I've finished the Reilly history. But this gun on Gunsinternational is interesting:

https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...ar-drop-locks.cfm?gun_id=102028688#sm-19

The SN 20659 dates it to early spring 1877. The weight is listed at 7 lbs 8.75 oz...which is far heavier than a standard Reilly field gun. It is chambered for 2 3/4" but there is no indication it has been reproofed so that is likely original. The chambering needs to be confirmed from the seller. This is of course black powder. Chokes are "1/4" and cylinder but in a 1877 gun without a "not for ball" stamp, surely that "1/4" has been caused by honing the 30" Damascus barrels. The stock may be a replacement but well done. The locks are best quality Stanton's (Reilly would have charged a premium for them) and polished internally.

I assess this as a 1870's pigeon gun because of its weight and chambering. Reilly began advertising pigeon guns in 1868 and this became one of his main sporting advertisement promotions. Looks like a lot of drop.

The seller has his Reilly history mixed up - I sent him a correction but no matter...read the Reilly history line. The price at $1,500 appears to be is quite reasonable.

Gene,

It is very similar in various details (Stanton locks, fences, flat topped strikers and fore-end release) to a gun I once owned by John Patstone of Southampton. Mine had a W.C. Scott tower trade make and I believe was built by that firm.

The forend release is a Scott patent, used on their best guns.

I would REALLY like to see the wall thickness measurements on that one prior to purchase given that it was proofed at 13 and now measures .727 and .729. I would guess the 2.75 chambers were a later addition by a new world gunsmith.

I suppose $1500 does seem reasonable for a gun of this quality….until you start looking at the pics. It looks to be significantly off face (pic#4), the hinge pin slot seems to have been widened (or new pin made with incorrectly cut slot) and looks out of place (pic #4), the barrels will have to take a considerable amount of striking and work to make them look right too (pics # 12 & 20), pins do not match on the forend (pic #17). Nice locks, nice wood, some attractive features. Probably cost in excess of 2k to make it “right” and that’s if the barrels (bores, MWT, ribs) check out, etc. The barrels would need a lot of cosmetic work, they look pretty awful as is and while it may not drive some people nuts, it would definitely drive me nuts.

A wood guy is going to have to see about getting the action to sit right in the wood. The gaps around the top are heinous.

Looks like a ghoul with a screwdriver has pried that left lock out at some point in time. Those marks are so common on LC Smith locks I wonder if the factory put them there to save Tarzan some trouble.

Best,
Ted

Very interesting observations from some very sharp eyes and experienced evaluators on this board and these alone were worth the post. I followed up on each, studying the photos and learned a lot. The gun is 155 years old and certainly has flaws. Still, the weight of the gun was what led me comment on it. That was a pigeon gun. Hopefully someone will adopt it as a project.

Would agree with all of that ,it`s certainly had a life!!!!

I wonder what everyone else thinks of the original quality of this gun? The Stanton locks seem much nicer than the stock (no drop points) and engraving (decently executed scroll). The through lump also comes through the bottom of the action. Barrels look like pretty average quality damascus/pattern welded. I would call the gun mid-quality overall, anyone else think otherwise?

Well of course the through lump comes through…if it didn’t, it’d just be a plain ol’ lump😂.

I personally think too much emphasis has be given to the through lump being an indicator of quality. Dropper points on the stock…same thing.

As was pointed out earlier, the Stanton locks, the forend release, quality of engraving, the wood grade, quality of the damascus all points to a gun that cost it’s original owner some serious coin at the time it was bought. Also note the rounded strikers, those are a nice feature and they avoid peening of the tumbler’s/hammers. It’s not a “best” quality gun, but it’s a very high quality gun.

This is what I was thinking/driving at. At first blush, it seemed much nicer to me, then on a second or third pass a couple of things begin to jump out at me. A clearly very nice gun originally, but not best quality work as you point out.

Chambers look pretty pitted.

This is indeed probably the 2nd level of Reilly production at the time. First level - best gun engraving - would have been something like this:


It's still a pigeon gun. In my database of Reilly SN'd guns, anything in this weight range was meant for the pigeon ring.

Guess it doesn't hurt to dream....