|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,332
Posts574,112
Members14,696
| |
Most Online32,084
Jun 14th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,257
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,257 |
Hello Dig:
It seems that the locks must be Stanton if they were replacements for the non rebounding locks that might have been in the gun originally.
This is possible and I might take a look, at some time. The pins appear to be virgin of any turnscrew, thus far.
Do you have any reference of a W. Lacey working post 1860 ?
Best,
John
Humble member of the League of Extraodinary Gentlemen (LEG). Joined 14 March, 2006. Member #1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
No ref to Lacey at that date from my end i'm afraid.
The conversion to rebound locks retained all the old lock plates and parts, just adding a rebound facility inside. However, by 1870 relatively few shotguns were being made with non-rebounding locks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 95 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 95 Likes: 2 |
Closest I can find is William Lacy, gmkr, King St.,Stepney, 1850.
"A Stranger is a Friend we haven't Met"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 845
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 845 |
John, Just an observation about your hammer gun. Whilst holding the gun ,dont touch the Front trigger, push the hammer forward with your thumb. It should come to a positive stop. Hold the pressure on, pull the trigger, it should, as the sear is lifted. let the trigger go forward to 'Strike' the firing-pin.In the world of English Hammer-Guns, that is known as a 'Safety Notch".. Thanks to Stanton, I belive!!!!! Of course, I stand to be corrected! Thats what this "Board of Webers Warriors" is here for!....cc/DT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,257
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,257 |
Thanks fellows:
David; that is one of the checks that I preform on a hammer gun that interests me.
Dig; It seems that I can now use circa 1870 as an "earliest" date for a gun that has rebounding locks as well as one marked "not for ball". If both are present, then 1874 is a starting point.
With a tip of the hat to His St. Louis Lordship, I recognize that many do not care about a build date. I do, as it is interesting to know some history of the maker. These obscure makers need the light of day shone on their efforts, seems to me.
Best,
John
Humble member of the League of Extraodinary Gentlemen (LEG). Joined 14 March, 2006. Member #1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
Always remember the conversion or the late finisher -
I have a Robert Adams with his patent underlever of 1860, built as a pinfire action - but mine is a 16-bore centrefire and there are no conversion marks on the barrels so I think it was an afterthought - they had the action lying around and made a centre-fire with it.
Everything about the gun shouts 1863 - but it has later hammers and rebounding locks!
Unfortunately the walls are too thin and pitted and the fences look too slight for me to risk shooting it. It is very pretty, with beautiful (black powder proof) damascus barrels and it balances and swings very nicely.
Last edited by Small Bore; 06/28/07 10:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,257
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,257 |
Sounds interesting and a shame about the barrels.
Now that we have the rebounding lock dates down, what is the opinion of the very original looking black and white Damascus. I had always thought that English guns were ALWAYS brown and white.
I, of course, must keep in mind that the gun may have been refurbished, but having owned several guns in known original finish, cannot believe that this one was touched. If it were, it was done by the master of all masters and I don't think it was ever in Pennsylvania.LOL
Best,
John
Humble member of the League of Extraodinary Gentlemen (LEG). Joined 14 March, 2006. Member #1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 845
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 845 |
Purdey c 1881 3 Bbl set' Rebounding Locks. 2 Locks "In theWhite" John Stanton NonRebounding,(Unfitted) Just thought they maybe of Interest. CC aka DT  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 78
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 78 |
John, SBs post was why I asked the question. Stanton was actually granted three patents for rebounding locks dated; 1867, 1869, and 1877. Someone with more knowledge might be able to discern which of these patents applies to your gun. Also of help in dating is the Scott spindle patent. It did not come along until '65 and was immediately adopted by most makers using Purdey bolting. Forearm fasteners can also help. Until recently I had a Dickson hammer gun with a ledger date of '77. The ledger specified "Purdey top lever", the water table had a citation for the Scott patent, and "rebounding locks" which were marked either Stanton or Brazier, I don't remember which. Your right, running this stuff down is half the fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 845
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 845 |
Addum" to my PostOf the Stanton Locks In the "White"...Barry L Hands asked me what I ment when I said the Purdey I ReStocked had "Low Profile Hammers"..The Spurs, when in the Full[cocked Position, Lie flat with the Top of the Barrels.The axel of the tumbleron the Pigeon Gun is much lower than the same part on the Stanton Locks (In the White) Unfitted Stanton Locks, 2 pair. From the Irongate Wharf, Paddington,Collection of "Old Stuff" CC/dt.
|
|
|
|
|
