OK,
If this gun is from the second serialization sequence and is a higher number than #500, it should carry the second Lindner mark as well.
Note the gun's action crosspin is in a different location than the earlier (we think) Birmingham-sourced locks, with it being to the rear of the hammers, but higher up on the side plate. This would appear to validate that by this time they were sourcing the components locally, using the as-stated Triebel components.
So far it seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the serial number sequencing is holding true, with both hammer and hammerless guns falling into the established ranges. I suspect the A&D APUN numbers are out of sequence, possibly using a Francotte numbering series for assigning the patent, with the numbers being bought individually or in blocks. So, having little relationship to the Lindner numbers.
Just curious, but why do you put the change in serialization at 1890 rather than 1892? It just seems more logical to me that the change to the second number sequence would be in response to the proof law change.
Regards
Ken
Last edited by Ken61; 01/18/17 09:00 AM.
