Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Schatt & Morgan knives were first manufacturer back in 1890. The Queen Cutlery company made most of the more recent examples, but Schatt had its own plant in its earlier years that cranked out the oldies. There is no shortage of fantastic Schatt & Morgan knives in existance that have been made over the brand's long & storied history.
Post Reply
Pseudonym
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:30 pm

Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by Pseudonym »

I've long liked this pattern, and recently was able to finally pick one up, but am left with a few questions. First, the swedge is almost nonexistent on the clip portion of the blade. It thins out on the spine, but once it reaches the point where the clip starts, from there to near the tip the blade is nearly full width. Can anyone tell me if this is normal for the pattern? The attached photos, while not the best, will hopefully show what I'm talking about.

There are a few other possible issues as well such as the blade, when opened, does not appear to sit straight in the handle (possibly visible in the one photo), and the blade slightly hits the liner while closing. This is the first modern Schatt I've owned, so I'm really not sure what to make of it. Any help offered will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Attachments
20160418_165052-1.jpg
20160418_165022-1.jpg
20160418_165142-1.jpg
User avatar
#goldpan
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:00 pm

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by #goldpan »

I have had a couple of S&M's but I am not real up them. Question? did you buy it used? I only ask because the blade does look bent. Perhaps it was over krinked. if its new that is. If it is new I would send it back. It could be re-adjusted. But krinking can sometimes cause a blade to break. Been guilty of that my self a few times. ::facepalm:: Krinking is a way of adjusting the blade so that it lays dead center in the pocket. If it rubbing the liner then you may want to find someone who is good a krinking to fix it for you. Not me though. I would be afraid to break it. Maybe some one else more knowledgeable will chime in.
Pseudonym
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by Pseudonym »

#goldpan wrote:I have had a couple of S&M's but I am not real up them. Question? did you buy it used? I only ask because the blade does look bent. Perhaps it was over krinked. if its new that is. If it is new I would send it back. It could be re-adjusted. But krinking can sometimes cause a blade to break. Been guilty of that my self a few times. ::facepalm:: Krinking is a way of adjusting the blade so that it lays dead center in the pocket. If it rubbing the liner then you may want to find someone who is good a krinking to fix it for you. Not me though. I would be afraid to break it. Maybe some one else more knowledgeable will chime in.
Thank you kindly for the response!

Technically I suppose it would be considered "used", but a better description would be "pre-owned" as the knife was clearly never actually used and apparently came out of a collection. I can only assume it sat in it's box most of its life since the very light scratching, from where the blade hits the liner, is minimal but will continue to grow worse. Truth be told, I need to decide if I should keep it or not, and it's one thing if all came this way (particularly the swedge) and is simply a questionable design aspect, but something else entirely if the knife is an example of poor quality control.

As for crinking, the blade is so thick (partly due to the sabre-ground style) that there's only a fraction of a millimeter on each side, when closed, between it and the liners, so if even an option it at most could only be moved ever so slightly before hitting the other side. Perhaps I can get a shot looking down on the closed knife that will show what I'm trying to explain.
RustyZ
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:13 am

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by RustyZ »

Looks like terrible quality control to me . Why Queen?Schatt would let something out of the door like that is beyond me . The blade and swedge is terribly done , give me a Case CV any day .
kootenay joe
Posts: 13373
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:36 pm
Location: West Kootenays, B.C.

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by kootenay joe »

I would like to see a picture side on view with blade fully open. When i can see that view, i might have a comment.
kj
Pseudonym
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by Pseudonym »

kootenay joe wrote:I would like to see a picture side on view with blade fully open. When i can see that view, i might have a comment.
kj
I took new photos of the type you asked for, but don't see a way to post them. Similarly, I no longer see the photos from the original post and don't know what to think. If I can somehow figure this out I'll get them up asap. Thanks again.
kootenay joe
Posts: 13373
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:36 pm
Location: West Kootenays, B.C.

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by kootenay joe »

I can see the 3 pics in your opening post.
When making a post scroll down to "Upload Attachment" and click on "Browse". that will make your pictures on your computer pop up and you can select the correct one (or ones) and then click "Add File" and the picture(s) will show up underneath what you type in your post.
kj
User avatar
bdev
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:37 am
Location: Hudson Valley NY
Contact:

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by bdev »

I don't know if this is the same knife you have but it is a Schatt & Morgan F&W single blade gunstock. Got these pics off the net. Maybe it will help.
Attachments
SMsinglegunstock.jpg
s716026529914140183_p11_i3_w640.jpeg
Queen City. My favorite! Bruno. ::tu::
Pseudonym
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by Pseudonym »

I'm guessing the forum photo issue was why I was unable to post additional photos yesterday, but here they are. Not the best, obviously, but will hopefully suffice. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time needed to pull out my copy stand, lighting, and dslr in order to image properly.
Attachments
2016-04-22 13.54.30.jpg
2016-04-22 13.56.18.jpg
2016-04-22 13.56.55.jpg
2016-04-22 14.00.38.jpg
kootenay joe
Posts: 13373
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:36 pm
Location: West Kootenays, B.C.

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by kootenay joe »

Looks like bdev posted the same knife, so now we need a view of bdev's knife that is the same view as first picture in O.P.
With the deep nail nick so close to blade spine, it limits how much the spine can be thinned down.
But, does it need to be as thick as blade in O.P. ? Makes for a strong distal end of the blade, but not attractive like a swaged tip would be.
kj
thefarside
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:55 am

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by thefarside »

The knife is fine. Note the placement of the nail nick, you couldn't thin the blade in the area of concern and place the nick where it is.
RustyZ
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:13 am

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by RustyZ »

thefarside wrote:The knife is fine. Note the placement of the nail nick, you couldn't thin the blade in the area of concern and place the nick where it is.
It seems to me all thinning would do is make the nick a little shallower as the nick seems plenty deep already another .020" on each side wouldn't matter much if at all .
Pseudonym
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by Pseudonym »

thefarside wrote:The knife is fine. Note the placement of the nail nick, you couldn't thin the blade in the area of concern and place the nick where it is.
Thank you for posting, sir. While I certainly agree, due to nick placement, that the blade needs some meat in that area. I had a chance to measure the blade thickness: at the tang it's .14, at the initial cut on the spine it thins out to .10, and half way between the clip and tip it's just under .13. Even considering the fact it's a very stout blade, that's just excessive and unnecessary, both functionally and aesthetically, imo.

Again though, thanks to everyone for the help.
User avatar
jerryd6818
Gold Tier
Gold Tier
Posts: 39165
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:23 am
Location: The middle of the top of a bastion of Liberalism.

Re: Schatt & Morgan Gunstock 2005 (F&W 041140) questions

Post by jerryd6818 »

RustyZ wrote:Looks like terrible quality control to me . Why Queen?Schatt would let something out of the door like that is beyond me . The blade and swedge is terribly done , give me a Case CV any day .
Do you own quite a few S&Ms, Rusty?
Forged on the anvil of discipline.
The Few. The Proud.
Jerry D.

This country has become more about sub-groups than about it's unity as a nation.

"The #72 pattern has got to be pretty close to the perfect knife."
--T.J. Murphy 2012
Post Reply

Return to “Schatt & Morgan Knife Collector's Forum”