Bought this online, thinking I could hunt with it, but it is a bit rougher 'round the edges than I had hoped. It was described as a 12-bore, but the barrels are marked 13 and they seem to run .715-.719. Rib is faintly marked London Laminated Steel. Bores appear to be in fairly good shape inside. Worst wear is the corroded right hammer nose. Locks and triggers function normally.
Stock is in nice shape, but refinished.
I had in my mind that laminated steel was a plus, but have seen comments that it is the least safe of the old barrel steels.
So, is this likely a wall hanger? Will probably have Cody Kearcher take a look at it.

W.C. Scott is a good company. In the world of 150 year old guns, .715 and .719 bores in 13 gauge aren't bad at all, although you certainly want to know what wall thickness is. Also, moderate black powder charges don't produce that much pressure. My experience with original percussion SxS's has been that when you really clean out the bores you start to see the ravages of time. I would certainly get it checked, and the wear around the fences is significant, but I would not assume that it can't be shot.

I shoot a fair amount of skeet with similar guns (my Scott is 10 gauge though), usually using 3/4 ounce of 8.5 shot over 65 to 70 grains FFg. My leads are considerably increased over modern guns, 5 plus feet on the crossers. Upping the powder loads reduces the leads only marginally (as in, I can't tell the difference).

For pheasants I use 1 ounce of 6's over 72 grains FFg, and it works well out to maybe 30 yards. With cylinder chokes nothing seems to work well beyond 30 yards.

That action looks pretty bad Bill, just think what the inside of those barrels look like. I wouldn't bother. Nice display piece though.

And W. & C. Scott & Son is light years beyond a good company.

I had a Manton 9/10 gauge that’d been honed over the years until it was an 8.5/9 gauge. I used to hunt preserve pheasants with it using standard 12 gauge 3 dram 1-1/8 ounce loads and it was just fine. BTW, as a ‘safety test’ I discharged each barrel from a sawhorse rest with 6 drams of BP and 1-1/8 ounces of shot (what I might inadvertently load in the field). Each barrel made a terrific KABOOM and they both held together just fine.


Here’s a photo of the Manton with its first pheasant.

What I’m saying is don’t just write it off without having a competent SXS gunsmith look it over.

Steve

What Rockdoc said.

Look how corroded the inside of those fences are. They are probably the easiest part of a muzzleloader to clean and they obviously were not cleaned. If they're corroded to that degree what do the barrels look like.

Looks like a candidate for a table lamp project in a very dark room.

It looks like someone tried to hammer the breech plug loose on the right barrel.

Oh yee of little faith... No one's suggesting it's a candidate for a complete restoration! However, if the barrels are not terribly pitted or honed too thin it could be a fun project to freshen up as a shooter and use for clays or in the field. Again take it to a knowledgeable gunsmith and have it checked out.

Steve

I can see where some would find it fun wasting time or money and ending up with a more costly piece of crap that has the potential to blow up in ones face.

hey jOe: its around 150 years old...should you look so good at that age...

take the negative comments at the price you paid for them. have it checked and go from there you never know what you find.

A few years ago I put together some tips on "freshening up" and old shotgun to use as a shooter. As far as I can tell nothing I recommended would cause any permanent harm if someone wanted to do a later full-blown restoration. Doing this work typically has taken from 2-3 hours over a period of days and cost between $20-$30.

Steve

First do no harm… I’ve found that it’s easy and cheap to make a tired gun look a lot better by doing a few simple things.

Be sure when you take the gun apart that all your screw drivers tightly fit the screws so you don’t bugger them up. Also, clean out the screwdriver slots on all screw heads before attempting to remove them, it’s amazing how much unseen dirt collects in the slots.

Stock – I remove the stock and soak it for 12 to 24 hours in acetone, this will remove the old finish and much, if not all, of the soaked in black oil staining around the wood/frame area. After I let it dry, I rub it down with 0000 steel wool* and start wiping on very thin coats of True Oil. I let it dry between coats and then lightly rub the stock down with steel wool again before I wipe on the next coat of True Oil. I repeat 10-15 times and I always rub the stock down with the 0000 steel wool after the last coat to remove that cheap lacquered-look shine. Be sure to only give the checkered areas only 2-3 coats since the valleys fill up.

For cracks I use epoxy, I first spread the crack open as far as possible, then use one or more toothpicks laid on their side to keep it propped open. I next take slow curing epoxy and squirt it deeply into the crack with a disposable glue syringe (Hobby Lobby) then I take compressed air and blow it farther into the crack and then repeat with the glue syringe. I finally remove the toothpicks, press it together, wipe off the excess glue and wrap it with an old bicycle inner tube or rubber surgical tubing and let the epoxy cure for at least 24 hours. In some cases if need be, I’ll drill and tap a small hole and screw in a thin stainless steel machine bolt slathered with epoxy. I’ll pre-notch the screw with a file so I can break it off just below the level of the wood so it can be concealed better. I usually try to place any screws under the locks or the tangs. Through checkered areas is good since the checkering can be redone to hide the repair.

Metal frame and barrels – I rub it down with light oil and 0000 steel wool to remove rust and grime. I’ve also found that soaking the action overnight in Coleman Lantern fuel will clean out most accumulated grime and goo. After I pull it out of the Coleman fluid I use a bottle of high quality spray lubricant and one of those long red nozzles to spray lubricant into the recessed areas of the action. I let it set overnight in a standing position so the excess oil can drain out, then I use my air hose again to blow out any remaining excess oil. Usually that treatment will get the action working briskly without having to take it apart.

Barrels (assuming black and not browned barrels) – I take the barrels that I’ve cleaned with a 0000 steel wool rub and hose them down with automotive starting fluid to degrease them (don’t be smoking when you do this!), after degreasing I rub the barrels down with a good quality cold blue treatment. Cold blue doesn’t hold up as well as a rust blue, but it’s simple to do (and redo the next season) and won’t hurt the barrels if you want to rust blue them in the future. Overall, while not nearly as good as rust bluing (especially in a side by side comparison) it will typically make the gun look a lot better than it did.
So that’s my free advice for the day, it’s always worked well for me.

Steve
* be careful using sandpaper not to round the edges of the wood where the metal parts and butt-plate fits, I try to not use sandpaper at all.

In the battered condition of this gun his best bet would be to scrap the platinum vents and move on.

He could remove the platinum plugs, thread the holes and replace them with screw-in steel plugs and sell the platinum to finance freshening up the gun. What a great idea jOe! You are amazing, an absolute genius!

Steve

Now you're a gunsmurf



Better than being an idiot when it comes to guns.

Scrap the platinum (which is probably worth more than he paid for the gun) and use the rest as a fancy tOmato stake.

so much for preserving old gons and the history they represent.

Something the previous owners didn't know about....

And I guess you call ruining a receiver with an acetylene torch "preserving" them?

SRH

I should have it fully checked out by someone who understands what they are looking at and go with their guidance. It may not be a write off. I see that the barrels have the Scott Trade Mark. Post the serial number and I can year date it for you. Lagopus.....

Look at that standing breech and how thick the corrosion is around the fences and Rockdoc is worried about buggered screws?

Someone took one of the finest shotguns built on this planet and turned it into tomato stake.

It looks like a fine shooter. Look down the barrels -if you can't see light shinning through the sides it's ok. 65 grs of 3F and 1oz of shot works just fine [ with fiber wads ]. It's your gun - do whatever you want to it: that's the fun of buying old guns. And yes, laminated Damascus is the strongest of all the Damascus steels.

It's not untypical to have heavy corrosion around a ML's fences (and percussion nipples), that's where the corrosive detritus from the percussion caps is deposited when shooting. It's not something that'll necessarily make the gun unsafe. Interesting how my comment about buggered screws, taken out of a generic freshening-up-your-gun write-up I did 3 years ago, would be focused on here.

And God forbid someone would want to turn it from a tomato stake back into a useable shooter again. Holy Mary Mother of God, may the saint's preserve us!

Steve

If someone can't tell what they are looking at from the pictures posted they might need to get their eyes checked.

Just to clarify, "best" quality English c. 1830s-1840s MLs usually had Stub Twist. 1850s MLs usually had Laminated Steel or (less commonly) "English 2 Stripe" crolle Damascus. That Laminated Steel barrel material is however not the "3-Rod English Best Laminated Steel" that was the winner of the Birmingham Proof House Test Trial reported in 1891
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dnRL...ref=2&pli=1

More information here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1__gn...ref=2&pli=1

It should be noted that both the English and esp. the Belgians also referred to Twist barrels as "Laminated Steel".

Unfortunately, I did not have any Laminated Steel samples to include in the hopefully soon to be published tensile testing performed by METL in 2014, nor could I find any published or advertised tensile strength reports thereof.

If the bores scrub up ok, the wall thicknesses are sufficient, the barrels ring; if the locks engage positively and crisply at half and full cock, and the triggers release the hammers cleanly; if the stock is solid and sound, I'd be happy shooting it.
Muzzles can be rod-worn to look paper thin but be fine just inches further down; fences can be quite badly corroded from priming compounds without affecting safety; platinum vent plugs were often peened shut by original owners who wanted more energy behind the charge, not venting out the side.


One of the finest guns ever built?! I don't think so; good quality gun by a respected maker, but hardly one of the finest. Tomato stake? Pending some actual in-hand examination with appropriate tools by someone who actually knows what they're looking at, maybe a long way from it yet.

A W. & C. Scott & Sons ONLY a respectable maker? You better think again but longer and harder this time.

Yes, W&C Scott is a respected - even renowned - maker, and while they were capable of making guns that would stand with any, there were more esteemed firms; nor is that gun - to reiterate (perhaps I was unclear?) - "one of the finest shotguns built on this planet" or even one of their finest; nor is it one of their plainest, or yet a tomato stake. Some hyperbole, perhaps?

I don't need to think again, thankyou.

Edit:
I just took a couple of photos to illustrate.
Condition aside, can you see a difference in quality?




Apologies to Bill for taking it off track. It's a grand old gun, and probably perfectly shootable.

Cadet so what are you trying to show us ?

In your photo I see a gun that hasn't been abused, misused and has been taken care of.

What I don't see is a gun of quality higher than a W & C Scott. Fact is your hammers are quite lacking one is out of round and both lack nipple venting to the front. Are they replacements ?

Are your breach plugs vented or is it a latter cheaper version than the Scott that wasn't vented ?

Pardon my English...but If you can't see the bloody difference in abuse between the two you need to get your blooming vision checked.

I know you're a bit of a Scott fanboi, and I have a Scott or two in my cabinet too, but they built guns of many grades, quite a few better than this, and there were better makers.
You and I can both see the difference in condition, but you can not discern a difference in quality? On the Scott, I can see file marks all over the face where the breech hooks in. I can see a difference in coverage and fineness of engraving.
To answer your questions: the platinum plugs in mine are vented. As to hammers: on mine, one is a replacement, but both are designed not to vent, but shaped "out of round" (actually, they're not, just a perspective thing with a mismatched hammer, but whatevs...) to closely enclose the nipples. Not sure how common that was; it might be a fashion, or an era, or peculiar to that maker...

My opinion of this gun has not been based on the maker or the grade....I don't see any file marks made by Scott truth is you can't discern years of corrosion and abuse from any original work on this gun.

What ticks me off is the guy posted the gun thinking he had bought a piece of crap...been there and done that. Then all the fantasy gun dreamers (that from proof of their posts don't know their azzez from a hole in the ground) pop out of the rotting woodwork trying to convince the guy to shoot the piece of crap.

Like I said if the fellow can't get his money back his best bet would be to salvage what he could and move on....Platinum is pretty pricey.

Here are a couple more views of this gun. The stock is in really nice shape, with good checkering. I can't see a crack.
The muzzle of the left barrel is thin at the outer edge, but that is clearly from someone polishing corrosion at the very mouth of the tube.
Lagopus, where would I look for a serial number?

The gun looks very nice! However, it has quite a bit of drop at the heal for a British gun, it must've been made for an American shooter. My old heavily honed 9/10 gauge Manton was paper thin at the muzzles yet it held together just fine with a 1-1/8 ounce shot and 6 dram black powder load. The honing may have been done to correct a barrel regulation POI problem. Chuck H has successfully done similar things to correct POI problems. With that paper thin muzzle you're going to want to be careful not to bang it into anything.

Steve

PS HojO just because I may disagree with you doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. Your friend Amarillo Mike did his best to explain that concept to you but apparently he was unsuccessful.

Steve, I just measured the drop at heel on the Scott and it is 3 inches, certainly requiring a very erect stance. My only other double is a Husqvarna Model 20A, and the DAH on it is just over 2 1/2 inches.
The Scott will also need a ramrod.

Bill, if you're going to build a ram rod be sure to get a butt end tip that you can screw a metal worm into to remove wads so that you don't have to fire the gun every time to unload it. When I was shooting mine at the range I just used a 3' hardwood dowel that was close to the bore size.

Steve

nice looking gun...

nice pictures...

I doubt the gun has a serial number the one I had just like it didn't. It was probably made between 1850 and 1860.

In the second set of picks it's easy to see why you had your hopes up....if it's any consolation I've had my hopes destroyed more than once in a gun purchase.

As far as Rockdoc being an expert on muzzle loaders....well I'm betting you're looking at his 'one horse ride'.

And as far as his "proof testing" it doesn't prove anything other than it didn't blow up that time....if anything it just puts undue stress on a 150+ year old gun.

No doubt you could probably get the gun shooting but ask yourself then what do you have ?

Ps...They are so enamored maybe InferO' Ed or Rockdoc will buy it and bail you out ?

Boy I'll be sure and remember that...

Joe, regarding ML doubles whose barrels have let go, some years ago I had the opportunity to "guest curate" the several hundred firearms in the Southern Oregon Historical Society's collection. There were a couple of dozen muzzleloading doubles among them, and three or four had burst barrels -- always the left barrel and typically near the middle of the forend. My thought was that these must have been related to the right barrel being loaded over and over and the left not discharged until the components had moved. Just a theory, but I bet it cost the shooters their thumbs.

As long as you don't see any light shining through the sides you'll be fine.

Seriously in one of the last photos I did notice what could be a breech plug leak ?

Before firing I'd get the nipples out and replace them....judging from the corrosion in the pictures I'd be suspect of the new ones screwing in tight.

If you're lucky It probably won't blind you if a nipple blows.

Rockdoc,

"with a 1-1/8 ounce shot and 6 dram black powder load" sounds like a pretty hefty load. Is that to proof or was that a regular hunting load?

With my 9/10 gauge Manton I was planning to shoot it at pen raised pheasants using a standard *12 gauge 3 dram BP and 1-1/8 ounce shot load (and very light for a 10 or 9 gauge gun). It's very easy in the field to get distracted and mis-load the gun. I did it once with my 12 gauge Pedersoli, I put a double BP load in one barrel and a double shot load in the other! Fortunately, I tried to fire the shot loaded barrel first and of course nothing happened except the primer fired. If I'd fired the double BP load barrel it would've been like a BP blank going off. Nonetheless, I figured with the Manton that there was the possibility that I could put in a double BP load with a load of shot on top. Hence the "safety test" using the 6 dram load. Normally with the light 12 gauge load I was using I wouldn't have been so concerned but I'd measured the Manton barrels and over the years it'd been honed so that it was a 8.5/9 gauge gun by the time I got it.

*according to Circlefly wads the standard 10 gauge load is 4.25 drams BP and 1-5/8 ounces of shot.

Steve

1882 Parker Bros. catalog Lifter-era black powder load recommendations

Bill, I can see why you fell in love with it.

Too bad she had the clap....

Good morning jOe, I thought I’d address your earlier comments. First I never claim to be an expert on muzzle loaders or any other guns for that matter. If you’ll notice I typically post about techniques I’ve used. If someone wants to use a technique I’ve used that’s up to them. FWIW I’ve enjoyed three ML’s over the last 14 years, a 1973 12 gauge SXS Pedersoli replica, an 1850’s vintage 9/12 gauge SXS Manton, and a 36 gauge Belgium SXS guild gun and hope to continue with additional future muzzle loaders.

I thoroughly explained what you call my “proof testing” and exactly why I did it on page 5 of this thread and now refer to that explanation.

Early on, long before Bill posted the later photos of his Scott, I sent him a PM inquiring about purchasing the gun. So yes jOe, I am willing to back my thoughts with money. The fact is I enjoy simple gunsmithing projects and the small amount of time and money I put into freshening up an old gun and putting it back to work gives me a great deal of satisfaction.

Just hoping to clear up any misassumptions you might have made jOe, in the meantime have a nice day!

Steve

Steve: "the standard 10 gauge load is 4.25 drams BP and 1-5/8 ounces of shot" for modern replica MLs?

Drew, I stand corrected and believe I am in error using the words "the standard 10 gauge load". The actual words cut and pasted from Circleflys website are:

"Service Charges in Shotguns: The British service charges for breech loading smooth bore guns, as listed in W.W. Greener’s book, “The Gun and It’s Development” (9th edition, published 1910)" along with a chart referencing the load I gave.

Given this information the referenced load is for breech loaded guns. Using black powder I wouldn't expect any load differences between muzzle loaders and breech loaders, if there are differences (perhaps because of primers) I'd be interested in learning about them. In the field, I found that the 12 gauge BP load I used in my 10 gauge gun worked just fine on pen-raised birds, at least the birds didn't seem to notice any difference .

Steve

Drew, thank you for that link!
I did some measuring, and believe these to be fairly heavily constructed. The 30-inch tubes weigh 4 1/2 pounds. They taper from 1.050 inches at the breech plug joint to .825 at the muzzle.
Have them soaking, nipples down, in penetrant. Hope to "draw the cones" soon.
I have got to get one of those cheap Chinese LED endoscopes and a have a good look inside.

Bill: I tried one of those nOt-bOttom-Of-the-line fiberOptic scOpes for bOre examination. It had good resolution for anything more than about 6" away, but the image was WAY out of focus for the bore ie. within 1".
I would be very interested if someone has a recommendation for a not top-of-the-line bore scope.
These are high $
http://www.gradientlens.com/Rigid-Borescopes/Hawkeye-Classic-Slim.aspx#6861-overview

I do not know what the standard load for a 10ga ML was. For many years standard for the 10ga breech loaders was 1¼oz shot with up to 5 drams powder. W W Greener stated the powder charges used in the 10 were all out of proportion for the 1¼oz shot load used.
he further added the 12 would handle 1¼oz as efficiently as the 10 & any advantage the 10 held over the 12 was obtained only by use of a heavier shot load. He particularly recommended a 1½oz shot load with 4 drams powder.

What Miller said

1896 "New Rules of Proof" Scale No. 4
https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq
10b ML Service Charge = 4 Drams BP with 1 1/2 oz. shot

Drew, some of the guys at Levergunners are getting some pretty fine results with their $14 scopes:

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65202

Better off going with the earlier fellows reply about looking for "light shining through the sides" than looking with a bore scope.

When I bought the Scott I had...(which was in a lot better shape than the one you have) I inquired about looking down the barrels with a bore scope. My muzzleloading mentor the late Ed Mason replied that if I did I'd most likely never shoot one again.

Well, the right cone was easily drawn, but the left, not so much. Letting it soak in penetrant. Will apply just a bit of heat. Very small square shank on these little fellas and not a lot of purchase.

Do you have a percussion nipple wrench or a 1/4" drive four sided socket (call your Snap On tool man about the socket)? If not you'll risk rounding the shank. Even though a little carefully applied heat should get the penetrating oil down into the threads. Heat then apply penetrating oil, repeat several times.

Steve

Kroil...

jOe's absolutely right Kroil's really good stuff! I've used it extensively on numerous automotive projects while I lived in the Midwest rust belt. It was often a project saver. However, it can be hard to find, I ended up ordering mine straight from Kroil.

Steve

Rock a Doc....I don't need you to sing back up on anything I put our there.

Kroil is only hard to find if you don't know where to look.

I am out of Kroil. It has been good to me.
Steve, I'll see about finding a socket.

No problem jOe, it won't happen again! However, I do have a question, since you know where to look, where do you find Kroil? I've found it occasionally at gun shows and a few mom & pop hardware and gun stores but that's about it. Where do you find it?

Steve

By "cone" I assume you meant nipple....the question now is will a new one screw in and tighten up ? If not you'll need a gunsmith versed in muzzle-loaders to tap to a bigger size nipple.

Another thing to look for after you get the nipples out is if the seat is corroded away...the nipple hole wasn't a straight shot through the breach plugs. (With all the visible corrosion I suspect the seats will be corroded if not gone entirely).

Another thing that scared me about this gun is the fact that some amateur tried to remove the breech plugs. The barrels have to be "supported" to remove the breech plugs or damage to the ribs/barrels most likely occurred.

(Most heating and air supply houses around here have Kroil).