|
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 (Perry M. Kissam, 1 invisible),
873
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,489
Posts561,996
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 476 Likes: 76
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 476 Likes: 76 |
The gun may have been made in 1879 but the barrels are marked "not for ball" and this marking was discontinued in favor of "choke" in 1887. It's possible that the barrels were made and proofed several years prior to the final assembly of the gun.
The 12B/13M markings indicate a gun which was 12 bore choked to 13 bore (12B "bore", 13M "muzzle").
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,856 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,856 Likes: 15 |
I'm confused. Is this correct:
-You have a set of bbls that were made a 12 bore but now they measure as a 10 bore?
-If so, it mean the chambers/bores were enlarged & the chambers were also lengthened, right?
-And there's no sign of a reproof, so the work was probably done over here?
-On top of this, it's loose on the action?
OWD
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
I too am a bit confused, but last time I checked 1879 pre-dated 1887, thus I see no problem with the "Not for Ball" marking. That would I believe be the correct marking for an 1879 choke bored gun.
Also in 1879 a gun was not marked for chamber, so it cannot truly be determined what the original chamber was, only the bore.
Nowhere near the quality of a Greener, but I have an old Birmingham proofed W Richards which has 12ga chambers with bores marked 14 from this era. Both bbls are cyl bore so no M marking nor Not for Ball.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89 |
The $6O0 price might reflect our confusion...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862 |
Laminated steel barrels are awesome. Here's a few "before and after" pics of what a 2-iron pattern looks like in American Black and White". Only one tube is polished on the "after" pic.   The pic is dark, the black is actually deeper and the silver much brighter. Regards Ken
I prefer wood to plastic, leather to nylon, waxed cotton to Gore-Tex, and split bamboo to graphite.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 694 Likes: 65
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 694 Likes: 65 |
I just wanted to add that in addition to the below measurements, I ran a penny down the barrel .750 OD and it only stopped at the chokes. So, as far as I can tell the gun is now a ten bore, but still, after honing, choke boring and chamber enlargement has minimum wall thickness in the 30+ thou range left and 35+ thou range right. Apparently, that would indicate to me that these guns left Greener with very thick barrels to allow for that kind of material removal. Also, the barrels match the pattern exactly for what Dig Haddoke depicts via diagram in his book as English laminated steel. I will take an up close picture of the pattern when I get home where the purple-ish bluing is worn. Update: By way of confirmation from Graham Greener (consistent with the barrel markings) the gun originally left the manufacturer as a 12 bore and was made in 1879. I took it to Bill Schwarz in Ellijay, GA yesterday and he measured the chambers and wall thickness. The chambers are now 2 7/8 and 10 gauge shell dimensions. Min wall thickness left barrel 30 thou, right barrel 35 thou. There are no other visible issues, faults with the barrels, receiver, action, etc. Bores are mirror bright. The gun is on face, but has a slight bit of play between the barrels and the action. He said the steel looked to be very high grade Damascus/Laminated Steel and in excellent condition. He suggested it would be safe to shoot with low pressure 10 gauge loads. It is hard to believe the gun left Greener with that much material in the barrels, but I am quite grateful that it did 
Last edited by Dan S. W.; 09/17/15 11:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 694 Likes: 65
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 694 Likes: 65 |
Obsessed, to answer your questions the answers appear to be as follows:
Yes, made as 12, now measure as 10
The chambers are 2 7/8 and measure for a 10 gauge shell
The proofs are unaltered I expect from when the gun was exported (consistent with Graham Greener's suggestion that this gun was made for export)
There is slight play between the barrels and action without the forend installed - according to my smith, the gun is on face and there is no issue with the hinge pin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460 |
Dan: the wall thickness at the end of the (extended) chamber, in the forcing cone, and every 1/2" for the next few inches is extremely important as to whether the barrels are usable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,856 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,856 Likes: 15 |
OK. Thanks for the clarification.
But how do the wall thicknesses in and around the chambers/forcing cones measure?
The mins your 'smith gave you could be way down the tubes. What about closer to the breech?
Someone has taken a bunch of metal out of that end of the bbls - and who knows how good a job they did. They recut the rims, enlarged the overall diameter of the chambers and then pushed the length out - probably by 3/8".
Since that's where pressures are highest, I would want to be extra sure there's enough meat left.
If the gun blows in that area, you're in trouble. Just think of how close your face is and then imagine flying shards of metal.
Personally, I couldn't shoot a gun like that -- regardless of what a gunsmith says. I would worry every time I pulled the trigger.
OWD
Last edited by obsessed-with-doubles; 09/17/15 11:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
