doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thread Like Summary - Which came first

In trying to understand 19th century gun maker practices; which came first; did the barrel maker make the barrel and the action maker fit the action to the barrel or vice versa? Or is there some other interaction of which I'm not aware? Did Darne for instance in 1898 order barrels from Didier-Drevet then fit them? Who installed the lumps? Who ordered what lumps were to be installed and where?

We see barrels proofed, stockpiled and used years after they were built.

In the case of the German mechanics, they were just terrified of a compromised tube after the new Proof Rules of 1891 and the new fangled steel & powders. The mechanics' touchmarks were for liability & compensation. If @ any point in the process should a tube fail, then the tube maker had to make up the whole product. So with the new fangled steel blanks that they sourced from the rough tube borers in Liège, the German tube makers sent Ox Cart after Ox Cart of tubes and tubesets to the Proof facility. Many times lads with Rucksacks would ferry smaller amounts of product to the Proof Facility. Hence this is why many times multiple Preliminary Proof Efforts are seen on early tubes.

I would say the tube came 1st.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

In the U.S. Lefever Arms seems to have paired individual tubes and serial numbered them, sometimes with possibly a grade marking. These pairs were then inventoried and later picked up and finished into a gun. This seems to explain why some guns with late mechanical designs had early serial numbers.

I forgot to include the Austro-Hungarian tube makers too like Poschinger, who was a contemporary of Bernard. And there were a couple more(Franz Umfahrer, etc.).....

>>Phillip Poschinger looks to be the source for tubes in Ferlach or even Austria. In the early 1870s he had some sort of tublar hammer with 4 individual hammers(Rohrhammerwerk mit 4 Hammerschlägen), 4 water wheels(I assume quite large), 8 furnaces(?)(8 feuern) which he bought in 1866 and retooled with 6 water wheels(6 Wasserrädern von 70 Pfdrk. –need a translation) all the shop included 6 boring machines, 2 lathes, 2 grinders and the whole lot was in full swing in 1867 with the aide of 100 craftsmen. His facility manufactured pattern welded tubes of fine pattern and something like self-made Damascus tubes-( Jagdgewehr mit selbsterzeugten Damastläufen, Musterdamastlauf mit 6 verschiedenen feinen Damasten, 4 St. halbgeschweisste Damastläuf- on the last phrase I have no idea yet).<<

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=159778

But after the 1st Major Disagreement in Europe, even the makers in Weipert were sourcing the Schillingschmiede(Schilling Forge) of Suhl. You really won't hear about cross-sourcing of actions between gun making centres, unless it is some odd, novel action that warrants an APUN.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

The Banc D'Epreuves Des Armes a Feu De Liege (Proof House for Firearms of Liege) had a 3 part proof process
https://books.google.com/books?id=5fxGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA53&lpg
First Obligatory Proof Load for “Double-Barreled Breech-Loading Sporting Guns” - 12g breech plugged "rough forged tubes"
Second Obligatory Proof - 12g joined barrels, fine bored and finished
Third Obligatory Proof for double breech loading sporting weapons; finished barrels attached to finished action
Time is money, and the more work involved makes failure at proof more expensive

The U.S. makers received the Belgian "rough forged tubes" after First Obligatory Proof.

At least Parker then re-tested the tubes, and proved the finished barrels, and patterned the gun
“A Trip Thru Parker Bros.”, 1923 courtesy of Jeff Kuss

Drew, thank you for those very helpful stills from the video.

In the lower photograph the locks are not present.

The proof cartridges are fired by the 2 square headed hammers on the clamping mechanism that strike rods adjusted to hit the rear of the strikers.

These are screenshots from the YouTube fab posted (and thanks!), starting at about 2 min. and showing Definitive Proof - the action is in the white, not stocked, and the screws and crossbolt are not fully fitted





And affixed in a sled. I assume the action is functional and the triggers are simply pulled remotely.



Current Rules of Proof start on p. 6 and are now slightly more complicated in that the maker must declare if the gun is to be proved to CIP Standard or Superior Proof. Shotguns are unlikely to be submitted for "Special Definitive Proof"
https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/rules-proofing

Ok, but I still don't understand:

Example. Darne in 1898 needs 15 barrels. Didier-Drevet has the tubes; proofs the tubes; mates the tubes; proofs the mated tubes. Does he then send them to Darne to have the lumps installed? Does Darne give him measurements and he installs the lumps, then Darne customizes the actions to fit them?

And what about replacement barrels? Here is an 1894 book - "Incidents of Foreign Sport and Travel," by Colonel Pollok., about a British gentleman touring abroad, offended by the high price of a second barrel for his gun, going to Liege and getting one. How did he fit it? Did he send the action to Liege?



All this is written in Greener et al. I just need to get off my lazy butt and read I guess. But somehow it's more fun to ask. (And, think by 1894 all Damascus tubes in UK came from Liege.)

Argo44:

If you follow the proofmarks & mechanic's marks, it will become apparent. 1st the tubes are rolled & rough bored. Then the tube maker brings the tubes to a preliminary state of completion and upon being plugged, the tubes experience preliminary proof, single early on & then a tubeset if he is confident in the steel type. The tube maker should have applied his 1st stamp here. Then the action if fitted and back to a tube mechanic to complete the chamber, bore, honing. The Tube mechanic should apply his 2nd stamp if he continues the effort. A lad with a rucksack ferries these Gesteck to & fro. Then off to the next round of proof and back to the actual maker.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse