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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
629
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,014
Members14,391
|
Most Online1,258 Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
I do not believe this one needed to go through an FFL. But as Mark stated, some times there is an upside. Illinois law imposes a 24 hour waiting period for any long gun and 72 hours for any hand gun. A background check takes place for both.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
.... The quality looks good. It has been re-jointed. ... I am curious. How can you tell it has been rejointed? Pete
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869 |
Joe, good to hear from you, and if I can trust anyone here(IL)it is you. I still needed someone I could count on to take delivery in my best interest though, so as misguided as it may have been, it works best for me and was not of great expense. Hope the cookies turned out well this year!
PeterM...my guess is that there are indications in the top and rear under-bite that it was loose at one point, and I trust Dig would have a good feel for that. Will post detailed pics after Christmas when I have it in me grubby lil hands.
Be safe, and well, Mark
Ms. Raven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,274 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,274 Likes: 1 |
Mark, I checked and downloaded Clabroughs' history from IGC if you want it I can email it to you, I am not sure that PM will work. My email is on my profile. Jim
I learn something every day, and a lot of times it's that what I learned the day before was wrong
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 869 |
James, thank you!
Has the pay-or-free status of IGC been hammered out yet, if so what is it?
Would really be in my best interest to have access to the site if not to expensive.
I did a bit of a search of the web and found many "JP"s...none of which matched mine, some were close though...but usually twist, withought the percussion fences or both...never found a duplicate of the engraving.
I am at marksduer at aol dot com if you would feel better about not having your personal email on the wind.
Thank you, Mark
Ms. Raven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
I could be wrong on the following but believe generally speaking it would not be normal to find both "Not for Ball" & "Choke" stamped on the same gun. The Bore/Muzzle mark along with Not for Ball was replaced by the single bore mark & the word choke in 1887 along with the "Chamber mark, ie 10/C in diamond. Note also that 1887 was also when the gauge sub-divisions were added, ie 12/1 etc. Simple plug gages were used for measurement thus the 12 mark for muzzle does not mean an Absolute .729" dia, only that the .729" gage would enter but the next one up would not. 11 ga was .751" & 12/1 .740". Since bores still measure very close to nominal .775" for 10ga, depending upon exact time built choke could be from .046"-.036" (12-12/1) or .046"-.024" (12-11). May not be excessive at all. I would expect build date to be very close to the 1887 date & got a portion of both systems. Quite possibly an error in the transition from one to the other.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
2-piper, I have 4 guns that have both "not for ball" and "choke" on them. I thought that was normal since thats what I almost always see.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Mike; The only pre 1887 English guns I have are all cylinder bore. 1 muzzle loader, 1 pin fire & 1 side lever center fire. None of these thus have either marking, only a single gauge mark. All three of the sources I have for proof marks (Wirnsberger, Englehardt & Kennet), though seem to agree the word choke replaced the Not for Ball in 1887, along with the other changes mentioned. The gun pictured here has no indication of a "RE-Proof" & I assume neither do yours. It seems to become quite obvious that for at least some portion of time "Choke" was added to the old markings with no other change. Do you have any other means of dating your guns other than the proof mark period? Thanks much for your input.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
My Westley has been SNed to 1882 and has both.
Last edited by Mike Harrell; 12/25/06 08:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,693 Likes: 450
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,693 Likes: 450 |
I have the twin sister of it but choked tighter than heck. Thought about buying this one as well but one was enough for me. Love those short tens. 10 pounds makes it too heavy to carry but it does shoot well. Shot a couple Bismuth reloads in it using my home made 12 gauge chamber mates and bismuth reloads. Nice patterns which should drop a Black duck this week.
|
|
|
|
|