Hello all, I may have the opportunity to buy an 1871 Purdey hammer gun in original case with ivory tools etc. It is Damascus barreled and appears in very good condition and it has provenance. My question is this, I have yet to examine the gun myself but as it is not nitro proofed I think I would be taking a risk shooting it with modern 2 1/2" loads. If I send it to be proofed and it fails, money is gone However I could get Teague to line the barrels so then no problems. What would this do to the value of the gun though ? I would appreciate input from you chaps in the trade on this, Dig etc, thx ijn advance, Mike

Mike, I think Dig is up in town right now visiting Bonhams. Back home on Thursday iirc.

Tim

Thx Tim, hopefully he will see this post, the gun looks fabulous

The Teague lining is no longer an option. If the wall thickness checks out and the barrels are otherwise sound, I bet it will pass proof and make a fine shooter.

SKB, I have a friend who had a gun teague lined a year ago, seemed to have been OK ? best

In this country, "proof" is accomplished with a wall thickness gauge.

I am formerly the US agent and was told the service is now defunct. I think it may have been more than a year ago. I have been mistaken before, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct in this regard. If you know anything else I would love to hear about it. Have a great day Mike.
Steve

Mike,

I have a Powell on Damascus, coincidentally also made 1871. Peter Powell had it nitro proved just before I bought it - and it passed no problems even though the walls are thin near the muzzle.
The keys (as I'm sure you know) are the strength of the action and the thickness around the chamber and first foot or so of the barrel. My guess is Purdey's action should be fine as their models do pass nitro and presumably have a 'family' general design/thickness as well as using high quality materials. Again I would expect the barrels to be fine IF they have not been fine bored too much over the years. If they did start life as a 13 (and some did) and are now 12/1, I'd be pretty nervous. On the other hand, if they started as a 12, or even a 13/1 and are now a 12, you should be in with a pretty good chance. I believe the proof house would give 'an opinion' based on as much experience as you will find anywhere in the world, but of course you will have committed by then!

I hope it works out well for you.

John

JohnfromUK,
I assume you have a Powell lifter. If so, I'd like to communicate with you about it.
Steve Helsley
schmjh@pacbell.net

P.M. sent

I emailed Teague some 8 or 9 months ago about lining a gun.
He said he no longer did that.
Sam Ogle, Lincoln, NE

I found out you are correct Steve, there were issues apparently, thx, Mike

Give the 'Old Gal' a rest and just use it occasionally if at all with your reloaded black powder cartridges. Keep the case and its accessories as conversational items as you warm your feet by the fire with your hunting buddies holding your brand new James Purdey.

I would counsel caution in reproofing nice old guns where there is no need.
In the course of my restorations I almost invariable reproof and in the last year or two have gone from a very occasional failure (about one per year or one in twenty) to the majority.
Having said that, they nearly all pass proof eventually but now I presume to have to knock down bulged chokes, 'lift' invisible bulges, strike off 'unevenness' in original damascus and generally deal with a proof house that seems to have lost the plot!
The incidence of bulged chokes is getting beyond a joke yet my barrel specialist who has been doing proof work for decades had NEVER had a proof induced bulged choke until the last year or so.
Basicly I have no choice but to submit my guns for reproof but I wouldn't recommend anyone else to do so unless really necessary.
Even freshly sleeved guns are often failing proof on first attempt!

Lining was a nice idea but it failed practically so forget that idea.

If the gun is sound and with good walls, it should pass nitro proof. An inspection would be required and you are right, re-proof is always a risk.

Mike,

The tubes are everything on a gun this old.You need to find out the condition of the barrels. Are they pitted and by how much? What is the wall thickness? Any thing less than .022 is too thin. Since this gun shot black powder early on, look for signs of corrosion around the firing pins.

I own a Grant and a H. Holland, both made in 1874, both with damascus barrels but with no pitting and bright bores, although the H. Holland had to be polished to clean up some minor rust, inside and out. Damascus barrels made in the 1870's for London firms are surprisingly robust. They were exceptionally well made. I shoot low pressure ammo through mine and I have had no problems at all.

Personally, I would not buy a Purdey hammer gun if it need liners.

Toby, thank you for giving some credence to my post about "proof".

I thought there was a law in Great Britain wherein a gun cannot be sold unless it is proofed (proven). I also thought this especially applied to guns that are imported.

Obviously there is a crack in this thought as we see guns with only BP proof marks being sold here every day and the onus in regards to shooting nitro loads lies with the owner.

What exactly is the straight dope on the British mandates regarding this stew of gun proofs, sales, importing etc?

To clear up the Brit proof thing.

It is an offence to have a firearm with no proof marks at all i.e. I made this action and barrel in my workshop and did not enter it for proof test at one of the recognised proof houses and then sold it.
Or this gun was made outside the UK it has been proofed but the proof marks applied to the gun are not recognised in the UK. This is just as bad as having no proof marks at all.
A gun with UK black powder proof marks is recognised here in the UK but it must be used with black powder as the propellant. Also the bore size of the barrel must be within the size limits of the size impressed on the gun barrel. Under no circumstances should a charge using smokeless powder be used in a gun that has only black powder proof marks.
So as they say size also matters here in the UK.
So a gun having Nitro proof marks but having a bore diameter larger than the specified size limits for its bore size is out of proof and can not be offered for sale hire or to be lent to another person but as long as you keep it for your own use you are not breaking any law, so you can injure you self with an out of proof gun but your life insurance will not pay out if the worst happened because you willingly ended your own life (suicide).
Though there are some twists and turns in the whole thing but I think that is it in a nut shell.

Is this correct? I have a gun made before proof was compulsory.

My understanding is that;
It is an offence to SELL a gun that REQUIRES PROOF and is not in current proof. i.e. possession of an 'out of proof' gun is not an offence, and possession or selling a gun that did not require proof is not an offence.

I may well be wrong, but I have been informed that to own my 1810 built gun which bears no proof marks is not an offence - and nor would it be an offence to sell it because it was made before proof became a legal requirement.

This. Why risk blowing up a fine old gun if you can just measure wall thickness instead. If they go .025 or more, you're good. Less, and it's wall-hanger. Easy.
JR

I regularly shoot guns well below 25 thou that are in proof - and safe with the loads for which they were designed and proved. Lots of fine guns had quite thin walls when new, especially pre WWII when light guns were popular.

Good grade steel (and Damascus) can be well below 25 thou towards the muzzle with no risk of burst, but they are easily dented.

So what thickness are you saying is your minimum, JohnfromUK?
JR

I believe Greener made one with walls near the muzzle .010 and it passed proof. Later he took a penknife and slit the tube to illustrate how thin it was. Point is from a safety standpoint it doesn't make a lot of difference what the minimum wall thickness is but it is very important to be satisfied the barrel has adequate strength in the first foot from the chamber. Now, if its too thin near the muzzle it will be more easily dented and repair can be a problem.

There is no specific figure as it depends on how good the material is (in the early days often how free from flaws it was), and where the measurement is taken. Walls can really be very thin near the muzzles and won't burst, but are very easily dented.
I agree that 25 thou and over is a fair "guide' to a near guarantee of safety but that is only one aspect, and 'proof' is a better test and will allow many that would fail the 25 thou test to remain in service.
Proof would also pick up hidden flaws and possible action weakness.

This is quite right.

I can tell you John that most auction houses will advise in their catalogues if the barrels are below .020

John

UK laws are not usually made respectively unless by an act of parliament they usually come in to force on the day that they are past or enforced.
So your gun with no proof at all so long as it was made before the date the law was put on the statute that is fine. This is the reason we have motor vehicles on the road that do not have seat belts flashing indicators or brake lights because they where manufactured before the relevant laws regarding those things where passed by parliament.
But there is always a but here in the UK when it comes to Tort laws just as an example Civil Tort could argue the point that because a gun has no proof marks the owner should (point of law to be argued) do all within his powers to see that the gun he sold was perfectly safe, so it could therefore be argued that the gun should pass through the proof house system to prove this fact. What I have just said may not ever happen at all but if you get a lawyer who will take your money and try to prove the case at your expense though it could go all the way to the House of Lords if you have the millions to spend.
As they say the Law is an Ass as well as being blind. And Lawyers really never loose financially no matter what the outcome of the case.

Thanks,
As it happens, I have not shot the gun (its a double 12 bore now converted to percussion) as I'm not a muzzle loader, but the relative I inherited it from did use it regularly (he shot grouse over a pointer with it). I have had it checked by a 'muzzle loading wise' gunsmith, who pronounced it in fine shooting condition, and it is on my certificate as a gun (rather than being treated as a wall piece). As a family piece, I don't think it will be sold in my time!
Thanks for the advice and it won't be me funding the 'test case'!

A lot of rhetoric on this thread to get to the short answer, "Measure the wall thickness.".