Originally Posted by Argo44
Merci FAB. Here is a quick translation:

The proof house stamp for this rifle is post-1923. The crossed lightening bolts indicate that the rifle has been proofed in a finished state.

In 1926, the Verney-Carron Company purchased a patent from the Faure Company, for a rifle with a fixed barrel and sliding type locking mechanism. In 1927 it was put into production under the designation "Stopvis."

"1922" is in a totally different font and style from the Saint-Étienne proof mark,

The Saint-Étienne proof mark, the 7.5 cm chamber mark and the 19.5 bore mark appear to be analogous.

The PT proof and the finished gun proof also look similar but may also differ.

This looks to be a barrel made in the early 1920's and proofed by the Saint-Étienne proof house, then reused later and reproofed as a finished gun. But it is really hard to reconcile the stamps.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

I believe that what you posted is consistent without the theory of an early barrel. The number 1922 is the serial number. It is stamped on all the major parts. I located around 10 guns listed on various European auction sites and sale houses and they all had 4 digit serial numbers from very low to the mid 4000's. I found previous references for the Stopvis that stated the life of the model was circa 1928 to the early 60's. I collected all of the online V-C catalogs I could locate and purchased a couple of downloads from Cornell press. The earliest was 1935 and the latest was the late 50's. This model (the Canardiere) was only offered in 10 gauge, and only appeared in one available catalog (1939 I believe). It didn't appear in any earlier ones and no postwar ones from 1947 on. I presume production stopped soon after the 1939 catalog due to invasion. This was the only model ever offered in 10 ga. From all this I have to presume the model, and 10 gauge, were only produced a very few years and likely in a very limited number. If you don't make the presumption that the "1922" is a date code instead of a serial number, which I am convinced is not true, I think the markings are totally consistent. My only question about markings was whether the second proof mark meant a finished or unfinished state. The construction of the gun, as opposed to most, would have been very amenable to proofing without the stock.

Last edited by AGS; 07/22/24 01:14 AM.