- home
I'm looking at a pre-WWI (serial number in the 13,xxx range) Joseph Lang, which has a replacement set of barrels manufactured between 1925 and 1954 according to the proof marks. No indication who did the barrels, but they have Birmingham proofs. The Joseph Lang name remains on the rib. Bores measure 0.729" and the minimum wall thicknesses are in the 0.030s. Balance point on the gun is reported as being approximately 3/8" forward of the hinge pin.

I'd have the gun inspected by a qualified gunsmith (probably Abe Chaber, if he's available), but I was wondering how the replacement barrels might impact the value of the gun. Is this something to steer clear of or is a new set of barrels on a gun that old an asset.

Thanks for your insight.
Not necessarily to steer clear of. Likely means the old ones were no longer serviceable. And given the date range of the replacement barrels, sleeving wasn't yet a common practice.

Less valuable than if the gun had the original barrels in good condition; more valuable than if it had sleeved barrels. If you're looking for a shooter rather than a collectible gun in original condition, and if it handles well with the replacement barrels, it's a good way of saving some $.
I would rather have the barrels replaced by the maker. But they might have been out sourced to the same man for the job. The obsession for original parts and original condition is just silly sometimes. Ask a Brit about what value reduction such a gun might be subject to over there. For me I would rather have replaced barrels than sleeved one and sleeved one rather than worn out ones.

When you have it evaluated ask if the barrels are well done and do they fit and balance well with the gun. If so do not worry about it. What are you looking for a 10 percent rule? I do not think a hard and fast rule exist. Unless is is a very high grade gun I would be tolerant of replacement barrels if they pass muster. Buy the gun not the name and the function should be good for the long haul with new barrels.
There are too many guns available to waste money on one that's of questionable value
Justin why shy away from this gun. Solid barrels are perfect for a gun meant to be shot not gathering dust in a safe. I agree if yo are strictly interested in a gun as a closet queen original is paramount.

As described this gun is in proof with barrels that are just about original for thickness either factory or replaced. .030 is what most would love to have for wall thickness. Most per WWI Langs I see have barrels if original that are much to close to .020 than .035. Evaluate the gun and go from there.
I would say that it all depends on the price & condition of the gun.Without pictures & a rough idea of the price of this Lang, its impossible to say yea or nay.Some might like newer , well made bbls.
Prolly better than thin pitted originals...hard to say without good pictures, wouldn't you say?
Franc,you are absolutely correct.
To answer Jon,though,a gun with replacement barrels that were not supplied by the gunmaker should not bear the legend of the gunmaker on the rib. This is fraud.
40X seems to know the new bbls were not made by Lang, PLUS he says the name "Remains" on the rib, Not that it was placed on the rib. Seems most likely the maker disassembled the old set & reused the original rib & likely other parts as well. I do not personally see this as intent to Defraud anyone.
The cost of a new rib is minimal in the making of a new set of barrels. It is irresponsible for the old rib to be used. I see it as chicanery you call it cost efficiency whatever
The fact is this guy is just as stuck as the other guy buying the Woodward
Lang is a BV2 maker's name. The gun is most likely a "best work," "A" grade, or "B" grade Original Quality. The Current Condition should be around CC6 = Shootable but needs some repairs and refinishing or refinished with barrels or stock replaced.

BV2-OQ1-CC6 = $6,655, BV2-OQ2-CC6 = $4,652, and BV2-OQ3-CC6 = $3,480. Good photos will help narrow down what this one really is. BTW, BV2-OQ1-CC1 (pristine) = $30,000 and BV2-OQ3-CC9 (wall hanger level) = $718.

Hope this helps a bit.

40x....I think there is good advise here as I am getting on the Woodward thread...I do not feel " stuck" , as a more careful reading states , I have a 3 day review is common knowledge that ribs are replaced and is therefore not fraud. Kirk Merrington replaced the old ribs on my Westley Ruchards.....all you do is look under the barrels...also, my Grant has replaced barrels By Boss and says so on the ribs...different approaches to the same thing...the maker will usually put a different serial number on the bottom of replaced barrels. Now that Purdey is starting to remake Woodwards....I can now get a great gun for less than $100,000..less than $10,000.. And if it fits me that is a plus naturally. If you are going to shoot it then have the gunsmith look it over...or pay another $20,000 grand give or take for the original barrels...go out and then dent the barrel by mistake...then find out the original barrels are too thin to get banged out....then spend more to get the new barrels or have it sleeved....right?
I do not agree with you about common knowledge,in this instance. Your Grant was done correctly by stating it was replacement barrels and this Woodward should have done the same or left the rib blank.
I do not want to hijack 40X' s thread I read your opinion and that's fine....all I am saying to him, as is my situation is the gun a fair price?...if he is going to shoot it and is not a collector then a replaced barrel is good in a way, as other opinions have stated. The cost of an original gun, is, as one can see from the opinions , and in the market place ,high for bespoked guns....if I spent the money on an all original Lang....and as stated , if the barrels are sub .25... I might be sitting in my chair staring at a dent that happened only to discover that in addition to the money I paid for originality...I now have to fork out a lot of money to get it fixed...and more if it can not....wondering where did I go wrong when I thought this though. I hope 40x thinks it though and if a fair price, and he wants to own an great old gun , if it is...then contacts Atkins, Grant, and Lang for the History, and he is happy about it....that's great.....if the industry puts the name of the main gun back on the rib....from what I know is that it is not uncommon to do that and I have never heard anyone, even the group I belong to, the Vintagers, claiming fraud...and Fraud is a strong legal term and an action requiring intent.....I do not believe intent to defraud is the motive to place the old rib on the gun, including well know practice in the industry....when a good gunsmith can advise that it is replacement , his question, as is it a fair price?
Thanks to all of you for your suggestions and insight. I am looking to purchase the gun as a shooter and have arranged for Abe Chaber to inspect the gun. I've also sent an e-mail to Atkin, Grant & Lang to ask if their records reflect their having done the barrel work.

From the dealer's description and the photos, the gun appears to be in excellent condition. As an aside, I'll note that Rocketman's valuation calculation is within less than 4% of the negotiated price.

lets see some pics of this fine old gal smile
Putting a makers name on a new non original set of barrel is not fraud unless it claims they have been made by the maker . If that maker has been out of business for 50 years then there is no way that they could be original .In the case of a company still in operation it is only fraud if the claim is that the barrels were made by the maker.I have seen many classic and vintage cars that have been totally rebuilt with non original or patten parts or that have new parts made . But it is still shown as a Bentley ,Morris or Ford .

When I get it.

Gunman,the name on the rib is the claim of who made it.
Originally Posted By: justin
Gunman,the name on the rib is the claim of who made it.

I'm not sure it's quite that clear cut. I once owned a Parker PH 16ga. The gun had VH barrels, so obviously replacement--but serial numbered to the gun, so someone might not have caught the discrepancy. Similarly, in this case, the proofmarks make it clear that the barrels aren't original. But it's still a Woodward . . . albeit one with replaced barrels. Would it no longer be a Woodward if it had been restocked?
They don't put the names on the stock
This is a great discussion , because my Grant now a Boss....great. The gun is not determined, as L Brown says simply on its barrels.....I guess the Grant is 1/2 Grant and 1/2 Boss.....I will just call it a Boss and say the receiver was put on Boss wait!.... Was it the Boss barrels put on a Grant Receiver?....if I call it a Boss is that wrong?...I think it would be. But , I like the Idea that I now own a Boss( wink)...perhaps this is getting absurd....if I find a nice pair of Purdey barrels and have them put on an it now a Purdey....more like a Fox with Purdey replacement barrels. My Boss has its own serial numbers that differ from the is simply a Grant....with Boss barrels...the Woodward, or until we know otherwise , the Lang is a Lang as is the Woodward, a Woodward....I am getting dizzy.
Condor, your fun post is not really silly. If you begin replacing various parts of a gun with another maker's work, when has it gone far enough to no longer be the work of the original maker? In days long past the answer was often the barrels. The barrels were so highly thought of they were considered to be the heart of the gun. Greener recorded it not unusual for a customer to bring in a set of barrels they refused to discard and ask for a new gun to be built around them. I have a friend who has a Purdey that began life in the 1840's as a muzzleloader but is now a breechloader. Valuing the barrels so much Purdey built a one-off action to save the barrels! I can't imagine the work that was involved in a project such as this. I believe it was Greener again who said some barrels were so worn there were gas leaks but the customer insisted on saving them! So, I will continue the tradition and believe the gun is whoever made the barrels. A carpenter hammer with a nail can fire a cartridge but it is the barrels alone that determine the outcome of the shot. Now, everyone can start throwing rocks at me........ smile
I would not throw rocks...I am trying to figure this stuff, correct me if I am wrong but since the barrels are the heart of the gun....and the receiver is not...then why does it even matter if it is a box lock or side lock...and why all the threads on the locks and the different internal matters relating to the locks....the different engraving? ....also...why does it matter if it is an ejector or extractor?, I can think of my gun as really a Boss and forget the fact that the receiver is a Grant....if my barrels are the heart....would the receiver be the brains....just kidding about that....but I would take it a step further...I would argue that replacement barrels would be MORE important than original barrels with perhaps thin walls....those that are not thin....would be the best ....I just think that it is the receiver that is key...why...because you can always get replacement barrels....then again,as you say you can get a receiver to fit special barrels....then there is all the discusion about the wood, triple x, etc....if replacement barrels were done by a good maker or individual, like Kirk Merrington......why the big deal about original barrels...( unless you are a collector)..would the new replacement barrels be like a heart transplant for a heart that is diseased?.. Very interesting and thought provoking.
I found this article which I think is attributed to this forum... I can not find the article referred to as " barreling forward - part 2". This author believes the action is the heart if any weapon....just submitted for the sake if duscusions.

" Part One: "Getting into Actions"

It is widely held that those in the market for a British shotgun should look for quality above name. While a good name is usually indicative of a good quality gun, there are many lesser-know or even obscure British gunmakers who produced guns of excellent quality, yet never achieved the renown of the more famous houses. These guns provide a bounty to the knowledgeable sportsman, since their prices are generally much lower than those from the best-known gunmakers. The question arises, however, what makes for a top quality gun? In this, the first installment in a series, I hope to present a few notions on quality.

THE ACTION IS THE HEART OF ANY WEAPON, and this is where we shall begin our study. Since actions come in two basic styles - sidelocks and boxlocks - there will be some points that are applicable to one style and not the other, but in most respects the indications of quality are the same across the board.

Actions generally use one of several basic styles of lockwork. Most later sidelock guns have bar-action locks. In this style, the mainspring is fitted to the forward portion of the lockplate and rests within a recess in the action bar. Some early sidelocks use back-action lockwork and are true backlocks. Their mainsprings are fitted to the rear of the lockplate and there is no protrusion into the action bar. Since no metal has to be removed from the action bar in this case, they make for a very strong action. Since the action bar is often rounded in these guns, some current retailers have taken to calling them "round action" guns, which is not technically correct (the true round action being a trigger-plate design). However, backlocks are generally perceived as being rather clumsy-looking and old-fashioned. To counter this problem, yet retain as much strength as possible, a hybrid was developed. Called a reversed-mainspring action, it uses back-action lockwork fitted to a conventional bar-action lockplate. Since only enough metal has to be removed to fit the thin extension of the lockplate (and not the full width of a mainspring), this makes for a strong, yet stylish, action. These locks are often seen on double rifles from makers such as Holland & Holland and are fairly unusual on shotguns. Since they require a bit more effort to fit than a backlock, they are generally associated with better quality firearms.

The vast majority of boxlock guns are built on the Anson and Deeley action. In this type of action the lockwork is not carried on separate, external plates at all but is fitted within the action body itself. The system is a marvel of simplicity and has been used to build guns from the lowest to the highest grades. Since the design itself is virtually unchanged from one grade to the next, it is the skill of execution that must be our guide to quality. While the Anson and Deeley action lends itself to lightweight guns, some lesser quality lightweights will develop cracking in the frame. A skilled actioner knows just how much metal can be removed without sacrificing strength, and better quality guns that have not been subject to abuse will always wear better than those of lesser quality.

Most British guns are built with V-springs in the action. While the coil spring possesses some particular merits (for example, it may continue to function even if broken), it is out of place on a better quality British gun. A properly made V-spring will almost never break in the course of normal service, and very few British gunmakers have seen fit to use anything else. A few plain-grade sidelocks using coil spring have been made for companies like Vickers and the Army & Navy, sometimes by Continental makers.

Detailed disassembly is best left to trained gunsmiths, but the inner workings of an action can tell us much about the quality of the gun. The surfaces should be polished bright, with no file or tool marks that might lead to weakness with wear. Many guns produced on the Continent today bear these signs of roughness which betray their lower standards. It is, however, common to find small stampings or markings on the lockwork of British guns of all grades. These usually identify the individual craftsmen who had a hand in the making of the gun. The mark of the lockmaker may be found, and to find the name of Chilton or Brazier (sometimes abbreviated as "I.B.") usually indicates a very fine gun indeed.

A mark of quality and a bonus for safety, intercepting sears are found on many better quality British guns. These prevent the tumblers from falling forward and firing the gun should a hard blow or fall knock the tumblers out of bent. Intercepting sears in sidelocks are generally found in two styles, either the Holland & Holland pattern (which uses two parallel sears) or the Purdey pattern (which uses a pivoting arm). Of these, the Holland & Holland pattern is the most common and is generally regarded as the easiest to service.

Later boxlock guns do not often have intercepting sears since they are usually a cheaper form of gun. When the boxlock action was introduced in the 1870s and 1880s the addition of intercepting sears helped ease fears about the new hammerless design. As people became more comfortable with the hammerless principle, this feature was gradually phased out as standard. However, many makers continued to offer them as an option and a few houses actually made regular use of them. Boxlocks that feature intercepting sears are most often from Cogswell & Harrison and William Evans, though many of the smaller makers who made boxlocks as their "best" grade added them as well. While is often necessary to remove the lockplate to determine if a sidelock has intercepting sears (unless the buyer has a thorough knowledge of the style of lockwork used, and can tell from the pin arrangement), intercepting sears on boxlock guns have a tell-tale feature - an extra pin (screw) behind the upper, rear edge of the fence. Some sidelock actions, particularly early examples, may use this type of intercepting sear as well.

Disc-set strikers allow the removal and replacement of strikers without disassembly of the action. In days long past, when priming caps were corrosive, they had an added advantage. Since most of the corrosion was directly around the striker holes, the replaceable disks allowed the owner to keep the breech face relatively pristine.

Many better quality guns will have gas checks. These are vents from the breech face which channel gasses away from the shooter's face should a priming cap rupture upon firing. On guns such as Purdeys, these vents are usually located in false screws near the lower edges of the fences. Careful inspection will show that the screw slot conceals a small vent hole. On guns from some other makers, the gas checks will vent through the top-lever screw, and a few early guns from Holland & Holland have simple grooves cut into the breech face to channel gasses from the strikers to the outer edge of the fences.

Fences themselves can be an indicator of quality. Many better quality guns have elaborately engraved, carved, or chiseled fences. This work may take many forms such as fine scroll engraving, gold inlays, or acanthus leaf carving. Some gunmakers are famous for the style in which they decorate their fences, and these have become something of a trademark. Woodward, for example, is known for their arcaded (also called castellated, "umbrella", or even "spider") fences in which graceful, forward-facing points are carved in relief. Stephen Grant is famous for their fluted fences, with a flowing groove running, along the juncture of the fences and the action body. This particular style has also been used by Rigby, often with the addition of acanthus leaf engraving within the groove. Holland & Holland have produced fine guns with clamshell carving on the fences. Among the Birmingham makers, Holloway (later Holloway & Naughton) developed a striking trefoil riband pattern of carving seen both on their own guns and those they made for many other well-known gunmakers. Because of their resemblance to strands of flat pasta, these are sometimes referred to as "noodle" fences. Greener, a fellow Birmingham house, adopted various motifs to their fine sidelocks and boxlocks, often using London styles in new and interesting ways.

Cocking indicators are a relic of the days of hammer guns. When hammerless actions were introduced beginning in the 1880s, many sportsmen felt uncomfortable not being able to see if their guns were cocked. To allay this concern, gunmakers began adding cocking indicators to show if and which locks had been fired. Unlike the cocking indicators still seen on many Continental guns, which use brass pins sticking out of the action body, most British makers preferred a more smooth design. In most cases, this took the form of a line engraved on the tumbler pivot (the large pin around which the tumbler turns). On many guns these lines are inlayed in gold or are engraved to resemble arrows. Most are quite smooth to the surface, but Woodward is noted for their use of protruding tumbler pivots. Because of this protrusion, usually inlayed with a gold line, they have come to be known as "frogs' eyes".

Frame reinforcements are often seen on nicely-finished double rifles, but they are rare on shotguns. The occasionally examples that may be seen are usually heavy-bore fowling guns or ball-and-shot guns. In each case, the intent is the same - to provide extra strength in the critical juncture of the standing breech and the action bar.

Third fasteners, while often seen on rifles, are rare on best-quality shotguns. Purdey is famous for the use of their "nose" (a type of hidden third fastener) on their best-quality guns, and Rigby has built a few shotguns using their rising third bite, but this is rare for a London house. Birmingham makers were more fond of this feature, with gunmakers such as Westley Richards, Greener, and Scott using them quite often.

Hand-detachable locks are now practically a staple of fine Continental guns, and were originally developed in Britain. The most common form of hand-detachable mechanism for sidelocks was developed by Henry Holland of Holland & Holland. It is immediately recognizable by the addition of a thumb-lever on the lockplate, which is turned to remove the pin which secures the locks. Rarely, some gunmakers have used a similar variation that uses two such levers, one for each lock. While the boxlock action, by its design, does not lend itself to this option, Westley Richards overcame this difficulty with their famous "droplocks". A plate on the bottom of the action body is removed and the two sets of mechanism can then be slipped free. Even more streamlined than the sidelock designs, this system offers the option of quick and easy replacement of the locks should one or both fail. To capitalize on this feature, Westley Richards often supplied their guns (and especially their double rifles) with extra sets of locks.

One more refinement often found on guns of top quality is the addition of a self-opening mechanism. This allows the gun to be opened quickly, easily, and in some cases with one hand. While many systems were introduced over the years, the two main types seen today are those by Purdey and Holland & Holland. Of these, the Holland & Holland type is by far the most common. It uses a separate compressor fitted underneath the barrels to open the action, and thus is much easier to produce. The Purdey type of self-opener is actually engineered as an integral part of the action. Two "kickers" in the bar of the action are powered by the mainspring itself. It is generally considered that the Purdey system opens the gun more smartly and with less effort, but takes rather more effort to close. This is a largely subjective assessment, and there are many who do not feel that the Purdey system is at all difficult to close. A third, less common system, has been used by Boss, but most of their guns rely instead on their standard action (which includes a slight, and unintended, assist in the way the ejectors push against the breech face upon opening.).

As we have seen, the action can give us many clues to a gun's quality. The "right gun" may still be as elusive a partridge on a frosty morning, but perhaps we now know better what quarry we seek.

Next time: "Barreling Forward"

(Except for posting strictly limited to "", all rights reserved by the author.)
Condor, we'll wait for others to add their two cents to this discussion. Hopefully they'll be along soon. But back to the nineteenth century for a moment. Really good barrels were highly valued by their owners. Skilled labor was plentiful and relatively cheap, therefore making an action was all in a days work. I stress "skilled" here. With only a few hand tools and a forge there was little that couldn't be made to perfection. No blueprints or directions were necessary. Just tell the workman the desired end results and leave him alone. Today the everyday skills are gone and to ask for a one-off action would get you laughed out of town. You'd hear something like, "why, It'd take six months just to program the CNC machine, you idiot!"

These craftsmen were long gone by the time I woke up on this earth so my knowledge is from reading and studying their artistry. However, I well remember the old time blacksmiths that set up shop in every farm town. While their skills were a far cry from the gunmakers of old they still had the ability and skill to make about anything a farmer needed and do it quickly. And a lot of it was pretty darned complex. All they needed was a forge, a drill, and a few hand tools--same as the old gunmaker. They're all gone now and so is the memory of them.
Thanks Joe....I am sure all of this has been raised before, but it is a great education so I love digesting all comments. Also, tomorrow I will have that Woodward...or for the lack of a better word, I will have that.." Birmingham"... And will post pictures...also...I am driving it up to New Hampshire on Thursday to have Stephen Hutton look it question will it to much money or is it a fair price....if it feels " good" , fits me and is well balance...and shoots well ( I will shoot it Tomorrow afternoon at our patterning range).. It may end up a tough decision....but glad to have all these opinions , that's for sure.
Condor, I read your post above on what constitutes a best gun and the writer focus is on the action. I welcome any differing opinion on this subject but still have to respectfully disagree. The best action in the world is worthless if poorly constructed barrels are mated to it. Conversely, if the finest barrels are mounted to an inferior action the gun may still be a wonderful shooter. After all, the gun is an instrument to throw a shot charge--only the barrel performs this function.
I am not disagreeing with you ...just drawing this out.. In light of what you say, would you then agree that well constructive replacement barrels...and for the sake of argument, as good as the originals, but perhaps made by the same maker or made by another maker, be equally a good shooter as the original barrels? Might they even be better ...or inherently worse. Tough question, just your knee jerk reaction?
Originally Posted By: Condor
I am not disagreeing with you ...just drawing this out.. In light of what you say, would you then agree that well constructive replacement barrels...and for the sake of argument, as good as the originals, but perhaps made by the same maker or made by another maker, be equally a good shooter as the original barrels? Might they even be better ...or inherently worse. Tough question, just your knee jerk reaction?

Condor, I'll opine that a "best work" gun as originally made must/will have quality harmony of the barrels, action, stock, and embellishment. Replacement parts can be made to the original quality level if sufficient money is spent. There are plenty of craftsmen who can make any needed gun part to "best work" standards.

They certainly would not be inherently worse. After examining and shooting for points of impact and patterns and then examining the for construction you might find them to be superior in every respect. But then again you might not. I would certainly approach any replacement barrels with the attitude of "guilty till proven innocent". Gun and horse trading have a lot in common......
Yes, understood....guilt until proven innocent is a good standard when it comes to this. I hope all this also helps the starter of this thread as well. I got a lot out if this from you guys as well as small bore and was better than reading any book. I will be back later today on the Woodward thread with Pictures.
Just one note toward barrels of vintage guns; In the time of Damascus barrels, the cost of the barrels was equal to appoximately half the cost of the gun.

Today one can always find a good deal on a vintage gun with barrels which are pretty thin, pitted, or far too thin to safely shoot. Try finding a good set of high grade barrels that need a home! That is a little harder.

I figure that vintage American SxS's of medium to high grades with cut barrels are worth half of what they would be worth with good barrels. Maybe a sleeved English gun is worth about as much?
As usual, Rocketman's calculations are really, really good considering he is pricing the gun from a formula, sight unseen.

I'd say a fine lang (best) sidelock ejector with original barrels is an $8000-$15,000 gun. I'd say the gun you describe with replacement barrels is in that $3800-$5800 price band because of the work described.

Excellent guns made by an excellent maker (and Grandson of Purdey) for a very reasonable sum of money. I'd go for it and shoot it regularly!
© The DoubleGun BBS @