|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 members (Der Ami, Argo44, Birdog, CJ Dawe, J.B.Patton, bushveld, 2 invisible),
247
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,884
Posts550,433
Members14,454
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,172 Likes: 130
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,172 Likes: 130 |
That 16 gauge side lever has side clips. When did side clips become a feature? Is there a patent for that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,276 Likes: 352
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,276 Likes: 352 |
The side clips on 17853 are a Reilly build along with the flat filed rib, Whitworth barrels and relative heavy weight for a 16 gauge. The gun is a pair - it's sister 17854 was formerly owned by Terry Buffum and is now in Massachusetts. The side clips are not part of the Triplex patent. Here is a line about the guns. https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=557199
Last edited by Argo44; 07/28/23 07:40 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,276 Likes: 352
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,276 Likes: 352 |
I just realized I responded to a 2010 Gunman post. . .and he's confirmed the information 13 years later. This is definitely what expertise is all about (I'd use the word "cool" but that was a 1950's "beatnik" term).
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,857 Likes: 384
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,857 Likes: 384 |
Argo44 are you saying you think Reilly 17853 was not a Scott build
And is a Reilly build?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,276 Likes: 352
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,276 Likes: 352 |
mc. . a couple of years ago I would say absolutely that Reilly built it under a Scott patent action use number license. I might still say that but am wiser in the wiles of the gun trade and less dogmatic. If H&H used Scott Triplex actions, then others did too and it would have been logical financially for a gun maker to buy the action.
Still there is the "evidence." There are no Scott markings on the gun anywhere which is unusual if Scott built the action. Scott seems (according to legend) to have always found a way to add a number someplace. Reilly had the manufacturing infrastructure and workforce to do it. So, let's say "it is still under investigation."
Last edited by Argo44; 07/28/23 11:28 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,857 Likes: 384
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,857 Likes: 384 |
It's a fairly complicated design I can see no reason to file one up from forgings if a barreled action could be purchased .thinking about it gives me a headache
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,276 Likes: 352
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,276 Likes: 352 |
Agree. . .I'm going to have a cognac and go to bed. (and I think the action is Scott made).
Last edited by Argo44; 07/28/23 11:31 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
1 member likes this:
mc |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,055 Likes: 338
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,055 Likes: 338 |
Always liked the back action model H&H's better than the bar action's.
A well maintained Dominion feels better in my hands than a Royal. Very racy to me.
Out there doing it best I can.
|
|
|
|
|
