W J Jeffery BLE 16 gauge circa 1936-39. Tight on face and recently disassembled and ultrasonic cleaned and serviced by vintage double gunsmith. I reload and shoot 2.5 inch
3/4 oz low pressure loads (6400psi) at 1100fps at Skeet, SC, and 5 stand. Would 1500 to 2000 rounds/ yr be too much? I am 70 years old and don't think that I can wear this jewel out but like to hear from others and their thoughts and experiences. I just recently purchased this gun so don't know any history other than it performed well for me on a recent West Texas wild quail hunt.

with those loads you could shoot most Mattel guns I owned as a child and not wear them out....

If the gun checked out sound like you said I would keep the proper places lubed and clean, and in between cleanings try my dead level best to make it wear out before you do. What an accomplishment that would be. We all need a goal or two before us, even in the Autumn/Winter years. Make yours to shoot the gun loose before you quit.

Bet you won't do it with those loads, but you'll have a blast trying.

SRH

You refer to your Jeffery as a "Jewel" and then state that you and the gun performed well during a hunt, my suggest is, if it does wear out, fix it.

I have a number of friends who shoot driven birds, throughout the season, using only their Hollands, Grants or Beesleys. On some shoot days they may be putting up to 500 rounds through those guns. They were built to take it and still are, some 80 odd years after their guns were built.

I really don't think you need to worry about putting 2000 rounds through a Jefferey and I hope that you have a great deal of enjoyment doing so for many years yet.

Tim

Worst case the gun goes off face in 20 years or so. So you get it fixed and keep on shooting.

That is an excellent plan.

Dennis

I put way more rounds than that through a Webley & Scott 12ga (1924) over the past year. I did have to have the strikers replaced. Other than that . . . still working fine.

Just keep the action and barrel lug clean and greased and with those loads it should go "forever".

Hey, I see you live here in NC home of the Southern Side by Side event! Me and some of my friends shoot often , most Saturdays at different places here in central NC and shoot vintage side by sides. I have seen broken top lever springs on some of their Purdeys and broken ejector. I had a left cocking spring break on my Spring Opener Henry Atkin a couple of years ago and also a top lever spring. As you may be aware of that spring is almost if not identical to the Purdey.
It was expensive to make for sure.
I don't always shoot the same gun but try to rotate mine around.
Just make sure you maintain it and clean it properly and it should last a long time.

DxRx,

FWIW to you, I've a 'BQ' Westley Richards Damascus gun I bought back in 1989 that has logged around 3K of low-pressure handloads each and every year since it was purchased. Like you, it's mostly used for sporting, 5-stand, and skeet.....and the only thing that has needed repaired to date was a broken ejector spring some years ago.

No off-face issues have developed so far with 7/8 oz. loads, 1150 fps, 5K-6K psi range....and that's using the longer 2-3/4" Winchester C-F case in a 2.5 inch chambers. With that said, it will probably crap out on me next week for having bragged upon it, but I kind of doubt it.

At 6 lb. 10 oz. it's a joy to shoot to where it's what I have most often reached for, and I suggest you do likewise. As some here have stated, it can be repaired if needed and we all have better access today to more skilled craftsmen here in the U.S./Canada than just a few decades ago. I'm just two years younger than you, doubt I'll be wearing mine out, and am more concerned with who to leave it to....

All Best,

Rob

Those strikers were replaced right after I bought that gun...circa 2005? I didn't notice it as being re-jointed when I owned it either...but someone did that along the way too right? When it was at the shop getting strikers & strip/clean, the forend was loosened up a bit too. It was so tight you couldn't pry it off.
If there are any issues at all with any of the W&S actions...they do tend to shoot loose over time.

Key ward Percy Stanbery, hint. Well when one looks at Percy's Webley & Scott (you know, the one with them numerous ovals in the butt stock) I would think good quality English double fead correct ammo and given proper loving care will last very, very long time.

Percy's gun is still in regular use by its current guardian.

Tim

Gentlemen thank you for all your positive remarks and experiences.. I plan to do as you all suggested, shoot the Jeffery often and enjoy every minute. Always clean and lub with proper products after each outing. If problem develops will send to competent gunsmith.

The life expectancy of a gun does depend on many circumstances though the main reasons are far fewer in number. I would start with the gun its self, it should be well designed with no over complications. Using the best materials available at the time of its manufacturer, with the most important thing of all taken good care of by its owner.
The only example I have that can genuinely prove my point is the oldest gun in my collection which I have used on a continuous basis is my Purdey hammer gun built in 1869.
The gun’s design is as simple as an early breach opening gun could be, having external hammers though it does have a rebounding lock design. Each lock has just the minimum number of working parts with no extra add ones each built by Joseph Brazier. No top leaver and its associated spring also no complicated ejector mechanism, with just a central cartridge extractor mechanism which it does whether the cartridges have been fired or not. The breach opening mechanism is via a heavily built thumb leaver set in the trigger guard with a rather large and well-proportioned spring to keep the barrel locking bolt tightly in position.
Bearing in mind that the gun with its Damascus barrels was built in the days of black powder then proofed for Nitro powder use and is still well within the British proof limits today.
As for cartridge used given the gun’s age and its first owner, he was a member of the British hierarchy with lots of time on his hands. He did seem spend more time on the grouse moor and the pursuit of driven game than in either houses of parliament seeing that he was Britain’s first Minister of Agriculture. So, a conservative estimate I feel would be somewhere in the region of 400,000 cartridges in his lifetime, as for my own efforts in cartridge use over some fifty years around 100.000 though the load weight has reduced from 1 1/8 to 7/8 ounce as I have become older. And of course, there is the capacity for the gun to do the same numbers in the future if treated like a good horse “look after your horse before you look after yourself!!!” The gun was put back on face in the early 1970s after I rescued it from being scraped. Mechanically all the parts are original except one pin though all the other action pin slots are badly opened up. To the disappointment of some I won’t replace the pins because they are original parts of the gun and do still work correctly I see them as part of the gun’s character.

[/URL

[URL=http://s104.photobucket.com/user/damascus_02/media/purdey/004_1.jpg.html]

Yes, the gun was rejointed (standard British job, fitting a new C-shaped piece to the lump, and very well done) at some point before I bought it. Holding up quite well. Top lever still slightly to the right of center.

Beautiful Purdey!!! Let's see 1869 to 2017, I would venture a guess that they got this double gun business down to a science.

Damascus, thanks for sharing with us your photos and historical account of a valuable artifact of a bygone era. Your half century stewardship is commendable. Gil

But wait, should it not be noted that cartridges made around the early 20th century was a lot different than todays cartridges?

Just remember the same engineering and steel of that gun was in the Titanic.

A bit off topic, but I truly hope I am fortunate enough to be concerned about wearing out a gun or two once I am retired. Use it in good health & enjoy!!

Which means your gun should be safe as long as you don't hit an iceberg!

Bro. pooch: no doubt a lot better steel

H.P Leighly, professor emeritus of Metallurgical Engineering at University of Missouri – Rolla published a study of the steel used in the hull of the RMS Titanic in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals, the publication of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9801/felkins-9801.html

The “acid-lined open hearth” (not Bessemer) steel used in the construction of the hull, from the steelworks of David Colville and Co., was similar to AISI 1018 but with a slightly higher phosphorus, much higher sulfur, and lower manganese concentration. The tensile strength was 65,000 psi, and the low Mn:S ratio made the metal more brittle (lower impact strength) in the cold temperature.
C - .21%
Mn - .47%
P - .045%
S - .07%
Photomicrographs showed “dirty steel” with both silicate and sulfide (iron sulfide and manganese sulfide) inclusions; slag.

You never know what you are liable to run into on a clay's range.

Well pooch if you are talking about the Purdey I do believe that there is some forty plus years between the two the gun is Victorian the Titanic was Edwardian. Also the Steel plate and rivets used in the Titanic where not of the Quality recommended by the ships designers. In fact it was an inferior more brittle grade used due to pressure from the ships owners the White Star Line to keep costs down so the bean counters got their way again. Now when it comes to ship engineering Harland & Wolff where second to none they put the ship together correctly given the cash restraints they where working under, though Purdey had no restraints at all they used the very best of everything that includes the steel Iron and Engineering hence the guns longevity.
And as for the quality of materials and Engineering painting blame with a large brush is rather unwise. Lets see was it the materials poor engineering or cost cutting that caused the shuttle "Challenger" unpleasantness not so long ago. The materials and engineering from that age are all around us today.

Challenger: rubber gaskets, I believe, not likely cost-cutting.

Challenger was an operations management failure.

The limitations of the system were known, yet disregarded.

The Titanic and Challenger accidents are remarkably similar, both caused by unwarranted haste.

Your gun, well made as it is, would be similarly doomed in the hands of an idiot.

They wanted the world record for a transatlantic voyage. And it would not have mattered how the ship was built if they would have just slowed down.

Yes, and Challenger was launched lest the public lose interest in the 'teacher in space' grandstanding.

People die for the stupidest reasons sometimes.

I think the first mention of cause here came from ribbing our deceased and distinguished St. Petersburg member who shot back something like "At least we didn't put rubber gaskets on our rockets."

Challenger was an operations management failure, yes, and, yes, the limitations of the system were known, yet disregarded. Cause was the O-ring and colder than usual temperature at liftoff. Yes, and unwarranted haste.

Though one thing I did learn from a long career in engineering is that we! That is meaning the world in general, only seem to move forwards with our technology when built on the ashes of disasters be them large or small.

damascus, I was discussing with another member today the importance of the proper use of words and vocabulary, in this case with the US space program. In part:

"I was with the Mercury and Apollo astronauts and had an edge because the head of MSC was Bob Gilruth who hired 25 of our top engineers when our 105 Arrow was scrubbed because US wouldn’t buy it. Bob, who was also interested in our fixed-reef hydrofoil program, had a gleaming white Arrow model on his desk. He said it was the best fighter ever built (it was at the time). Two top guns were Canadians: Jim Chamberlain and Owen Maynard. Owen and I were relaxing after dinner at his home when the phone rang: Grissom, Chaffee and White burned to death in the command module at the Cape.

"Interesting point for the world in these parlous times was how Owen got to the top. Words mean something. When I asked him how he got to running things, he said it wasn’t because of his engineering skills. NASA had him investigating rocket failures—I think Titans—and he was so good at spreading blame among manufacturers that NASA pushed him up. Owen was in charge of engineering Saturn/moon command module, Jim built Gemini program. All this came handy when Apollo 7 or 8 started tumbling over Japan, I was called in to report live to Canada, and acccurately speculated cause was a stuck small thruster."

We learn from mistakes, certainly, but things run more smoothly in all human activity with proper use of language, communications and cooperation.

Gemini 8 was the thruster incident.

Apollo 1 was an engineering and manufacturing disaster.

It was caused by..... (drum roll)..... unwarranted haste.

Deadlines. Pressure. Economics.

Most agree after the fact that the Apollo 1 accident was not only inevitable, it was necessary and required for the ultimate success of the program and achievement of it's goal.

The saddest fact is that lessons are frequently temporary, and we have to relearn them.