I purchased an abused 'Wrist Breaker' (serial #7354) for restoration from a friend yesterday. I reckon the gun dates in late 1893. On the barrel flats there is an engraved text

2 3/4" cases

Inside the diamond stamp there is the "12 C". No nitro proof stamps. I've googled these guns for a while now, and have only seen indications on two and a half inch chambers. Can anyone of you guys tell, whether these guns were manufactured at that time with long chambers? Or have the chambers on this gun been modified at some time later?

Also the striker discs are somehow loose; they are flush with the standing breech but they can also be protruded some 1,5mm ouwards. They are not the typical screw-in discs with wrench holes, but solid ones with only the striker hole in the middle. Is this how they should be?

Regards,
Sakari

Doesn't sound right. If reproofed for 2 3/4" it should read "70mm", etc. if it was made with long chambers..it should have a 12 over LC. The disk for the disk set strikers are held in by a small pin on the top of each fence or "ball". So yes, that is how they should be. Try tightening those retainer pins to take away the disk movement.

Thanks for your input LeFusil. BTW, You've shared some excellent photos on Wrist Breaker in your earlier posts. Much appreciated!!

I would have guessed that using metrics in chamber stamp took place somewhat later? Here is a photo of the engraving on my gun. I took some photos quickly with my mobile yesterday, and the quality isn't too good. Sorry for that.

The "case length" text seems original... Well, kind of, anýway. Of course it could have been added later, but why engraving and not a stamp?

As regards the C or LC in the diamond, at least Nigel Brown in his British Gunmakers vol. 1 p. 427 says in referring to the period 1887-96 that "initials LC indicated a long chamber of at least 3 inches."

It's good to hear that style of striker discs sounds original. The retaining screws are already flush with the fence surface, but I just have to examine it a little bit further. Unfortunately I don't have the gun at hand right now, and I'm not able to provide any further info on the details.

Regards,
Sakari

Possible. I have a Jeffery hammer trap gun of around the same vintage and that has 2 3/4" chambers. The only clue is the chamber length marked very small on the forend loop under the barrels. Black powder marks with no indication of chamber length. I have since had it re-proofed for nitro. Lagopus.....

Of course don't dismiss the obvious that the chambers have been deepened at some point in the guns life .
It was always a point to watch out for when buying English guns in the US for retuning back to the UK .I have seen numerous of all makes and ages that have been so treated .

Thanks Lagopus and Gunman.

Surely it is possible and also very plausible explanation that the chambers have been deepened at some later point.

I considered that when thinking about buying or not buying. However, I reasoned that gun is so inexpensive that it is worth buying in any case.

In its present condition the gun is definitely not a collectors item, but I consider it as a good candidate to further hone my developing restoring skills. The buttstock is somewhat crudely repaired at wrist; wood not too fancy and very worn out; loose rib at front sling swivel; small dent on the right barrel; all original colours gone etc. However, there's no rust or pitting, and the gun seems to be tecnically OK. Also the barrels are off-face only very slightly

Regards,
Sakari

I believe this to be correct. In fact the way I read the definition in the proof law it seems to state the LC was to be applied to any chamber "Longer" than 3". There are however known guns having 3" chambers both with & without the LC mark. Seems as if some of the proof house workers themselves were not absolutely certain as to whether or not to apply it to a 3" chamber, but I have no knowledge of its having been used on a chamber shorter than 3".

Chambers are original.

OWD

Thanks for your input OWD.

I'm glad to hear what you just said. However, I would be extremely happy to learn a little bit more. What exactly brings you into this conclusion that chambers are, in fact, original?

I'm not saying that I don't believe what you say - rather the contrary!! Obviously it's a good thing for me if the gun is not altered. I just want to learn more about this.

Best regards,
Sakari

Chamber length wasn't marked as part of proofing when your gun was made. Neither was load size.

The 12/C mark could be either 2 1/2" or 2 3/4".

Since the flats are marked 2 3/4" and the mark looks old, I'd say the 2 3/4" chambers are original. The maker put that mark their to make the distinction.

The proof house added chamber lengths and load sizes to their marks at later dates to clear these things up.

And Nitro Proof didn't come in until 1896 (from what my reference says).

So that's my thinking ... Hope it helps.

OWD

Having re read the original post O agree if it is marked 2&3/4" case then I think it is safe to assume the gun was originally chambered for a "2&3/4" roll turn over case .Nitro proof did come in in the late 1890's and became the norm after 1904 .
Many guns made for the export market were still proofed for black powders as nitro powders were not readily available and as "home loading" was widely practiced due spasmodic availability commercially bought cartridges .

I don't know if yours falls into the category but I have seen Lancaster's sold as the Colonial model usually with only boarder line engraving , some marked as "The Colindian "or The Coladian"for export to India and Canada .I don't know if there was a "Colmerican".

Having re read the original post I agree if it is marked 2&3/4" case then I think it is safe to assume the gun was originally chambered for a "2&3/4" roll turn over case .Nitro proof did come in in the late 1890's and became the norm after 1904 .
Many guns made for the export market were still proofed for black powders as nitro powders were not readily available and as "home loading" was widely practiced due spasmodic availability of commercially bought cartridges .

I don't know if yours falls into the category but I have seen Lancaster's sold as the Colonial model usually with only boarder line engraving , some marked as "The Colindian "or The Coladian"for export to India and Canada .I don't know if there was a "Colmerican".

Thanks for that OWD!

Gunman. No, this is not a Colonial model - at least not if those were usually with border engraving. There's a nice scroll engraving on the sideplates of this gun. Se photo on the right sideplate here

I hope to find out more about the history of this individual gun, but probably not a "Colindian" nor "Colamerican" . I'm based in Finland and the gun appears to have been here in the same family for a long time.

On the photo you can also see the not-so-beautiful repair at wrist (and it looks better than it actually is). Also dents on the trigger guard, some ruined screwheads here and there etc. It seems that the gun has been out in the field a lot!!

Regards,
Sakari

You can email the current owners of the Lancaster records and ask them to give you a summary of the information they have on your serial number. If warranted you can order a letter. I found them very helpful in the past with several Lancaster purchases. Good luck on your restoration. Please post some pics when you get a chance.

Susjwp, do you know who would be the current owner of the Lancaster records? Regarding times before 2010 I've heard of names Joseph Brazier, David Perkins and Ron Wharton, but what about now?

Ron Wharton & Margarita last I knew. I wouldn't deal with them, tread lightly. I've paid for letters and only received fuzzy pictures to my email addy. No letters ever arrived here. Last attempt, 2012. Always some sort of run around. I just said f-it and gave up. Lesson learned.

Sakmyk, I concur with those that have guessed that the 2 3/4" engraving and chamber length is probably original. Although chambers were, and are, regularly lengthened on both sides of the pond, it is not necessary nor common to find it ENGRAVED on the gun. Stamped as part of the proof marks but not engraved.
The other question you ask is about the disc-set strikers.
On the Lancasters of this age, they are held in place by the pin in the fence and if this is worn, broken or otherwise a poor fit, the striker spring will push the disc proud of the breech face but it will be easy to push it flush. Just have a pair of better fitting retaining pins made up and your problem will be solved.
Another matter you should be aware of is with the ejectors, if it so equipped. In their quest to avoid paying other inventors a royalty for using their patents, they used a suite of highly individual mechanisms in their guns. You may have the ubiquitous Southgate, or Deeley if a conversion, but you may have the Perkes which looks like a Southgate in passing but when exposed, the spring looks like a snail on LSD (it performs the functions of both sear and tumbler) and is very probably irreplaceable. DO NOT BREAK OR LOSE IT!

Toby, thanks for the detailed information. And sorry about the delay - I've been away for a while.

Yes, my gun is fitted with ejectors. So far I haven't been able to inspect which type. However, having now read your perceptive description, I will definitely be able to tell if its Perkes

Pm sent