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
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (redoak),
139
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,182
Posts553,688
Members14,485
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534 |
I am convinced that the change from cm to mm dates from 1906-1914, but don't know exactly when. I most doubt that a call to the St-Etienne office would resolve that.
It would be very nice to know when and accessorily why. The change between CGS system (centimeter, gram, second) to MKS system (meter, kilogram, second) is much later, so I don't think that it plays a role here. One of the reason would be that a lone "7" looks funny.
I did not know that DD put a date on his barrels. The first one I know who did this was Bernard, and that is documented in a different thread. It is important to understand that in the French trade, barrel makers would make barrel sets (with lumps, ribs, etc.) and not individual barrels. With LB I have documented many cases where there was a significant (years) lapse of time between barrel making and gun finishing.
Final proofing is always the job of the gun maker. But provisional proof is the job of the barrel maker.
So there could be a lapse between barrel dates and final proof dates.
The use of T powder is also questionable. MF used S powder proofing much after 1900. Sometimes multiple proofs were done at the same time. I have a Pirlet gun with PJ, PS and PM marks.
All the best... WC-
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534 |
Actually, digging further, MKS was introduced in 1889 so that change could have been the reason. Best regards, WC-
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,492 Likes: 139
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,492 Likes: 139 |
Probably best to remember that with those French ladies, don't think only about dating them. Think about taking them home for a longer term relationship. At least when we are speaking of Darne products, you aren't holding up your end of the bargain, Mr. Brown... Best, Ted That's true, Ted. I've determined that those French sliding breech blondes aren't for me. Doesn't mean I wouldn't take home a sweet break action brunette.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,373 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,373 Likes: 391 |
WC, I'm not quite understanding a couple of points in the post (And I'm pretty much a novice so pls have patience).
-- Saint-Etienne barrel makers made and assembled both barrels with lumps and ribs then sold them to the gun makers. So all the lumps were the same for all the manufactures? Darne, VC, ZF...all what..95 of them?
-- And there are two 7cm chambered DD barrels dated 1906 above. We've documented in another line how many different shells were being marketed in America by 1900. This line can only document two different French chambers for shells at the time - 6.5 and 7.0. Is there anyway to find out what shells were being made and sold in France at the time and what guns were chambered for them? It looks like universally 6.5 with the occasional 7. and that's it. Yet British gunmakers like Americans were ramping up the length and power of their double riflesand shotgun cartridges/shells at the time.
Finally, Passionlachasse.com and other sites have questioned the date of the change over from cm to mm in Saint-Etienne guns. 1912 seems to be the most accepted possible date. All agree that if this can be nailed down, it will be an important marker for French guns. There has to be some directive/documentation on this. It's worth the effort historically to track it down. But no one seems to want to take the bull by the horns and actually write to the proof house or do the research. There just has to have been a directive.
Last edited by Argo44; 07/01/17 11:34 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534 |
- re: barrel making. I am sure the barrel maker would do anything as asked: barrel length, width at the breech, weight, rib extension, type, length and width of lumps etc. However, it was his responsibility to have the barrels assembled and provisionally proved. This was done for sure by the best vendors such as LB or DD or Jean Breuil or Heurtier (who did braze their ribs..). Some vendors might have provided individual barrels upon request. And of course Granger did everything himself AFAIK. - 65mm was the mainstay at least until WWII. Pigeon guns were different of course. I would say that 70mm took off well after WWII for general usage. 67mm was and still is also an option at least for the ammo. Again I'll look in the MF catalog to study the trend. - it would be fun to call the "banc d’épreuve" and ask! That would be amusing for sure. There most likely was some paperwork associated with that, but I doubt it showed up on the "journal Officiel". And if the paperwork still exists in St-Etienne , it is buried way deep in there... Best regards, WC-
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,373 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,373 Likes: 391 |
7 cm chamber: Another Didier-Drevet barrel - previously posted by Raimey; Can't see the date but it's an "Acier Mandrine" (I think Mandrine means "machined" or "rolled" on a mandrel - a central chuck; see the 1900 barrel with the same "Acier Mandrine") SN looks like 12537?? (1908 per SN progression). 18.4 and it's chambered for 7 cm. (Made for a Darne??). If you can match up the gun SN with the barrel date, you might have a ball park idea of when that particular gun were made. 7.5 cm chamber: And this is interesting: An 1890-1912(?) 18.2 guage G.Peyron hammer gun chambered for 7.5 cm. Barrels by Marsot. "Double verrou,levier à volute" à platines "en avant" dont on trouve déjà des modèles dans des catalogues de 1884,mais il doit en exister de plus anciens car le "Levier à volute" existait déja sur des Lefaucheux à broche. Le Levier à volute ne doit pas être confondu avec un système voisin la "Clé Beringer" ou "Pontet-Serpent" . Les premiers commandent une fermeture dite "en "T"" ou "T anglais" ("Tea time's" ?) Very Happy ;mais par la suite ils seront comme le tien adapté à un double verrou classique. Pour donner un point de comparaison permettant de le dater; la "ManuF" à proposé des modèles strictement identiques au tien de 1890 à 1900 avec des canons Damas Je n'ai pas réussi à trouver s'il y avait eu après 1900 des modèles à canons acier comme ce fut le cas pour les modèles à platines "en arrière" jusqu'en 1912 . Il faut toutefois noter que les modèles "en avant" comme le tien valaient en 1893 20% de plus que les modèles "en arrière" à canonerie égale. Mais le "Levier à volute" pu aussi bien être abandonné pour les modèles les plus chers, et réservé aux modèles "économiques" vu la diffusion après 1900 de la clé "Top Lever" que nous utilisons encore. http://www.tircollection.com/t22742-fusil-de-chasse-g-peyron
Last edited by Argo44; 07/11/17 10:29 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,492 Likes: 139
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,492 Likes: 139 |
Argo, I'm a little suspicious about those 7.5's. Virtually nothing else nearly as clearly legible. Makes me wonder whether they might have been lengthened later on--perhaps by someone clever enough to know that on a gun of that vintage, they needed to use 7.5 rather than 75.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,373 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,373 Likes: 391 |
I don't know Larry; it's a fascinating looking under-lever with apparently Damascus barrels though they look steel in the photo. Here is the comment about the chambering:
Concernant le chambrage il est vrai que les fusils de cette époque étaient chambrés à 65 mm toutefois certains modèles dit "à chambre longue" existaient, et si je te parle de çà c'est que le double marquages "7.5" m'interpelle car je me demande s'il ne s'agit pas de la longueur de chambre en cm. As for the chambering, it's true that long arms from this era were chambered for 65mm although certain models called "long chamber" existed. If I speak of this, it's because of the double mark "7.5" especially since I'm wondering whether this might not refer to the length of the chamber in cm.
And by the way, the poster uses three words for types of underlevers: -- levier à volute -- Lefaucheux à clé -- Clé Beringer" or "Pontet-Serpent
Last edited by Argo44; 07/03/17 02:28 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,373 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,373 Likes: 391 |
Mike, I just realized your "19468" is not the SN for the DD barrels. The DD barrel SN is 1918 - 14204 per comment above. That 19468 must refer to something else; perhaps the SN of the gun itself?
Last edited by Argo44; 07/03/17 02:50 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,578 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,578 Likes: 194 |
YES, and I just looked again and there is that second set of numbers 1918 . 14202 Mike
USAF RET 1971-95
|
|
|
|
|