|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,501
Posts545,496
Members14,414
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 199
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 199 |
had the idea that STD under a Crown came in to use 2005 or 2006 onwards ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 617
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 617 |
Could you post a picture of the action and lockplates please.
It would be interesting to see then.
Thanks
Rust never sleeps !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36 |
300846
You are totally correct. They came in with the 2005 new rules of proof which did not take effect until 2006.
Looking closely at the larger magnification of the date stamp, I think the tail on the '9' is in fact a scratch and so the proof date is 2007.
Thank you for pointing this out, us old guys should wear our glasses more!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,111 Likes: 594
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,111 Likes: 594 |
Funny, I thought ZC was the 1997 Birmingham date code.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,379 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,379 Likes: 105 |
Toby, according to the information I have, Birmingham went to a different date code mark, having dropped the crossed swords mark in 1941 and replacing it with a circle divided into three, year letter on the left, starting in 1950. That was replaced with an undivided circle beginning in 1974. I've seen the 3-part circle date code but not the undivided circle. Have they now dropped the circle and returned to the old crossed swords mark, but with year numbers rather than a letter code? I have a partial list of the new proofmarks (including STD over a crown) that first appeared in 2005, but the Birmingham date code mark isn't shown. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 62
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 62 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,529 Likes: 80
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,529 Likes: 80 |
Looking at these pictures the gun is what the Birmingham trade referd to as a"Roger". That is it has used Rogers patent coil spring locks .Quite posible the gun was built by John Rogers for Watson [The gun I refered to earlier that I had owned was boxlock ] This has better wood than most of the examples I have seen as well as tips and toes and a Deeley catch forend making it above average for a gun of its type .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36 |
L.Brown
Yes, according to Nigel Brown (and this agrees with examples I have seen) Birmingham returned to the cross swords in 1985 and under the new rules in 2005 (actually 2006) they introduced the actual year date at 9pm and 3pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,379 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,379 Likes: 105 |
Thanks, Toby. I haven't seen one with the new crossed swords format, but given the fact that they're not making many new Brummie guns these days, it'd much more likely be a recent reproof--like this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 62
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 62 |
Why is there no serial number? I looked inside the right lock plate, barrel, fore end iron- no number. Is that unusual?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
