|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,491
Posts562,018
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,337 Likes: 340
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,337 Likes: 340 |
Hi all, I'm looking at a Carl Grundig Hammergun and don't know if it's Nitro Proofed or if not? Would it be safe with low pressure RST loads (I think I know the answer, but always open to all advise)? Here are a couple pics of the markings. Any help or advise would be great! Thanks as always! Greg   
Last edited by gjw; 05/28/11 03:18 PM.
Gregory J. Westberg
MSG, USA
Ret
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,077 Likes: 378
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,077 Likes: 378 |
London preliminary proof on the pattern welded tubes and it appears the tubeset is pre-1893 and I'd guess from the mid to late 1880s. I'll have to look but the intertwined TS above a stag just forward of the flats may be that of Thieme & Schlegelmilch, in that Hubertus type depiction. Several integers in the number on the flats.
Carl Gründig was a firearms merchant.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 977
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 977 |
Another one with an odd combination of proof marks. The intertwined TS was indeed used by Thieme & Schegelmilch of Suhl, Germany, but the only other mark visible on the barrel flat is that London preliminary proof. No final British proof anywhere, and no German proofs, either. Very odd combination.
I'll also second Raimey's dating due to the lack of a complete set of any country's proofs and the fact that it was retailed by Grundig (and built by T&S) in Germany. After 1893 the first German proof law came in to effect and it would have to have been proofed before it could be sold. The other way around, if it had been made in Germany before 1893 and then sold in England it would have needed a full set of British proofs.
The most bizarre thing is why on earth does it have that London mark which is just a preliminary?
And to answer the original question, no, it isn't nitro proofed. With all the other variables involved it's pretty hard to say whether it would be safe to shoot at all, but low pressure would certainly be the way to go if it is in shootable condition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,077 Likes: 378
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,077 Likes: 378 |
Steven, lovely to have you in our merry band. The London marks are typical and not atypical for the the late 1870s and 1880s. Liege hadn't fully integrated mechanization while Germany was trying to transition to fluid steel, emulate the British in an effort to find their self-identity. I believe the Germans saw the dim light of the patterned welded tubes at the end of the effort tunnel. May have been cheaper to source the Brits than make ti themselves?? The Brits had folks in power thru-out the continent. It may have been fashionable to have what they thought were London tubes, but were more than likely Birmingham pattern welded tubes pushed thru the London proofhouse. The London marks can be found on many of the top firearms merchant of that period.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
