Check out this real early hammerless Purdey:
http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=136393908This has to be one of the first hammerless guns they made on the Beesley patent.
Check out those locks. And it's a flat back. Unusual. Too bad about the Miller.
Compare it to this Purdey:
http://www.matchedpairs.com/~mpadmin/guns_images/300_3.jpgInteresting gun.
OWD
Selling the name not the gun. No mention of the sleeve job. No pictures of the flats so the buyer might learn what it should be, if in proof. Agree about the loss of the trigger.
Sufferin' catfish, but it's a Purdey ol'sods!
Remember...we buy the name.
Like dating an ex-beauty queen, or retired washwoman.
Who wants a pristine whodunit and post, "it's just as good as."
At the proper price point, I would be much more concerned about the originality of the barrels than the trigger, which probably works just fine.
Odd, as Beesley's patent was 1880 and Purdeys had left 314 1/2 Oxford Street in 1877. I would be wanting to ask a few questions on this one. Lagopus.....
Yeah, I'm not sure about it being on a Beesley now.
I'm trying to learn more. I'll report back with any findings.
8b - the Miller may work fine, but it's like buying a Rolls Royce with a Chevy drive train crammed into it.
OWD
At the price this gun should sell for, I won't mind the Miller trigger. I wish I were close enough to drop over and inspect and measure the barrels and document the serial number. A non ejector Purdey without a self opener is, in my opinion, the ideal Purdey. Greg Martin sold one a few years back that was of similar features, also claimed to be a Beesley action but probably wasn't. I don't remember whether it had the flat back lock plate. Now that I remember, the Greg Martin gun was an early underlever. Neither of these early hammerless guns is discussed in detail in the book.
That ridiculous recoil pad would turn me off a lot more than the single trigger.
According to Purdey records their first hammerless gun was number 10106 and tested on 26th. September 1877. Action type not recorded but may have been on a Gibbs and Pitt action. As they left the 314 1/2 Oxford St. address that same year I would be doubtful as to its authenticity without contacting Purdeys. I have only ever seen hammer action emanating from that premises. Lagopus.....
Odd, as Beesley's patent was 1880 and Purdeys had left 314 1/2 Oxford Street in 1877. I would be wanting to ask a few questions on this one. Lagopus.....
Lagopus, could the gun have been built on Beesely's design before the patent was approved and awarded? When did Beesely approach Purdey with his offer to make the spring opening system? If anyone had Donald Dallas' book it should be in there.
I think a letter from Purdey's would clear up the story of this particular gun. However, Dallas says that the exact type of action is not included in most day book entries. I think he used the word "never" but I am reluctant to repeat that wording.
Yeah, I'm not sure about it being on a Beesley now.
It's definitely a Beesley action. You can tell by the placement of the pins.
Curl
That ridiculous recoil pad would turn me off a lot more than the single trigger.
If we forget about the sleeve job...The Miller and the pad kill that gun for me.
Capt. Curl, what do you think about that flat edged sideplate? Have you seen one before? I don't have a picture of the early hammerless that was sold at Greg Martin some time back, but it's as early a hammerless Purdey I had seen at that time. I wonder if that gun has the unusual sideplate?
Capt. Curl, what do you think about that flat edged sideplate? Have you seen one before? I don't have a picture of the early hammerless that was sold at Greg Martin some time back, but it's as early a hammerless Purdey I had seen at that time. I wonder if that gun has the unusual sideplate?
Bill, you know that even on my best day I'm meerly a dabbler in shotguns. When I first looked at the gun we're talking about I took note of the flat edges. Somewhere in the back of my mind I thought maybe I had seen one before. I can't say for sure either way, but I'll look through my archives and try to round it up.
I'll also note that this gun, though unmistakeably a Beesley lock, has fewer pins than the later Purdey locks. There was a discussion on NitroExpress.com a while back about design changes to the Beesley system that resulted in more pins. Some of the far more knowledgable members here ought to be able to shed light on this.
Curl
I don't think that they built guns to Beesley's patent until after 1880. The top rib also mentions Whitworth Steel Barrels and they don't appear to have been used until after 1897. That address on the top rib is wrong for a gun of this style. I don't think that this gun is all that it seems. Lagopus.....
Notice there are only five pins in the subject gun as compared to seven pins in the "comparison" gun.
Curl
Yeah, this gun is all over the place.
The address on the rib seems to be too early, the locks are funky, the bbls are suspect, and what is the meaning of Purdey's Patent on the bottom of the action? And if it's on a Gibbs & Pitt action, it's different from any I've seen.
It's a mystery to me. I emailed the seller for the serial # so I could check it, but no response.
BTW: on the later, comparison Purdey, check out the the drop point. THAT's how those should be done. Too bad the forend iron looks like it came off another gun. I don't know why Purdeys did that.
OWD
Lagopus, I am going just from memory, but I seem to recall a discussion with XChisels etc. identifying a gun with Whitworth barrels from Purdey in the early 1890s. By 1897, I think Whitworth tubes were used by many makers in Britain and abroad.
pin locations are not a guarantee of the action type. To know for sure if this ia a Beesley action one would have to see the action flats
My bet is it is a completely legit Purdey action, very early one. I have pic of Purdey built in 1881 with same lockplate shape, same pin placement, same carved leaf motifs on the 'detonating' and virtually the same shape to detonating. I'd bet the same man engraved motifs. It is an underlever gun, however, and safety shape is different. Note the lettering, style of fine scroll, even the 'arrow'on the tumbler axle are consistent with Purdey's.
Remember this design was in its infancy in early 1880s and various shapes to fences, lockplates et al were in transitional state.
Don't know about the barrels, though.
Quick Edit: I suspect this gun does not have interceptors -- see Greener's p. 175 (ninth edition) and you will see similar pin placement with his illustration.
A number of early Purdey hammerless and a larger number of hammer guns which originally had damascus barrels were re-barreled at a later date by Purdeys with Whitworth steel barrels. This could be one.
Vic - thanks for chiming in. Do you think it's a Beesley or a Gibbs & Pitt? And check out the pin in the forend. That looks like an axis for kickers/ejectors to me. The listing says extractors, so who knows.
Terry - the odd thing about these bbls is the address on the rib - 314 1/2. If this is a re-bbl, they either used the old rib and added the Whitworth mention, or they used the old address on a newer rib. Either way, it's odd.
OWD
I certainly don't think it's a Gibbs & Pitt action. I perhaps confused the issue by saying that some of their earlies hammerless guns were made on this type of action.
Why on earth put an address on the top rib from which they had finished trading when this action was obviously made if it was re-barrelled? I would want to know a lot more before I was tempted to part with any money. Lagopus.....
OWD:
I think Beesley action sans interceptors.
If you can get serial that would help (or description).
The pin in forend iron made me go "hmmm" too.
Barrels: gosh knows. Maybe recycled rib?
Too bad about the Miller. As good as a trigger as it is, shame to see an early Beesley (if that is the case) so altered. I tend to think guns like that belong in collections or museums.
My bet is it is a completely legit Purdey action, very early one. I have pic of Purdey built in 1881 with same lockplate shape, same pin placement, same carved leaf motifs on the 'detonating' and virtually the same shape to detonating. I'd bet the same man engraved motifs. It is an underlever gun, however, and safety shape is different. Note the lettering, style of fine scroll, even the 'arrow'on the tumbler axle are consistent with Purdey's.
Remember this design was in its infancy in early 1880s and various shapes to fences, lockplates et al were in transitional state.
Don't know about the barrels, though.
Quick Edit: I suspect this gun does not have interceptors -- see Greener's p. 175 (ninth edition) and you will see similar pin placement with his illustration.
Here's a scan of Greener, page 175:
And here's an image of a Beesley action with the interceptor:
I believe the gun at issue does have interceptors.
Curl
Correct. It has the same five-pin configuration as the gun at issue, but not the straight edge locks.
Here's the gun at issue:
Here's the gun you just mentioned from Steve Barnett:
Here's the later seven-pin gun (the "comparison" gun from the first post):
Curl
Yeah - right. But I think the shape of the locks is a style/transitional thing. I would be a lot of money that Purdey #1 is the earliest of the three. It's whole style is a lot different.
The first Purdey appears to have been made on the same generation Beesley action as #2. #3 is a much later gun with a more evolved version of the Beesley patent.
BTW: nice engraving on #3.
OWD
