S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
5 members (SKB, skeettx, Jerry G, 2 invisible),
325
guests, and
6
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,549
Posts546,221
Members14,423
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44 |
I was at a local shop today and looked at a 10 gauge William Ford. The gun weighed 9.6 lbs with only 26" barrels. I don't know if there are any chokes left (was this cut?) or not. This shotgun interested me because I already own a William Ford, in my case a 10 bore chamberless gun made in the 1920s. (See thread at: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=276052&page=1) The new gun I saw today has both 10 and 12 gauge British proofs. Serial is in the 2K range (mine is in the 14K range). Does this seem like a 12 gauge chamberless gun rechambered and reproved as a 10? Some of the proofs appear to be 1954-1989 but others pre 1904. Strangely, this has a Greener side safety. Also notable - the action top tank is drifted significantly to the right and the action notably tapers from fore to aft to accommodate the wide breech-face. TIA, Chris
Last edited by CJF; 06/07/17 08:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44 |
For reference, here are two proof charts. The first came from Hallowell's site, and is attributed to Diggory Hadoke, Vintage Guns, Skyhorse, 2008. The second was from an advert for a Cornwell publication. These show a reproof mark from the London proof house that appears on the ford (italics capital R under a crown).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 830 Likes: 37
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 830 Likes: 37 |
I am totally in love with that gun. Can I get some pictures of the entire gun and the greener safety?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44 |
67galaxie, I don't have any other pictures than the additional one I posted below. This Ford was the last piece I looked at, and I was running short on time. Due to the poor leadership of our ex governor, the interstate is a mess and this 'local' shop is now an hour away. I will call them and see if I can get those pictures for you. Re this originally being a chamberless gun, it seems it's possible, if I am reading the description of the diamond proof mark with, and without the C. This has both for 12, and additional one for 10. Here's the description of the 1887-1896 Birmingham proof house marks regarding chambers. Anyone have better info? 1887-1896: This was the first period that fractional gauge sizes were marked between 12/2 (.740), 12 (.729), 13/1 (.719) and 13 (.710) in respect of 12 gauge guns. The word CHOKE was first used to indicate its presence and to distinguish the correct nominal size of the weapon and its ammunition, <b>the diamond mark was introduced. When this latter mark included the initials LC instead of just the appropriate gauge size and the initial С it indicated a long chamber of at least 3 inches. At this period if the initial С was omitted altogether it indicated a chamberless gun</b>." And here's one additional picture:
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
CJF; 12/1 = .740", there was no 12/2. If my memory is correct the 2 steps "Tween" gauges began at 10ga, I know it was larger than 12. From 11 gauge down there was only the /1 tween size. It would appear it was originally proofed as an 11 gauge, which would have put the bore between .751" (11) & .763" (11/1) assuming post 1887 manufacture.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44 |
Apologies for yet another post. Below is an enhanced view of the proofs. A few observations from someone who is not an expert: 1) The upper left mark of an arm w/ sword and "NP" is a London mark used post 1904 for definitive nitro proof. 2) The italics "R" under the crown at right (above the CHOKE mark) shows reproof at London, in use post 1925 3) The BNP under crown is a Birmingham proof used post 1954. Note that this William Ford serial number is 2197. My Ford has a 14,000 serial, and was dated to 1929. So the gun I looked at yesterday is presumably much older. To recap, barrels are 26" and HEAVY. Total gun weight is 9.6 lbs. Front trigger is articulated. Address, if I recall correctly, is not the Saint Mary's Row address on my Ford but different. So is it possible that this started as a chamberless 12 (12 gauge shells with a 10 gauge bore and no forcing cones) and was reproved, possibly for nitro or ? in London, receiving the 12c proof (shells of 3"), and then later re-chambered and re-proved for 10 gauge 2 7/8" shells?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
CJF; I do not see an old mark for a 10 gauge bore. The .775" would be from a re-proof. If this gun predates 1887 then the 11 bore could have been right up just short of 10 gauge of course. Even if not a true "Chamberless" it would appear it at least was over-bored, likely for use of all brass shells. It does indeed appear it started life as an over-bored 12 ga & was subsequently enlarged to a 10 with reproof at that time.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,737 Likes: 96
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,737 Likes: 96 |
What a lot of marks! Serial number puts it at 1892. I can see the original marks. Then it looks if it was nitro proofed at some unknown time post 1954 as a 3" chamber 12 bore, then re-bored out to 10 bore and re-proofed again in 1961. The 12C in the diamond shows it was a 12 bore in the chamber dimensions originally so unlikely to have been a chamberless. Unusual for a gun of that period to be fitted with 26" barrels so may have been shortened at some time. Of course boring out to 11 bore will have meant that some choke could be included. I'm sure this gun could tell some tales and has some secrets to give up. Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 314 Likes: 44 |
I appreciate the help gentlemen.
2-piper, sorry if I misstated above. I was thinking this was originally a 12, not a 10, and later chambered for as a 10. My chamberless 10 is marked on its flats as a 10, even though the bores are 8 gauge. This one was marked as 12 with 3" chambers first (the hashed out 12 at top, without the 'c' underneath.)
lagopus, I wonder what this would have originally weighed, since it's 9.66lbs now, with 26" tubes and re-bored from an 11 to a 10 (.751 to .775). Balance is actually quite good.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
CJF; I may not have made myself clear. Normally a British proofed gun will have the bore size marked as per the largest plug gauges which will enter the bores. Then in 1887 they began marking the chamber size. Thus it would appear this gun per its earliest marking had a 12 chamber with an 11 bore. I think that a "True Chamberless" gun with 12 gauge chambers would have had a 10 bore.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|