doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Gun ID help- is this a Westley Richards??

T58-

NFB, much work.
350SNRN2025MV
Factory prescription engraved on the gun, 5-1/2 Drams.



--Tinker

Tinker; just from experience. The breech fences are totally wrong for a pin-fire style gun. If it is a W.Richards of Liverpool his records would hold the answer. Lagopus.....

After starring at the finger-pinching handle of the underlever, it looks to be something akin to a snap-action similar to Philip Webley or James Lang's which were variants of Jones. Then again it could be a variant on W.R. Pape’s vertical spindle breech locking system of 1867, which was a pinfire with bar action locks. Pape’s also had sculpted fences and sculpted fences can also be seen on the F.P. Beringer – Paris on page 80 of the current(Sept/Oct) 2008 edition of “Shooting Sportsman”, although the top of the fence/standing breech is usually a little flatter than a central-fire version in order to accommodate the hammers. Even William Powell & Son’s lifter action with the "cat eyes" was available in pinfire. I don’t think the longarm in question is a conversion but is still a very interesting piece. According to Harry Lawrence in a letter in 1976, Purdey made pinfire configuration guns during the years of 1855 to say circa 1866(possibly later) with the heyday of the British pinfire ending circa 1861. During this time the depth/thickness of the action of most of the pinfires I’ve seen is narrow(by eyesight not measurement) possibly because they utilized back-action island locks. Some, like the one in question, as well as J.A. Coster of Hananu, Germany(double rifle), John Blisset, John Dickson &
Son and others offered the pinfire in bar-actions. And then there is the Thrasher and Allen patented longarm made my N.R. Davis which looks to be in a category by itself while the Poultney & Trimble of Baltimore single barrel back action lock did have a sculpted fence. So, was the transition from a back-action island lock to the bar in wood action(spring forward) a return to strength, which they found in the flintlocks, or was it a continuation of technical advances like Joseph Mantons tube lock or conversions? The shooting public held the new technology to a certain bar which is evident by the 1858, 1859 and 1866 London gun trials which can be found stamped on W.R . Pape’s pinfires along with “patent – 210”. I think Pape only claimed top prize in 1866 and muzzleloaders were atop the list in 1858 and 1859 when the new fangled lockup systems were being tested. And hopefully that brings us full circle to: just what type lockup system is the one in question?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Sorry! I viewed the wrong photo. Guess is a Belgian clunker. Check proof marks. Lagopus.....

Here's the gun in question.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=105293673

And...


for the sake of the viewing audience, here's a couple images of the gun in question...





these pics will likely fall off the web soon after the auction does.


-tinker

Lagopus-


To further clarity here --
I will assume that you were talking about the rifle I posted images of which illustrated an example of *signifigant patina on extensive engraving*, and not the fences of the actual Belgian 'Richards' shotgun on auction which is the Original Poster's initial topic of conversation.

I assure you that that rifle was never a pinfire shotgun, and that I agree with you that the breeches on that rifle do not resemble 'pin fire breeches'.
For the sake of clarity, I removed the photos of that rifle so that no one will be distracted by it or confused on what we are here to discuss.

In my most recent post I carried two images from the auction site of the gun in question, which illustrate whatever it is.

I very much encourage anyone who wants that 'Richard' to get on the auction site and bid it up till it's theirs.





--Tinker

It is once again established that we do not always read as we should, paying due
attention to the text and photos.

I wholeheartedly agree with Yeti's quote that here we are dealing with JABC.

JC

Yes, apologies Tinker, I looked at the posted photo and not by clicking on the link until I realised my mistake. I couldn't understand why some were rubbishing what appeared to be a fine gun. Lagopus.....

Well the gun went 4 2 to 3 times what JABC should sell 4 [632 + shipping]....I E mailed the seller a couple days ago about any proof marks....This is what he said...under the barrels 822.. 843.. 18.5.. CJ or GJ.. and a crown over TJ......ring a bell for anyone???