doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Old European(?) shotgun

There is not enough from the markings to date it. The perron means the breech was proofed. The * E can not be used to date it with out other markings. The H is in the wrong spot to be a proof mark, my guess is that is a factory mark left over from the mold that did the stamping.

WR was the mark of Rene Warnant who was active from 1912 to 1956. But, I am not sure that is his mark as it should be in circle.
http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20belge/artisans%20identifies%20t%20w/a%20warnant%20rene%20gb.htm

It was painted brown to hide the stock repair, which drops any collector value. A decent example of a Lefaucheux action. The trigger guard makes it look older than the information at hand so far.

For Belgian proof and trade marks:
http://damascus-barrels.com/bp.html

Pete

Thanks Gents for the help. I have emailed ellenbr with a few more PIC's of markings. Thats all the ones I can find. Is there a easy way to find out what the chokes are? Am I correct in assuming it is not safe to shoot this old lady? The tubes are steel not damascus. 2-3/4" shells fit with no problem. I also figured how to get the lever off and was able to get it back so now there is only about 1/16" gap. Thanks. Ed

Ed;
Note that 2 3/4" shells will firtually always fit with no problem into a shorter chamber. The nominal length is for the "Fired" shell. When the 2 3/4" shell is loaded & crimped it's actual length will be short enough to fit into the shorter chamber with no problem. Upon firing the crimp will however unfold into the cone as the fired case will be longer than the chamber. A shell with a fold or pie crimp uses more of the case length for crimping than does the older roll crimp with top wad style. When the changeover from roll to fold came about it became common practise to load the nominal 65mm load in a slightly longer case than the actual chamber. Millions of rounds have been thusly fired. It is imperative though that 2 conditions are met for this practise.
#1; The load is to be appropriate for the gun IE the load for a 65mm chambered gun should be used, not a load for the heavier 2 3/4" chmbered gun.
#2; The loaded shell should enter the chamber freely & not have the crimped end squeezed by the forcing cone, but have slight clearence at it's end.
as stated these guns are not noted for their strength & any loads fired, if it checks to be sound, should be of a light nature.

2-piper,thank you for that info. I just learned something new. Thats why I turned to you all on this board. Might be just as well to have the old girl on the rack and admire her from there. I have 6 modern day shotguns to use. Would have liked to have fired her but her glory days are behind her now. Again thank you. Ed

Damascus or steel makes little difference in terms of the original intended use. Both steel and damascus passed proof for Black Powder and Nitro. The Lefaucheux actions were strong enough to pass the early Nitro proof loads. However, we are looking at an older gun. It would need to be sent to a knowledgeable gunsmith to have the barrel walls measured, the stock checked for hidden cracking, etc. The markings on the barrel flats should tell the story.



Pete

If it locks-up tight, functions properly and there weren't any visible signs of weakness, I would try something akin to http://www.polywad.com vintager or low pressure like 2-piper notes. But if the gun is from the last 19th century, it was proofed/proved with black powder and that might be best to begin with. The triggerguard does look leftover from the pinfire era but I will note that ALFA listed similar pinfire Belgian doubles in 1911 and I'm sure central-fire also. But this Lefaucheux action's top rib has a German firearm merchant's name but is devoid of any German marks from what I see and the Belgian-German proofmark agreement as per the 1914 didn't occur until then. There's a "3" in the inside of the forend and it with the "3" between the "WR" and the "1504" may be an assembly number to maintain order. These were price point weapons made in a cottage industry at a time when either both the manufacturer or finisher/firearms merchant had their name on it or just the firearms merchant. Some may disagree, but early on Belgian markers had a policy of supplying the masses with weapons that seem to have very few identifying marks and allow the finisher/firearms merchant to roll stamp their name on the rib. That's why in 1853 the Perron and the inspector's mark surface to show proof of a tip-down reciever and strength of the receiver/definitive proof testing assurance. So when a finisher/firearms merchant received all the weapons to be finished/embellished they had to be disassembled. Therefore, to avoid confusion and keep order, the assembly numbers were used. Sometimes the assembly marks were Arabic and sometimes Roman numerials. This was very true for pistols. I would guess the tube steel to have originated from John Cockerill's firm but could be marked Acier Fondu or Guss Stahl(cast steel).

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey you all sure know your stuff. This has been a real learning lesson for me. Did the PIC with the marks on the backside of the receiver help you in any way? I think I will play it safe and not shoot her. Thanks. Ed

Ed:

Thanks, but for me it's more of having good source material or having read good sources. I think of myself coming 20 or 30 years late to the party. At any rate, I did take a gander at the pics and the only thing I can make out on the backside of the receiver is "Ma". What it is, I do not know. The other mark on the lower right-hand side is interesting to say the least. I'll have to agree w/ PeteM in having someone knowledgeable to check the dimensions like tube thickness and the like.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse