|
|
|
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
Topics38,506
Posts545,612
Members14,419
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
If a specific post was interesting or useful to you, we recommend that you Like that post. It tells the post author, and others, that you found the information valuable. Clicking Like is another way to let others know that you enjoy it without leaving a comment.
Log in to join the conversation and Like this content.
|
|
|
 Army Navy CSL
#627665
Mar 20th a 02:19 AM
|
| by Ploughjogger |
| Ploughjogger |
This is my first thread after being fascinated with reading here for some time now. I’m hoping some of you may be able to offer some wise counsel on an Army Navy CSL shotgun of mine. It’s a 12 gauge side by side box lock extractor which I believe to be fairly early. Glascow has no records on the guard number, and it is NOT nitro proofed. What does not seem to fit though is that the barrels do not appear to be Damascus, and the proof marks seem as if it has perhaps been proofed at different- though both early- times.
Is it possible that a sxs box lock extractor might have been made with fluid steel barrels in the late 1880s?
|
|
|
|
|
|