|
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 (2 invisible),
2,362
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,335
Posts574,004
Members14,699
| |
Most Online32,084
Jun 14th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Argo;
Are you referring to the word choke marked on the left barrel flat? I believe this is a part of the re-proofing. Note though the 11 over 1 & the 11 on this flat appear to be of the same configuration as the 11's on the barrel tubes. This leads to some confusion as the between sizes (11/1) did not exist prior to 1887. Could it have been proofed three times?
I believe the reason it was not marked "Not For Ball" at original proof was that it was proofed with 11 gauge bores & no doubt the muzzle was not too small to pass a normal ball as used in an 11 gauge gun. I do not feel the lack of this mark would guarantee it was made prior to the introduction of the mark.
One can push a snug wad through the bore from the breech & if it has a recess (Jug) choke it can be felt. With a recess choke, the wad will suddenly go free while with a normal choke it will become tighter. Either way is easy to feel.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182 |
I'm still a little confused and the internet isn't helping. Was the NFB stamp requirement instituted in both proof houses at the same time as "CHOKE" (11 Nov 1875), or did stamping the flats with "NFB" come first then a few months later "CHOKE" supplemented or complemented it? Larry's post above makes it seem as if NFB was already being stamped - then it was decided that "CHOKE" could be substituted for it.
Sorry for any confusion, Argo. Both marks were introduced at the same time, under the proof rules of 1875--published by both proof houses on Oct 11 of that year. So from then on--until subsequent changes in proof rules--all choke-bored barrels would have been marked NFB unless they had a recessed/jug choke, in which case they would have been marked CHOKE.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,808 Likes: 626
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,808 Likes: 626 |
Ah, thanks Larry...that's a real historical help for me, And Miller, you guys are fonts of knowledge! I notice that the "Tiger" group who did the original analysis of 19236 commented that it was a nominal 10 bore which actually measured out at 11 bore. I think their analysis is correct - that the H.Walker patent use number puts it at early 1875 and that there were no 'NFB" or original "CHOKE" stamps on it.  Actually on my chart dating Reilly serial numbers, 19236 would have been numbered in early 1875. (The problem comes of course in identifying when exactly Reilly numbered his guns - I'm leaning more towards "date of sale" at this point). And RAR - sorry to have hi-jacked your line.
Last edited by Argo44; 11/26/18 01:36 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,808 Likes: 626
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,808 Likes: 626 |
I've added this to the Reilly SN extant gun list (p.20 of the Reilly line), to sort of help Reilly owners date their guns.
These patent numbers have been found on Reilly's and can be used to help date them - caution however; many guns were modified and updated so presence of a patent by itself does not definitively establish a gun number date:
1859, 07 Sep - Jones patent 2020 - underlever (aka double-grip or screw-grip)(lapsed 1862, 19 Sep)
1860, 15 Nov - Henry patent 2802 - 7 groove shallow rifling
1861 - Daw patent 203 - centerfire from a Pottet’s French patent, broken by Eley in 1865
1862 - Needham patent 1544, rotating single-bolt snap-action side-lever
1862 - Westley Richards patent xxxcx - doll’s head fastener
1863, 01 May - J. Purdey patent no. 1104 - action bolt (see below re Scott Spindle)
1863, 10 Sep - Greener patent 2231 - pinfire snap underlever - see 1873
1865, 25 Oct - Scott patent 2752 - spindle. (top lever)(purdey-scott incest for 14 years)
1866 - Webley patent 3022 - snap action underlever
1866 - William Pape patent 1501 - choke tubes (American invention; perfected by Greener in 1874)
1866 - Hodges patent xxxx - action
1867, 05 Nov - Pape patent 70463 - wing thumb lever w/single bite
1867, 09 Feb - Stanton patent 367 - rebounding hammers
1869, 30 Dec - Stanton patent 3774 - rebounding hammer modification
1870 - Lang patent xxxxx- top lever sliding bolt action
1872, 12 Feb: H Walker patent 455- barrel bolting and safety for drop-down actions
1872 - Anson patent 3791 - fore-end fasteners
1873 - Deeley patent 1422 - fore-end fastener
1873 - Scott patent 615 - “key” fore-end fastener
1873 - Greener cross-bolt treble wedge fast locking system
1874 - Needham patent xxxx - ejector system
1874, Dec - First mention of Greener's development of the modern choke.
1875 - Scott patent 1902 - top extension
1875, 11 May - Anson & Deeley patent 1152 or 1756 - Boxlock hammerless action
1875, 11 Oct - “Not for ball “added and or “choke” (for recessed/jug chokes).
1875, 15 Sep - Scott patent 3223 - crystal cocking indicator (back action)
1876 - Thomas Woodword patent 651 - hammerless push-forward under-lever snap action.
1878 - W.C. Scott & sons patent 761 - coil spring back action hammerless lock
1878 - Mills patent 4980 - 3rd bite
1879 - Needham & Hinton patent 706 - intercepting sears on back action (bought by Scott)
1880, 16 Nov - Beesley patent 31 - Hammerless action marketed by Purdey
1883, 11 Apr - Anson & “Deeley patent, Boxlock hammerless improvement
1886 - Deeley patent 4289 - ejector system
1887 - “not for ball” dropped
1889 - Southgate patent 12314 - ejector and intercepter sear
1893 - Southgate patent 8239 - ejector trip (Holland & Holland)
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
|
