doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Proofmark puzzle

Reaching a bit further back in time, in January 1877, the change of the inspector's mark from a Crowned Letter to a Letter surmounted by a Star was due to a petition / request by the British Government to the Belgian authorities to prevent the Belgian Inspector's Mark from being confused with the London Proof Marks. So the proof facilities actually worked a bit closer than one would think?


Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

For the one or two readers still following along, the 1924 Belgian Proof Rule too did allow for unproved guns to be shipped directly to a Foreign Proof Facility.



The only mark that was applied was the Rampant Belgian Lion in Heraldry:

One finds the Rampant Belgian Lion in Heraldry in the Postage Stamps of Belgium too.


Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

And the upshot of all this, well the mechanics @ Liége were weapons makers to the world is Best how to phrase it. From the 18th Century, and possibly prior, the Belgians were supplying rough barrels to the Brits, French, Germans, Russians, etc. 20k platforms a month was an estimate. Now I have not seen in print that the Ferlach mechanics were recipients, but probability is heavy in favour of it. The Liége mechanics adamantly resisted centralized or organized proof, but then again there was National Pride locally as well as at the top. I am sure the jobbers/handlers, as well as end users, of the rough tubes, etc. also pushed back against centralized and organized proof as no one wanted the Truth to get out that the end platform was actually from cobbled together components from the Continent. The retailers wanted to mask the actual construction. Liége was unequivocally a victim of economic prejudice, but the mechanics really didn't seem to care if they could sell their wares. And one hears all these War Stories of how a mechanic took raw Earth , which he dug with his own hands, as well as a crucible and fashioned all the components platform. Pure Rubbish...... And as is that a maker totally made a platform in-house.

So 2 takeaways here: There was always masking of components, as I am sure there is today, to prevent the end user of having knowledge that an item was cobbled together and Proof Marks have a time varying definition.

Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

More than two people are following along.

The French adopted fluid steel tube sets rather quickly. A big part of this was the fact that they could be produced in country, and they would no longer be stuck with Belgian Damascus tubes. While the idea of masking sources is a good one, provincial pride would just as soon not wanted there to be anything to mask, and the notion that another Frenchman was getting a payday instead of someone else.

When I was in France, circa 1997, the steel company was a cooperative, with end users of the product being part owners. It had always been that way.

Best,
Ted

I'm still in.

Do the rooms really have padded walls there?

The stylized lion over PV was used starting about 1906. Note it's looking the other direction from Raimey's lion below

Proof with “E.C. No. 3” and “(New) Schultze No. 2” post-1910 is seen, likely specified by the maker and at extra cost.



Post-1910 proved with "E.C. No. 3" interestingly with the load specifications and MAX



Another post-1910 proved with "Schultze"

Ok, so 3 following along: Good.


Yeah, post 1910 for the Max Service Load is odd as it commenced under a Decree from Oktober 10th, 1897 and was dropped under Decree November 18th, 1903.


The Back Story on organized & centralized Proof was that there was a Proof Law under Prince Bishop, but it really didn't have any teeth. Mechanics were Proving their barrels / components / platforms in Alleys, in Gardens, etc. Instructions were pretty much for the mechanic to place the barrels in trenches & cover the barrels w/ boards & earth to prevent bystanders from being killed by bullets & pieces of barrels.

The mechanics were supposed bring the barrels to a central location and have them tested. Testing a Musket barrel warranted a fee of 5 Sous & 10 Liards for a Pistol Barrel. Not @ all sure of the monetary conversion?

Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

i'm still in the mix - proof laws/associated discussions are very interesting - very much so when we get deeper into the weeds....

Fast forward a couple centuries and the 1888 Rules came on line but were soon antiquated due to the 1891/1893 German Proof Law, which forced the Belgians to raise the bar on their proof efforts in an attempt to meet the Germans pressures with a larger grain powder. Shipments of barrels were rejected by the Germans and the Belgians did not want to lose this monetary teat. So the Belgians took a Belgian Mauser and outfitted it with a crusher device to determine pressure. 3,15 grammes of this new devised propellant had to achieve a minimum pressure of 18k PSI breech pressure and the result was the stamp of the ELG surmounted by a Crown noting new Reinforced Proof to meet German Standards(Not Semi-Smokeless-Wood Powder).

Updates in the Belgian Proof Laws were typically due to changes in the Proof Law in other countries that imported Belgian wares.


Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse