|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 members (azgreg, Geoff Roznak, SKB, 1 invisible),
531
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,859
Posts567,711
Members14,635
| |
Most Online9,918 Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,467 Likes: 774
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,467 Likes: 774 |
12C inside the device and 1&1/8" oz proofs, it was a 2&1/2" gun originally. If it was a 2&3/4" gun it would be marked 12LC inside the diamond or 1&1/4oz proof, possibly both.
Ed is always good for a laugh.
It most definitely matters what your gun was originally designed to shoot and how it was proofed. Those of us that have bought, sold and collected vintage British guns know that....and then there is Ed.
|
|
1 member likes this:
Geoff Roznak |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,340 Likes: 470
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,340 Likes: 470 |
I’m going with measuring error.
I’m thinking that somebody imported a gun, and measured the chamber length with a crude drop in device or 6 inch ruler, rather than getting out a Hosford‘s.
Usually, the simplest explanation is.
Out there doing it best I can.
|
|
1 member likes this:
Geoff Roznak |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,884 Likes: 521
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,884 Likes: 521 |
1896 Rules ![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Proof-Marks/i-FDPKS96/0/KskVrkvWft6hWSp79NQCHdFJ86Mm7b9bX4ZbLZjWq/M/1896%20Rules%20Long%20Chamber-M.png) 1904 Revision, and as said 1 1/8 oz. would be for 2 1/2" chambers After 1925 the chamber length was marked After 1954 in both inches and mm and simply 12 in the diamond without the C or LC
|
|
1 member likes this:
Geoff Roznak |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,467 Likes: 774
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,467 Likes: 774 |
I had not recalled correctly that the LC was only for chamber over 3" long.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 557 Likes: 59
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 557 Likes: 59 |
1896 Rules ![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Proof-Marks/i-FDPKS96/0/KskVrkvWft6hWSp79NQCHdFJ86Mm7b9bX4ZbLZjWq/M/1896%20Rules%20Long%20Chamber-M.png) 1904 Revision, and as said 1 1/8 oz. would be for 2 1/2" chambers After 1925 the chamber length was marked After 1954 in both inches and mm and simply 12 in the diamond without the C or LC Thanks Drew.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,348 Likes: 159
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,348 Likes: 159 |
well, once again, to beat the dead horse...
all this data, insults, innuendos and pontifications, with lots of words, but little substance, aka smoke and mirrors....
still begs the question...
what commercially available load, if any would be potentially safe for this or any other gun...
key to making a guess as to where to start, one must know barrel wall thicknesses in front of chambers...
Last edited by ed good; 02/28/26 03:15 AM.
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,348 Likes: 159
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,348 Likes: 159 |
because?
because you say...
well, cause dats watt doc drew taught us years ago...
de peak o de pressure curve is directly in front o de chamba...
everything else is down hill from der...
doc drew, pls be so kind as to post your now famous pressure curve charts here...
it would be so lovely to view them once again, whilst enjoyin ah cuppa wid ah bis cuit or two...
ah bis cuit or two...ah bis quit or two...
makes the world go round...
la la la....
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Last edited by ed good; 02/28/26 03:26 AM.
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 557 Likes: 59
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 557 Likes: 59 |
what commercially available load, if any would be potentially safe for this or any other gun... To repeat: We'll never know. I didn't buy the gun.
|
|
|
|
|