|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
4 members (mark, Mt Al, GETTEMANS, 1 invisible),
575
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,489
Posts561,988
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,718 Likes: 1355
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,718 Likes: 1355 |
Larry,
Kennet lists at least one mark for commercial re-proof of re-worked surplus military arms, circa 1862-1885.
I would be willing to bet that in the cases of French guns marked with one of the semi-smokeless powders (PJ, PS, PM, PR) that are also marked with the later PT, the later mark served as indication of reproof.
But, I don't know for sure. I have seen guns marked with proof for several kinds of powder.
Not many, however.
Best,
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,571 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,571 Likes: 165 |
Right on the military arms. Didn't figure that one would apply to shotguns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,718 Likes: 1355
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,718 Likes: 1355 |
Larry,
It doesn't, other than the demonstrate that the notion of marking reproofed arms goes back a long way into time.
That mark was applied to surplus military arms, being disposed into commercial markets. I have to believe there was an orderly way this was done to civilian arms that had been modified, and submitted for reproof, during the era prior to 1960.
Best,
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
French reproof is a crown and R. I've owned one gun with that mark. I'd say Ted's right. Without the reproof mark, someone had the chambers punched but the gun was not submitted for reproof. I thought that as well. Then I started to think about. Anyone who was foolish enough to fake a proof mark faced a prison visit. When they got out, no one in the business would be foolish enough to hire them. So you have either a very greedy fool or some one at the proof house who goofed up. They were in a hurry to meet the boys at a Friday lunch....? Pete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,571 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,571 Likes: 165 |
Of course it's also possible the chambers were punched in the States, and the gunsmith was clever enough to mark it with metric length. There's also the possibility that Kennett missed a reproof mark for civilian arms. But in any case, this gun doesn't have any other unidentified mark that would indicate reproof. One of those mysteries.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 182
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 182 |
The seller says it came from England marked as it is. Just seems odd anyone would go through the trouble. A chamber gage will tell you the length without even disassembling the gun, and no one who know European proof laws would be reassured by odd non-standard marks. The gun is probably fine, and a quick trip to a good smith would determine if that's the case. Still I decided to pass. Thanks everyone for the info & insights!
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
