|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,520
Posts545,762
Members14,419
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 518 Likes: 58
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 518 Likes: 58 |
pin locations are not a guarantee of the action type. To know for sure if this ia a Beesley action one would have to see the action flats
This ain't a dress rehearsal , Don't Let the Old Man IN
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 144 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 144 Likes: 3 |
My bet is it is a completely legit Purdey action, very early one. I have pic of Purdey built in 1881 with same lockplate shape, same pin placement, same carved leaf motifs on the 'detonating' and virtually the same shape to detonating. I'd bet the same man engraved motifs. It is an underlever gun, however, and safety shape is different. Note the lettering, style of fine scroll, even the 'arrow'on the tumbler axle are consistent with Purdey's.
Remember this design was in its infancy in early 1880s and various shapes to fences, lockplates et al were in transitional state.
Don't know about the barrels, though.
Quick Edit: I suspect this gun does not have interceptors -- see Greener's p. 175 (ninth edition) and you will see similar pin placement with his illustration.
Last edited by Vic Venters; 08/11/09 12:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866 |
A number of early Purdey hammerless and a larger number of hammer guns which originally had damascus barrels were re-barreled at a later date by Purdeys with Whitworth steel barrels. This could be one.
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid,than open it and confirm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
Vic - thanks for chiming in. Do you think it's a Beesley or a Gibbs & Pitt? And check out the pin in the forend. That looks like an axis for kickers/ejectors to me. The listing says extractors, so who knows.
Terry - the odd thing about these bbls is the address on the rib - 314 1/2. If this is a re-bbl, they either used the old rib and added the Whitworth mention, or they used the old address on a newer rib. Either way, it's odd.
OWD
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,737 Likes: 96
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,737 Likes: 96 |
I certainly don't think it's a Gibbs & Pitt action. I perhaps confused the issue by saying that some of their earlies hammerless guns were made on this type of action.
Why on earth put an address on the top rib from which they had finished trading when this action was obviously made if it was re-barrelled? I would want to know a lot more before I was tempted to part with any money. Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 144 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 144 Likes: 3 |
OWD:
I think Beesley action sans interceptors.
If you can get serial that would help (or description).
The pin in forend iron made me go "hmmm" too.
Barrels: gosh knows. Maybe recycled rib?
Too bad about the Miller. As good as a trigger as it is, shame to see an early Beesley (if that is the case) so altered. I tend to think guns like that belong in collections or museums.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 353 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 353 Likes: 1 |
My bet is it is a completely legit Purdey action, very early one. I have pic of Purdey built in 1881 with same lockplate shape, same pin placement, same carved leaf motifs on the 'detonating' and virtually the same shape to detonating. I'd bet the same man engraved motifs. It is an underlever gun, however, and safety shape is different. Note the lettering, style of fine scroll, even the 'arrow'on the tumbler axle are consistent with Purdey's.
Remember this design was in its infancy in early 1880s and various shapes to fences, lockplates et al were in transitional state.
Don't know about the barrels, though.
Quick Edit: I suspect this gun does not have interceptors -- see Greener's p. 175 (ninth edition) and you will see similar pin placement with his illustration. Here's a scan of Greener, page 175:  And here's an image of a Beesley action with the interceptor:  I believe the gun at issue does have interceptors. Curl
Last edited by CptCurl; 08/11/09 05:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 353 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 353 Likes: 1 |
Correct. It has the same five-pin configuration as the gun at issue, but not the straight edge locks. Here's the gun at issue:  Here's the gun you just mentioned from Steve Barnett:  Here's the later seven-pin gun (the "comparison" gun from the first post):  Curl
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
Yeah - right. But I think the shape of the locks is a style/transitional thing. I would be a lot of money that Purdey #1 is the earliest of the three. It's whole style is a lot different.
The first Purdey appears to have been made on the same generation Beesley action as #2. #3 is a much later gun with a more evolved version of the Beesley patent.
BTW: nice engraving on #3.
OWD
Last edited by obsessed-with-doubles; 08/13/09 09:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from rbsiii.com]](http://www.rbsiii.com/Guns/Purdey_500_top_360.jpg)