My question is why any gunmaker would mark his name so garish and large. These photos don't reveal how loud the gold inlays are. The large font suggests it was meant to be viwed from a distance like advertising...but advertising for what? Why would any maker place their name so large and in gold? ... I'll try to re-photograph at dusk and re-post.

That's a cool gun. Here's another Pigeon 12 bore for 1 1/2oz loads. Betts signed his guns in gold, too. Maybe it's a Pigeon thing.

This is not a singular example. Boss had their name in huge letters an the lock plate,along with "Patent". Go figure

Agree with Daryl. Tom Marshall's Cashmore presentation gun courtesy of cc/dt





BTW: the barrels look like Greener's 'Silver Steel' (laminated steel)

Pretty gun. If the gold is too much to bear, let me know.

I would be happy to take it off your hands.

OWD

Yup, it's the pigeon thing. Makers wanted people to know what the competitors were shooting without a magnifying glass. Of course, Drew's Cashmore Nitro is hard to disquise.

Drew and Eightbore, those times were when some people shot and others stood around in groups, some trying to see the guns others were holding and using. I am sure these folks had money to spend on guns and bets.

I believe those barrels are English - Thos Kilby Damascus

It's not just pigeon guns. I have seen 'James Purdey and Sons' in big, bold, gold letters on some of their Extra Grades. A 26 inch 20 bore comes to mind, which clearly was not a live pigeon gun. In this case, maybe bragging rights??

Couple of Kilby Laminated Steel barrels toward the end here, but the resolution isn't adequate
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/21596890

This is Dr. Bill's and maybe he could comment



As Daryl said, live bird competitions were the major sporting events of the day. No professional football (Rutgers and Princeton played the first college football game in 1869), no basketball, and professional baseball just starting to take off. Sporting Life did report on billiards, track & field, boxing, and bicycle road racing

Westminster Kennel Club grounds, Long Island 1894



Monte Carlo

Here is a good example of Kilby Damascus

[img:left][/img]

Thanks all...It makes good sense as there was alot of pigeon gambling in this area.

OK...here's my second attempt at shooting this Cashmore to capture the contrast











This last photo is the Niagara County Shooting Club c1884

That Stevens tip-up held by the woman 3rd from the right is still in my family


In the late 1800's there were so many trap shooting clubs in Niagara County that there was a scarcity of pigeons which led to at least three companies who manufactured glass and composition round target balls in that county alone...Shooters from across NYS poured into Niagara Falls to shoot, often at a buck a shot (to start) back when you could buy a working farm for around $300. The scarcity of live birds along with the demand for gambling led to live sparrow shoots in Tonawanda.

Almost forgot to mention...on a boxlock the screw near the top of the action usually, but not always, indicates safety interceptors...or so I'm hoping...if anyone else is interested in seeing the innards, I've been considering taking it apart to clean and photograph it...thanks again

Robert, I obtained an old Cashmore very similar to yours in that it has intercepting sears and the knuckles in the forearm ahead of the iron (which identifies it as a Scott product),however mine has a square crossbolt(another Scott feature),steel barrels,reinforced top and bottom tangs on action,very fine full coverage scroll with Cashmore name in banner,reinforced lever forend fastener (as found on double rifles)with screws on either side that go into sde of forend iron as found on Prussian Dalys.I believe that this gun was built by Scott and finished by Cashmore based on its features.The S/N is very close to this one,but I haven't a clue when it was built.Does anyone have S/N info on these guns? I will try to post photos soon. Marcus

Robert,

Is there an A&D APUN on the standing breech?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

The Monte Carlo Taubenschiessstand must have been a site to behold:






Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Sandlapper,
I don't doubt what you've said but I've always associated that fore arm treatment with Birmingham stock makers in general...I.ve owned Greeners with that feature and a J V Needham as well.
"Reinforced top and bottom tangs" is new to me...I can't even picture it... I thought that Manufrance was the only gunmaker that used tang reinforcements (Ideal model only).
And the "steel eyes" often seen on Prussian Daly's (and other Prussian guns) I thought was an ejector hammer axel as other Prussian Daly's without ejectors do not have the so-called "steel eyes".
I think you just answered yout own question about date of manufacture...if you serial# is close to my serial#...and your gun is treble wedgefast (Greener crossbolt) then both of these guns should be easily dated by the British patent record or Greeners book "The Gun"
Can't wait to see your photos

Raimey, no other marks on the standing breech or the action flats except for two small proofs (crossed halberds) in each flat.

Thanks Leighton

Another example of Greener's 'Silver Steel' refinished by Paul Stevens. The ribband weld lines are apparent showing this is 3 iron. Greener made both 'Silver Steel' and Laminated Steel, and his, and Kilby's, would be 'British Best 3 Iron Laminated Steel', the winner of the 1891 Proof House Trial
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1dnRLZgcuHfx7uFOHvHCUGnGFiLiset-DTTEK8OtPYVA



'Silver Steel' has a bit of a 'whorl'

Robert: This is an image from the 1905 N.Y. State Tournament scanned from Researcher's 1905 Baker Gun Quarterly. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the results reported in Sporting Life.
All the 'Top Guns' no doubt attended. I've tried to ID Harvey McMurchy; possibly sitting left front holding a long barrel shotgun

Thank you Drew...wish I knew where the clubhouse above was...or even the name of the club...somewhere I have material about McMurchy but as a LC Smith employee not Baker...I'll have to revisit that stuff...is there anything in particular I should look for other than a picture of McMurchy? I didn't think anyone was interested in Harvey...it's good to see ...I think he was friends of Curtiss and Wadsworth, two other well known LC Smith employees

The New York State shoot was held in Utica, and the notice is here
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1905/VOL_45_NO_12/SL4512024.pdf

Infro on Harvey here, with a couple of pictures courtesy of Chris Lien, but would love to have a better image
http://docs.google.com/document/preview?id=1rtqfXbMHv08c0iojRUFUV5kR7jIc-7jdinPZEmI9WSc

Found it

1905 New York State Sportsmen's Association Tournament, Utica New York, June 13-15
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1905/VOL_45_NO_15/SL4515023.pdf
High Average - W.H. Heer 468x485, 2nd F.D. Kelsey 448x485, 3rd H. McMurchy 446x485

GREAT thread, gentlemen....

Harvey at the 1913 GAH



The next year he retired from traveling and became the General Manager of Hunter Arms until 1921

Sporting Life Feb. 7 1914
Harvey McMurchy, the veteran authority on guns and trap shooting, for many years the advisor of the Hunter Arms Company, and T. H. 'Haze' Keller, Jr., who covers the East and South for the same organization, paid "Sporting Life" a visit recently. McMurchy has been under the weather with eye trouble, but is now perfectly well and able to attend to business. Keller will have a territory this year that will bring him into touch with the shooters in and about Philadelphia, where he has many friends. This company is now planning for a big season with its popular Smith gun.

Cashmore was a big name on the live pigeon competition circuit and I guess he just wanted his name writ large by way of advertising his name to other competitors. I suppose the same today if people see Perazzi or Beretta guns doing well in big events they want to go out and buy the same. Cracking gun Robert! Lagopus.....

Cashmore was a big name on the live pigeon competition circuit and I guess he just wanted his name writ large by way of advertising his name to other competitors. I suppose the same today if people see Perazzi or Beretta guns doing well in big events they want to go out and buy the same. Cracking gun Robert! Lagopus.....

I do find the gold inlay letters a bit more appealing than the decals that are stuck all over current competition guns.

lagopus,
Thanks....hope this particular gun shows up in some old photo...The last name of owner of the gun before me is Cashmore but I haven't spoke to him yet to see if he knows any of the gun's history...I assume that he bought the gun because of the matching name but don't know yet...the gun is completely unrestored inside and out which leads to a problem...the barrels are marked 13/1 and 3 1/4 inch cases...the bore measures .740 ...this means the most likely the gun can NEVER be restored...because if it were, every know-it-all and his brother would say categorically, "it's been reamed out of proof" no matter what the wall thickness...

Drew,
So busy building an addition and Ebay that I haven't had the time to post the Mc Murchy material..what little I have on McMurchy was centered around "making connections" between McMurchy, Curtiss, Fulford, Wadsworth (Waddy), Thorneley, and Lard...I think McMurchy worked with and shot with Curtiss and Fulford...Thorneley being the focus, so anything you have on Thorneley is of interest to me...Thorneley's contribution to the evolution of SxSs, though very small, is right up there with Lefaucheaux, Anson, Deeley, and Scott, yet few have ever heard of him

Robert generally I think Americans will pay more for a British gun that is in proof but most of us will buy one that is out of proof if we are comfortable with the minimum wall thicknesses. If it has got 0.100 at the end of the chamber and the minimum from the muzzle to 14" back is .025 and I wanted the gun the fact of it being out of proof wouldn't keep me from buying it.

Best,

Mike

If the gun is mechanically sound you can send it over for proof and recoup the cost in increased value

Mike,Justin,
Now I'm completely confused...The barrels are .250 at the breech with a minimal wall thickness of .045 near the chokes...the bore diameter is .740 just before the chokes but from the chambers to the chokes the bore measures a whopping .770...

Although it's stamped 13/1, remember it's a 3 1/4 inch magnum 12 ga, but the history of the 12 gauge magnum cartridge has always eluded me...about the only thing I can say for sure is the 3 inch 12 ga (75mm) has been around since before 1924 because I have a pre-1924 (Belgian) Raick Freres in 75mm. The other bit of information to consider is that the age puts it near the tail end of those first choke boring concepts and trials.
Thanks for any insights concerning this gun and it's very strange bore dimensions.

Robert I don't know that the "magnum" in "3 1/4 inch magnum" should be there. Don't know it shouldn't either.

From Burrard's "The Gun and the Cartridge, Volume III" New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932, page 320 there is a table titled "Table XXIX Proof and Service Charges for Different Gauges". That table gives the charges for a 3" and for a 3-1/4" 12 gauge as 3-3/4 drams of black powder and 1-1/2 ounces of shot. Researcher has posted that longer cartridges used to be about more wadding to cushion the shot, not about more powder and shot.

Robert the minimum wall thickness at the forward/muzzle end of the chambers would be a nice measurement to have.

Could you perhaps posts a picture of the barrel flats?

Maybe someone who actually knows what they are talking about will pipe in on this but at one time bore diameter was measured by the largest diameter of brass slug would drop through to about mid-barrel.

I would be suspicious of the wall thicknesses where the bore diameter measures .770" Can your friend get several wall measurements in that area?

The gun still has possibilities even though it appears it is out of proof. In this case my worry would be the wall thickness at the forward/muzzle end of the chambers right before the forcing cones and the minimum wall thickness at the .770" bore diameter areas.

I repeat, a picture of the barrel flats would be very helpful.


Best,

Mike

From one end to the other, both barrels, the minimum wall thickness is .032 where the bore is .770 (just before the choke)...then thicker again, more like .045 right at the choke

DuPont Trophy Oct 24 & 25 1895
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1895/VOL_26_NO_06/SL2606012.pdf
Fred Gilbert (L.C. Smith) and Charles “Hayward” Macalester (Purdey) tied at 25; Gilbert won the shoot-off 5/5 to 4/5.
Charles Wagner (Parker), E.B. Coe (Smith), John Brewer (Greener), and A.H. King (Scott Monte Carlo) tied at 24; Wagner won the shoot-off taking 3rd place.
Gilbert used a Smith gun, 8 pounds, and his load consisted of a scant 3 1/4 drams Du Pont, by measure, which weighed 42 grains. It was wadded with a Winchester field wad, a 3/8-inch pink felt and an ordinary pink edge, all 12-gauge and 1 1/8 ounces of No. 7 chilled shot.
Capt. John L. Brewer was using a Greener gun of high grade. His shells were the U. M. C. Trap, 3 1/4 inches long, 4 drams of DuPont powder by measure, weighing 36 1/2 grains; one trap wad, two pink felts, 1/4 inch 11-gauge wad and one ordinary 12-gauge pink edge wad over the powder and 1 1/4 ounces of No. 7 chilled shot; the shell had a very hard square crimp.

The ‘machine loaded’ shells and components available in the 1895 Montgomery Ward & Co. catalog
http://books.google.com/books?id=zWel51IwQ2AC&pg=PA473&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false
The 'Trap Shooters Delight' could be ordered with 'E.C.', Schultze, American Wood, Black Powder, Dupont Smokeless or Laflin & Rand Smokeless powder. 12g Winchester “Leader” and “Blue Rival” NPEs are offered in 3-inch length. UMC 12g Green “Trap” NPEs are offered in 2 7/8 and 3-inch lengths.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_30_NO_12/SL3012023.pdf
"Cast Iron Medal", emblematic of championship of America, and a purse of $200, was shot on Watson’s Shooting Grounds. R.O. Heikes (using a Winchester 1897 pump) won the match by killing 91 out of 100 birds, taking the Cast Iron Medal and the $200.
Grimm killed 87 out of the 100 birds, using an L. C. Smith gun, 3 1/4 drams Du Pont powder in a 3-inch U. M. C. Smokeless shell, for first barrel, and 3 1/2 drams Du Pont powder in a 3 1/4-inch U. M. C. Trap shell in second barrel, 1 1/4 ounces No. 7 chilled shot in both barrels.

The "machine loaded" shells and components available from Sears in 1897
http://books.google.com/books?id=CSVIpqnFMTMC&pg=PA545&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false

If the bore diameter is .770 and the original diameter was .719 than this gun is so far out of proof that it will impact it's value. Please remeasure the bores the standard 9" from the breech end.

justin I am not stating this as fact but I think the way it worked is that the brass plugs they would drop down the barrel (from the breech) had to go a minimum distance into the barrel, say 9". You could have a larger diameter further down the barrel, say .770" just ahead of the chokes. I think you idea of measuring the bore diameter at 9" may be the where the Proof House measured it. They may measure .719" there perhaps the gun is still in proof.

Robert if that .770" is right before the chokes and if the minimum wall thickness is .032" at that point and for the forward half of the barrel and the chamber wall thickness at the forward end of the chamber is adequate I would happily shoot that gun.

Best,

Mike

OK, but rereading Roberts post he says the bore measures .770 from just past the chambers to just before the chokes where it measures .740. So what am i missing.
The bore measurement is 9" from the breech. Right?

Gentlemen,the gun was originally proofed at a bore diameter between .719 and .729 . If it now measures .770 all the way from the forcing cones to the start of the choking,at least 20-25 thou of metal has been removed from the barrel walls. This is a serious amount of metal. It may have been built to handle the heavy magnum loads of the day but this gun needs to be measured carefully from
chambers to muzzle. Barrel wall of .032 is fine from the middle of the barrels to the muzzle, but not so fine directly ahead of the chambers.... You need to know what amount of metal you have, at, and near the chamber where the real pressures are.It may still be safe to shoot light and low pressure loads but its magnum days could be over....

Terry I agree but it is not clear to me that the gun measures .770" from forcing cones to the chokes. As I read Robert's post the .770 measure is just before the chokes.

I have suggested in this post three times that the chamber walls be measured at the front/muzzle end.

Best,

Mike

Justin,
I don't think the bore was ever .719 or .729-.732 (standard 12 bore diameter) ...I think it was some variation of barrel/choke design that used .770 wadding...just as the inside of a brass 12 gauge shell is also .770...this was a high stakes gambling gun where any technic that increased scores would be used whether it was standardized or not. It's not too far out to think that a high stakes live bird gun might be specially bored or even experimentally bored. The bore diameter 9 inches from the breech is .770
The wall thickness 9 inches from the breech is .092

Mike,
I agree the gun appears totally safe to shoot, but I haven't yet accepted .719 thinking...lagopus said in another thread that anything over .729 is out of proof in British terms...I couldn't wrap my head around that because that would make every L C Smith ever made out of proof with the standard bore diameter of .732...that figure is from Bill Brophy's book on plans and specs of the L C Smith.

I have no problem with a competition gun being bored at .770...the part I don't understand is why it was stamped 13/1...

A interesting side note about experimental bores....
Experimental bores interested Charles Newton (c1920) and it was reported that he was seen shooting a double-trigger, side-break, boxlock, over & under, 16 gauge at over 2000 FPS, minimizing the need to lead flying targets...although I have a Newton Arms shop floor drawing of that American made (Britte & Britte type) over under, I've yet to see one or even photos, but I have a pretty good idea of that particular gun's last known address...and of course the name of the gunsmith who made it...So if you ever see a side break with no proof marks, you had better nail it down (every super Britte or Paul Scholberg side break is Liege proofed)

Robert, no just a slight misread of what I meant. I was refering to a gun marked 13/1 with being out at over .729". A gun marked 12 would be .729" to .740" and out at anything over .740". A 12 bore chambered gun could be proofed as 14 bore or even 11 bore on the proof marks. The markings are to indicate what the gun measured at time of testing and would then indicate if any ammount of metal had been removed beyond the tested limits. If out of proof from its original measurments it would need re testing by the proof house and re stamping by them before it could be offered for sale here in Britan. Therefore your .732" L.C.Smith would have been stamped at 12 or .729" under the 1954 rules of proof indicating that at the time of testing it measured between .729 and .740. Lagopus.....

What lagopus said.

lagopus,
Thanks...I wasn't trying to undermine your answer...and I think I do have a better understanding based on your information...but when you say "out of proof" it overwhelmingly implies "unsafe to shoot"...perhaps you should say out of 13/1 tolerances (just like every LC Smith ever made)


OK...let's see...if the minimal safe wall thickness is .025...and IF the bore was .719 (originally) then that is .719 plus .025 x2 = .769...that's less than .770..

You can't take a barrel that has an OUTSIDE diameter of .769 and ream the INSIDE open to .770...

The point is, there is something seriously flawed in the way we read and understand the bore marking system and it's variations...

If your information is correct in all cases then these barrels would have been reamed beyond paper thin, they would be completely gone and you would have to ream another thousanth from thin air...so someting is not exactly correct in your/our interpretation of these marks, but I really appreciate your willingness to hash out the details as we go...thank you...and I'm looking forward to your next reply...

OT...this afternoon is the Rochester gun show, one of the biggest in the state...not since the 1970's have high grade guns been so available, so inexpensively, in such large numbers. The WW II guys are checking out in legions leaving their guns behind in a world that wants black plastic assault guns...this is by far the happiest gun hunting season ever...last week (Syracuse) I saw a Parry Firearms 12ga outside hammer in high condition with Ithaca NY markings, even the buttplate said Ithaca NY (not Wilkes Barre)...It was the first I've ever seen...serial 220...

If Rochester doesn't pan out, I've been offered a graded LC Smith 16ga, straight grip, single trigger, recently re-cased and re-blued by Turnbull, asking $800 ...Superposed shotguns are down to about $600 if you take time to look for the best deal...the cost of collecting double shotguns is dropping at an unpresidented rate...I recently bought a 95% Beretta Silver Snipe in 20 ga IC & M with a single trigger for the asking price of $125...last week I passed on a like new Superposed (12ga flat knob short tang) for any offer over $500

Robert where lagopus lives in proof and out of proof are big deals. The law requires any gun sold in England to be "in proof". That is, not bored out beyond a certain diameter indicated by the bore size stamped on the water table, in this case 13/1. Apparently, back in the day, an English gunsmith was likely to have a bore gauge. So he could tell if a gun had been honed out by some unscrupulous person by measuring the bore diameter. So he would look at the watertable, see it said 13/1. His book would tell him bores should be between .720 and .729. If they measured .770 he would know it had been honed out beyond .729 He wouldn't know wall thicknesses but he would know it was out of proof. Now the gun might still be safe to shoot. And the gun can be sent back to the proof house and if it passes proof it would have new marks stamped on the water table. So maybe a "12" after reproof.

It can be safe to shoot a British gun that is out of proof but I always measure wall thicknesses breech face to muzzle on any old double gun before I buy it, much less shoot it.

And .032" wouldn't be enough wall thickness at the forward end of the chambers but it is plenty of wall thickness near the muzzle.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Mike

Nothing flawed about it....only thing flawed are the barrels on this Cashmore.

Oh no...paddle faster...I hear banjos

Cute.
Robert, I went over the thread and found an important post I had missed. Your point concerning the gun being bored out for ballistic advantage is germaine and probably explains all. The 770 wadding was new to me,thanks for that.
So, the proof marks become irrelevant because the gun is made to produce income not value.
The problem here is without provenance it will take a price hit when you go to sell it.
So here's a case where proof means nothing to the man who bored it out for special use but sorta screws those that came after him

Here are a couple of Cashmores without the "billboard". The Nitro is easily recognized, but the Imperial is less so. From the make up of the Imperial, one might guess a Pigeon Gun, but it is a 6 1/2# twelve bore which I just shot in Saskatchewan.

The above passage about "long cone" is why I posted this article from the Argus 8 Jan 1889

Don't you think that comment racist Mr. Chambers...


Was yer mom's name Marilyn by chance ?

that sidelock is lovely Daryl. Thanks for sharing.

Lagopus,
I'm interested to know what you think about the "long cone" article...this gun is clearly a live bird or pidgeon gun yet it doesn't conform to standard barrel dimensions or weight limtattions (weighs 8 pounds 10 ounces)...

I'm hoping that you will be the "voice of reason" ...clearly this shotgun is bored with Cashmore's "long cone" dimensions yet was stamped 13/1...

The gun is clearly a live bird gun but weighs over 8 pounds...

Chances are that other live bird Cashmore shotguns of that period have the long cone boring, but the other owners won't dare say because of the known temperment of the members who use this system...

Your opinion may be vital to the overall understanding at this bulletin system...here's an example...

10 years ago or so, when I openly told some kid that "LLH" on his Ithaca was the touchmark of the Belgian supplier of barrels that Ithaca often used, this bullitin system went completely apeshit and roasted me like I was some anti-American muck raker...Now of course it's beyond common knowledge, but after the witch hunt where I was burned at the stake, members started looking at the barrels of their American made guns a little closer...many members had known all along that most barrels were imported but wouldn't speak out in my defense...this gave rise to such rediculous posts that I couldn't stomach to even read them...members were saying, with conviction, that they had Lefever's made in Belgium on Lefever patents and other nonsense that would make your head swim...

My point is...that we must acknowledge when evidence and published information prevail...if not, before you know it there may be posts about John Dickson sub-contracting T Barkers and Crescent shotguns and Kornbrath engraving on Mossburg 500's

Please acknowledge...one way or the other