Ed asked that I post these photos for him. He'll provide additional information on his Scott 10 bore:




Stanton locks:

That is a nice butt plate nice pictures of the butt plate did you buy just the butt plate?

Thanks Gene

Sorry about the mixup - I was trying to post this this morning and still make a 7:15AM tee time. Fixed.

mc, this error was probably due to excessive DWP... Drinking While Posting... again.

But since that excuse has been used multiple times to explain screw-ups, Argo could always try blaming it on a bad attack of "computer mouse dystopia".

The gun is certainly not a high grade gun, but Premier Quality is stamped on the action flats. It has been taken care of these past 149 years, dirty but taken care of. Should be a fun shooter.

eeb send some more pictures - water table, barrel flats, barrel, etc. I'll post them. It deserves to be looked at more closely. I just reposted the pictures because I'd done it originally at lower resolution which wasn't good for the gun.

Are you OK keith? Trying to intimidate? Be clever?
Your hatred is destroying you and doesn't affect Gene or me a bit. What is the point?
Find healing and peace...and it's not to be found in accusing someone of substance abuse on a public forum. Or does that somehow make you feel better about yourself?

BTW: it is computer mouse DYSTONIA
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/task-specific-focal-dystonia/

I was adding humor,to me it was funny I like the gun I like Scotts I would like a Scott 10ga hammer gun ,and besides everyone enjoys butt plate pictures

No problem mc. . .I did make my tee time. eeb - still willing to post more photos. Love the gun.

Thanks Argo. I’ll send you some

I have a similar horn buttplate in my buttplate collection. It is resting in its oak and leather case, yes, just the buttplate.

More on Ed's Scott 10 bore: Observations:
-- Purdey Pat 1104 use number 4377. You can't date a gun by a Pat use number, at least consistently. However Pat 1104 expired on 01 May 1877 which puts at least a maximum date on it. (So Scott stamped Purdey's Patent on his guns presumably paying for it; wonder if Purdey paid Scott for using his spindle?)
-- WC Scott & Son Makers Patent Action. Not sure which Scott action this refers to but it's pretty ubiquitous on Scott guns.
-- There is one other patent stamped on the lump. "CSA? Nr 1 -28? Patent"? Can't make it out from the photos. Any hints. eeb can you see it?
-- Scott SN is 5220. It would date to 1874 per this chart:
https://doublegunshop.com/dgsnos5.htm

the rear lug features the adjustable lump and the patent that was granted to w & c scott to cover it.

best regards,

tom

I am not familiar with the Scott adjustable lump. The forend latch is awkward to use. I can understand why that feature did not make it in wider use.

Thanks. 16 February 1870, WM Scott Patent #452-70: adjustable sliding front lump

i have found a reference to the adjustable lump patent being issued in 1872....my copies of crudington & baker are packed away from my recent move, and i can't put my hands on them, or the whatley & crawford history of w & c scott....so i can't direct you to something more official.
i can tell you that the smaller screw is a keeper for the adjustment screw, which, with its eight indents, allows adjustment of the contact between the barrels and the standing breach....these guns can be brought back on face with a couple of turnscrews.

best regards,

tom

ps: i found a case you might consider - it's already monogramed for you....https://www.ebay.com/itm/305176353998?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D777008%26algo%3DPERSONAL.TOPIC%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20230811123856%26meid%3D0b1361f9613f4d0a9818e833d55b46eb%26pid%3D101770%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26itm%3D305176353998%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D4375194%26algv%3DRecentlyViewedItemsV2&_trksid=p4375194.c101770.m146925&_trkparms=parentrq%3Afcd996fc18a0a55f163a0c54ffffe668%7Cpageci%3A072d63b9-6307-11ee-8fac-82b6896dfdf1%7Ciid%3A1%7Cvlpname%3Avlp_homepage

Somehow that Boss case looks too short for a 10 bore shotgun's barrels. Don't know what are the lengths of Ed's barrels but they likely are in the 32" range. Kevin McCormack here in N. Virginia could restore it.

32” barrels. Shot it today, it will break some targets. Fun stuff.

Gene,

Purdey and Scott entered into a reciprocal arrangement.

“Purdeys quickly realised the superiority of the Scott top lever allied to their bolt and made a reciprocal licensing agreement with Scotts; Purdey could use the Scott lever in conjunction with their bolt and Scotts could use the Purdey bolt along with their lever. In addition Purdeys could licence the dual patent to the London gunmakers and Scotts to Birmingham and the regions. Such licences were not cheap, Purdey charged the London gunmakers £2 per gun for the right to use the Purdey bolt and Scott top lever.”

Page 121, Donald Dallas, The British Sporting Gun and Rifle.

I knew they had come to some sort of reciprocal agreement. That explains it very well. Just curious as to why, since there was such an agreement, Scott would be putting Purdey 1104 Patent Use # on his gun. You usually have to pay for the number. I went down the patent use # rabbit hole a few years ago but am always being surprised.

eeb, It is entirely possible that your Scott is a Premier grade because I had a 12 bore Premier with the exact same water table markings, except mine was Purdey patent use no. 4625 and S/N was 5160. It had all the Premier patented features as yours does, with No engraving. My understanding is that oftentimes a pigeon shooter would order a best grade gun with no engraving , but the best grade wood, action, and barrels. Mine also had Stanton marked best rebounding locks. Your gun is the second one I've seen sans engraving, but I believe it is right. That gun had cutting edge features considering it was built in the mid 1870's and Scott's quality was second to none. Enjoy it, Sandlapper

Mine is #5220 so the manufacture date is close to yours. I’ve wondered if it was a pigeon gun because it doesn’t have the bumps and bruises of a duck/hunting gun. Ten gauge guns were allowed in the pigeon ring until sometime in the 1880s. I’m sure there’s someone here who can confirm that. The chambers are really tight. I have to crank the MEC resizing collet down to put shells in the gun. The chambers aren’t as generous as my Parker hammerless.

Scroll down about 1/3 here for Live Bird rules
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I_5GfGqfidbrfhpwzMvsccjDxjCd39M6nERp99wVEBQ/edit

January 3, 1878 Capt. A.H. Bogardus broke 5000 glass balls at 18 yard’s rise in 10 hours 40 minutes 35 seconds, missing 163, using a W&C Scott with 3 1/2 dram 1 1/4 oz. 8s.
https://books.google.com/books?id=DI4wAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA230&lpg

Jan., 1879 The Chicago Field Jamaica Plank Rd., L.I., New York
Brooklyn Gun Club vs. Philadelphia Gun Club, 8 guns per side. Only two Parker guns on the grounds. Mr. T.E. Broadway of the Brooklyners used a Parker 10 ga. with close choke weighing 9 1/2 lbs shooting 4 1/2 drachms of DuPont's Diamond Grade and 1 1/4 oz of Tatham's soft shot. For the Philly club, Mr. H.A. Burroughs shot a Parker 12 bore with medium choke weighing but 7 lb 14oz. He shot 4 drachms of Hazard's Electric Powder and 1 1/4 oz. of chilled #7 in the left barrel and #8 in the right.
W&C Scott was the choice for most shooters with a pair of Remingtons and a Moore and a Williams & Powell. I regret to say the New Yorkers took the contest 100-93 though the birds were a good lot, and many being white, were difficult to hit while close to the snow.


At the 1894 GAH at Live Birds guns were limited to 12 gauge and 8 pounds.

1898 GAH
John L. Lequin, secretary of the Interstate Association, writes us under date of Feb. 25 as follows:
“We have received inquiries from most all directions recently from a number of shooters who are probably desirous of entering the Grand American Handicap next month, concerning the weight of guns, and whether the handhold and recoil pad will be counted as a part of the gun when weighed. The subject has been placed before the Tournament Committee of the association, which committee has decided that the guns will be weighed naked.”
Rules limited a gun to no more than 8 pounds.

But the 1898 “Trap Shooting Rules” by the American Shooting Association (courtesy of Randy Davis) still listed 10g:
Charge of powder was unlimited
Shot was limited to 1 1/4 oz. by “Dixon’s measure”
Weight limit (there was no weight limit in 1890 or 1893) and ‘naked’ was not stated:
10g - 9 lbs. 4 oz.
12g - 8 lbs. 4 oz.
16g - 7 lbs. 12 oz.
20g - 7 lbs. 8 oz.
Single target rise……….Double target rise:
10g - 18 yds………16 yds.
12g - 16 yds……....14 yds.
16g - 14 yds……....12 yds..
20g - 13 yds……....11 yds.

Ed's gun is an 11 bore. In the 1882 Hurlingham pigeon shooting rules, it would have been allowed:
https://books.google.com/books?id=j..._r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false



And it's interesting - several of the Reilly shotguns in my database 10 bore or larger are not engraved.

Ed, we need some picture of the barrels and the rib. please.

I have a Scott 10, that is #7525 from 1876, per a Dr. Crawford letter. It has the #1104 patent "rotation number" 7387. It is a B grade, Stanton locks. The bbl proofs are not on the flats like eeb's, but out in front. I don't have a photo hosting site or I would show the letter and the gun.

I'll post them for you. email sent pm.

Here is Bret's Scott 10 bore: Of interest: The letter refers to the Scott moveable lump patent of 1870. The patent stamped on the Lump though is "CSA, Nov 1, 1873, Patent."









And here is the letter Bret referred to: What's perhaps is most interesting is the sentence in the letter: "For 14 years from the date of Purdey's patent, Scott (as others) paid a royalty to purdey for each gun." So if Scott was paying Purdey, Purdey must have likewise been paying Scott for his spindle? Is there a Scott patent number on Purdey guns during this period?

The barrels are '3 Iron British Best'
Interesting proof marks; 1875-1887 with 11B & 12M and NOT FOR BALL



But 'CHOKE' was used post-1887 so could have been reproved? Is that a capital 'R'?
What are the initials on the bottom rib?

Argo, thanks for posting the pictures, I am sorry they are not better quality. The adjustable lump pat. date is 1870.
Drew, that is something I never noticed? Since the choke markings are not directly on the bottom, were they stamped at a different time? There is some jug choke in one barrel, maybe it went back to the proof house afterwards? The bottom rib letters are "RH"

Thanks Bret, and reproof at the time of jug choke is likely. It would have been pre-1896 as there is no 'oz. Max' on the flats.

'RH' is a new one and no clue as to the identity

Since the barrels have "Not For Ball" on them (1875-1887), they must have been originally choked. It's my understanding that if barrels were cylinder bore during that time period, no "Not For Ball" was necessary. Were the barrels cut and then rechoked?

re "RH": A whole string of similar initials (though not "RH") are on some (not all) Reilly barrels from the 1870's as well. Since there were no barrel makers left in London, these barrels had to come from Birmingham or abroad. Wonder if these were the barrel borer?




The note on estimated Scott production is very interesting: 50,000 guns made over the course of 75 years.

Pretty sharp Drew! I never thought anything of it having both markings. It was choked half/half per the records, then jugged later. It does throw beautiful tight patterns.

Another question I have, is since eeb's gun is a bit earlier, did they move the proof marks out in front of the bbl flats between his, and mine? Or is it whomever was working that day, or did they acquire a roll marking setup, and no longer needed to hand stamp?

Bret, so the 10 bore is choked and jug-choked? Interesting combination.

the reference i mentioned regarding the adjustable lump patent is contained in this post; https://www.justanswer.com/firearms/cdnpo-scott-son-double-barrel-shotgun-wife-s.html

about 1/3 way down the page, as part of the recitation of scott's history, are specific patents and developments....that include the 1870 adjustable lump (patent #452) and a mention of an "improvement" in 1872. i have no knowledge of the source of this information - other than the fact it's on the internet, and therefor doubtlessly correct....



In 1870 an adjustable sliding front lump was patented under No. 452, this was popular abroad as any wear and looseness could be easily corrected.

In 1871 the Dorset Place showroom in London closed and the firm moved to 10 Great Castle Street, Regents Circus (now Piccadilly Circus) where they were to remain until 1899.

In 1872 an improvement to the adjustable front lump was patented. In 1873 patent No. 1268 covered a drop-down barrel action and gunstocks, and patent No. 1273 covered two mechanisms for linking the firing pins to the top lever. Patent No. 3756 covered a bolt locking mechanism (fore-end fastener?).



best regards,

tom

Correct, originally choked, and jugged later.

Mine has no choke. The adjustable lump sounds like an innovative feature. How long did Scott include this feature on their guns.

Something is odd in the story of the Purdey lock/Scott Spindle symbiotic relationship. There is Scott putting Purdey 1104 Patent Use Numbers and "Purdey Patent Lock" on all his guns (along with a letter claiming Scott was paying Purdey for the privilege). And here is an 1874 Purdey 10 bore with a Scott Spindle with nary a nod to Scott - nowhere is the Scott patent mentioned: (notice the non retracting firing pins). Something is rotten in Denmark.

https://www.drake.net/j-purdey-lond...oading-hammer-gun-9233-completed-in-1874

eeb, your gun was SN'd in 1874. Chokes had been tried - jug choking for instance - but nothing to write home about. It was Greener who popularized choke boring in 1875 and it was his work that led to the change in the proof marks to include "NOT FOR BALL" in June? 1875 (for guns with chokes).

10 bore Scott SxS hammer gun SN 5557 (1874) is for sale on Guns International for $1,700. This dealer's prices are so much lower than others that one must wonder (except for the "just ever so slightly off face" bit).
https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...hammer-shotgun-1874.cfm?gun_id=102415240



No pictures of the barrel flats or water table, but from the description it looks like it has a Purdey Patent Use #: "the water table having the W & C Scott Patent for the action and Purdey's patent bolt."

I thought purdey and Scott had some sort of reciprocal agreement on the Scott spindle and purdey bolt.i know I have read it somewhere.

Yes, it's part of shotgun legend and confirmed by Donald Dallas. So it has to be true. Right? Sort of like "Reilly was a retailer" (who actually serial numbered 34,000 guns in 84 years in his two London workshops - compared to 50,000 in 75 years for Scott?).

But why the Purdey patent numbers on the Scotts and no Scott patent numbers on a Purdey? Someone needs to ask. I think I will.

Slightly off-topic but very interesting. The 1874 Purdey Gene found at Lewis Drake
https://www.drake.net/j-purdey-lond...oading-hammer-gun-9233-completed-in-1874

I believe has one of the VERY few English 6 iron crolle barrels that I've seen. Quite likely from Birmingham and an "Oxford" pattern.
Birmingham was just starting to produce, at least aesthetically, high quality crolle by the mid-1870s. c. 1890 James Purdey II 'fessed up that their tubes were Belgian sourced, but it is my opinion that in the 1870s the tubes were from Birmingham.
Greener thought 6-iron tubes were "over-twisted" and weakened, and most "British Best" tubes were 3 or 4 Iron.

The top 7 in the Birmingham Proof House Trial reported in 1891
1. English machine-forged 3 rod Laminated steel
2. English fluid compressed steel, Whitworth process
3. English machine-forged 2 rod Best Damascus
4. English steel Siemens - Martin process
5. English hand forged 4 rod Best Damascus
6. English machine-forged 2 rod variegated Damascus
7. English machine-forged 3 rod Best Damascus

The Crolle Damascus in my tensile test
2 Crescent No. 8 Knickerbocker 3 Rod Oxford (undoubtedly Belgian sourced), c. 1905 – 53,000 and 56,500 psi.
1 Wm. Powell Birmingham 3 Rod Oxford – 54,500 psi
1 Unknown English maker 3 Rod Oxford – 49,000 psi
1 Unknown source 3 Rod Oxford – 54,000 psi
1 Parker D4 4 Rod Turkish – 57,500 psi
1 Parker DD 6 Rod Turkish – 55,000 psi


It's a tough 'read' but I marked what I believe to be the ribband end welds




Little information on J.C. Grubb & Co., Philadelphia
http://www.american-firearms.com/american-firearms/z-html/company-G/Grubb,%20J.%20C.%20&%20Co/Grubb,%20J.%20C.%20&%20Co.html

8g percussion ML marked 'J.C. Grubb'