doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Help with proofs please

Gents,

How do you interpret these? Suggests to me gun is newer than serial # suggests.

Marks are on a very plain C&H BLE sn 40714





Thanks

Mark

Mark--I date your gun from the period 1904-25. The NP with the sword was first used in 1904, and the 12 over LC was last used in 1925. (That latter mark should indicate that your gun has 3" chambers, which would also fit with the 1 1/2 oz shot charge.) After 1925, the chamber length would have been marked on the flats.

Mark:
As a Canadian, you might not understand this. But why not get a booklet from the Birmingham Proof house, read it, and interpret the proof marks yourself? Then again, it's much easier to ask others to do it. Please pardon my cynical nature.

Larry thank-you, my memory had the 1925 change reversed, 1904 falls into the sn/date perfectly.

Kensal, I do understand, we have assholes in Canada too. Please pardon my calling a spade a spade.

Mark

Your comment is not merely cynical, it's rude. Some of us don't have the resources to buy books all the time, and the resources sometimes raise as many questions as they answer; some of us like to learn by asking people we think will know, and even those who know can learn more from sharing what they know.

I started visiting and posting again because I thought this sort of rubbish had settled...
RG

He did say pardon, and he does have "Best" in his signature line. I guess being an ass is OK then. Pardon me for this cynical reply.

Gentlemen, please! We don't need to pay attention to ugly posts by making additional ugly posts. Ignore those and elevate above it.

Steady with it though. It does have 3 inch chambers but was proofed for the old type English 3 inch magnum cartridge. You will find that the European 2 3/4" magnum rounds will be o.k. assuming the gun is still in proof. Lagopus.....

I just get tired of reading peoples rude responses under the guise of being whitty. That post was just plain rude and he deserves being called out on it IMO. If you ignore them they only continue while the good ones continue to leave. When we can't ask a question on here without worrying about being flamed, whats the point of belonging and contributing?

The other issue is that correctly interpreting proofmarks requires a bit more than just reading a book. For example, there's the issue of reproof, which can confuse things considerably. I've seen more than one case, on this BB, when I thought I had the proofmarks figured out and someone added something I'd missed. Or corrected something I misinterpreted. And that's with the Wirnsberger book plus all of Baron Engelhardt's and Lee Kennett's articles on proof readily available to me.

Here's what it all comes down to: this is a great place to ask technical questions like that, and to learn.