|
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
|
|
|
6 members (Lawrence Kotchek, M&M, earlyriser, Wild Skies, SKB, 1 invisible),
2,182
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,794
Posts565,738
Members14,620
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
tmaple, take your time. The worst thing is to have the money in your pocket to buy the gun. The best thing is to not have the money. Look around, talk to as many people as you can, read, road, read. When the gun turns up you'll find the money. That's my mantra about everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 433
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 433 |
That Horsley is a bit odd. The Proof Exeption certificate is dated 1988 but the proof marks are dated 1999. The proof marks are for London re-proof; now where are the old marks? Looks like a new set of barrels were made for the gun and it was re-proofed. If new barrels were made for it by anyone other than the person entitled to be called the 'maker' then it should say 'new barrels by' on the rib. I think the presence of the exemption certificate is confusing some here. The certificate was obtained before Sotheby's sold it in 1988, but the proof marks clearly indicate that the new owner went ahead and had it reproved in London during the following year. The proof marks are for London re-proof; now where are the old marks? London has required the removal of the old marks from the flats (but not from the water table, for obvious reasons) for a long time now, and, to my knowledge, still does. For example, I recently examined a Holland Royal .375 Flanged Magnum built 1925 and reproved in London between 1955 and 1971 (18.5 tons, but absent the date code introduced in 1972). The old marks had been struck off, but the original "300 MAX" was still legible on one flat. I don't know when London began doing this, but it appears it was before '71. Looks like a new set of barrels were made for the gun and it was re-proofed. No indication of that at all. Flats struck off and the re-proof mark used is normal for a current London re-proof with original barrels. If proof is conducted with new barrels, the re-proof mark should be absent. The marks indicate modern nitro re-proof in 1989. Only proper measurement can establish for sure, but relatively recent re-proof would seem to indicate that chances are good that it remains in proof.
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 Likes: 1 |
Just my opinion here;But the sellers seem to know their guns and appear to be on the up and up. Any forum members had any dealings with them? I'd contact them directly by phone if I was interested and get all questions out of the way. That is one great looking hammer gun.
Jim
Last edited by italiansxs; 09/24/08 01:35 PM.
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,671 Likes: 674
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,671 Likes: 674 |
That is one great looking hammer gun.
Jim Today's understatement! Beautiful! Brent
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/ ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/qclHjMQ.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 Likes: 1 |
Originally Posted By: italiansxs That is one great looking hammer gun. Jim Today's understatement Hey Brent: What am I supposed to do? Get all gooey eyed and gushy over it??    Jim
Last edited by italiansxs; 09/24/08 04:27 PM.
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,671 Likes: 674
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,671 Likes: 674 |
Well Jim, maybe buy it if you have the ready cash. I would, if I did.
I love english hammer guns and that one is extremely nice. I don't like most bar in wood guns but that one grabs me.
I see lots of guns on the net and elsewhere and most are as interesting as a dead fish on a mudbar. Esp. where hammer guns are concerned.
Brent
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 Likes: 1 |
Well Jim, maybe buy it if you have the ready cash. I would, if I did. I love english hammer guns and that one is extremely nice. I don't like most bar in wood guns but that one grabs me. I see lots of guns on the net and elsewhere and most are as interesting as a dead fish on a mudbar. Esp. where hammer guns are concerned. Well Brent: I don't know about Iowa but we have community property laws here and If I buy another expensive shotgun I'm afraid I'll have to learn what it's like to lose half of the ones I currently own. If that gun shoots as good as it looks someone is going to end up with a real winner and a head turner at a vintage event as well. Jim
Last edited by italiansxs; 09/24/08 05:00 PM.
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,671 Likes: 674
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,671 Likes: 674 |
Jim, sounds like we have similar issues.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 725
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 725 |
Remember Herr Klunkermiester is gnashing his teeth over all this Horsley talk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7 |
Looks like a new set of barrels were made for the gun and it was re-proofed. No indication of that at all. Actually there is indication. The seller says the gun has 29" full/full choked barrels and the cited certificate says the gun that was submitted for proving had 30" barrels, so either they shrank, were lopped off (not likely considering chokes) or were replaced. Nice gun, btw. JC
"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."ť Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
