Mainly a pinfire cartridge and pistol collector but picked this one up recently and thought I would share it!

I would like to better date it and figure out what the other proofs are.









Some info from Guillaume Van Mastrigt says that

The broken gun with the LF logo inside a rectangle with a rounded edge was used by Casimir Lefaucheux until his death. Then his wife used it until selling the rights to the name, Lefaucheux and the logo to her son-in-law, Laffiteau in 1859.

In Nov. 1865 Laffiteau filed for new trademarks with the LF and the word Lefaucheux.


So this gun was either made (or sold by) before 9 Aug 1852, by Casimir Lefaucheux
after 9 Aug 1852 and before 1859 by Casimir's widow
or after 1859 and before Nov 1865 by Laffiteau.

The other marks make it more interesting.



There is a FASSIN



Which is potentially FASSIN-RONGÉ of Quai Davroy, 582, LIEGE, cira 1836 - 1888



And an L, which could be anything; Lefaucheux, Laffiteau, etc



And a JLR which is maybe ROUMA LJ. ?



And a 1244 which appears on the barrel and the receiver (under the LF 2773)



Anyone have any thoughts or comments?

Here are a couple more pretty pictures too

Pretty neat. I don't see any true Proofmarks but mainly touchmarks. I can't tell on the LLF but it seems to me it reads LL? or LF w/ another odd character?


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Very elegant looking shotgun!
Karl

That is a fine looking piece - elegant is the appropriate word. Well, I'll likely get myself contradicted quickly. But it was my understanding that Casimir Lefaucheaux was a Parisian firm and originally used barrels from Leopold Bernard. A Paris proof house mark exists but it is almost never seen. In the line on dating early 20th Century Saint Etienne shotguns, I translated a letter from Didier Drevet to a Haut Loire newspaper in 1878 (after the Paris Universelle Exposition), in which he complained mightily about the laxity of Parisian standards, their use of Belgian gun parts and their lack of a proper proof house to regulate things saying essentially that it wasn't fair that Saint Etienne guns had to be proofed while the Parisians just skipped the whole process. I don't think it was until 1885 that regulations on proofing guns nationwide in France were passed and it wasn't mandatory until after WWII. In other words, I speculate that you're unlikely to see any real proof marks on a Parisian Lefaucheaux from this era.

I would be very tempted to post your gun on the French gun chat site " https://www.chassepassion.net/forums. You'd be almost guaranteed to get a good answer.

Here is a similar Casimir Gun with St. Etienne proofs: http://s144812367.onlinehome.fr/fusil-lf-2164-de-casimir-lefaucheux

And thanks for that forum link. I'll check it out!

Sure it's similaire but not the same Patent

Yeah that was mainly just showing that there are Casimir guns with proof marks.

Additionally, do you know what patent mine follows? Would you need to see under the locks?

The patent 8955 of the 22 nov 1849 seems to be an improvement of yours.
On your shotgun you've to take the pin out to separate the barrels from the breech .
With patent 8955 you don't need any tools to take them off.


_________________

Yes, please take the barrels off and show me the éventual proof marks

Eugène L .

Thanks.

And every time I try to remove that pin I just feel like I am pounding a hole into the gun and don’t want to ruin it.

Have any tips? Same for my pistol I showed you.

Is there a certain side? Is the pin the tiny part in the middle of the circle or is it the whole circle? Etc?

Yes there is a side to pull it out, maybe it's sticked .
Heat it up a little and put some fluide oil ....

Yes it's the same construction as the pistol you showd me
Yes it's the tiny part you've to move

Eugène L

Now this is an interesting thread. Eugène, with the images & info thus far can you bound the date of manufacture for this LF example?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Not for the moment, I must first see the proof marks on the hidden side of the barrels.

Personally I think that in view of the LF number we are more in the period 1852/1865.
So after the death of Casimir in 1852 and before Laffiteau had is own proofmarks 1865.

It's very difficult to date exactly the arms of Casimir because there existe no Database of what he made. My database is to small for the moment ....

The database of Eugène is big enought to nearly indicate the month of production over the periode 1854 - 1881 (hand guns only)

SO here is an example of the two sides of the pistol. The shotgun is set up similarly.



Do I tap (2) this hole? With what?

Do I tap (1) and pop out a piece? then tap something?

Here is a view of the shotgun too:

Looking at the pictures I would tap on 2, it's got the putt and is smaller than 1 .....

I have several double pinfires with variations of the Lefaucheux opening,locking system. They are visually similar, but the take down [opening ] mechanisms are somewhat different. Some have the patents of the systems marked on the gun.

This must be the result .....

Neat 1844(?-stamped on lower rib) tubeset. Do you know from whom the tubes were sourced?


Cheers,


Raimey
rse

That helps a lot! I thought it was a smaller pin inside that circle! I didn't know the whole thing was a pin!

two dates on that shotgun 1846 on the breech, 1844 on the barrels, all together signed by Casimir Lefaucheux.

On the barrels LB in an oval, for Léopold Bernard, page 66 in the book of Casimir by Gerard Lautissier

Just for the sake of sanity and somehow arrived at impressions about Parisian gun makers in this era, are there any Parisian proof marks? Y a t'il des poinçons d'épreuve Parisian?

Alright. I was able to get the barrel off and found 2 more marks!



16.8



EL? Liege proof?

Lovely case indeed. Belgian proofmarks.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Ahhh Belgian proofs...no Paris proof house mark. So the sickness goes back that far? Time to post the translation of that 1878 Didier-Drevet letter to the Haut Loire newspaper again. Here was my (poor) translation of the relevant parts of M. Didier-Drevet's letter:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=484199&page=3

Exposition Belgian: I have not analyzed the exposition of M. Leopold Bernard. This house is known throughout the world and It’s necessary to agree that it is successfully supporting its old reputation. However, when one compares this work with that of St-Etienne, one quickly recognizes that the gap is of little importance; that in reality the contrast which exists between the two expositions is more about the abundance of products and the richness of the display than in the superiority of execution. The only thing missing from our body of barrel work, which would equal that of Paris, is some additional installations; of better rolling mills, better made and more appropriate to the work of the barrel making, ovens to braze and polishers. Our methods of production are far too primative and our products suffer from the lack of means; but it is not a question of organization which might be solve this, and allow us to be able to deliver our production across the board.

For everything which touches the area of the barrel making, our infrastructure possesses all the elements; our forges, our dressers without boasting one can say have little comparison in the whole world.

Without wanting to diminish the merits of the house of Leopold Bernard, one must recognize that he is operating at an advantage because of his location.

For a long time his manufactures were encourgesd and supported by the Parisian gunmakers, who needed to have a prestigious barrel from Paris in order to have the rest of the gun which was made abroad accepted.

It’s true that the beautiful movement of egos was close to being extinguished because most of the long guns which I was given to look at in the display cases of the Parisian exposition were mounted with Belgian barrels and even barrels that were decidedly mediocre.

I examed in detail two of the display cases. I will abstain from citing the name of the two exhibiters, but I picked up ours and the brand names of the barrels and I could, if necessary, justify what i’m going to say in advance.

In spite of the long guns which were in the two display cases, I only found one barrel legally proof-marked and it was from Liege.

All the others were without a brand name, and of such of those I figure that six of the barrels were Belgian made.

It’s true to say that there is not a proof house in Paris. The government has not judged it necessary to establish one because there is not a single maker of barrels in Paris. It is this state of affairs which facilitates fraud and which I brought to the attention of the Paris Exposition. One can bring in barrels from Liege which have not been proofed; One can decorate them with a proper mark/name and one can then babtise them as Paris barrels. I know very well that M. Leopold Bernard, who is careful about his reputation and who, decidedly sells very expensive products, but without submitting his barrels to a serious proof test.

But as for the gun makers who buy these barrels without a proof mark abroad why would they do it differently?

In any case it’s not legal neither for one method or another. There cannot be two laws in France, one for Paris, the other for St-Etienne.

Here is the decree of 22 April 1868 applied to us.

The decree says:

“The barrel makers, merchants and workers cannot sell any barrel without it having been proofed and stamped by the accepted proof mark, a fine of 330 fr for the first time and a penalty of double that for each case after and the confiscation of the barrels which are put on sale."

The terms of the law are clear. How then can one allow to be spread out in the middle of the Exposition products which would be seized if they were in our city, at the frontier as always, by agents richly rewarded to make the law respected?

The jury of the Exposition could recompense, with their eyes closed, the gun-makers of Paris and shower gold medals on these barrels breaking the proof house decree. But the government cannot have two weights and two measures.

It is not admissible that the Stephanoise barrel makers are stringent in their proofing when their competition can spare the allowance and the risks that they bring.

It is sufficient to signal this state of affairs to the Government so that the law will apply everywhere. And in closing I recall, in conclusion, that the Americans and the English do not have special expositions for barrel makers, that the Belgians don’t produce anything but mediocre products and that Paris and Saint-Etienne alone are left standing

.....Our production of die cast tooling involves every facet of barrel production and in the near future, will surely be top ranked.

.....I have the honor, sir editor, to be your devoted constituent.

Didier Drevet
Master barrel maker, member of the com-
mission for oversight of the proof-
house of Saint-Etienne.

légionnaire étranger français Argo44, it really wasn't really a sickness but a teat from which they just could not be weaned. An addiction or a vice, if you will, that they couldn't shake. Why reinvent the wheel when the Liege mechanics could roll out an upper rung offering one day & a price-point the next?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Ah mon cher Raimey......C'est dommage...Waterloo... The problem would have been solved.

Excuse, J'ai oublie: Roulez la Marée

Too bad indeed: Able was I ere I saw Elba(palindrome).


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Yes Liège made barrels, so what .....we can't remake history.
The belgium barrel makers had a good reputation....

End of the controversy and get back to basics: when was this rifle made?
______________________________________________________

The EL enterlaced was in use from Juin 1853 until today ... and is a exportation stamp.
Casimir Lefaucheux died on the 9th of august 1852.
so he did not physically work on this weapon....
These barrels where not approuved in Liège and only made for exportation, because the ELG marking doesn't apprears, neither the inspector stamp...
So my conclusion is: shotgun assembled in the workshops of Lefaucheux at 37 Rue Vivienne with belgium FASSIN made barrels, after June 1853 but before the 29th of November 1865.
JLR is probably the black-smith, working for Fassin who fashioned the barrels

Interesting deduction. Have you knowledge of the mechanic Fassin? I'm not sold on the JLR. Either a poor stamping effort or possibly JLF??

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Eugene, I am still curious about my original hypothesis - that 1) the Lefaucheux was unlikely to have a Paris proof mark, and 2) a Paris proof mark is a relatively rare thing on pre-1885 guns. Is that a fair assumption? Was M. Didier-Drevet correct? Many thanks and I learn every day.



By the way what part of Normandy are you from? For a week a few years ago I explored the area where the 82nd Airborne jumped on 06 Juin 1944 - From Saint Mere Elise, Chef du Pont, to Pont l'Abbe (Picauville) across the Mederet River and down to Baupt. My father was killed at Pretot. Photos from his camera here: https://www.508pir.org/album_williams/index.htm

Gene Williams
.

Thanks for sharing those great photos with us, Gene,

All my best, SRH

Pays de Bray is a little area in a triangle Paris - Amiens - Rouen, so more in Seine Maritime - Oise higher up than the Calvados.

For the moment I never found on Lefaucheux arms (father or son) the proofmark of Paris .......
Father and son signed LF, casimir with a square around, eugène not.
Eugène had also a belgium proofmark EL with a crown.

Mr Didier Drever is right but for exemple nearly all the barrels of Lefaucheux (father and son) have indication of provenance .... belgium - st etienne but when he buy from Bernard or an other he probably don't know where the barrel comes- from
And that is not there problem , there looking for good barrel and not to expensif barrels ... to make as much profit as possible ..

JLR or JLF can be both, I already have seen this kind of marking on barrels ...

Eugène L .

Also on a single shotgun from Lefaucheux..



http://s144812367.onlinehome.fr/carabine-signee-lefaucheux-en-cal-24-a-broche

Most interesting. Just may be JLR but that R is truly ugly if it is:


Subject double

Single shot

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

I agree

Eugene, I have just read part of the www.lefaucheux.net which you provided. What a wonderful reference. Thank you.