|
|
|
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
Topics38,931
Posts550,844
Members14,460
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 184
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 184 |
I recently came accross this back-action hammer gun with fluid steel barrels (fairly certain)& rebounding locks. This is the plainest Brit hammer gun I have ever owned or seen. It exhibits characteristics that I feel date it earlier than fluid steel. The load inscribed in the label in the original case also seems quite stout for the gun. I would appreciate your input.     Thanks Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,122 Likes: 228
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,122 Likes: 228 |
All are truly nice: the dolphin hammers, the case and all. The Pre-1904 Birmingham proofmarks(crossed scepters) together with the Jones Underlever, will put it back in time, maybe around 1887(rhombus or diamond w/ 12 over c). Also, the proofs seem to be mixed in time. It could be that a new set of fluid steel tubes was made for a late 1870s Jones Underlever. What are the marks on the watertable?
Kind Regards,
Raimey
Last edited by ellenbr; 09/17/07 10:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,833 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,833 Likes: 13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 184
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 184 |
Raimey, your assessment reinforces mine. The only marks on the watertable are the crossed scepters.
OWD, thanks. I just picked it up this past Saturday; shot it surprisingly well on Sunday, and plan to use it for a while.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,457 Likes: 88
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,457 Likes: 88 |
The "choke" stamp could help date it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,257
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,257 |
Two things:
The added load of Nitro to the label.
The style of the action is earlier than steel barrels.
I think the gun was rebarreled early on.
Both make it desirable as a period shooter, I would think.
Best,
John
Humble member of the League of Extraodinary Gentlemen (LEG). Joined 14 March, 2006. Member #1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,122 Likes: 228
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,122 Likes: 228 |
I first posted that the nitro had been added later, but after further inspection, the pen stroke of the 2 is the same(same person could have added it later). I was trying to locate a recent previous post of the 1st set of fluid steel tubes. I was curious to the length of the chambers and tubes? Others, as well as I, wondered if you intend to sell it?
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,383 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,383 Likes: 2 |
That's gem of a collectible. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164 Likes: 11 |
Agree with ellenbr, the word choke was first used in 1887 as was
12/C enclosed in a diamond. The latter mark was used on guns with chambers upto 3 inches. steel barrels were used on english shotguns as early as 1864 these barrels were produced by acold drawn process. by 1874 whitworth fluid compressed steel barrels were available.
Formal nitroproof marks were not used untill 1896.
Roy Hebbes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,122 Likes: 228
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,122 Likes: 228 |
Guys:
Where is the recent post of the 1st date for fluid steel compressed tubes around 1892? I was going to reread it and it has slipped several post pages down.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
