|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,445
Posts544,842
Members14,406
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 973
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 973 |
Cool, Click on the "unusual shotgun link" Unusual Shotgun Link
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
What an unusual action. I am curious about the history. From the looks of the it, not sure I would ever have enough confidence to fire it.
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,026
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,026 |
Looks like a double barrel rolling block. Not really that unusual an action; just unusual for a double shotgun. Nagant made similar double barrel pistols for the Russian military and for civilian sale. Rolling blocks are hell for strong--the action type wouldn't make it unsafe to shoot if the condition were OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,935
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,935 |
That metal looks mighty thin around the chambers...I wouldn't use it for duck loads.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,884 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,884 Likes: 106 |
There is a similar gun made by E. Remington & Sons/L.L. Hepburn pictured on page 252 of "The Guns of Remington" compiled by Howard M. Madaus. The same book also pictures one by Nagent built as an 11mm double rifle. Thankfully Remington went with some better double gun designs!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,522
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,522 |
That is a cool looking gun! Assuming it is made of suitable materials and the loads were correct I see no reason to think the design wouldn't function safely. As Mike said above, Rolling Blocks are pretty stout actions and could easily contain shotgun pressures. This should have been a successful design.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
I wonder what kind of tape they measured those bbls with. by my calculation 1200mm = 47.244". They sure don't look that long to me in the pics. If they used one of those "PI" tapes they would only be 15.038", & they look longer than that.
Miller
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,935
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,935 |
Piper, it is common in Europe to measure both barrels and add the numbers. So, 47.244" divided by two = 23.622" which is a very desireable length as this was the original unit of measure of a horse's instep. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,435 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,435 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by GregSY: Piper, it is common in Europe to measure both barrels and add the numbers. So, 47.244" divided by two = 23.622" which is a very desireable length as this was the original unit of measure of a horse's instep.
Huh? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 211
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 211 |
Originally posted by Bob Blair: Originally posted by GregSY: Piper, it is common in Europe to measure both barrels and add the numbers. So, 47.244" divided by two = 23.622" which is a very desireable length as this was the original unit of measure of a horse's instep.
I second what bob said.....HUH??????? [ ]
Tact is for those not clever enough to be sarcastic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
