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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,934
Posts550,858
Members14,460
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,130 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,130 Likes: 19 |
What year? Finding out who is going to be extremely difficult! Although I have seen those dogs on a William Powell, especially the little Springers.
Last edited by RARiddell; 12/21/19 07:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 398 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 398 Likes: 19 |
Scott spindle patented in 1865, and this seems to have the Greener latching system?
Dumb, but learning...Prof Em, BSc(ME), CAE (FYI)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 266 Likes: 26
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 266 Likes: 26 |
I think the best bet on Identifying a maker would be from the top lever layout. It appears that the TL pivots further back than normal, the forward screw may be the hand pin.I'm not sure if this layout was to allow the gun to be opened at full cock or what! However I expect there is a patent covering this design.It would be interesting to see the action,lever,underbolt arrangement with the stock off. Someone may then be able to identify patentee and thus maker. It's a long shot I realize but worth a try.
Hugh Lomas, H.G.Lomas Gunmakers Inc. 920 876 3745
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Realize that prior to 1887 there were no "in-between gauges. A bore proofed as a 12 could measure anywhere from about .730" up to .750". I have an old Birmingham proofed W Richards, built by Cabrough which is chambered for 12 gauges shells with the bore proofed as a 14. I have seen pictures of a couple more of these identical guns which were also proofed as 14 but chambered for 12.
I agree with JBL. it was likely built this way as a tight-bored 10.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,289 Likes: 366
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,289 Likes: 366 |
Interesting insights. No chokes on this gun right? So the 1855 UK mandate to post bore sizes was measured where? Muzzle? or Chamber? I assume based on the knowledgeable comments over the years it was at the muzzle? So my stamped "16 bore" muzzle loader which is actually 13 bore....is logical? (I think I'm going to commit hari-kari).
And there sure are "in-between" gauges stamped in the 1850'-60's.
Last edited by Argo44; 12/22/19 01:03 AM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 460 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 460 Likes: 12 |
So the 1855 UK mandate to post bore sizes was measured where? 9" forward of the breech I believe, and done by 'plug gauges', being the 'largest gauge that would pass in to that depth'. 12 was from .729" to .739"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,457 Likes: 88
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,457 Likes: 88 |
I wondered how long before this would become a post about your Reilly shotgun.
"Hari-kari"...the world could only be so lucky.
My guess is the gun was made by the same fellow that made Reilly shotguns.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 156 Likes: 17
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 156 Likes: 17 |
Hugh, here are a couple photos of the top lever linkage to the single underbite. Regarding the bores, these remain 12 bore with no constriction at the muzzle. The gun is built on a 10 ga. frame I'm quite certain and weighs 8 lbs 6 oz.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 87 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 87 Likes: 2 |
Looks quite similar to guns built to Samuel Mathews' patent No. 2441 of 6 October 1863 by e.g. Leech & Son and Perrins & Son.
Markus
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
The info I have on the "tween" sizes came from A Baron Englehardt. According to him under the proof law of 1887, the ord "Choke" replaced the former "Not For Ball" & the B & M marks for bore & muzzle. The mark in the diamond of chamber gauge over c or LC for long chamber were also added as was the Tween gauges sizes for the bore with 3 divisions on gauges of 4-10 inclusive & 2 divisions on gauges 11-17 inclusive.
I have a 1963-65 W & C Scott & Sons pinfire built under Mathew's patent. The top lever is shorter & set further to the rear of the breech than a typical Scott Spindle. This gun also has a single underbolt. I will have to look & see, but as I recall my gun has a reference to that patent stamped on it.
My understanding is that guns built prior to 1868 were gauged at the muzzle. After 1868 if the gun was choke bored this had to be stated by the maker & then it was gauged from both the breech & muzzle with gauge marked as for example 12B/14M Not For Ball. Cylinder bore guns were I believe still often gauged from the muzzle prior to1887.
From everything, I have ever read on the subject prior to 1887 the proof house only listed gauges by whole sizes, ie 8, 9, 10, 11 12 & Etc. down through 50 gauge 0.453"). From 50 gauge down in hose early days, they began at .450" (51.05 gauge) & went down in.010" increments with the gauge number rounded to two decimal places. What we today call a .300 caliber was then listed as a 172.28 gauge.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|