|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,466
Posts545,090
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,266 Likes: 93
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,266 Likes: 93 |
From what I see these two name guns are made the same except the scallop frame and extensive engraving on the Tolley. The Powell was a 2" chamber gun. What I'm not sure of is the Tolley a 2" gun? I have reached out to the seller with no reply... yet. W. Powell  JW. Tolley  W. Powell  JW. Tolley  W. Powell  JW. Tolley  W. Powell  JW. Tolley  
Last edited by battle; 05/26/20 10:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,417 Likes: 313
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,417 Likes: 313 |
I'm always wrong with British proof marks, but 90 guys have looked at this without risking embarrassment, so here goes.   It was originally proved pre-1954 for 2" chambers with 7/8 oz. shot. The original bore was 13/1 = .719-.728". Most of the pre-54' marks were lined out (including the 2") when re-proved (I think the Birmingham date code 'T' is 1968) when the chambers were lengthened to 2 3/4". The number forward of the TONS PER sq. inch. (which is a post-54' mark as is the Crown over BNP) appears to be covered by the different font 2 3/4 mark. 2 3/4" should be 3 1/4 tons Someone smarter may now correct me, but I tried 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 166 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 166 Likes: 19 |
It has also been sleeved. It's marked on the side of the barrels, and you can see the line in the bottom picture.
----MattH
President, Ga. Vintagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,084 Likes: 35
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,084 Likes: 35 |
I think the 2-3/4" mark refers to tons, not that it was rechambered.
I believe I remember reading that in 1954, when the proof houses went to using tons, 3 tons was standard proof for the 2-1/2" gun, and they dropped it down to 2-3/4 tons for 2" guns.
The reproof was probably done when it was sleeved. Bit of rust coming out of those sleeve joints...
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
- Errol Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,266 Likes: 93
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,266 Likes: 93 |
I think the 2-3/4" mark refers to tons, not that it was rechambered.
I believe I remember reading that in 1954, when the proof houses went to using tons, 3 tons was standard proof for the 2-1/2" gun, and they dropped it down to 2-3/4 tons for 2" guns.
The reproof was probably done when it was sleeved. Bit of rust coming out of those sleeve joints... This was my understanding as well. I'm also wandering if after the sleeve (which I didn't notice) if the new tubes are now 2 3/4" chambers. But wouldn't the original barrel stub still marked "for 2" inch case" ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,417 Likes: 313
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,417 Likes: 313 |
Why was the '2' lined out?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,084 Likes: 35
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,084 Likes: 35 |
Not sure Drew, it looks like they lined out a lot of things they didn't need to. Perhaps the gun was known to be out of proof at one point and the marks were struck off so it couldn't be sold. Then, when it was sleeved and reproofed, they stamped over them. Here are two reproofed guns I have, neither had the old marks struck off. An 1894 Whitworth Steel Purdey that was reproofed in 1924 for Nitro powders...  A damascus Warrilow that I suspect was made in the late 1880's - early 1890's, reproofed in 2001 
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
- Errol Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105 |
Agree that the 2 3/4 goes with tons, not chamber length.
That's one of the messiest jobs I've seen with multiple sets of proofmarks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,124 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,124 Likes: 19 |
Not sure Drew, it looks like they lined out a lot of things they didn't need to. Perhaps the gun was known to be out of proof at one point and the marks were struck off so it couldn't be sold. Then, when it was sleeved and reproofed, they stamped over them. Here are two reproofed guns I have, neither had the old marks struck off. An 1894 Whitworth Steel Purdey that was reproofed in 1924 for Nitro powders... A damascus Warrilow that I suspect was made in the late 1880's - early 1890's, reproofed in 2001 That is more than likely the case!
|
|
|
|
|
