doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion German & Austrian Sporting Guns @ doublegunshop.com Hammer Drilling with Lefaucheux forend from 1937?

I was looking with interest at an unnamed hammer Drilling last weekend.
Its chambers were 16g, and 6.5x58R with a recommendation for an 8.2gram copper-jacketed bullet on the rifle barrel but no charge weight. Unfortunately (inexplicably?) the 6.5x58R is not an officially obsolete cartridge in the UK.
The engraving was comprehensive and attractive, in a style seemingly influenced by the Art Nouveau movement.
I was surprised, however, to see a proof date of "5.37". Were German makers really producing hammer/Lefaucheux guns that late, or was this an older gun (pre.1890) that had dodged the proof house for several decades?
Regrettably, I couldn't make out a mark that would let me identify where it was proofed.
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/fhxke4i4dpffbah/Action%20RH%20side%2001a.jpg?dl=0[/img]
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/4erg7atxydtqft0/Proof%20marks.jpg?dl=0[/img]

Zella - Mehlis in 1937. Now considering the platform, all the chicken scratching, etc. I was hazard a guess that it was an early, possibly pre-1893, longarm and the platform was alterered in some way and passed thru the Z-M Proof Facility in the late 1930s. But then again, times were most difficult & these components that compose the platform may have been al the mechanic had on hand. I would like to see the marks in person.


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

I could not find a repair proof, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. It is possible that it was new in 1937, but unlikely. You could have a similar gun made today, if you want one badly enough. I agree with Raimey that a close "hands on" inspection of the markings might reveal something. I'm sure you will find that the bullet is 8.2 grams rather than 82 grams.
Mike

Those pesky decimal points!
(Original post duly amended)

Many thanks for your most helpful reply. Could you explain what "chicken scratching" is, please?

JulesW,
It is also sometimes confusing because instead of a decimal point, they usually used a comma.
Mike

Thanks. The gun does have a replacement hammer on the left-hand lock. Is it possible that when it was taken to a gun maker to have this fitted, was found to be un-proofed, and duly sent to the proof house? I imagine re-proof would not have been required on an already-proofed gun, but perhaps that was the point where legislation caught up with this one?

Regarding the >>Chicken Scratching<<, just a reference to all the overstamps?, errand marks?, scratches, maybe blurred foto, all that prevent one from seeing just what has occurred. The Chaos is akin to a Mother Chicken scratching the ground in an adhoc fashion trying to teach her bitties to hunt for food. Just a lot of noise & such that obscures what the marks actually are...

That lower >>J<< is more than likely for a Jäger mechanic.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

It could be that the custodian wanted the >>Nitro<< Stamp, but outside of that I am just not sure unless there was some alteration on the platform. Possibly a whole new tubeset was added replacing the pattern welded tubes with which it was originally equipped. But an image of the water-table just might shed some light.

Serbus,


Raimey
rse

Thanks, I wish it were a better photo. Believe it or not, this de-saturated, slightly-sharpened and contrast-boosted version is a lot more readable than the original.

Thanks, that could be it. I confess I've never handled a Drilling of a sufficiently early date to have pattern-welded barrels, but I can see how the hammer/Lefaucheux elements might fit nicely with that. I regret that I don't have an image of the action "table" (not so flat in the case of a Drilling!)

I doubt that replacement of a hammer would require a repair proof, in itself. However, an owner could voluntarily have the drilling submitted for proof, maybe it was being sold and the new owner wanted it proofed. There is no evidence of this, it is only a guess, but possible.
Mike

https://doublegunshop.com/forums/ub...ds=lefaucheux&Search=true#Post569909






I would hazard a guess that the original tubes, if any, resembled the pattern welded(twist?) ones in this thread.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Thank you. Some fascinating stylistic features on that gun, and some good-looking barrels!
I was thinking about the choice of chambering: 6.5x58 S&S. It seems this was introduced in the late 1890s and was going out of fashion by 1937 (https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/6-5-x-58rmm-sauer-attribution/24402/3). This might make the idea of a rebarrel around the latter date seem less likely, although perhaps the owner was on such good terms with the "old" cartridge that they decided to keep it rather than opting for something more "modern".

Interesting mechanics marks above. Now according to the Krupp Steel Stamps, all three tubes are of the exact same Krupp Steel.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Remember too that Old Jägers held with old ways. The platform for example, a very old style platform so I think the Jäger would have demanded an antiquated kalibre too.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

That sounds very plausible, and I suppose they already knew the action could take the pressure of the old cartridge, whereas it's ability to resist the higher pressures of more modern alternatives, however strong the new barrels, was unknown.

I was flipping thru Dixon's Cartridge text & he gives that the 6,5x58.5R S&S arrived on the scene circa 1897. With that, maybe the marks were worked off, or a new tubeset was constructed in 6,5X58.5R S&S by the demand of the custodian?


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

I believe that the adornment is referred to as Wetzlaub, Altdeutscher Laubgravur or truncated to Deutscher Laub.... - Black Leaf Engraving....



https://www.engravingglossary.com/Hand%20Engraving%20Glossary%20A.htm


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

With regard to the choice of 6.5x58R S&S for the rifle cartridge, some hunting areas had only "Low"(small) game and there was no to little chance of encountering "High" (large) game. Even though Reh (Roe) deer is a trophy animal it is included under the designation of "Low" game. The 6.5x58R S&S was perfectly capable of cleanly taking Reh deer and was a popular cartridge for the purpose. If Dixon is correct and the cartridge was introduced in 1897, the Drilling would have fallen under the 1891 Proof Law and would have required proof when it was made. This would negate the possibility that an older non proofed gun might have been voluntarily submitted for proof in 1937, as I opined above.
Mike

Thanks for the link to the interesting comparative engraving images. They strike me as expressive of an earlier classic style that this gun is to some extent modernising. I found this image of a Sauer & Sohn dated 1910 in Klups' book, which -notwithstanding the mechanical differences - has a similar air, at least to my eye.
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/fl90864xeplaqxw/Sauer-1910-Klups.jpg?dl=0[/img]

Can you elaborate here and inform us Colonials?

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Indeed, very similar profile with a Roux Underlever.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

In the UK, each rifle (section 1 firearm) you own has to be independently authorized for purchase in advance by the licensing authority (police) based on a specific "good reason".
Except, some cartridges are classed as obsolete on account of the unavailability of ammunition for them, and guns so chambered can be acquired freeley as curiosities (wall-hangers) provided no steps are taken to obtain ammunition or to shoot them.
There is a list of obsolete cartridges. Nothing on it is not obsolete, but some obsolete things are not on it. If there is a rationale for this, I have yet to see it.
In most cases (i.e., unless its smoothbore barrels were also chambered for something obsolete, such as pinfire cartridges), this exemption would not apply to a Drilling.
However, a drilling with an obsolete chambering in the rifle barrel might be sold, on account of the consequent inconsequence of that chambering, not as a rifle (section 1) but as a shotgun (section 2). This difference matters because a person with a UK shotgun certificate can buy as many shotguns as they can securely store without requiring a unique authorization for each one.
Thus, had 6.5x58R been on the obsolete cartridges list, I could have bought the drilling to use simply as a shotgun (section 2) without requiring any prior authorization. Thereafter, if it seemed worth sourcing ammunition and using the rifled barrel, I could apply for a section 1 authorization for it.

I've not made any progress in the matter of dates, but have found images of guns with some similar features, albeit not an exact or complete set in either case.
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4p77km6iik2g9u/Adolf-Frank-hammer-drilling-RH.jpg?dl=0[/img]
A drilling by Adolf Frank based on an 1894 patent chambered for 16 Ga/8mm JR (Guns International). This has similar action profiling and decoration to the gun under discussion here. Unfortunately the seller's description doesn't show the proof marks or give a date.
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/3nibjllr61j686u/Stiegele-combi-Lefaucheux.jpg?dl=0[/img]
A combination gun by Carl Stiegele chambered in 16 Ga/9.9x47R; "Manufactured circa 1894" (Simpson Ltd). An earlier and more flamboyant gun than the one under discussion here, but the only other I have yet seen with this type of Lefaucheux action.

Many thanks for the information. I guess us Colonials take it for granted all the freedoms we currently have regarding firearms. But the 6.5x58.5R S&S should be easily formed from 360 BPE brass. If not, a stop by Ford's shop will put one on the straight & narrow.


I can't get Imgbox to function this am so I will post images of the Lovely Stiegele in 9,9X47R as well as another or two when the platform stabilizes. I do wonder how Simpson knows that the Stiegele was made in 1894?

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Stiegele with just Lovely adornment....







I think the Lefaucheux platform is more of a request from the purchaser / custodian rather than that of the maker?

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Ed. Girku of Kaufbeuren Bavaria with a 10 mm tube... and a Bavarian Stock, of course.


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Note that the Jones underlever functions the same as this, only the shape of the lever is different, lending credence to the idea that it was a matter of taste. The "slide and tip" type such as Collath used is different.
Mike

Too I think it was the Husky Modell 20 or similar that continued to be a favourite well into the 20th Century.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

It is indeed wonderful how many cartridges that are no longer commercially loaded can be brought back into use thanks to the internet and a little expertise.
Sorry they aren't displaying properly and thanks for finding a workaround.
Yes. I wish more photo sets on dealers' sites and elsewhere would include good shots of the proof marks. (I know mine could be better, but at least it shows most of the the essentials.)

That's very interesting (Wikipedia suggests production ceased in the "late 1960s"). I had previously perceived the Lefaucheux lever as a relatively short-lived, mid-nineteenth-century design, but that was evidently the product of an insular British perspective!

I have a hammer Husqvarna 17C Lefaucheux Cape in 16 ga and 9.3x57R (360) that some lists show being made up until 1942. (But I'm sure a lot get sold as pre 1898 on appearance and lack of any published dated serial list or dated proof marks.)