyman/apprentice guns, I don't have a clue where or when this notion surfaced, but until I see some definitive evidence (and there is some from the current practices of the Liege gunsmithing school) the jury is still out.
The fact that companies like Britte, Sauer - and becoming more evident - Lindner made metalwork, or assembled guns for the trade is only the beginning of the story, not the end.
PeteM's note of the "falla" is a good example of factual info followed by a cited reference. The statement that Bury bought Britte is obviously erroneous as per info already posted on this site.
The point is, we need to be very careful to truly advance factual info, and not create more "gun lore". With that, I'd invite anyone to point out my misrepresentations.
