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 (Jtplumb),
355
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,579
Posts546,636
Members14,425
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,833 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,833 Likes: 13 |
What is that proof mark in the upper right corner of the bbl flats, the one with the numbers under it (probably a date)? Also note that this gun does not have chopper lumps bbls, even though it is a Royal. I've seen this one other Royals. Anyone know why they did it? I can't imagine it was customer choice. I'm sure most of their customers had no idea what type of bbls H&H was using. I can't see H&H doing it to save money, either. BTW: the hole in the rib in another nice feature. Typical hack reblue job. OWD
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 81
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 81 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36 |
I am pretty cirtain that the mark is nothing to do with H&H. The suggestion of being an importer's mark makes sense. I this gun may have been rebarreled by 'another', I have never seen a Royal that didn't have chopperlump barrels but 'never say never'! Are the barrels correctly numbered to the gun? In the same stamp face?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,279 Likes: 210
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,279 Likes: 210 |
I am looking at a Royal about 50 serial numbers less than yours. It was made as a two barrel set and the proofmarks are the same as your gun, except for the questioned mark. I can see no sign of the chopper lump line on either set of barrels.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,833 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,833 Likes: 13 |
I don't know about the bbls being numbered to the gun. I'll have to check.
I have seen a number of Royals with round-bar bbls. I've also seen a number of Bosses made the same way. Christopher Austyn mentions this in one of his books, too.
For some reason the makers used both choppers and round bars.
I've never been able to figure out why.
OWD
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 930 Likes: 259
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 930 Likes: 259 |
First let me say that for a 1896 gun your H&H has remarkably fine breech face--must have been well cared for. The dovetail barrels (in lieu of chopper lump) have the correct 1896 period proof marks, so likely they are original. H&H had only built a factory 2 years earlier in London to begin making most of their guns themselves. The barrels may have come from Birmingham, or even the entire gun. My Birmingham gunmaker friends who apprenticed just after WWII tell me that London barrel makers "could not make dove tail barrels but that Birmingham makers could make chopper lump and dove tail barrels". In the time frame of your H&H, I suspect that London barrel makers could make both style, although I do not know this for a fact.
What I do know by reading old gun catalogues is that the Birmingham A&D gunmakers, who also could make London patter best quality SLE's advertised options of either chopper lump, dove tail and Whitworth steel barrels (as well as damascus) for SLE at the time of the making of your gun.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36 |
Daryl, at the risk of teaching how to suck eggs, the dovetail joints are usually even more visible than the chopperlump joint. OWD, I assume that 'round-bar' equates to dovetail? I bow to the more knowledgable on the issue of use of chopperlump v. dovetail but , Bushveld, on a minor point the proof marks are 1896 thru to 1904, not just 1896, this is the start date of the 'Maximum' mark, dropped in 1904. As I understand it, H&H didn't start a date based numbering system until 1899 with 22000 so a call/email to H&H to establish date might be useful if for no better reason than idle curiosity. Since the last gun number used in the period to 1899 was 16999, I suggest that this Royal dates from the very end of this period and so most likely barreled and finished in the London factory. Contrary to popular belief, the 1st Harrow Rd factory dates from 1891 and the 2nd premises in 1898 (according to Nigel Brown) and increasingly the Royals were brought 'in house' to improve quality control throughout this period. Forgive me if I have missed something!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,931 Likes: 201
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,931 Likes: 201 |
OWD: Is the stamp "FRANKA"? Also what might be the 3 initials on the left tube near the lower rib?
Kind Regards,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 930 Likes: 259
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 930 Likes: 259 |
Daryl, at the risk of teaching how to suck eggs, the dovetail joints are usually even more visible than the chopperlump joint. OWD, I assume that 'round-bar' equates to dovetail? I bow to the more knowledgable on the issue of use of chopperlump v. dovetail but , Bushveld, on a minor point the proof marks are 1896 thru to 1904, not just 1896, this is the start date of the 'Maximum' mark, dropped in 1904. As I understand it, H&H didn't start a date based numbering system until 1899 with 22000 so a call/email to H&H to establish date might be useful if for no better reason than idle curiosity. Since the last gun number used in the period to 1899 was 16999, I suggest that this Royal dates from the very end of this period and so most likely barreled and finished in the London factory. Contrary to popular belief, the 1st Harrow Rd factory dates from 1891 and the 2nd premises in 1898 (according to Nigel Brown) and increasingly the Royals were brought 'in house' to improve quality control throughout this period. Forgive me if I have missed something! Tony; Thanks. I suspect that you and I use the same reference book (Donald Dallas), and I have a question for you. Donald Dallas in his book "Holland & Holland the Royal Gunmakers" states on page 234 that H&H Nos. 16,563-16,999 are for guns for years 1896-97. And on the same page he records later that Royal guns begin with serial Nos. 22,000. Do you think that the gun is question is a early Royal without H&H recording it as a Royal? By-the-way, re-read my comment on the proof mark date which was: "...have the correct 1896 period proof marks." I did not imply that this proof mark was only for 1896. As you and I know these proof marks were used 1896 to 1904. Also of note and interest: Dig's book has one of the best chart's on British proof marks I have ever encountered.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 220
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 220 |
Daryl, at the risk of teaching how to suck eggs, the dovetail joints are usually even more visible than the chopperlump joint. OWD, I assume that 'round-bar' equates to dovetail? I bow to the more knowledgable on the issue of use of chopperlump v. dovetail but , Bushveld, on a minor point the proof marks are 1896 thru to 1904, not just 1896, this is the start date of the 'Maximum' mark, dropped in 1904. As I understand it, H&H didn't start a date based numbering system until 1899 with 22000 so a call/email to H&H to establish date might be useful if for no better reason than idle curiosity. Since the last gun number used in the period to 1899 was 16999, I suggest that this Royal dates from the very end of this period and so most likely barreled and finished in the London factory. Contrary to popular belief, the 1st Harrow Rd factory dates from 1891 and the 2nd premises in 1898 (according to Nigel Brown) and increasingly the Royals were brought 'in house' to improve quality control throughout this period. Forgive me if I have missed something! Tony; Thanks. I suspect that you and I use the same reference book (Donald Dallas), and I have a question for you. Donald Dallas in his book "Holland & Holland the Royal Gunmakers" states on page 234 that H&H Nos. 16,563-16,999 are for guns for years 1896-97. And on the same page he records later that Royal guns begin with serial Nos. 22,000. Do you think that the gun is question is a early Royal without H&H recording it as a Royal? By-the-way, re-read my comment on the proof mark date which was: "...have the correct 1896 period proof marks." I did not imply that this proof mark was only for 1896. As you and I know these proof marks were used 1896 to 1904. Also of note and interest: Dig's book has one of the best chart's on British proof marks I have ever encountered. Bushveld, If I may interject. I have an early H&H royal c.1890 serial number 12418 it is a Royal with a trebele grip and the dipped edge lockplates. if you follow the serial listings in donald's book in the "type of weapon column" it list's "Guns and Rifles", So I take the "type of weapon" not too seriously as far as being the only type of weapons made during that time frame. I also have a very early No.2 Hammerless that dates to 7/17/1883, serial number 7572 and It pre dates (by serial number) the "first" No.2 hammerless that Donlad lists in his newer book,The british sporting gun and rifle" pg. 243. "the first No.2 Hammerless recorded in H&H number books is 7586 April 25, 1883". So this may be a good example of how "accurate" the records can be. So I think it is safe to assume that different types of weapons were being produced beyond what the "type of weapon" column in the number books has listed. H&H
NOT A FAN OF PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE
|
|
|
|
|