|
|
|
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
Topics39,513
Posts562,216
Members14,590
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,788 Likes: 673
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,788 Likes: 673 |
I'd say that craigd and Researcher are correct in their opinion that this is concealing a stock wrist repair. Much better than the commonly seen baling wire, stove bolts, gray epoxy, nails, and wood screws, but certainly not in the same league as the original H&H metalwork.
It would be interesting to pull the locks and trigger guard to see what combination of glue, pins, dowels, rebar, etc., may be hidden underneath.
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115 |
.500 could be intended for India. .450 calibres were banned there. I suppose Hollands could provide the answer but it would be a costly way to satisfy a curiosity. Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 356 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 356 Likes: 4 |
The description is for a Shotgun in the title, but the further description is "rifled, 500 Cal. Express" and this is added on the gun "'CHARGE 4 1/4 DRAMS LENGTH OF CASE 3 INCHES'"
I am not sure if all this fits a Paradox gun. What do you think?
I am reading the serial no. as 4776. Is that correct ?
Maybe Ken is right, it could be for tigers. That describes a .500 3" BPE and wouldn't be a paradox at all. To my eye the work on the pistol grip didn't originate in London. Curl
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862 |
Interesting if rather ornate for the English market. Looking at it the man on horseback in the engraving it looks rather like a U.S. Civil War officer. The gun looks like a Daw's patent action which would indicate an early centrefire circa 1861 or 1863 which may tie in with the Civil War period. Just a thought. Lagopus..... Possibly. But, the figure could also represent a British officer in "Stable Dress" which would be appropriate for being mounted on horseback. This also would match the period of the gun's manufacture. Forage caps are also similar as far as headgear, but my bet is on the former. Since IMO the metalwork on the stock has an Oriental/Indian look to it, a wild speculation could be that it belonged to a British officer in one of the mounted regiments in India, such as the 17th or 21st Lancers....the 17th Lancers was posted to India a year after it was made. The work on the stock was obviously done well after that. If one was going to be stationed in India, it would be "just the ticket". Possibly owned by some Second or Third son from a family of means. Fun to speculate, if it could only talk. Regards Ken
Last edited by Ken61; 09/22/17 08:28 AM.
I prefer wood to plastic, leather to nylon, waxed cotton to Gore-Tex, and split bamboo to graphite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from rbsiii.com]](http://www.rbsiii.com/Guns/Purdey_500_top_360.jpg)