|
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
|
|
|
|
2 members (welder, 1 invisible),
907
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,496
Posts562,083
Members14,586
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,859
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,859 |
java' How is the action/stock fit? I think I can see some fair gaps in the first set o pic's..#s 1 2 & 5, there looks to be a few pushing an 1/8", especially the #5 side shot of wood/metal? Looks like the wood needs to be snugged up some to the action...are all the screw tight,stock draw bolt?  some might be shadow, but daylight is daylight I'd want to check that before I shot it much, that's all I mean cheers Franc Franc, I noticed that metal to wood fit too and figured that maybe someone had taken the stock off and sanded it, rounding the wood slightly at the joint. Steve
Approach life like you do a yellow light - RUN IT! (Gail T.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 534 |
The J and S powders were early and released in the early 1890s.
J powder was released on 7/1/1892.
"Poudre M" was released in 1897, and "poudre T" on 12/29/1899.
The T powder took the market over very quickly.
I would say that this gun is from the 1890s.
Best regards,
WC-
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165 |
I'd agree with the 1890's, although that leaves the question of why the proofmark furthest forward on the barrels is still there. The one behind it supposedly is a replacement. Strange. Maybe the tubes were proofed earlier, then the PJ mark added when the entire gun underwent finished proof. Another one of those mysteries.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,720 Likes: 1357
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,720 Likes: 1357 |
Maybe the tubes were proofed earlier, then the PJ mark added when the entire gun underwent finished proof. Another one of those mysteries. Crossed lightning bolt proof mark is applied to guns proofed in a finished state, so that doesn't seem to be the case. In that era, it wasn't uncommon for makers to procure barrels from a different source, rather than produce them in house. Maybe provisional proof had to be applied to raw tubes. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165 |
Ted, the crossed lightning bolt didn't appear until 1924, so that's of no help on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,720 Likes: 1357
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,720 Likes: 1357 |
Yea, you're right. I forgot about the overhaul in 1923.
I'd still bet the barrels are older than the gun by a decade or so. You wouldn't have believed the projects in the rack at Bruchet the last time I was there. I passed on a Darne model C with damascus barrels that was waiting for a clean-up and a new owner.
Lots of trading of things back and forth between makers, too.
Best,
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165 |
Older barrels are entirely possible, Ted. Might be the most logical explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
