I took the gamble on an oldie, am pretty sure it is pre 1900(maybe even the '70s). My question stems from something I saw on SSM board....do the "choke" and "not for ball" markings actually come from different eras?



I ran the bore gauge through the very clean bores and got .775/.777, seems that would match perfect with markings?



Cannot wait to get it home(is impounded for 24....Illinois thing) to check wall thickness and run some BP through it at some clays....seems to be in amazingly unabused condition.

Happy holidays,
Mark

Mark, congrats. It's a very nice looking gun. What maker? Seems choked pretty tight.

Thank you Mike, would appear I got very lucky.

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=7755667


I got to look it over a bit when I went to FFL to get paperwork done but did not pay lots of attention to the actual choke constrictions....was kinda hard to concentrate on anything specific once I had a good idea about it being on face and not honed to death. Lever is over a little but it is rock solid even with FE off.

Best,
Mark

Mark I was going by the choke proofmarks. 10bore and 12ga muzzle. That has to be about .045". .775 - .729 average.

Looks to me as though you lucked into one heck of a fine gun. Early, probably the 70"s. Certainly had the quality built into it. Great wood and engraving. Betcha the internals on the locks are pretty. Post some better photos when you get it home.

Merry Christmas!

The marks show Birmingham proof between 1875 and 1887. The hammer style is typical of the mid 1880s. The Deeley & Edge forend catch was patented in 1873.

'J.P Clayborough & Johnstone' traded from 1894.
'Clayborough & Brothers' traded from 1883-1894.
'Clayborough Brothers' traded from 1872-1882.

I would guess the gun dates from around 1885. The quality looks good. It has been re-jointed.

For what you paid, you can feel rather pleased with yourself. I hope you drop a few ducks with it before season's end.

The "not for ball" marks were used from 1875 to 1887. the "choke" mark was used from 1875 to 1955. The latest the gun could have been made was 1887, I will check Claybourgh history next time I am on the IGC web site. Appears to be a nice gun. Jim

Mark:

Really lovely gun. Christmas present to yourself? Well chosen.

I have a question - you mention it is impounded for 24 hours. Is this some legal requirement? Is it just for antiques? Shotguns? Is there a stated rationale?

You buy an antique made prior to 1887 and can't take immediate possssion of it? Do you still have to do a Form 4473?

Just curious about " how the other half lives".

Regards

GKT

Many thanks to all for the clarification on the proof dates, very appreciated.

Dig, I was a bit concerned by the fit in the photos of the rib extension and the rearward bite through the frame....and must admit to not looking for a seam when I looked for any "BFH SMITHING". Is that, with it's current sound lockup what gives this away as a rejoint? The fit "seemed" better in person. Gun has certainly been well used, or at the very least in and out of the case many times as the muzzles have similar engraving bands as the breech ends but are worn very faint on the outboard edges.....and as suspect as the finish looks on the barrels they proved to be suffering only from a) NO finish remaining, and b) some dark spots that don't seem to affect the surface texture.

Greg, I sincerely hope I am not a part of a half of us!! Would pray I am part of a very small minority. In Illinois any antique long gun gets the same background check/paperwork as a modern iron...or so I am told. Either way, I would not be here to take delivery in person, so the $30 I pay to have the FFL down the street to take delivery as opposed to having it sit on my porch all day is worth it for my situation. But yes, still not a good thing in the greater scheme of things.

Best, and thanks,
Mark

You were told wrong, Mark. No FFL is needed for antique guns--even in this awful state.
GJZ in Lombard.

I do not believe this one needed to go through an FFL. But as Mark stated, some times there is an upside. Illinois law imposes a 24 hour waiting period for any long gun and 72 hours for any hand gun. A background check takes place for both.

Pete

I am curious. How can you tell it has been rejointed?

Pete

Joe, good to hear from you, and if I can trust anyone here(IL)it is you. I still needed someone I could count on to take delivery in my best interest though, so as misguided as it may have been, it works best for me and was not of great expense. Hope the cookies turned out well this year!

PeterM...my guess is that there are indications in the top and rear under-bite that it was loose at one point, and I trust Dig would have a good feel for that. Will post detailed pics after Christmas when I have it in me grubby lil hands.

Be safe, and well,
Mark

Mark, I checked and downloaded Clabroughs' history from IGC if you want it I can email it to you, I am not sure that PM will work. My email is on my profile. Jim

James, thank you!

Has the pay-or-free status of IGC been hammered out yet, if so what is it?

Would really be in my best interest to have access to the site if not to expensive.

I did a bit of a search of the web and found many "JP"s...none of which matched mine, some were close though...but usually twist, withought the percussion fences or both...never found a duplicate of the engraving.

I am at marksduer at aol dot com if you would feel better about not having your personal email on the wind.

Thank you,
Mark

I could be wrong on the following but believe generally speaking it would not be normal to find both "Not for Ball" & "Choke" stamped on the same gun. The Bore/Muzzle mark along with Not for Ball was replaced by the single bore mark & the word choke in 1887 along with the "Chamber mark, ie 10/C in diamond. Note also that 1887 was also when the gauge sub-divisions were added, ie 12/1 etc. Simple plug gages were used for measurement thus the 12 mark for muzzle does not mean an Absolute .729" dia, only that the .729" gage would enter but the next one up would not. 11 ga was .751" & 12/1 .740". Since bores still measure very close to nominal .775" for 10ga, depending upon exact time built choke could be from .046"-.036" (12-12/1) or .046"-.024" (12-11). May not be excessive at all. I would expect build date to be very close to the 1887 date & got a portion of both systems. Quite possibly an error in the transition from one to the other.

2-piper, I have 4 guns that have both "not for ball" and "choke" on them. I thought that was normal since thats what I almost always see.

Mike;
The only pre 1887 English guns I have are all cylinder bore. 1 muzzle loader, 1 pin fire & 1 side lever center fire. None of these thus have either marking, only a single gauge mark. All three of the sources I have for proof marks (Wirnsberger, Englehardt & Kennet), though seem to agree the word choke replaced the Not for Ball in 1887, along with the other changes mentioned. The gun pictured here has no indication of a "RE-Proof" & I assume neither do yours. It seems to become quite obvious that for at least some portion of time "Choke" was added to the old markings with no other change. Do you have any other means of dating your guns other than the proof mark period? Thanks much for your input.

My Westley has been SNed to 1882 and has both.

I have the twin sister of it but choked tighter than heck. Thought about buying this one as well but one was enough for me. Love those short tens. 10 pounds makes it too heavy to carry but it does shoot well. Shot a couple Bismuth reloads in it using my home made 12 gauge chamber mates and bismuth reloads. Nice patterns which should drop a Black duck this week.

Look at the doll's head rib extension.

You will see that the front section does note meet exactly with the corresponding part of the action. this shows that it has moved back wards when the gun was re-jointed.

It is not usually a problem unless it has happened repeatedly and then it starts to look a bit gappy.

I would expect a gun of this age to have been re-jointed. It is still a good gun and still a good buy for what you paid.