|
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
|
|
|
|
8 members (earlyriser, LeFusil, 6 invisible),
676
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,548
Posts562,617
Members14,592
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,893 Likes: 651
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,893 Likes: 651 |
Selling the name not the gun. No mention of the sleeve job. No pictures of the flats so the buyer might learn what it should be, if in proof. Agree about the loss of the trigger.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
Sufferin' catfish, but it's a Purdey ol'sods!
Remember...we buy the name.
Like dating an ex-beauty queen, or retired washwoman.
Who wants a pristine whodunit and post, "it's just as good as."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,464 Likes: 278
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,464 Likes: 278 |
At the proper price point, I would be much more concerned about the originality of the barrels than the trigger, which probably works just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115 |
Odd, as Beesley's patent was 1880 and Purdeys had left 314 1/2 Oxford Street in 1877. I would be wanting to ask a few questions on this one. Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,859 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,859 Likes: 15 |
Yeah, I'm not sure about it being on a Beesley now.
I'm trying to learn more. I'll report back with any findings.
8b - the Miller may work fine, but it's like buying a Rolls Royce with a Chevy drive train crammed into it.
OWD
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,464 Likes: 278
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,464 Likes: 278 |
At the price this gun should sell for, I won't mind the Miller trigger. I wish I were close enough to drop over and inspect and measure the barrels and document the serial number. A non ejector Purdey without a self opener is, in my opinion, the ideal Purdey. Greg Martin sold one a few years back that was of similar features, also claimed to be a Beesley action but probably wasn't. I don't remember whether it had the flat back lock plate. Now that I remember, the Greg Martin gun was an early underlever. Neither of these early hammerless guns is discussed in detail in the book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,935
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,935 |
That ridiculous recoil pad would turn me off a lot more than the single trigger.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115 |
According to Purdey records their first hammerless gun was number 10106 and tested on 26th. September 1877. Action type not recorded but may have been on a Gibbs and Pitt action. As they left the 314 1/2 Oxford St. address that same year I would be doubtful as to its authenticity without contacting Purdeys. I have only ever seen hammer action emanating from that premises. Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 986
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 986 |
Odd, as Beesley's patent was 1880 and Purdeys had left 314 1/2 Oxford Street in 1877. I would be wanting to ask a few questions on this one. Lagopus..... Lagopus, could the gun have been built on Beesely's design before the patent was approved and awarded? When did Beesely approach Purdey with his offer to make the spring opening system? If anyone had Donald Dallas' book it should be in there.
|
|
|
|
|
