doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Another old Belgian Clunker, I think...

(My first post here - please be kind!)

This one was my grandfather's, and it took down a LOT of rabbits, squirrels, dove, and other assorted small game in the East Tennessee hills. Looks to be from 1923, chambered for 65mm. Can't make out any identifying manufacturer's marks (unless the "LJ" in the box on the left barrel means something), and some of the marks appear contradictory (unless we are misreading the marks using the charts at damascus-barrels.com). My father used it until he stopped hunting in the early 60's, but it appears he was using 2.75" shells (he had some leftovers we just used up in a friend's Rem. 870). I bought a flat of Holland & Holland 67mm light loads (15/16 oz. of #7-1/2) from Classic Shooting, and it seems to like it.

Doesn't seem to be anything special; probably not worth much at all, except for the family connection. It's in fairly decent shape, and it shoots the light loads nicely. (Other factory loads make it kick like a mule.) Here are some shots of the proof marks and other markings.











Any idea of the actual maker? My guess is that this from one of the ton of anonymous places turning out stuff for the American farmer's mailorder market. One barrel is marked 'choke', but is there any way to determine what it was, or should I just take it to a local shop and have them mic it?

Thanks in advance for any additional insight or information!

It was proofed between 1910 and 1924.

At the time of proof, the barrels weighed 1.334 kgs or 2.94lbs. The chamber measured 65mm (2.5") by 20.5mm (.807"). The bore was 18.3 (.720").

It is nitro proofed.

It appears to have been resubmitted for proof in 1926.

I do not know who LJ was registered to.

Pete

naw...jes looks lik anutter ole belgian clucker...de moe you see awl dem markins de worse hit is...u lucky hit dont say francotte. den hit wood be worth nuttin... send hit on tu me an ah will fin sum fool tu buy hit an send u sum munny, less 10% uv course...

seriously, it looks like a nice gun. welcome here and good shooting.

FIRST OF ALL Welcome on your first post

Look at these and they will provide some info

As for chokes, you can measure, but the best way is to pattern.

http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20belge/a%20a%20site%20belge%20gb.htm

also fun reading

http://damascus-barrels.com/files/Belgian_All_Proofmarks.pdf

I have a 16 gauge similar to yours and really like it.
The f in mine shows made in 1927.

Welcome to the site. I'm sure you'll like it here (and it seems you already know to not mind Ed ).

Looks like a nice gun which, when fed properly, will continue to give years of service. Any pictures of the whole gun? I suspect the former "kicks like a mule" situation was a product of using 2 3/4 shells - overlength shells often cause that, regardless of how much or how little powder and shot they contain.

Note the difference in markings between your gun & Skeetx's. His has the 16-65 in the elongated C (chamber) while yours has the 12/C (chamber) in the diamond. It further has the D=65/20.6. This indicates the 65mm (2 9/16") chamber length & the 20.6 is the chamber diameter just ahead of rim seat. This converts to .811" which is proper for a 12ga chamber

As per PeteM's post this type marking was changed to the type on SkeetX's in 1924. It is also noted the D=65/20.6 mark was used only on guns also carrying the nitro (smokeless) proof.

Also note this nitro proof was per European standards & are not the equivelent of those necessary for US SAAMI spec shells. The loads you mentioned are the ones which should be used in this gun.

Welcome, Seattlevet, to our board. As has been pointed out, you gun is chambered for 2 1/2" shells. And please take no notice of hOmeless jOe, our resident grouch!
Mike

Thanks for the welcome, and the additional information. I guess that the re-proofing was what I was seeing as contradictory info in the proof marks. I had already seen Skeetx's 16ga information - very nice hardware! I had been through the damascus-barrels and littlegun.be sites before I posted up here, mostly so I wouldn't be coming in and asking a bunch of questions that were easy to find the answer to.

I'll have to take it out to the range one day and pattern it. I like the way it handles, and it's a very nice little shooter with the proper ammunition in it. (At some point I may do up some light handloads using fiber wads and a roll crimp to approach what this was really meant to handle.)

This shotgun does need a little TLC; some polishing in some places, and it really looks like my grandfather may have re-stocked it at some point. He was 'farmer-handy', and where the buttstock joins the boxlock it looks like it was hand-carved to *almost* fit the contours. (Either that, or it was just a crappy factory job on what was probably a cheap gun to begin with.) Got a few screws that don't seem to fit right anymore, and a few other little things. The barrels do have quite a bit of pitting (I would not be surprised at all to find that paps had run a few loads of rock salt through it at various times).

Here are a few more photos, including the forestock, boxlock, and the overall firearm:











I don't plan on putting a lot of money into this one, but it will make a nice little project to tune it up a bit and it really is a lot of fun to shoot!

Well, that's out of the "clunker" brand. It's a nice looking gun, nice engraving. Congratulations.
Mike

That's not a cheap old gun - it was a medium-grade gun when it was made, and nicer than most guns you'll find coming out today. The scalloped boxlock design, sideclips, design of the fences (I'm not going to call them clamshells, but they're similar) and engraving point to it being a medium-grade gun. I'll bet (can't tell from the photos) it has a hidden third bite - another indicator of quality.

More likely the pitting was the fruit of the corrosive primers in use the first 20 or 30 years of this gun's service, though the rock salt does sound better.

Your grandfather did restock it - the buttstock would have had a checkering pattern consonant with that on the fore-end and your photos don't show any. Moreover, the grip looks too thick to be original - French and Belgian guns of that vintage seem pretty uniformly to have very slim, graceful grips be they PoW or, as yours, English. That, and it appears the fore-end has some figure in it, which the buttstock does not. Euro makers were pretty uniform in having the amount of figure between fore-end and butt be consistent, and your gun isn't.

And, to restock a scalloped boxlock is no small "handyman" project. Your grandfather did pretty well after buying very nice.