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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 members (2 invisible),
309
guests, and
2
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,373
Posts543,977
Members14,389
|
Most Online1,131 Jan 21st, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869 |
I took the gamble on an oldie, am pretty sure it is pre 1900(maybe even the '70s). My question stems from something I saw on SSM board....do the "choke" and "not for ball" markings actually come from different eras? I ran the bore gauge through the very clean bores and got .775/.777, seems that would match perfect with markings? Cannot wait to get it home(is impounded for 24....Illinois thing) to check wall thickness and run some BP through it at some clays....seems to be in amazingly unabused condition. Happy holidays, Mark
Last edited by 775; 12/24/06 01:23 PM.
Ms. Raven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
Mark, congrats. It's a very nice looking gun. What maker? Seems choked pretty tight.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869 |
Thank you Mike, would appear I got very lucky. http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=7755667I got to look it over a bit when I went to FFL to get paperwork done but did not pay lots of attention to the actual choke constrictions....was kinda hard to concentrate on anything specific once I had a good idea about it being on face and not honed to death. Lever is over a little but it is rock solid even with FE off. Best, Mark
Ms. Raven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
Mark I was going by the choke proofmarks. 10bore and 12ga muzzle. That has to be about .045". .775 - .729 average.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,960 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,960 Likes: 89 |
Looks to me as though you lucked into one heck of a fine gun. Early, probably the 70"s. Certainly had the quality built into it. Great wood and engraving. Betcha the internals on the locks are pretty. Post some better photos when you get it home.
Merry Christmas!
When an old man dies a library burns to the ground. (Old African proverb)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
The marks show Birmingham proof between 1875 and 1887. The hammer style is typical of the mid 1880s. The Deeley & Edge forend catch was patented in 1873.
'J.P Clayborough & Johnstone' traded from 1894. 'Clayborough & Brothers' traded from 1883-1894. 'Clayborough Brothers' traded from 1872-1882.
I would guess the gun dates from around 1885. The quality looks good. It has been re-jointed.
For what you paid, you can feel rather pleased with yourself. I hope you drop a few ducks with it before season's end.
Last edited by Small Bore; 12/24/06 02:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,274 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,274 Likes: 1 |
The "not for ball" marks were used from 1875 to 1887. the "choke" mark was used from 1875 to 1955. The latest the gun could have been made was 1887, I will check Claybourgh history next time I am on the IGC web site. Appears to be a nice gun. Jim
I learn something every day, and a lot of times it's that what I learned the day before was wrong
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,752
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,752 |
Mark:
Really lovely gun. Christmas present to yourself? Well chosen.
I have a question - you mention it is impounded for 24 hours. Is this some legal requirement? Is it just for antiques? Shotguns? Is there a stated rationale?
You buy an antique made prior to 1887 and can't take immediate possssion of it? Do you still have to do a Form 4473?
Just curious about " how the other half lives".
Regards
GKT
Texas Declaration of Independence 1836 -The Indictment against the dictatorship, Para.16:"It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869 |
Many thanks to all for the clarification on the proof dates, very appreciated.
Dig, I was a bit concerned by the fit in the photos of the rib extension and the rearward bite through the frame....and must admit to not looking for a seam when I looked for any "BFH SMITHING". Is that, with it's current sound lockup what gives this away as a rejoint? The fit "seemed" better in person. Gun has certainly been well used, or at the very least in and out of the case many times as the muzzles have similar engraving bands as the breech ends but are worn very faint on the outboard edges.....and as suspect as the finish looks on the barrels they proved to be suffering only from a) NO finish remaining, and b) some dark spots that don't seem to affect the surface texture.
Greg, I sincerely hope I am not a part of a half of us!! Would pray I am part of a very small minority. In Illinois any antique long gun gets the same background check/paperwork as a modern iron...or so I am told. Either way, I would not be here to take delivery in person, so the $30 I pay to have the FFL down the street to take delivery as opposed to having it sit on my porch all day is worth it for my situation. But yes, still not a good thing in the greater scheme of things.
Best, and thanks, Mark
Ms. Raven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 517
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 517 |
You were told wrong, Mark. No FFL is needed for antique guns--even in this awful state. GJZ in Lombard.
|
|
|
|
|