Just took possession of a SL George Bate 10 bore SXS. Top rib has " Geo Bate 132 Steelhouse Lane Birmingham". My observations on other aspects of the gun are these....... 30" barrels, bores perfect. wt.is 9lbs/7oz. Nothing is loose, all fits tight. Chambers seem to be over 3 1/2", barrels are damascus with bluing overtop,using dial caliper,Rt choke .741" Lt choke .740" appear to be XFull/XFull. Serial number appearing on both barrels is 42696, on full length trigger guard tang 3291, on lower rib also,3291. Any thoughts on this mix of numbers. Watertable has only a pair of prooflike stamps, Barrel flat has lots of stampings, anyone able to sort these out. Any guess as to its DOM? What is the 3 1/4" stamp?, proof to 1 3/4oz.? Isn't the "not for ball" an old stamping? any help will be appreciated. Randy

Beautiful gun. I looked up some of the proof marks and a few of them are "since 1904". Someone else should be able to narrow it down more. Again, that is a lovely gun. Enjoy her!

Randy,I would say your gun was proved at least twice. the not for ball stamp was discontinued in 1887. If you have a 1977 Gun Digest there is an article on British proofs. You could sort it out with that. If you don't have a copy let me know and I can scan it and email it to you.

Jim

Randy, Jim is on the right track, your gun has the original set of black powder proof marks for a standard 10 bore, pre-1887, and a second set of London nitro proof marks circa 1925-55 re-proofed with 3 1/4" chambers and for 1 3/4 oz. of shot.This was the magnum 10 bore proof during that period.

Thanks....Does the "not for ball" mean the gun was made before 1887? Any thoughts as to why both barrels are stamped with SN 42696 and on the lower rib between the the barrel stamps is the Number 3291, also the same as stamped on the trigger guard tang? New set of barrels with the old top and bottom rib? No SN#'s on the forend iron or the watertable. Randy

The number on the barrels is most likely the barrel maker's number.

The numbers that do not match the guns serial number are most likely assembly numbers used by the actual company building the gun. These differ from the retailers serial number.
Steve

The third bite looks to be a W&C Scott "Lever Grip" ?

Randy,

As James and Terry have said it was made before 1887. The proof houses were using "Not for Ball" or "Non Pour Balle" on barrels with choke. As soon as the English dropped it the Belgians started using it, go figure.

As to your other questions, I leave to those more knowledgeable.

Pete

Note from the original proofing it is listed as 10B & 12M or the bore would accepr a 10ga plug (.775") but not a 9ga (.803"). The muzzle would acept a 12ga plug (.729") but not a #11 (.751"). Operating from memory, but as I recall the in-between sizes IE 12/1 etc were not introduced until 1887. If the bore is anywhere at all near the nominal then chokes of .740/.741 would fall well within the range of an ordinary full choke of the era.

I also agree w/ James & Terry and think that it was proved/proofed 3 times in London w/ 1 being a reproof w/ the "Crown" over "R". There are the 1875-1887 touchmarks of 10B(bore-actually breech, forward of the chamber) & 12M(muzzle) & "Not for Ball" proved w/ #6 shot instead of ball. Then the 1887-1904 marks of "10 over C" in a rhombus or diamond and last the post 1904 which may include the "Crown" over "R" which was due to the lengthening of the chambers?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Looks like it was stamped by a drunk.

Leave it to you, Homeless, to make a profound statement. John Walter's Dictionary has George Bate being established in 1881 and peddling from the 132 Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham, Warwichshire, England and is purported to peddle scattergun ammo under the names Game, Imperial & Leader which may have been purchased from Eley-Kynoch or made from components from Eley-Kynoch.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Nothing "prOfound" about it.

I have guns that were re-proofed....The Bates is a nice gun but the proof stamping looks like it was stamped by someone visually impaired...is that better ?

Who cares what the proof marks look like? I guess they should all be engraved???

BTW: Randy nice looking gun!

Thanks everyone for your imput. I'm a little shocked the gun is as old as 1887?? That's over 120 in dog years!!. H-jOe and other 10 bore shooters on this forum are probably the cause of my making this purchase. All the 10b responses on a turkey gun post showed that I was in the minority with the 12ga. Boy, this gun sits tall and wide against all my other sxs's. Ithacaman will get the damascus barrels here in a month or so, and I'll post again when he's finished doing his magic on them. Again, hats off to all the contributions made regarding Mr. Bate and his gun. Randy

Like I said it's a nice gun....I'm betting it's a W&C Scott made gun from looking at the third bite.

In past posts I've saw remarks about proof marks being questionable.
Do the proof houses have records that can be accessed to find out if these old guns were really re-proofed in England ?

Now that you bring this up j0e, did you ever show us the proofs on your sleever?
Was it done here, there or where?
Be so kind, and show a sport!

I'd be glad to...

You go first Sport'...show us something you've killed with the priZed cOwboy'd Beesley...along with several full lenght body photos of her.

Back to the question I asked....

Do the Proof houses keep records of the guns that have been re-proofed in the last century ?

Homeless:

I would venture a guess of yes as under the earlier rules of 1855, 1868, 1875, 1887, 1896, 1904, 1916, 1925, 1954 and 1986 are vaild, or govern, the barrel or action upon which the mark is found as long as it has not been weakened or altered. So, they would have to have the specifics of each gun to compare. Just a thought, but I would think in penning a letter of inquiry to either:

The Proof Master, The Proof House, 48 Commercial Road, London E1 1LP

or

The Gun Barrel Proof House, Banbury Street, Birmingham B5 5RH

would yield an answer.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I doubt it as many were proofed before a SN was put on.

I was hoping someone from England would know.

I guess the Beesley is camera shy....

Guess it'd be your turn ol'j0e!

Lowell, Thanks for sharing a photo of your famed Beesley. It's like seeing Bigfoot for the first time. Rumored for years and all of a sudden, there it is. It's a beautiful gun. Randy

That phOto could be of any sidelock...did you kill that bed sheet with it ?

I didn't think you'd keep YOUR end of the bargain j0e!
...and here I went out to get fresh batteries for this impromptu bare bones photo session.
Thar she be - full lenght like you wanted.
The lads would like to see the reproof on your sleeved hammer Purdey!
Prolly should see a reproofing on your hammer Scott too - it's over one hundred years old.

Like I said I'll be happy too...

Just as soon as you live up tO your end of the deAl.

Lookin' kinda bad j0e, be a man and damn the torpedos - full speed ahead eh. Post YOUR pictures of the sleeved reproof - or get off the pot ol'sod!

Let's see some clear pictures... ....I smell a rat.

Is there a dead mOuse under that spread ?