|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,619
Posts547,082
Members14,428
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,798 Likes: 777
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,798 Likes: 777 |
Gun appears to be a type T number 34 grade. Can't help with the S over R stamp-I think the AE might have to do with the exposition in 1914, but, I don't have any hard info as to that.
Best,
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,398 Likes: 108
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,398 Likes: 108 |
About all that I can add is that the R under a crown is smokeless powder reproof since 1960.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534 |
Hi Tim,
Well, this is the definitive proof that Jallas indeed succeeded to F Darne.
I don't know either what the Rhombus is about except that it is a tradesman's mark and not an official proof mark.
The 5 grade stamps are double FDs which no doubt are for Francisque Darne. There is also a half erased tradesman mark on the lump which seems to be Gxxet. The AE is also unknown.
The barrels seem to be monoblocked. I thought Francisque did not do that, but Jallas did.
Best regards,
WC-
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 998 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 998 Likes: 9 |
Thanks, All. Good catch on the lump, WC, not sure what that's about. The gun was rebarreled at Ets. Darne last July and reproofed in August 2012. Should have asked for a superior reproof in order to get stamps on the barrels as the French proofhouse does not stamp the barrels, except for gauge, on an ordinary reproof...
Regards, Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,798 Likes: 777
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,798 Likes: 777 |
Thats not a rebarrel, Tim. Its a sleeve. Francisque Darnes ARE NOT mono bloc guns. One never should say never on sliders, but, I'm pretty sure we would have seen a mono bloc F. Darne by now, and we haven't.
Best,
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1
Boxlock
|
|
Boxlock
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1 |
Looks like you have covered your bases over on the Gournet forum. It's not the fastest moving forum, but Geoffroy seems to get to all questions eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534 |
Good catch Ted, the barrels were sleeved, that explains the monoblock part.
The 16.0 looked like a new marking, but I thought it was just a regular reproof.
WC-
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Note the braze lines are quite visable in the picture on eith side of the under lug where the lower part was put in. Since it wasn't built as a monoblock, it doesn't have one now.
Monoblocks have the entire breech end of the barrels, including lugs etc all machined from "ONE" (Mono) piece of steel.
A breech section with joints in it ain't Mono.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,798 Likes: 777
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,798 Likes: 777 |
Note the braze lines are quite visable in the picture on eith side of the under lug where the lower part was put in. Since it wasn't built as a monoblock, it doesn't have one now.
Monoblocks have the entire breech end of the barrels, including lugs etc all machined from "ONE" (Mono) piece of steel.
A breech section with joints in it ain't Mono. You wouldn't believe the amount of people who should know better that simply don't get that. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
