|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
5 members (bigblock, Lloyd3, KDGJ, SKB, 1 invisible),
573
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,515
Posts562,235
Members14,590
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,733 Likes: 211
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,733 Likes: 211 |
I've never seen a Greener sidelock like that but it doesn't look like any Scott that I've seen either. If it's a Scott it's a very plain one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164 Likes: 11 |
Looks more like a Clabrough to me! I have never seen a Greener shotgun of this type.I could find no evidence of a back action HAMERLESS side locks in Graham Greener,s book,"The Greener Story"! The serial number dose however tie into the Greener records of the period. Perhaps Graham Greener could provide the answer.
Roy Hebbes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 350
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 350 |
In the pictures that posted by Cabelas with this shotgun the proof marks on the barrels APPEAR to be authentic GREENER proof marks. Jent
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096 |
Jent has pointed out a very interesting point...where else in the gun world does this appear?...on Barber & Lefever conversions...Greener locks, Greener touch marks, and Birmingham proofs....the era is the same...perhaps Greener reworked some of their own unsalable muzzle loaders...Jerry Swinney told me that when Barber was in business with Lefever, a new Greener muzzle loader cost about what two damascus tubes could be had for, and that's why Lefever specialized in converting them...as for this gun, it's only a possibility, not a guess...notice how ill fitting the locks are to the action...maybe that big trunion represents the remains of a once percussion outside hammer... also updated to hammerless
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,604 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,604 Likes: 12 |
With the 'Choke' marking instead of 'Not for Ball' it should be a 1880's gun. Wouldn't that be a little late for an unsold muzzleloader?
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89 |
Robert I'm having problems seeing that action as ever being a muzzleloader or a hammer gun....could you explain how ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096 |
Only the barrels and locks are recycled...conversion recievers with mono blocs were readily available even here in America
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,733 Likes: 211
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,733 Likes: 211 |
Those look like standard Claybough backaction locks to me. I've never seen a muzzleloader with locks that looked like that. I've also never seen a muzzleloader converted to hammerless. There is most likely one out there but I'm betting this isn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
In the late 1800s, Greener's great G-Guns fell out of favor to the London pattern sidelock ejector. This was an attempt at a sidelock gun. Much like Westley, Greener stayed with the tried and true boxlock gun bowing to the London makers for the Sle.
Last edited by Lowell Glenthorne; 06/27/07 12:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
