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
Topics38,563
Posts546,363
Members14,423
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,388 Likes: 107
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,388 Likes: 107 |
Mike, I get it even later than you do. Kennett has BV and NP good thru 1955. The 2 1/2" marking was also required after 1925. Looks to me as if it falls in the 1925-55 time frame.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,903 Likes: 201
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,903 Likes: 201 |
The only thing that puzzles me is the small crossed septors(swords) which should be over a "v" or a "p", which was an older proofmark(up till 1904). Another question would be what is the provisional proof on the tube ahead of the barrel flats: the letters "BP" interlaced in a cypher surmounted by a crown or cross septors over a v? What is stamped on the watertable of the receiver. I agree that it's a Birmingham boxlock not made in London by Lancaster. A pic of the barrel flats and the watertable would do nicely.
Kind Regards,
Raimey rse
Last edited by ellenbr; 09/17/07 04:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 116 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 116 Likes: 3 |
I have an Alfred Lancaster that I acquired a couple of years ago through Kirby Hoyt. It is a best boxlock sidelever with complete, beautiful engraving and an action that is as smooth as silk. It has “A. Lancaster London” on both sides of the action but no inscription on the barrel rib. I believe the barrel rib may have been partially replaced at one time because it is of two parts: the distal 7/8th of the rib is of a different metal than the beginning 3 inches of rib which contains the doll’s head for the breech.
By the serial number records in Nigel Brown’s British Gunmakers, this gun was made in 1886, probably at the Green Street address.
My specs on the gun: Alfred Lancaster of London #4343 No. 1 of a pair, circa 1886 2 1/2 " 12 ga. Sidelever Anson & Deeley Boxlock Extractor with Game Counter in the stock 29" London Nitro Proof Damascus Barrels (rebrowned by Buck Hamlin 2006) Bores 0.731 Choke .005/.010 Wall thickness L.031 R.030 Wt. 6lb. 6 oz LOP 15 1/4" to leather covered pad Drop @ Comb 1 3/4" Drop @ Face 1 15/16" Drop @ Heel 2 7/16" Cast @ Heel 1/16"
On the barrel flats are the original black powder proof marks: 1) the letters GP interlaced in a cipher and surmounted by a crown, 2) The letter V surmounted by a crown, 3)13M, 12B and 4)“NOT FOR BALL”. (I would be interested to know the meaning and significance of 13M 12B!)
Newer reproof marks include 1) NITROPROOF 1 1/8 and 2) the letters NP surmounted by an arm dexter holding a scimitar (the modern London nitro proof symbol introduced in 1904). No reproof date marked (i.e. reproof prior to 1972).
Most interesting is what is on the watertable of the action: “Anson and Deeley Patent 6950” which is apparently a patent use # for the Anson and Deeley action (which was still protected by an active patent in 1886.)
This is my favorite quail gun! (And I would love to find #2!)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,903 Likes: 201
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,903 Likes: 201 |
Dr. P:
The London mark of 13M is a bore of 13 at the muzzle. The 12B is 12 at the bore. "Not for Ball" would put it between 1875 and 1887.
Kind Regards,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,752
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,752 |
Dr. P:
Based on the 13M/12B the gun is choked.
According to the dimensions given in the table "Scale of Proof" on page 300 of Greener's "The Gun and Its Development", 9th edition,
0.729 is the nominal bore (12) and 0.710 (13) is the nominal muzzle. This is about 20 points of choke.
Regards
GKT
Texas Declaration of Independence 1836 -The Indictment against the dictatorship, Para.16:"It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 638 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 638 Likes: 2 |
Could the "S" be the Birmingham date code for 1937?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 116 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 116 Likes: 3 |
Thank you Raimey and Greg!
So in this A. Lancaster's 120 years of use, the bores have been moderately lapped out as the chokes now measure .005 and .010. I should go back and re-measure the bores but when I purchased the gun two years ago they measured 0.731.
Interestingly, when it was nitro proofed a new bore dimension (for that proofing) was not stamped on the flats. I guess the proof house accepted 12B measurement as an accurate dimension.
Dr. P
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6 |
Well it's a great gun none-the-less but a bit of air has been let from my baloon that we can't positively ID it. If photos might be useful, anyone interested in continuing to solve the mystery may send me their private address and I'd be grateful for the help. Send to yojo18840 at my Yahoo account. There are already photos on Hill Rod and Gun's web site, in Charlie's 'Archive' section of previously sold guns, but I can send close ups of the flats or the engraved maker name... Ed
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6 |
I guess I would also question why someone would have the name of a maker engraved who has long been out of business, if he were trying to fool people. The origin would be brought into question quickly when the date-specific proof marks were seen. If I were going to try something like this I would pick one of the numerous makers who were actually in business durring the time of the proof marks. No? I would have guessed that British criminals would have been smarter than this. I will get some close ups shot for anyone who wishes to see them. See prev post for my address.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,752
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,752 |
Beech:
How do you know the gun has not been rebarrelled? The SN seems about right for circa late 1880's A Lancaster, according to the example cited by Dr. P.
Rocket / Larry, et al:
Correct me if I am wrong, but if the gun has been rebarrelled, the new barrel set would bear the proof marks for the time of rebarrelling, would it not? Why would anyone fake a fair to middlin' London trade Brummie boxlock? It seems to fail Occams razor.
Regards
GKT
Texas Declaration of Independence 1836 -The Indictment against the dictatorship, Para.16:"It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments."
|
|
|
|
|