As many listmembers know, Franz Osipovitch Matska was a famous gun maker in St. Petersburg, Russia who made about 340 guns between 1883 and 1907 in St. Petersburg, Russia. An excellent article was written by the late Bill Wise and Geno Charcot and published in the Summer 2005 edition of the DGJ.

I am fortunate enough to own S/N 123, and I wanted to build a database of those Matska guns that still exist.

Listed below is what I have found so far from reading and searching the internet. I would welcome any input from others to help fill in the gaps.

Thanks,

John


1)s/n 17, 12 G, Sidelock, exposed hammers, Damascus bbls
2)s/n 123,12G, Boxlock, 30 3/4" Whitworth's Fluid Compressed Steel bbls, 100% rose and scroll engraving on receiver, bbls Weight 5.5 lbs.
3)s/n 177, 12G, Boxlock, 28" and 32" Whitworth's Fluid Compressed Steel bbls
4)s/n 221, 12G, Sidelock; exposed hammers
5)s/n 257, 24G, 2 bbl set
6)s/n 274, 12G, Sidelock
7)s/n 321, 12 G Sidelock
8)s/n 325, 28G-3" gun, with Whitworth barrels
9)s/n 331, 12G, Sidelock

Leopold Bernard barrels. The company ceased operation in 1890.

Tell us about your Matska.

Is this the boxlock that was for sale on this site a while ago?

Thanks

OWD

OWD,

Yes, I did have it up for sale and had a few offers, but decided to hold onto it. Here is some information and pictures: 12 gauge, 3" chambers, boxlock, 30 3/4" Whitworth's Fluid Compressed Steel bbls, sling swivels, 100% rose and scroll engraving on receiver. LOP 13 7/8", drop at comb 1 7/8", drop at heel 2 1/2". Weighs 5.5 lbs.

Nice looking gun. What does it say on either side of the action?

It looks like Matska something on the right. I can't make out the left.

Thanks

OWD

It translates to St. Petersburg on the left side in Cyrillic letters and the Greek letter "Phi" (abbreviation for "F")followed by Matska on the right side.

St. Petersburg with London proof marks on the flats. Not that unusual for other European gunmakers to "buy in" guns from the British trade in those days. Can't tell without more photos, but doll's head looks like maybe Webley A & W. The "19595" on the barrels is probably the trade maker's number, as it does not match the retailer's (no. 123).

The London marks on the flats are 1887-1896, and are both provisional and definitive. Not nitro. No "choke" markings. Seems odd. Are both barrels cylinder?

What's really strange is the absence of London's view marks which should be stamped on either side of the water table (both required view marks are present on the flats, but absent from the water table). Raw tubes alone were provisionally proved, but definitive proof required a barreled action in the white, and view marks were required to be stamped on both barrel flats and water table. All I can think of is that these barrels were on a different action when they went through proof.

More detailed photos would be helpful.

Is the Matska that the late Bill Wise owned on your list, if not I'll look it up for you.

400,

Thanks for the comments. What in particular would be helpful to have more detailed photos of?

John

Michael,

Yes, I have Bill Wise's s/n 274 on the list, thanks.

400,

Also noticed that s/n 17 (pictured above) is also missing view marks on the water table.

It would not need any, as it never made it to the UK.
Bernard was French and did not need (at that time) proof mark of any kind.
I have a French made double rifle with Bernard barrels and no proof mark either (8 Lebel, 1898 vintage).
WC-

But Gad, Lads, why 3" chambers on a 5-1/2 lb. 12 bore? Luckily some iidiot didn't start beating it up with modern 3" ammo. Chopperlump

John, 5.5 lbs is awfully light for a 30 3/4" barreled 12 ga., have
you checked barrel wall thickness on it?

Terry,

No I haven't, but you are right, I should.
I agree that the gun is light. The barrels are the lightest I have ever seen or handled.

Thanks,

John

I also have a 20 ga set of Leopold Bernard Barrels that are fluid steel I wonder if post 1890.
Jeff G.

John, you forgot Matska #177 with double barrel set I owned some time ago, I brought it from Finland.
It looked like twin to your boxlock, but weight was 3,2 Kg with 28" barrels. Second set of barrels was heavy 32" for goose and swans. Both bbls made from Witworth steel by John Kilby.
Both barrels had only the first provisional London proof.
Your gun been imported to UK before importing to US, that's why we can see full set of London proofs on flats.
The gun #17 has made in 1883.

Geno,

Thanks for that information, I just added it. I believe I read about a .410 Matska located in Russia. Do you know of it?

Did #177 have view/proof marks on the water table?

John

One more Matska' famous gun #257 made in 1900 for S.Buturlin and for your list.
24G two barrel set, smooth and paradox, weight 3.4 kg, bbls length 26". System by Ivashentsev and Buturlin with Daw lever and Scott's locks.
Now this set is in Gerd's Museum in Izhevsk.

.410 gun known as Niki-II son's gun. It's located in St.Petersburg Museum of Artillery. I can't get access to this gun still, but been promissed.

All Matska's guns with Witworth steel barrels have only one proof - the first provisional proof mark, exept those guns been imported to UK and later spreaded around the world.

Buturlin's gun #257 have barrels made from Krupp steel.

Interesting Jeff. The 1890 date came from the littlegun site.

John:

The proof marks in the photos posted by revdocdrew and Jeff G. are French, not British. Completely different laws.



No. That's the point, the full set of London marks aren't there. This gun was never sold in the UK.

The provisional London mark on your gun, John, is the first mark on each barrel flat nearest the breech (the rest of the marks are from later London definitive proof). British provisional proof is conducted on barrels only, when they are raw tubes, before they're finished and joined, and before they're fitted to an action. That's why a foreign gun made with British tubes can have this provisional mark on the barrels without any other British marks on the gun, as Geno describes.

British definitive proof (the second, final proof) is conducted on guns (functional barreled actions), not barrels, and any gun sold in the UK must be definitively proven in the UK, unless it's of foreign manufacture AND proven in a foreign proof facility recognized by the UK proof masters. Simple importation of an unproven gun does not require reproof, but it's illegal to sell it in the UK without it. Whether of domestic manufacture, or of foreign manufacture for sale in the UK, definitive proof is the same. By law, successful definitive proof of breechloaders must be marked on both barrel and action. At the time that your barrels were proven in the UK, the mark required for the action was the view mark, one for each barrel. These were impressed on the water table of the action that your barrels were proved with at the same time the other definitive marks were impressed on each of the barrel flats. Since your action has no such marks (maybe I'm blind, or maybe it's the lighting of the photo, but I can't see any), it has never been through proof in the UK, and your barrels seem to be dancing with a new partner. Further, as previously mentioned, that number on the barrels is somebody's serial number, and it obviously isn't Matska's.

As for the photos you asked about, a photo of the doll's head from each side, one from directly above, and one from behind would do it. Are there ANY other marks on this gun that you haven't posted photos of?

The "12 C" in a rhombus/diamond, from johnmwmd's post, is a Russian full choke mark, that is if it was stamped either in Tula(Tule) or Izhevsk and maybe between the 1914 Conference & 1920 when the State assumed control. Interesting thread and I wish I had been following it.
For now I agree with 400 NE that the post by revdocdrew and Jeff G. could be from the Paris proofhouse, but a close-up pic of all the marks would be beneficial. The "E(backwards)P" is a post 1897 voluntary, standard, in the white, joined tube proof at 14.2k psi, otherwise it would have "N.A"(non assemble).

As a side note, France empowered the Paris commerce body to establish a proof facility in late 1895. Prior to that a stamp of "A crossed palms F" in an oval noted a gun made in France but not in St. Etienne. Boutet & Bernard had their own stamps but I don't think "E(backwards)P" was one of them.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Only after 1950, and even if it was, the lack of other accompanying marks make it unlikely in the extreme that it's Russian in origin. I don't see any Russian proof marks on this gun.

19595 these is number of John Kilby - UK barrel maker.

Matska number 123 of this particular gun is located on first hook of barrels, on water table, on tang, on fore-end.
And re. proof marks see the photo.

The mark for full choke could very well be post 1950 and I can't dispute that because I just haven't seen that many examples. Early on, pre-WWI, Russia's proof methods didn't have any rigid structure. We have an example and the mark has to fall in one category or another. I can't tell but beside the "Trade Mark" stamp on the underside of both tubes of johnmwmd's pics post, there looks to be some Cyrillic, or the like. Then again it could just by my eyes.

By the way, what are the chokes, measurements on this bird??

Pretty neat, Geno, how you edited the pic. Can you edit the pic of the tubes with the letters beside "Trade Mark" for me?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Geno:

It's impossible to draw the conclusion you did in your edit to the photo - "Later proof marks Seems gun been imported to UK" - from a photo of the barrel flats alone. The Crown over "GP" is London's definitive proof mark. British definitive proof requires marking of BOTH the barrels AND action. During the period these marks are from (prior to the 1954 rules, when the "view" mark was eliminated), the required mark on the action was the "view" mark (for London, Crown over "V"), one for each barrel, so there should be two, just as there are on the barrel flats. On doubles, the actions are marked on the water table.

There are no marks on the water table of this action. Either these barrels were taken off an English gun and retrofitted to this action, or the British proof marks on the barrel flats were not placed there by a British proof house.

I agree with Raimey, and asked the same question before - what are the chokes in this gun? If the "12C" is indeed Russian, then these marks are 1875 rule. If that's the case, the "12B", "14M", and "Not for ball" marks are missing, unless both barrels are cylinder, which would seem odd. If the "12C" mark is British, then these marks are 1887 rule, which would mean that the "Choke" mark is missing. Put another way, the British marks on this gun insist that neither barrel is choked. If one or both are in fact choked, then I lean toward the latter conclusion above.

400, me and Bill Wise explained all stuff in article mentioned above in the first post.
Fedor Matska bought barrels in white mostly in London and this barrels got only 2 marks, see pics.
This is SLE #321

The #17 Matska looks very similar to a Sauer Model 2 frame from Suhl. I'd like to see if anything is stamped on the backside fo the locks. Also I noticed on the right side of the watertable letters that look Slavic. After re-reading Geno/Bill Wise's article, I see that there is a Gustav Bittner, Weipert, Bohemia, frame connection. In the article it notes frames were from Gustav Bittner's Austrian factory, a group effort that made components for the Mannlicher for the Austro-Hungarian armed forces. So easily, there could have been a Russian-Bohemina-German connection. And the "E(backwards)P" stamp must have been Bernard's due to the fact that Paris the proof facility wasn't online in the 1880s. And it is the name "Kilby" in gothic that is adjacent to the "Trade Mark" stamp(Thanks Geno for the effort).

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Jeff,

The LB in a circle with a Crown was Bernard's mark. I believe at one point they were proofing their own barrels. The ƎP is a Paris mark for finished and soldered barrels that was not used until July 30, 1897. In 1924 it became the mark of black powder proof of semi-finished barrels at 14,200 psi.

The date of manufacture does not equate to the date of proof. That is, barrels or complete guns can be proofed much later than they are made. Also, they can be sent back for reproof for a variety of reasons.

I do not know if Russia was part of the Brussels Convention. Perhaps Geno can answer that one.

It is a treat to see these rare Russian guns.

Pete

These are the barrels from Bill’s gun No. 274 if that will help sort it out.

Regarding reproof on Jeff G.'s, herein lies the kicker with that: If it was sent back for reproof and assuming it was in the finished state, then it should have a mark of Crown over a skiff in a shield. The "E(backwards) P" holds the position of the mark for joined tubes. There is another mark on the tubes that isn't in focus. But this would also seem to make Matska's client of French origin or the owner really liked the proofhouse in Paris. Maybe he dropped it off in Paris while on vacation.

But like the Matska #123 in question, they guys at the proofhouse making 8, or maybe 10 hours, may have really like the Londons proofs and thought hey there's not a choke mark so let's put ours just above theirs because who's going to notice anyway. Or the "12 C" in a rhombus might have been stamped by a new guy who hadn't quite figured out how to index the die?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I think these London marks, Petrov's post, to be mixed in time. Matska expired circa 1907 and these marks, less the lower provisional proof of the Lion rampant over g P and the dark/heavy number "12", are from the 1925-1954 time period and appear to not have any constriction. So this looks to have been reproved in London after 1925. What might the watertable hold for us?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I believe that the Bernard stamps were still being used well after 1890.
My hammerless Lefaucheux double rifle in 8 Lebel is stamped 1898 which makes sense as a date and only bears the Bernard marks. The barrels SN is 35321. I guess that is possible that Bernard made those steel barrels much sooner, but certainly not before 1886 when the Lebel was developped.
The EP shown above was used starting around 1897. This was a proof meant for the barrels only, not the finished gun. The seal of Paris was used for the finished gun. IMHO, it would make no sense to only reproof barrels. However, it would make sense for Bernard to proof the barrels before delivering to another tradesman or before exporting the barrels.
Best regards,
WC-

This example possibly experienced provisional proof pre-1887 as apparent by the darker stamps of the Lion rampant along with the number "12". Then experienced reproof after 1925, that is if I have my marks correct. This is Matska # 274.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Assuming # 123 was made before # 247, then it had to experience provisional proof prior to 1887 also, so where is the number "12" stamp to complete the pair? First, after the Lion rampant over gP, the sequence seems to be out of order. Next in line should have been the view mark of "crown" over "V" followed by the previously stamped bore diameter. Was there a different sequence during the 1887-1896 period?

And is there a possiblity of equating the trade mark number to a specific year?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Wow, certainly appreciate the expert opinions and insights of the aficionados on this list! I have not measured the chokes but have a gauge on order and will post after doing so. Will also get some additional pictures.

Seems that most of the 9 shotguns identified so far were from the second half of his production. I wonder why earlier shotguns (other than s/n 17) have not been seen?

Mr. Petrov, what do the water tables on s/n 274 look like?

There is name of lock maker, Joseph Brazier.

Thanks for the info Tuomo. Any opinion on who cast the frame of Matsak #17 from those who have had it in hand?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Johnmwmd --- for better pictures of the engraving, try shoting the pictures outside on an overcast day. This trick work s for me when taking pictures of my engraving.

Raimey, apologies for not following the thread closer, but the late markings on some of the pictures of the Wise gun may be of the Osborne barrels which, we assume, were made later than the first set. I don't remember whether the Osborne barrels were choked or not. On the day of the photo shoot, I measured all bores and chokes, but I don't know whether those measurements got as far as the DGJ article. I will reread the article in the next few days, but can't do it right now. Bill Murphy

Thanks Mr. Murphy for taking an interest/note. I've been posting out loud and now I'll try to sum it up. I don't know if this is a statement or question. On Matska # 273 the dark "12" is a plug gauge stamp while the light "12" adjacent to the Lion rampant over gP is a vulgar fraction stamp. And the same applies to #123 but there isn't a plug gauge stamp, which were integer values and if the tubes were really in the rough the proofhouse would round down the bore number(say it measured 13 1/2 bore and really in the rough, then it would be marked "13") to show intent. The plug gauge numbers are of course from the plug gauge that would pass the whole length; whereas, the vulgar fraction values, 12, 12/1, etc., are diameters measured at 9" from the breech end. So you have a course/loose measure vs. a finite value with an interim period from 1875-1887 where if choked, the measurement ahead of the chamber as well as the muzzle end was taken/stamped. And I think if it wasn't choked, the most narrow point within the bore was the gauge. With the dates of 1883-1907 given for Matska, the earliest tubes would have been in the 1875-1887 period.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Gun #177 with two barrel set and gun #321 I checked personally got no visible chokes, but difference between diameters in 22 cm from breech and at muzzle were from 0.1 till 0.25 mm.
At the same time all 3 barrels I checked show pattern much more tight, than I expected, by most tight pattern it looked like barrels had modified choke, but only with particular shot numbers.
But long 34" geese-swan barrels show allmost full choke pattern, when shooting 3/0!
There is something I can't explain, but have read the same about old gun makers such as Mortimer, his cylinders shot as barrels with 1/2 chokes.

Hi Guys,
Thanks for the opinions about the LB barrels, I love to learn more about the makers of my guns. My gun is from Paris France it is a Roblin maker to the emperor of Austria, I have never learned anything about the maker. It is also the only pair of fluid steel LB barrels that I have seen.



Thanks, Jeff
Pete great info

Nice gun, Jeff, but sure it's for another post. Start new one.

Hi Genady
Did not mean to hijack the post. Got carried away with the LB barrels. Happy New Year,
Jeff G.

Finally got the bore gauge and both barrels measure .715 at the muzzle which would be improved cylinder, right? Also, the chambers measure 2 3/4" instead of the 3" that I had originally posted.

With an amended hypothesis I now submit that Jan(John) Nowotny(Newman) of Prague, who founded his company in 1865 in his mid 20s and lived until 1893, when his son continued the business, was also in the triangle. On page 77 of a Nowotny catalogue which looks to be in Russian is the "J. Nowotneho hammerlesska Model "Second to None" / Cis. 78" which has an English quote of "Kilby's extra resisting fine steel". Vejprty/Weipert/Vyprty(exit gate from Bohemia to Saxony) was very similar to Suhl and was a source for complete longarms, longarms in the white or components. Wenzel Morgenstern's catalogue lists locks, components and much more. Wenzel Morgenstern & Son's also may have made longarms for F. Faukner of Prague. Wenzel Morgenstern was also employed at the Weipert proofhouse in the early 1900s. Bittner, Fukert, Morgenstern, Schmidl and Schwab formed a comglomerate subject to Steyr/Osterreichische Waffenfabriks-Gesellschaft in Weipert in the last 1880s to fab the Mannlicher rifle for the Austro-Hungarian Army. This allowed the purchase of higher end machinery that in turn advanced their sporting longarm division. So Matsak could have sourced frames and tubes from Bittner/Morgenstern. Also Nowotny's might have sourced "in the white" longarms from Weipert but I'd like to see some Nowotny examples with Weipert marks to confirm that.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey,
The language used in the Nowotny catalogue is Czech. "J. Nowotheho" means "J. Nowotny's".
Kind regards,
Jani

Thank you Jani as my Slavic, etc. is pretty poor. So what would "Trojhlavnove brokovnice" as a Cis. 57 d J. translate to?

Jan Nowotny may have been the "Kilby" link as circa 1910 Nowotny appears to have a strong relationship with the U.K. as he offers double rifles from H&H as well as W.C. Scott. The "Royal" looks to have a Webley screw-grip, extension and Southgate ejectors. Around WWI, the connection seems to have faded and a relationship with Belgium is forged.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Czech was a part of Russian Imperia at the time and a lot of Nowotny's guns are still here, but most of Russian experts claimed Matska was superior to Nowotny and also they said Everybody could obtain the best English gun from Matska, but for twice less money.

Geno:

Thanks for the info. Do you know if there was a Kilby contact in Weipert and if so who? Are the original catalogues, Matska, Fukert, Morgenstern, Nowotny, etc. there also? I'd like to purchase some.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, John Kilby was very popular among Russian gunmakers I guess. Long time ago I had double gun SLNE made by Aleshkin and this gun was with barrels made by J.Kilby also. Gun expert Buturlin wrote J.Kilby was one of the best English barrel makers. No idea about Kilby's contact in Weipert, but it seems by s/n's we can see on Matska's guns for instance, John Kilby made and sold a lot of barrels.
Never heard about Matska's catalogs.

What town did Aleshkin have a shop? Any idea if Kalezky was Austrian(looks to have had a shop in Wien - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna , Czech. or Russian.

Here's an interesting Russian site view by forced translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl...l%3Den%26sa%3DG
Don't select "Czech Republic" as it sends you into a nasty loop.

Select "Russia" on the left side and there's a little info about Matska, I think in the 6th paragraph along with J. Kilby, etc. tube makers. Select "Technicial Conditions" for proofmarks.
Here's the site: http://www.gunproofmarks.ru/ .
And here's the proofmarks choice: http://www.gunproofmarks.ru/russia-control.html .
The homepage has a translator.
Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Are you guys just being polite, or are the guns you are discussing actually made by a guy named Fukert? The wonderful little 16 gauge I once owned was marked with the maker's name and it was Fuckert. As a matter of fact, the name was a selling point, both on the buy and on the sell.

eightbore:

First, although Gustav Fukert had Balkan States clients, Swedish and Russian clients, I can't say Fukert made Matska's guns but in the DGJ articles mentioned in the first post, Bill Wise or Geno mentioned that Matska sourced his frames or forging from Gustav Bittner, who with Gustav Fukert(German's had a typo in the patent application which resulted in Fuckert), Wenzel Morgenstern & Sohn, Eduard Schmidl and Elias Schwab formed a group headed by Rudolf Harnisch in 1887 to make the Mannlicher. This appears to have heavily funded them allowing an expansion in the hunting/sporting catagory. Very similar to Suhl, many makers sourced components from Weipert/Vejprty as it was a well of cottage industry, individual craftsmen and Matska apparently drew from the Weipert well. Then Johann Nowotny(1839-1893) is known to also have sourced components from Weipert as well as offered John Kilby tubes, which apparently the Russians really did cotton to, on his upper scale gun. Johann Nowotny, not the Nowotny of Suhl or Matthias Nowotny who had J. Springer as a son-in-law, had a close working relationship with the British and may have been the point of contact for the Kilby tubes. In 1945 when all the Germans were expelled and the state took over all the gunmakers, after assembling all the parts possible, strange combinations like Suhl tubes on a Johann Kalecky(Kalezky?) system as well as Purdey tubes on a Jiracek action with the Weipert stamp NPw. Also was a J. Lang(London) set of tubes on a Belgian system.

Gustav Fukert is on Silver's 6.5X52R post as well as here. To boot, Silver's Fukert was proofed/proved in Germany, maybe Suhl. It looks to be a small complicated wide world of longarms. What was the serial of your Fukert?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

A friend had a nice C grade Lefever with Kilby barrels and so marked on the top of the barrel like they would mark Krupp etc. These were fluid steel.

Also, Feodor(Franz) Osipovitch Matska(Macka) looks to have been Bohemian by birth and immigrated, or spent some formative years, thru Austria before moving on to Russia. This increases the probablity of a strong Matska-Bittner/Fukert-Weipert craftsmen relationship.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

My F-Gun had the fateful "C" in the spelling of the name. I will look up the gun in my files and hopefully find Mr. F's full name and the serial number.

Here're the Fukert markings. They usually have , on the barrels, the Fukert patent in about six countries.