"Raimey," I had the same thought respecting the heyday of the 10-bore as having passed when this gun was produced. But the curiosities do not stop there. Below is the single photograph I possess of the E. C. Schmidt gun for now, until I can request more:



We immediately remark the English-style straight stock, which is said to have a chequered butt and no butt-plate or toe and heel clips. Every 10-bore I have seen had some sort of pistol-grip (full, 1/2 or 1/4). I believe this gun was stocked in the U.S. after importation from Prussia, although if this assumption is true, the use of an un-American chequered butt leaves me puzzled. The drop-point and side panel do not seem as refined, shall we say, as English- or Lindner-produced work. Alternatively, the gun might have been restocked, which may be the better explanation for these stocking anomalies. However, the forearm seems original (another reason to assert a restocking), complete with an ejector 'eye' and the trademark forend tip in evidence. Although the other trademarks, the elegant flute at the nose of the comb and a chequered panel, are not present.

I do not perceive that straight-grip butt-stocks were ever popular in the U.S. during the 1890's or immediately after the turn-of-the-last-century. Personally, I have never seen such employed with a 10-bore. This configuration is particularly at odds with experience when one considers the very heavy charges of propellant and lead shot popularly used at the time.

This 10-bore has 28-inch barrels, not the usually encountered standard length of the era, choked improved modified and improved cylinder. Certainly odd choke selections for this bore, given the normal uses for the 10-bore afield. I do not know the weight of this gun, but it cannot be anywhere near the standard 8-9-pounds in 10-bore.

The gun's full serial number is 1424, which is within the known Lindner 4-digit serial number range (Merz Antique Guns has a Daly-Lindner "Featherweight" on offer that bears serial no. 1416, being sold as an antique, and another also in that range). If Ken can narrow the manufacturing date of this gun to during or about 1893, I would be overjoyed. Hopefully when I contact the seller next week, I will learn of telling marks and stamps and even Lindner-related indicia, providing additional fodder for more questions.

Thank you for all your kind help concerning the dating of this gun. I greatly appreciate all your efforts and informed opinions. With my


Best regards,

Edwardian