|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (AGS),
357
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,443
Posts544,800
Members14,405
|
Most Online1,258 Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 166 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 166 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105 |
My guess would be Webley. 1889 was before they merged with Scott, and that looks like a Webley screw grip to me. All the pieces seem to fit. The screw grip was patented in 1882, and the doll's head was used in conjunction with it on higher grade guns. And that's certainly a higher grade gun.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,524 Likes: 73
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,524 Likes: 73 |
One of Messer's Webley's .As stamped with the Anson & Deeley patent on the action date is about right . I would suspect it has been restocked and I am a little curious about the additional extractor stop pin, one in the back lump and one in the extension also to the what appears to be spring around the extractor leg .I also notice there are two sets of bore size's on the proof marks 12 & 13 over 1 but can not make out the rest so possible reproof for Nitro at an early date ?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 166 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 166 Likes: 7 |
It was restocked by me and father mate you are right . The gun has an unusual ejector system ( at least for me ) which is called Deeley ejector Mechanism. And the pin in the back lump might have something to do with that since the ejector is working fine we didn't have the need to dissasemble it. that 13/1 is the bore diameter 719" but i don't have any idea when it was nitro proofed.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,524 Likes: 73
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,524 Likes: 73 |
13/1 and 12 ? The ejector system does ring a bell ,one of the many short lived inventions that all died out around the turn of the century.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,936 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,936 Likes: 16 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105 |
I'm guessing that 13/1 was the original bore diameter; 12 was the diameter after a subsequent reproof. 12 is larger than 13/1. Highly unlikely to go from 12 to 13/1 (larger to smaller bore size).
I can't make out chamber length on the flats, although I think I see shot charge. If either or both are present, that would help estimate when the gun was reproofed.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,266 Likes: 199
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,266 Likes: 199 |
Fences remind me of the Harkom style. Very nice.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 166 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 166 Likes: 7 |
Thanks I agree with L. Brown i think they changed the bore diameter in 1896 when they nitro proofed it but i am not sure. Still it works great All the best, Kem
|
|
|
|
|
|