doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Looking for info about this fine old shotgun.

Yes! The hammers and receiver are the same right down to the engraving pattern. The lock plates are different though, and mine has the same dolls head but without the inlay. My firing pin retaining screw is in a different place also. I can find no serial number but I do have a number in the fore end wood under the left barrel; 19335. If yours is a Midland I'm sure mine is too. I'll take more pictures in the morning

Your gun is probably older than mine. Look at the spread between the numbers stamped in the forend wood. About 6000. If that represents the number of guns made between them that is quite a bit. It is possible that the 6000 guns were not all the same type of gun. There could have been rifles and single barrels mixed in that number. Could you post a close up picture of the horn forend tip Please? Mine is missing but the inletted area is shaped like yours. This will help me when I get around to restoring mine. Is the checkering the same on your stock as on mine? Read all of my R Grove post and you will see why my gun was likely made by Midland and possibly yours also.

Here are some more pictures. I didn't realize the fore end tip was horn till you mentioned it. My top tang is more the normal lenght, but my trigger guard tang is very long. Looks like my locks are something completely different. My right hammer screw is not original, and the left one might not be either. Checkering is different also. There isn't a pointed diamond in the whole bunch. It may not be English but I doubt they were ever pointed up American style. Even considering wear there would be one left pointed somewhere, or at least nearly so. The fore end has 3 screws and only one engraved so I'm sure it's not original either.

I'd like to believe that 19335 is a serial number, and it may be, but it makes no sense to me to stamp it on the wood and not the metal. I've looked carefully though and I can't find any more numbers anywhere.

I've been thinking about your stock crack. I doubt it could be repaired. I've seen some very nicely done repairs on web sites by people who specalize in such things, but they still show if you look close. I would be inclined to replace the whole stock, and to match you'd have to do the fore end also. Any way you go I think it would lower it's value. You might be better off just to leave it alone. Just my opinion.

As far as welding to tighten up the barrel fit goes; I think you might be able to do that. People think of welding and they visualize the worse job they've ever seen with lots of smoke and sparks going everywhere. As I'm sure you know TIG would do the trick, and without melting the soft solder, if you could get to it. I'm thinking of the lugs under the barrels. If you dressed it back down carefully no one would ever know the difference. Trouble is, how would you harden it without melting the solder? I don't think soft steel would last long. Silicon bronze would work and you could dress it down with files but only just, and the color would show. There are hard TIG rods but they can't be filed, and grinding such a thing would be near imposible. Originaly these things were probably case hardened but how would you re-case it without melting the solder? You could work only on the dolls head but that would be only half the job, and what would that do to the inlay? If you decide to try it, use plenty of heat fence, but I don't think I'd risk it.

I've talked this over with my wife, who it happens teaches welding technoligy at the college level, and she agrees. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

















I've been wondering about this old gun for years and now in two days I have answers where I didn't even know I had questions. Does anyone know what the correct resolution size is for pictures, so people don't have to scroll back and forth?

I can't find anything on a Wyman either. However, I'm about 99.9% sure the first name is Henry, the H followed by an elevated y being an abbreviation. Like Wm for William.

In answer to your question re: difference in proof diameters and bore sizes.The right barrel at the time of proof was 13 G [.710 nominal Diameter].There being no choke it was a true cylinder through out its length.The left barrel at time of proof was 12G[.729 nominal diameter] .019 larger in diameter than the right barrel.Per the proof marks,the choke on the left barrel reduces the nominal diameter at its muzzle to 13G [.710 diameter] To better understand allowed variation in diameter relative to stamped bore size, you need to refer to the rules/scale of proof applicable to your gun; these can be found in W.W.Greeners book, "The Gun" on pages 300-302
The difference in bore size is in fact a clue to the fact that gun was made for the trade. The gun, could for example have been finished with both barrels bored cylinder @ 13G; a popular combination in the Victorian era. To convert it to a gun with a choke in the left barrel, all that was required was to open up the left barrel to 12G! This was a method that could be used to minimise inventories and provide quick delivery on special orders.

troublsom1, I don't know about the stock crack on my gun but I've seen some of these guys do some pretty nice work with cracks such as this. If it's not possible I am capable of making a replacement stock for it. Putting a gun back on face by building up the hook is becoming a mainstream technique. It may not be right for every gun but for some it is the only practicle way. There was a nice discusion about that a few months back on here. A gun with a dolls head and a hinge pin like these guns have is a good example. Yes you can replace the hinge pin but after figuring out how the old one comes out,pressing it out, pressing a new one in and re-engraving, welding and dressing I believe would be qicker. It would also keep the character of the gun intact. I am a professional welder and am capable of this job. I have already done this. The hook is NOT case hardened as you suggest. Infact many guns of this time frame had the hook brased to the barrels and on some old guns you can see a greenish line where the joint is. Using brazing rod is not the way to go either unless you want to look like bubba the gunsmith. When welding the hook the key is not to rush it. Weld a little and let it cool and repeat as many times as is necessary. On guns with a dolls head, the dolls head is the benchmark. Building the hook so that the dolls head does not have to be messed with. But all old guns are individuals and sometimes the extension is worn also. It is possible to build this up also but having modern welding equiptment makes this possible,control is everything. I know a man with a square wave tig machine that welded two razorblades together. I believe that standard 70s filler is good enough for this job but there may be some more suited and wear resistant. A higher silicone rod may be in order to clense the old steel. I will experiment with some different filler rod when I am ready and choose what I think is best. After all there are no standards on this and these are not going to be used as trap guns.

I understand. I thought you were going to weld on the dolls head and the two lugs that engage the two bars in the receiver, for some reason, and this is what I discussed with my wife. Took me awhile to figure out what you meant by the hook. Now I see. Of course, what you're saying makes perfect sense, and would be much easier than replacing the hinge pin. Thanks for enlightening me.

Just for fun I measured the barrels on my gun. The left barrel is .733 at the breech just in front of the chamber, .728 at 4 inches from the muzzle and .715 at the muzzle. I may still be measuring part of the choke at 4 inches but over all it's .018 of choke; pretty close to what it's suppose to be. The right barrel is .725 at the breech end, .725 at 4 inches from the muzzle and .730 at the muzzle. That's .015 bigger than it's suppose to be, but after all it was built "for the trade".

I have seen Hy used as an abbreviation for Henry. I've been looking on the web but see no Wyman companies around the right dates.

Don't forget that at the time this gun was proofed precise measurements of bore & choke were not made. A series of plugs were used to check the bore. The right bbl accepted a 13ga (.710") but not a 12ga (.729") so actual size could have been anywhere in between. The left bbl accepted a 12ga plug at breech but not an 11ga (.751")one & a 13ga plug at the muzzle, but not a 12ga. One thus cannot state precisely what ctual measurements were at time of proof, only that they fell within that range.