I have two William Fords. Both 10ga chambers now. One is a chamberless 12 that was rechambered to 10ga (started with 12ga chambers and 10ga bores, now 10 and 10). The other is a chamberless 10 (8 bore barrels, 10 gauge chamber). Both were intended for brass shells.
The nicer of the two is the chamberless 10. Made post 1925. 3 1/4" chambers, proved for very stout loads (2 1/4 oz). Extensive engraving that doesn't align with its design as a heavy waterfowl gun. Can't imagine an English salt marsh as a great place for this nice a gun, but I guess if you have the money to spare, you might as well as have something nice to look at while you're waiting for the birds.
Dr Charles Heath is the inventor or lead advocate of chamberless shotguns. More can be found in this article, part of which is shared here:
The concept of the all-brass shell attracted the attention in England of Dr. Charles J. Heath, at one time president of the British Waterfowlers’ Association. Dr. Heath developed two precepts of shotgunning science that, in differing forms, are still with us today. One was a “chamberless gun” that might be thought of as an early attempt at backboring. Dr. Heath reasoned that with the thin brass tube shotshell there was no need for the heavy forcing cone required of a gun shooting the paper shells of the day and that it could be essentially removed and the bore enlarged to much the same size as the interior of the brass shell. Of course, such a shell would require much larger wads and, for waterfowlers, hold more powder and shot. At the same time such loads would not be suitable, perhaps even unsafe, for use in a gun of standard dimensions. Few chamberless guns, as Dr. Heath envisioned, were ever built.In addition to his interest in shooting and hunting, he was also credited with introducing the use of stainless steel surgical instruments to the operating theater.
https://loaddata.com/Article/LoadDevelopment/Handloading-Brass-Shotshells-Pt-1/126https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=276052&page=3BTW, apologies to the OP...my post has drifted far from the question at hand!
