|
|
|
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
Topics39,904
Posts568,190
Members14,640
| |
Most Online9,918 Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,548 Likes: 111
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,548 Likes: 111 |
Looks clean, right? The problem is that all previous proofs were wiped out, so it's really difficult to date the gun. A quick lookup on the WR site dates it to 1839-1849, which is impossible. For some reason Westley's had proof marks stamped on the barrel tubes .You see a lot of their older guns with no marks on the flats . Gun numbers and rewords are frequently at odd's and Westleys did use several different numbering series .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2023
Posts: 98 Likes: 22
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2023
Posts: 98 Likes: 22 |
Yep. Even Simon's list is of no help. Not really wanting to pony up the $180 to have WR research the gun. It's most defiantly an early gun, though. Would be cool if it was 1897 vintage.
NRA life member
Retired investor, living on a pension.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,233 Likes: 62
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,233 Likes: 62 |
My barrels have the original chopper lump breeches. The barrels are marked 18.4 behind the fore end hook. So .724"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,233 Likes: 62
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,233 Likes: 62 |
Thanks for all the input. I have even been in correspondence with Graham who probably did the 1999 sleeving. (Very nice job). In summary, it was originally proofed in 1907, reproofed in 1983, then sleeved and proofed in 1999. I doubt it has been used much since then; otherwise the right choke would have been opened a little. Now it is ready for another century of use.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,083 Likes: 418
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,083 Likes: 418 |
My barrels have the original chopper lump breeches. The barrels are marked 18.4 behind the fore end hook. So .724" Vol; That you found that the barrels are original chopper lump was what I expected. However,you stated the bores were .720, and I expected that they would be marked 18.3 mm out on the barrels. Graham who did the sleeving?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,233 Likes: 62
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,233 Likes: 62 |
I measured .722 but the barrels are marked 18.4 which is .724. I could be wrong. The flats are marked JFS for John Foster Sleeving.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,083 Likes: 418
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,083 Likes: 418 |
Vol;
Please excuse my error, I thought you stated .720". I should have gone back to original thread and read what you indicated. I did not realize that the late John Foster marked his sleeved barrels. His work was good.
You are correct .724" is 18.4mm (actually 0.72440984"). I keep the inch conversion of a mm stored in my head 0.0393701" and I can use that number by changing the decimal point position for all the various metric measurements basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,233 Likes: 62
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,233 Likes: 62 |
I use 2.54 cm or25.4 mm per inch. But I have to divide 7000 grains per pound by 454 grams per pound to get grains per gram.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|