I'm looking at an old French 16 bore...love the gun but the metal looks "proud" from the stock to me from pics. I'm completely inexperienced with this. How much of a problem would this be? Advice appreciated:

Buy it as a shooter and don't worry about it.

The uneven relation of wood to metal (metal not uniformly proud) suggests more to do with shrinkage than, say, more than one refinish: thus the wood could be unstable, and move more when it got to Virginia. Also, the wood near the top of the head looks weathered, like the gun spent time on a back porch. It could split on firing, the bearing surfaces having voids. Or it could last 50 years in regular use.


Only you know if it's worth the gamble.

Mike

Hmmm.
Well shrinkage isn't unusual but by my experience (40+ guns around 100+ years old) that's rather large. I can't say much about the wood quality from the photograph but I'd suggest that at a minimum you "bed" the action if you intend to shoot it in a sustained manner. Boxlocks are prone to splitting internally at the head (where the metal meets the wood) and a gap like that will only add a hammer effect to the force.
I wouldn't be surprised if it already were.
Jeremy

I have remedied a similar situation, but with the metal proud at the bottom of the action, by fitting very thin, tapered wedges of wood glued to the inside of the stock inletting and bearing against the outside edge of bottom strap, and then glass bedding the entire head of the stock. My repair is not invisible, but it is on the bottom of the gun, and it does look better (to me, anyway) than the proud metal. And I suspect that a better craftsman than I am could make that type of repair invisible, or nearly so.

I would want to have the gun in hand or at least have better pictures before I made any determination.

Argo, you can trade that old polaroid of yours in for a camera that actually takes colored pictures. You know you can do that right?

You know better than I that French guns are absolute top tier game guns and joys to hunt with, restock it if you eventually buy it, the original wood is shot.

Glass bed it and shoot it. Doubtful the gun is high enough quality to justify replacing stock. In fact, that old wood is probably superior to most of the junk available today if it's not cracked.

This problem of proud metal can be lessened by wedging but the external corners are always a problem when doing this. The only advice I will give is to do this type of work you do have to be a very skilled wood worker. A simpler method is to add a walnut veneer to raise the timber level then adjust the colour to match the rest of the stock.

I'll post a few more pictures from the ad on the proud metal. It's a 12 bore 110 years old plus or minus. And I may or may not make.an offer. The seller is advertising one of Terry Buffum's guns and his asking price is double what he paid for it plus the advertising for that particular gun doesn't seem accurate. So I'm a bit worried about what might be integrity issues (though I've only just begun to discuss the gun with the dealer and am perhaps doing him a disservice). Still considering options though; I'd like a really decent one when I buy.









Plus one photo of the Walnut. The colors are likely enhanced but it's a nice looking piece of wood. Stock is too short for me but perfect for my daughter-in-law. It is meant as a present for her and will be shot, not collected.

On that gun, if I got a really great price, I would just use it as is. I would try to make sure I wasn't talked into thinking I was getting a great deal, don't hesitate to walk away.

For historical purposes, I've looked at a couple of Didier Drevet Eureka Plume barreled Saint-Etienne guns...1902-1912 era...(with the date stamped on the barrel).. All are either stamped for the chamber "6.5" (6.5cm which changed about 1912? to mm...i.e. "65") or in the case of the year 1906 not stamped at all.

The several examples of guns I've looked at for sale over the last few weeks which are in America have usually been advertised having 2 3/4" chambers = 70mm.

This is impossible for an original Eureka since the 2 3/4 shell didn't exist pre-WWI in France. So were these guns all rechambered at some point without being reproofed? Or are the dealers just pulling a fast one? i.e advertising chambering as 2 5/8" (65mm/6.5cm), which they rounded up to 2 3/4" (70mm) or having a gun which a chamber gauge actually measured the chamber as 70mm? If the latter, it's been re-chambered but not re-proofed. (is this correct.???)

If you sell a 100+ year old shotgun which has been rechambered (and not reproofed) but don't advertise this fact..well, it seems borderline dangerous to this novice if not so advertised. (or is this normal?-I'm rapidly becoming skeptical if not cynical)