doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lefever - Maker of Double Rifle Barrels?

I was able to find 3 US patents issued Nov 1, 1870 that related to fire arms. A similar search for Nov 1, 1876 turned up no firearm patents issued day. At least that I could find.

This is the most likely in my opinion:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=jH1cAAAAEBAJ&dq=108942&num=30

Patent number: 108942
Issue date: Nov 1, 1870
Inventor: WILLIAM MIDDLEDITOH SCOTT

Be it known that I, WILLIAM MIBDLEDITCH SCOTT, of the firm of W. and 0. SCOTT & Sos, of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, England, gun manufacturers, a subject of the Queen of Great Britain.

My invention relates to breech-loading fire-arms of the kind commonly called drop-down guns, and consists of the improvements hereinafter described in the construction of the joint ou which the barrel or barrels turn, the said improvements having for their object to preserve the close contact of the breech ends of the barrels against the face of the break-off when the barrels are shut down, notwithstanding the wear to which the said joint is exposed. Figures is the same, with the adjustable joint-hook in longitudinal section. In constructing the joints of drop-down guns according to my invention, I make the parts in the ordinary manner, excepting that instead of making that part of the joint called the hpok on the end of the lurnp'on the under side of the barrels in one piece,with the said lump, I make the said hook separate from the lump and connect it therewith and adjust it in the following manner: I make the said hook of.a separate block or piece of iron or steel, having at its back a stem.


http://www.google.com/patents?id=F2NcAAAAEBAJ&dq=108869&num=30

Patent number: 108869
Issue date: Nov 1, 1870
Inventor: HIEAM BEEDAN
Assignee: THE BEEDAN FIREARMS
HIEAM BEEDAN, OF NEW YORK, N. Y., ASSIGNED TO THE BEEDAN FIREARMS COMPANY

This invention relates to that class of breech-loading fire-arms the breech-piece of which is in the form of a sliding bolt, opening and closing with a movement parallel, or nearly so, with the bore of the barrel. In this class of breechloaders it has been heretofore difficult to obtain a cartridge-shell extractor positive and reliable in its action.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=9mJcAAAAEBAJ&dq=108836&num=30

Patent number: 108836
Issue date: Nov 1, 1870
Inventor: PETER SCHULER

Morris, in the county of Ripley and State of Indiana

The invention consists also in a novel construction of said cartridge-shell and head, the latter being provided with a groove for the locking-cam. The -invention consists also in the use of a spring-dog for holding the hammer cocked

Pete

I had an early set with 11 bore stamps on it in front of me when I posted, and have seen many more. In my experience, I have to disagree, the first digit is never inverted. They were stamped with a single die.



I suppose anything is possible, but it would take a really strange pit with uniform curves on both sides and perfectly placed to make a "1" into a perfect reversed "J".

Sorry we disagree.

A solid case of "much ado about nothing"

This set of barrels is essentially a rescued door prop, which in a former life was most interestingly a Rube Goldberg effort at a sleeve-job shotgun-to-rifle conversion.

Today it sits rusted, sandblasted, and scrutinized here - but for what effect?
There's no historical significance there, the work shown is unconventional in a somewhat garish fashion, and there's no stock/action/locks to accompany it.


Am I missing something or is there supposed to be a gem perched in those pits?



--Tinker

All of the British proofed guns I have seen from this era had the Provisional proof, the Definitive proof, the View mark & bore size stamped in a line. If it is not a somehow goofed up 11 then it would not have been put there by the proof house. Why would the maker put another stamp in line with the proofs. "IF" it is a reversed J then it had to be made in reverse, you can't turn a steel stamp over & make it stamp backwards. You can turn it upside down, but not backwards.

There's a lot of why in proof/makers/inspectors marks.
On stamping characters, I have examples of marks on guns that could only be explained as 'reversed *sometihing*'
Although you cannot reverse the character that a punch will render, you can make a punch that will render a reversed character.

I've done it, and I know of quite a few other die makers who've done the same thing, some times on command, some times by a mistake.
It takes the same amount of work to make 'mirror image' punches as it does the other way...

Why?
I don't know.
That character next to the '1' doesn't look like a '1' to me, and it looks to clearly have a radius involved in it's features (I'm using the shadows as a guide there) - but it also is sitting in a field of pits.

Still, we're talking about a set of marks on what appears to be a roach of a set of barrels. With better photos the story could change. My sense it that with better pictures, this set of barrels will look worse.

If the OP (or anyone) has an action that they'll fit them to, they'll start to have some value - but that value won't surface until after a considerable amount of metalwork is thrown at them - only then (and after cartridge/load development happens) will anyone know if they will actually *Shoot*!


There seems to be some undercurrent of speculation around this topic. Does anyone here actually think that this barrel set has historical or other significance or value?
Honest question there, as this barrel set isn't ringing any bells of value for me and I freely admit that there's a lot of 'gun crap' for me to learn...



--Tinker

Well no, I don't necessarily think it has a lot of intrinsic value. Someone however did ask a question about it. "If" I asked about a Crescent I would appreciate an attempt to answer the question asked, & not "Well it's not A Purdey, so not Worth Discussing". As to the stamp, yes it is quite possible to make a mirrop image stamp, all I was saying was they didn't just pick up a letter J from an alphabet set & stamp it backwards as this don't work that way. It is at a location where the bore size should be stamped which should consist of two mumerals & not a letter & a numeral, forward or backwards. If that was not intended as an 11 then they totally omitted the gauge marking, as is not present elsewhere. This gun was proofed prior to the chamber markings.

Last call on this for me & I concur with 2-piper in what he has posted but then again I agree with tinker that it's a mute point. But the London stamps from the period that I have seen form a set of brackets and for some reason the left "1" looks to be inverted with respect to and facing the right "1". It could just be a worn die, they guy was just making 8(hours-possibly 10) and wouldn't have dreamed that 120+ years from then a group of folk would be arguing whether it was an "11" or not. But as 2-piper posted it holds the typical position for the bore plug gauge that passed. If you have the software, pull the image into a view and zoom in and you can see the tip of the "1" beside a pit.

400 Nitro Express: no worries on the difference of opinion as that's what makes the world go round. But I am going to pull a revdocdrew and start a photo folder of London marks for the period(1870-1877).

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Fellas:

Have a gander at the 3rd row, 2nd pic which clearly shows the brackets, inverted left one, poorly stamped making 8, worn die, etc. that I'm referring to at: http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/conten...erarchyId=11655 . This is the typical mark that I see for the "11" and although I've stated that it's akin to brackets, I stand corrected that the left "1" doesn't have a bracket at the top left. Put a dollop of pitting between the 2 and voila you have our mystery mark. Ok, this is my last call on the "11" topic.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Here for comparison.






In this perspective, that screwy character is looking quite a bit like the one on the Woodward.

The rest of that Woodward is a peach!
If y'all haven't gone to the cabelas site to look at it I suggest you do. Worth the click.

And Piper, don't confuse me with someone who can't work a lather up over anything but a Purdey. You and many others here have seen a few of my irons that Purdey wouldn't likely let in the door.
In the interest of calling a spade a spade, the barrel set we're discussing more resembles a spade than most things this group usually gets worked up over -- hence my question regarding speculation.
I hope that translates well for you, no interest from my end to offend anyone -- I'll assume that the craftsman who wrought this crowbar isn't among us...


Cheers
Tinker

Tinker;
I just used the Purdey name because I was interpretating you as saying these bbls weren't worth even having a discussion. I wasn't discussing the value of the bbls, just what were the marks. Now this Woodward is for sure worth discussing but as noted the first 1 looks very much like the one on the others. I also note the marks for bore & muzzle (choke) should read 11B/12M, but instead they read 11B/12N. Now, what does the N represent here??, & this is certainly on a nice set of bbls. Anything we can learn helps to give us a better overall understanding, regardless of the gun's value itself.