I'm expecting that the consensus will be "unknowable craftsmen from in the trade" but wondering if anyone has any insights regarding the origin of this gun. No maker's marks anywhere, no barrel maker's stamp, nothing on inside of the locks. But maybe there are hints to those of you with more knowledge than I? e.g. shape of the toplever, style of hammer, or engraving?









thanks in advance,
John

The barrels are a nice 3 Iron "Oxford" John, in keeping with the higher quality of the gun. The rib is Twist.

Any marks on the breech face, trigger guard, buttplate?
Thanks
Mike

Are you sure its a 10g ?. It was prooved as a 12.

Nope. blank breech face, acanthus scroll on trigger guard and steel heel/toe plates with checkered butt.
Yes, for sure is chambered in 10 ga. Loaded up a box and shot a round of BP skeet.

I think it's lovely. Reminds me a lot of my English 10

Another lovely old hammer gun!

Proof marks 1868-1875. No chokes right? If there are, they probably were created when it was honed from 12 bore.

Fences remind me of this Beattie I was looking at on GB a few years ago:

Gene, I believe it has always been a tight-bored 10 gauge. The barrel walls remain substantially thick.

What year? Finding out who is going to be extremely difficult! Although I have seen those dogs on a William Powell, especially the little Springers.

Scott spindle patented in 1865, and this seems to have the Greener latching system?

I think the best bet on Identifying a maker would be from the top lever layout. It appears that the TL pivots further back than normal, the forward screw may be the hand pin.I'm not sure if this layout was to allow the gun to be opened at full cock or what! However I expect there is a patent covering this design.It would be interesting to see the action,lever,underbolt arrangement with the stock off. Someone may then be able to identify patentee and thus maker. It's a long shot I realize but worth a try.

Realize that prior to 1887 there were no "in-between gauges. A bore proofed as a 12 could measure anywhere from about .730" up to .750".
I have an old Birmingham proofed W Richards, built by Cabrough which is chambered for 12 gauges shells with the bore proofed as a 14. I have seen pictures of a couple more of these identical guns which were also proofed as 14 but chambered for 12.

I agree with JBL. it was likely built this way as a tight-bored 10.

Interesting insights. No chokes on this gun right? So the 1855 UK mandate to post bore sizes was measured where? Muzzle? or Chamber? I assume based on the knowledgeable comments over the years it was at the muzzle? So my stamped "16 bore" muzzle loader which is actually 13 bore....is logical? (I think I'm going to commit hari-kari).

And there sure are "in-between" gauges stamped in the 1850'-60's.

9" forward of the breech I believe, and done by 'plug gauges', being the 'largest gauge that would pass in to that depth'.
12 was from .729" to .739"

I wondered how long before this would become a post about your Reilly shotgun.

"Hari-kari"...the world could only be so lucky.

My guess is the gun was made by the same fellow that made Reilly shotguns.

Hugh, here are a couple photos of the top lever linkage to the single underbite.


Regarding the bores, these remain 12 bore with no constriction at the muzzle. The gun is built on a 10 ga. frame I'm quite certain and weighs 8 lbs 6 oz.

Looks quite similar to guns built to Samuel Mathews' patent No. 2441 of 6 October 1863 by e.g. Leech & Son and Perrins & Son.

Markus

The info I have on the "tween" sizes came from A Baron Englehardt. According to him under the proof law of 1887, the ord "Choke" replaced the former "Not For Ball" & the B & M marks for bore & muzzle. The mark in the diamond of chamber gauge over c or LC for long chamber were also added as was the Tween gauges sizes for the bore with 3 divisions on gauges of 4-10 inclusive & 2 divisions on gauges 11-17 inclusive.

I have a
1963-65 W & C Scott & Sons pinfire built under Mathew's patent. The top lever is shorter & set further to the rear of the breech than a typical Scott Spindle. This gun also has a single underbolt. I will have to look & see, but as I recall my gun has a reference to that patent stamped on it.

My understanding is that guns built prior to 1868 were gauged at the muzzle. After 1868 if the gun was choke bored this had to be stated by the maker & then it was gauged from both the breech & muzzle with gauge marked as for example 12B/14M Not For Ball. Cylinder bore guns were I believe still often gauged from the muzzle prior to1887.

From everything, I have ever read on the subject prior to 1887 the proof house only listed gauges by whole sizes, ie 8, 9, 10, 11 12 & Etc. down through 50 gauge 0.453"). From 50 gauge down in hose early days, they began at .450" (51.05 gauge) & went down in.010" increments with the gauge number rounded to two decimal places. What we today call a .300 caliber was then listed as a 172.28 gauge.

Here are scans from "The British Shotgun, Volume one 1850-1870" by Ian Crudgington & David Baker. Although the Mathews top lever illustrated is shorter (earlier?) than the mystery gun's, both share a back set lever and the naughty bits of the locking bolt linkage are a dead ringer. Additionally the combination of high grade gun, short top lever spindle and single bite tend to point at an early top lever type.






Markus

Haha. "The naughty bits!" is a new term to me.
Thanks so much, Markus and 2-Piper. It seems you have nailed it with the Mathews patent.
John