|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,107
Posts570,646
Members14,670
| |
Most Online19,682
Mar 28th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 185 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 185 Likes: 3 |
I'll most likely put this one on the back burner for a while, because I have a LC smith Quality 2 that needs a little work first. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
If my memory is correct the "Not For Ball" marking means the gun predates 1887. In 1887 this mark was replaced by the word "Choke" with amount of choke not given. In either case a round ball can be used as long as the ball is smaller than the choke diameter. Round Balls which were a close fit to the bore had been commonly used in cylinder bored shotguns. One of these bore fitting balls should not be fired in a choked barrel.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,230 Likes: 1712
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,230 Likes: 1712 |
Miller,
WIth all due respect, it has been a long time since anyone fired anything out of that gun. It will be a long time, and a lot of money, before anyone does again.
Ball, or, otherwise.
Best,
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 185 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 185 Likes: 3 |
Miller,
WIth all due respect, it has been a long time since anyone fired anything out of that gun. It will be a long time, and a lot of money, before anyone does again.
Ball, or, otherwise.
Best,
Ted Thanks Teddy. You've bashed it on 2 forums now. I think we get the message.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,230 Likes: 1712
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,230 Likes: 1712 |
Miller,
WIth all due respect, it has been a long time since anyone fired anything out of that gun. It will be a long time, and a lot of money, before anyone does again.
Ball, or, otherwise.
Best,
Ted Thanks Teddy. You've bashed it on 2 forums now. I think we get the message. Well, good luck with it. You don't have to like what I said about it, but, you won't be able to say it was untrue, Bobby. Not one word. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 701
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 701 |
Birmingham gun, likely built in the later 1880s on a W&C Scott action. "Not for Ball" means it has (or had) some choke. Looks pretty used up. The condition of the tubes will determine if it's salvageable or not. I might be wrong, but I believe the pictured gun is 100% Clabrough. Action is not a W&C Scott action at all, but Clabroughs own patent design with help from Rogers and J. T. Rogers. Patent #257,764 of 1882. Dustin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
In the 1890s William Golcher become a partner in Clabrough & Golcher who bought guns from W & C Scott & Son. Typical of IGC... William Golcher went to England to visit his "ailing" mother. While she may have been sick, it was the final break with her husband. She died in 1879 in England, at the age of 70. Her husband James finally abandoned his failed gunsmith business. William had moved on years earlier to establish himself in Minnesota. It was during this visit that William met JP. Most likely at a shooting event. At first William partnered with JP, then he bought him out. William moved himself and his family to San Francisco where he sold sporting goods, mostly shotguns and fly rods. William was a fly fisherman... Pete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 185 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 185 Likes: 3 |
Good info guys.  Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Ted;
The only part of my post meant specifically for this gun was the Not For Ball mark would date it as prior to 1887.
The rest was purely for general information that the "Not for Ball" simply indicates it should not be used with a bore filling ball. A ball can be fired from them as long as it is small enough to go through the choke. As I understand it the confusion resulting from the not for ball mark was why it was changed to the simple word "Choke". For this it really matters not how long it has been since this particular gun has been shot or if it will ever be shot again. It just may be something which a lot of folks still don't fully understand, perhaps you are one of them, I don't know.
perhaps you feel one could not imbed a .50 cal ball in the end of filler wad & fire it from a gun marked "NOT FOR BALL".
I just feel it is always nice to have a good understanding of what these old markings truly mean.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,230 Likes: 1712
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,230 Likes: 1712 |
I realize the "Not For Ball" marking on English guns is a sign of a very old gun. The French language version of that marking, "Non Pour La Balle" over "choke" meaning the exact same thing it meant in England, is still in common use on French guns to this day, so, rest assured, I have a good grasp of what it actually means.  That mark appears in the upper left on this French gun, a modern 28 gauge of all things. It makes me wonder, didn't these guys ever hear of the lowly 30-30 caliber rifle cartridge, which, would surely be superior to loading pumpkin balls into a 28 gauge birdgun for larger game? Weird, huh? What I don't have a good grasp of, is, why anyone would look at internet pictures of this gun and think that what round balls they could use and why was an issue they needed to resolve right away, or why they would not think of an implement better suited to that task, and maybe move on to other issues, that seem just a bit more pressing, to me, anyway, involving any future use of this gun. Just as an aside, based on what you have seen in the photos, how would you proceed with this gun, based on a slim entry price, and your own wallet sponsoring the bill for suitable restoration? I can state, without any doubt at all, I don't know of anyone using round ball loads out of a shotgun, circa 2015. Thanks for the history lesson. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
