|
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
Topics40,330
Posts574,056
Members14,693
| |
Most Online32,084
Jun 14th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 Likes: 2 |
Good day gentlemen! I have been Googling for a long time now and still amake not finding out what the patent use stamp on my Holland is- perhaps one of you knows or could point me in the right direction? The stamp is C.W.L on top, 61 in the middle, and Patent underneath. The double was finished in 1866, and is a Jones under leaver. It was built as a center fire as the Holland record book indicates. Any thoughts?
NRA Patron Life Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,608 Likes: 426
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,608 Likes: 426 |
Haven't looked up the middle initial, but Lancaster [Charles] was around then and I seem to remember had a Holland connection. What is the serial no. of your Holland ? Is it marked Holland and Holland , H Holland, or ??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 117
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 117 |
C.W.L. would be Charles William Lancaster. All I can find on Lancaster for a possible is Patent 969 of 5th. April 1865 and it is just described as 'Extractor for sliding breech block'. Any references to that patent? Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 Likes: 2 |
Daryl,it's a H. Holland, number 1217.
Lago, any ideas on what a sliding breach block would be? The gun has the standard standing breach, nothing sliding that I can see. But I probably just don't understand what it's describing
NRA Patron Life Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 617 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 617 Likes: 1 |
The patent is described as for a bolt action but does seem applicable to the standing breech.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,608 Likes: 426
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,608 Likes: 426 |
A picture of your gun, or maybe several would help. Charles W. Lancaster had several patents in the 1860s, the last of which was the 3642 of 1867 for an oval bore, but that does not seem to fit your gun. Several extractor patents were done earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 Likes: 2 |
[img] http://H. Holland https://imgur.com/a/4I1m4[/img] Let's see if this works, I'm new to Imgur The barrels are choked, are stamped under the 1886 proofs I believe, and are engraved with H. Holland on the ribs. Also a bit of a mystery as Holland has no record of it coming back to the factory
Last edited by claycrusher1900; 07/28/17 09:29 PM.
NRA Patron Life Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 117
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 117 |
The hammers are reminiscent of the Lancaster Base Fire action for their base fire cartridges which were early centrefire jobs. Just a possibility; and then converted to standard centrefire which is easy enough. I don't know what others think of that possibility? Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,608 Likes: 426
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,608 Likes: 426 |
I think Lagopus is correct. The patent use number is a very early one and the barrels are maybe 20 years later and probably converted by other than the Maker, who at the time of conversion would have been Holland and Holland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 Likes: 2 |
If it helps, the factory letter from Holland and Holland states "a new central fire...." would the striker area on the breach face have any signs of being converted? I'm not familiar with the base fire system
NRA Patron Life Member
|
|
|
|
|
