doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com an early custom E.J. Churchill Hammer gun?

Lagopus in general I would agree but that level and quality of engraving is not something that was often seen on guns made over here. They were still into cartoon animals and flying turnips at that time. I know a few would say that there were a few rare exceptions but they are very rare. That rose and scroll is not a typical American pattern of the day.

I think the gun has been reworked from another gun which most likely was not made in the USA. The barrels look to be a lesser quality that the rest of the gun. The fit and finish of the receiver is of very high quality but the fit of the barrels and finish of them is much lower workmanship. If the locks have been repaired why not re-barreled as well which would remove most of the proof marks to confuse the issue.

Perhaps someone can decide who was the inventor of that odd lever in front of the trigger to open the gun and that will shed light on the true maker. There must be a patent on that pride and joy somewhere. It seems like every tinker had a new improved system or feature that he just knew would be his ticket to fame and wealth. And a few were but most were inventions not needed, wanted or perfected before the next better version came along.

Lagopus, I certainly can see why you would feel this gun may not be a Churchill, it doesn't look anything like what those of you that are well versed in the finer guns are used to attributing to Churchill. I have to agree with Flintfan that this gun was likely not made here, not a gun of that quality. The clues that led me to think its a Churchill are 1. The rose and scroll engraving is beautiful and almost identical in many ways to some of his older guns (Googled E.J. C. Hammer guns) 2. The serial number only corresponds to one British gun maker in the period that this gun would have been made 1895-1896, only his 5th year in business. (6xx) 3. The Owl prominently engraved on the trigger guard 4.in the last and next to last picture between the lugs is a monogram of E. J. C. superimposed over one another and an owl is present when the picture is rotated to the right. The J looping through the c actually creates the right ear tuft and eye of the owl(to our left) 4. In Don Masters book he does speak to the rarity of these hammer guns and how he cherished the Stanton locks he received upon his retirement, identical locks. There is a price list in the book showing he did make 10 gauges and Hammer guns in his early years as well as many custom "Bespoke Guns". It is my understanding that although proofing was required, it was not required that the marks be visible and based on the customers preference could be placed in an area where the wood and metal would conceal them...he mentions such a request made by a repeat customer in his book, Which would also explain why EJC is between the lugs under the barrels and not prominently displayed on the exterior. If I'm reading and understanding these articles correctly,the last decade of the 19th century, especially the mid 1890's, the opening action frenzy was on. Don Masters mentions in one of the early chapters of Churchill's experimentation with different opening mechanisms about the time this gun would have been made. The trigger guard and opening mechanism... I cannot find a duplicate anywhere on the web. 5. Masters also mentions the large number of U.S. customers that Churchill made custom guns for, naming several from the NYC area not far from here. Everything about this gun, although not a stereotypical Churchill leads me to believe it was a custom made 10 gauge hammergun, made for someone in Lancaster, PA by E.J. Churchill. I have been trying to debunk but cant.
(E.J.C. and owl between the lugs, its there)

Just a note on the barrels and opening mechanism, I have shot the gun several times with low pressure loads (50grain FFG equivalent) I can say it is perfectly balanced and locks up very tight. The opening mechanism is one I would prefer over a top lever, even though I have a Remington 1889 that I love to hunt with. I have not attempted to refinish the barrels but it is my opinion that they are original to the gun because they do fit tightly, They have the EJC and the owl between the lugs, and they have a pretty pattern that would likely show well if it were refinished but have not been maintained. How many closets and for how many decades did it reside in before ending up at the Amish gun auction?

I think I put the new spring in the lock if I remember correctly, which is why the locks were off. I've only had the gun a year but knew as soon as I saw it that there was something special about it, which led to ask why would someone who made such a beautiful gun not put his name on it?

have you looked on the barrel for a proof mark i have several old english guns with proofs on the barrel ,is it choked.

Judging off the pics you have posted:

1. Gun does not look like anything that Churchills would've sold or made.
2. The barrels look to be way off the face. Look at the gaps around the dolls head, usually indicative of the barrels moving forward.

3. Churchill actually made very few guns, and as far as I know, they never made guns for the trade. Most all of the Churchill guns were made in the trade. A few very high end guns were made at their workshop at the shooting grounds. The actual Churchill factory was more or less a place that repairs took place.

If it's a Churchill, it'll have Churchill on it. The company was big into their "brand" and loved to advertise and get their name out there anyway they could. They weren't known for being cryptic.

Whatever your gun is, it's interesting and was made with quality parts.

mc,
yes, I have looked extensively for any type of marking on the barrels. The only markings on the barrels are the 3 digit serial number, initials A.S.in close proximity to serial number, and once again, the E.J.C. with an OWL in the MONOGRAM between the lugs. W.B.H. LANCASTER PA. That is another end I'm working on, that is likely the original owner and would have been a man of wealth and prestige in this neck of the woods. Possibly a friend or acquaintance of one of the wealthy gentlemen from New York City who reportedly took a lot of their friends to "Ted" to have their customized guns created. Before Robert Churchill became actively involved in modernizing the operation and promoting the business, this happened frequently from what I understand,