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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
243
guests, and
6
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,579
Posts546,636
Members14,425
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2022
Posts: 19
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Jan 2022
Posts: 19 |
Hello all. Have a Manufrance 32ga. It is a small double hammer. There is a serial I believe on the end of stock. If I am reading it correctly under my loop appears the numbers are 4297 stamped in wood. Anyone have an idea of year? Has anyone seen a 32 Guage in this brand?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,184 Likes: 336
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,184 Likes: 336 |
Last edited by Argo44; 01/08/22 04:02 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,184 Likes: 336
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,184 Likes: 336 |
-- Crown over PJ - semi-smokeless (1896)? -- Yet chambered in mm? I'm wondering if this gun is 1885-1889? ..or, if Manufrance ignored the changeover to c.m. in 1889? ..or, if the gun were reproofed in 1896? ..or, if PJ was used earlier? ..or. with the "6" and "5" that far apart, maybe the decimal didn't print? The 32 bore looks vaguely similar to this gun (I didn't keep all the photos unfortunately): 3). 1885-1889 Manufance under lever hammer gun; 75mm chambers; 17.4 (14 gauge). Manufance was founded in 1885; the chamber is in mm thus 1889 or earlier. http://www.naturabuy.fr/Fusil-juxtapose-...em-3799057.html- - - - -Discussion of PJ semi-smokeless powder - - - - - - - (Per Larry: "Engelhardt's original article shows the PM proofmark and says: "For barrels proved with smokeless R and M powders, adopted May 14, 1898. But it does not show a PR proofmark. He also shows only the PJ proofmark when referring to both J and S powders, which were adopted together on March 30, 1896."). And: (But interesting in going back to Journee--which I don't do as often as I should--I found that there are 4 different varieties of J. In addition to just plain old J (or J-0--I can't do the sub-numbers), there are also J1, 2, and 3. According to Journee's chart, while they all have the same % of nitrocellulose, they differ in the number of grains per gram. T has the highest % of nitrocellulose: 98%, compared to 83% for the J's, 71% for M, and 65% for S.)
Last edited by Argo44; 01/08/22 05:50 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396 |
This would appear to be the one recently posted on FB SxS goup?
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,184 Likes: 336
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,184 Likes: 336 |
If the SN is 4297, and if this is an "Ideal" then it would date to about 1889 - early 1890: - but then how to account for being proofed for PJ?
"(Per) official document furnished by the head office of the manufacturer on page 45 of the 1898 catalogue. Here below is the total production of the IDEAL shotguns for the first 10 years (11,732 shotguns produce in total):
1887: 630 1888: 1,152 1889: 1,925 1890: 2,713....."
Chart posted on p. 10 of the "Dating early French Shotguns"
Last edited by Argo44; 01/08/22 05:27 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765 |
Gene, Prior to PT being designated the only proof powder, one could specify which powder they wanted a gun proofed with. For a few years after 1900, people were asking for proof with powder S, as it could develop higher pressure at proof than powder T. I think it was the elusive “Wild Cattle” that found this little bit of trivia for us, but, I would guess it has been years.
I haven’t seen much of him lately.
Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,184 Likes: 336
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,184 Likes: 336 |
Last we heard from him he was "swamped"....hence the name "Bete enlisse".
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 229 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 229 Likes: 4 |
I have a somewhat newer Manufrance product - made for Marlin - a mid quality pump 12 gauge that I bought new for $80 back around 50-60 years ago. Still works, but I have long since switched to Parkers and the old pump is no longer used.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,392 Likes: 107
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,392 Likes: 107 |
Gene--I'd guess that 65 is the chamber length, either missing the decimal point or else in mm and too much space between the numbers.
Likely a pretty unique little gun, given the gauge.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,786 Likes: 765 |
I have a somewhat newer Manufrance product - made for Marlin - a mid quality pump 12 gauge that I bought new for $80 back around 50-60 years ago. Still works, but I have long since switched to Parkers and the old pump is no longer used. Colt, Montgomery Wards, Marlin, and probably a few more sold those “LaSalle” pumps, that bore the proof marks of the St Etienne proof house. Alloy receiver, have seen at least one 16 gauge, well made and dependable. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|