|
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
Topics39,690
Posts564,186
Members14,606
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 418 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 418 Likes: 9 |
English SxS, 2 3/4" chambers, reproofed recently enough to have .729 bores marked, but not proofed for BAR... What else can we see here? ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/tg0yvcVh/IMG_3300.jpg) ...you should be able to click through and enlarge. I'll be out the rest of the day so won't be able to answer any questions until late, but will do my best then.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,813 Likes: 488
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,813 Likes: 488 |
The image unfortunately is low resolution and very small ![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Proof-Marks/i-VJgx74L/0/Lj2vB4MCzvqss8MQHMZRn2RvwRhdZvPpkcrGFtpHw/S/IMG_3300-S.jpg) The original proofs were London, and the second Birmingham proofs are clearly stamped over the 'Siemen Steel'. I can't date the London Proof The Crowned BNP (Birmingham Nitro Proof), and the .729" are 54' - 89' and the mark in the lower L is the Birmingham date code used 50' - 74' If you'll tell us the letters within the halberds I can give you the date. 3 1/4 Tons is for a max. service load of < 10,000 psi BTW: it those aren't enough proof marks, you can buy your own! https://waffenamt-shop.com/gb/99-british-proof-mark-stamps
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,609 Likes: 505
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,609 Likes: 505 |
Looks like original London proofs might be 1887-1896: ![[Linked Image from jpgbox.com]](https://www.jpgbox.com/jpg/75497_800x600.jpg)
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,497 Likes: 292
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,497 Likes: 292 |
Another reason that British Proof is ridiculous and should be ignored. British proof is stamped on guns with ten thousandths of wall thickness as long as the gun doesn't blow up at the proof house.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 418 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 418 Likes: 9 |
The image unfortunately is low resolution and very small I did the <right click> then chose "open image in another tab) to blow it up. The original proofs were London, and the second Birmingham proofs are clearly stamped over the 'Siemen Steel'. I can't date the London Proof The Crowned BNP (Birmingham Nitro Proof), and the .729" are 54' - 89' and the mark in the lower L is the Birmingham date code used 50' - 74' Thank you. If you'll tell us the letters within the halberds I can give you the date. ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/y8JqSHrk/Screenshot-2025-12-08-223037.png) It looks like an "M" on the left, and a "B" on the right, with a "1" at the bottom. 3 1/4 Tons is for a max. service load of < 10,000 psi Higher than a lot of English guns, and at least it's got 2 3/4" chamber. That's just great...I'm sure there's no gun sellers out there who would use those to misrepresent a gun... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 418 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 418 Likes: 9 |
Looks like original London proofs might be 1887-1896: I really appreciate the step by step on that. I didn't expect it to be that old with the 2 3/4" chambers.
Last edited by Geoff Roznak; 12/08/25 11:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,813 Likes: 488
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,813 Likes: 488 |
I read it as 'M' also Geoff, which would be 1961
The reproof may have been following chamber lengthening since the .729" bore would be the original '12' ie not honed.
|
|
1 member likes this:
Geoff Roznak |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 418 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 418 Likes: 9 |
I read it as 'M' also Geoff, which would be 1961
The reproof may have been following chamber lengthening since the .729" bore would be the original '12' ie not honed. That would make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,665 Likes: 1102
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,665 Likes: 1102 |
Mr. Roznak: Your post reminded me of this jumble... ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/tk05ftlh.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,813 Likes: 488
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,813 Likes: 488 |
Yep. Lot's more fun  MAX m confirms 1896-1904 Birmingham date code 'T B' - 1968 London Proof 2017 Bore 13/1 = .719" - .728", then .729", then 18.7 mm = .736"
|
|
|
|
|
