I was at a local shop today and looked at a 10 gauge William Ford. The gun weighed 9.6 lbs with only 26" barrels. I don't know if there are any chokes left (was this cut?) or not.

This shotgun interested me because I already own a William Ford, in my case a 10 bore chamberless gun made in the 1920s. (See thread at: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=276052&page=1)

The new gun I saw today has both 10 and 12 gauge British proofs. Serial is in the 2K range (mine is in the 14K range). Does this seem like a 12 gauge chamberless gun rechambered and reproved as a 10? Some of the proofs appear to be 1954-1989 but others pre 1904.

Strangely, this has a Greener side safety. Also notable - the action top tank is drifted significantly to the right and the action notably tapers from fore to aft to accommodate the wide breech-face.

TIA, Chris

For reference, here are two proof charts. The first came from Hallowell's site, and is attributed to Diggory Hadoke, Vintage Guns, Skyhorse, 2008. The second was from an advert for a Cornwell publication.

These show a reproof mark from the London proof house that appears on the ford (italics capital R under a crown).

I am totally in love with that gun. Can I get some pictures of the entire gun and the greener safety?

67galaxie, I don't have any other pictures than the additional one I posted below. This Ford was the last piece I looked at, and I was running short on time. Due to the poor leadership of our ex governor, the interstate is a mess and this 'local' shop is now an hour away. I will call them and see if I can get those pictures for you.

Re this originally being a chamberless gun, it seems it's possible, if I am reading the description of the diamond proof mark with, and without the C. This has both for 12, and additional one for 10.

Here's the description of the 1887-1896 Birmingham proof house marks regarding chambers. Anyone have better info?

1887-1896: This was the first period that fractional gauge sizes were marked between 12/2 (.740), 12 (.729), 13/1 (.719) and 13 (.710) in respect of 12 gauge guns. The word CHOKE was first used to indicate its presence and to distinguish the correct nominal size of the weapon and its ammunition, <b>the diamond mark was introduced. When this latter mark included the initials LC instead of just the appropriate gauge size and the initial &#1057; it indicated a long chamber of at least 3 inches. At this period if the initial &#1057; was omitted altogether it indicated a chamberless gun</b>."

And here's one additional picture:

CJF;
12/1 = .740", there was no 12/2. If my memory is correct the 2 steps "Tween" gauges began at 10ga, I know it was larger than 12. From 11 gauge down there was only the /1 tween size. It would appear it was originally proofed as an 11 gauge, which would have put the bore between .751" (11) & .763" (11/1) assuming post 1887 manufacture.

Apologies for yet another post. Below is an enhanced view of the proofs.




A few observations from someone who is not an expert:
1) The upper left mark of an arm w/ sword and "NP" is a London mark used post 1904 for definitive nitro proof.
2) The italics "R" under the crown at right (above the CHOKE mark) shows reproof at London, in use post 1925
3) The BNP under crown is a Birmingham proof used post 1954.

Note that this William Ford serial number is 2197. My Ford has a 14,000 serial, and was dated to 1929. So the gun I looked at yesterday is presumably much older. To recap, barrels are 26" and HEAVY. Total gun weight is 9.6 lbs. Front trigger is articulated. Address, if I recall correctly, is not the Saint Mary's Row address on my Ford but different.

So is it possible that this started as a chamberless 12 (12 gauge shells with a 10 gauge bore and no forcing cones) and was reproved, possibly for nitro or ? in London, receiving the 12c proof (shells of 3"), and then later re-chambered and re-proved for 10 gauge 2 7/8" shells?

CJF;
I do not see an old mark for a 10 gauge bore. The .775" would be from a re-proof. If this gun predates 1887 then the 11 bore could have been right up just short of 10 gauge of course. Even if not a true "Chamberless" it would appear it at least was over-bored, likely for use of all brass shells. It does indeed appear it started life as an over-bored 12 ga & was subsequently enlarged to a 10 with reproof at that time.

What a lot of marks! Serial number puts it at 1892. I can see the original marks. Then it looks if it was nitro proofed at some unknown time post 1954 as a 3" chamber 12 bore, then re-bored out to 10 bore and re-proofed again in 1961. The 12C in the diamond shows it was a 12 bore in the chamber dimensions originally so unlikely to have been a chamberless. Unusual for a gun of that period to be fitted with 26" barrels so may have been shortened at some time. Of course boring out to 11 bore will have meant that some choke could be included. I'm sure this gun could tell some tales and has some secrets to give up. Lagopus.....

I appreciate the help gentlemen.

2-piper, sorry if I misstated above. I was thinking this was originally a 12, not a 10, and later chambered for as a 10. My chamberless 10 is marked on its flats as a 10, even though the bores are 8 gauge. This one was marked as 12 with 3" chambers first (the hashed out 12 at top, without the 'c' underneath.)

lagopus, I wonder what this would have originally weighed, since it's 9.66lbs now, with 26" tubes and re-bored from an 11 to a 10 (.751 to .775). Balance is actually quite good.

CJF;
I may not have made myself clear. Normally a British proofed gun will have the bore size marked as per the largest plug gauges which will enter the bores. Then in 1887 they began marking the chamber size. Thus it would appear this gun per its earliest marking had a 12 chamber with an 11 bore. I think that a "True Chamberless" gun with 12 gauge chambers would have had a 10 bore.

Makes sense. Thank you sir.

CJF, The process that the gun in question went through was something that was not that uncommon with heavy wildfowling guns that were originally built for longer chambered thin brass black powder cartridges which appeared around the 1890's in Britain.As time progressed and nitro powders and longer paper cases became the norm,the process of chamber lengthening,rechambering,reboring,and re-proofing,assuming that the actions and barrels could handle the new loads,was done.It is always interesting to try and dissect the process that the gun went through from the array of proof marks.I have a W P Jones 10 bore HG with heavy 34" steel barrels and full and full choke,that went through a similar process and from the proof marks it looks to have evolved from an over bored black powder 12 bore of indeterminate chamber length,to a 3" nitro 12 and finally a 3 1/2" magnum 10.The gun weighs an even 10 lbs. and because of the heavy steel barrels it balances almost 3" ahead of the hinge pin.As mentioned earlier,if only these guns could talk...
A couple pics of the proofmarks

Educational and very interesting.

Documentation that alterations to make a gun more suitable to modern times is not only a normal 'process' but acceptable and indeed traditional.

Interesting to note that both guns have Birmingham date marks. CJF's gun appears to have been reproofed in Birmingham in 1961 (M & B in the crossed swords) and Terry's in 1962 (N & B). Neither gun has the Birmingham reproof mark.

I stopped back by the shop today and picked up the Ford and a 2 1/2" chambered 12 bore Webley Scott. I will take additional pictures when back from a quick trip. Regards. CJF

So here are some additional pictures of the 1892 William Ford, along with a new Ford from the 1920s and G3 Greener. All are currently 10ga. Both Fords started as chamberless guns and the older was reproved, going from a 12 to 10ga.

The 1892 Ford this thread is about, showing the side safety


Both Fords


Barrel address on 1892 Ford


Bushed firing pins and hidden 3rd fasterner on 1892 Ford (new Ford has dolls head extension)


1892 Ford flanked by new Ford (bottom) and G3 Greener (top)




Muzzles (Greener at left, 1892 in middle, 1920s Ford at right)


Proofs from both Fords, with 1892 at top


Fences (1892 at right)


Ford tangs (very similar styling although roughly 30 years apart)

And this one shows the top tang of the 1892 Ford. Look how much it curves to the right. For me, being right handed and left eye dominant, I find this fit helps my right eye overcome and drive the sighting. Westley Richards recently featured a pair of sidelocks made for central vision that have swept tangs: https://www.theexplora.com/pair-of-westley-richards-12g-central-vision-sidelock-ejectors/

I had wondered if this bend in the tang is why a side safety was used and not the traditional top tang. But the WR sidelocks referenced above have top tang safeties. Ford and Greener had worked together, so perhaps the side safety is simply Greener's influence.

The gun has a feature I don't recall seeing before. The action tapers as it reaches the buttstock. Not much, just a tenth of an inch. from 2.07" inches at the widest, down to 1.97" where it joins the butt. The barrels on this Ford, which started as a chamberless 12ga, are 2.54" across at the breach-face. The Greener, which is also a 10ga, is smaller at 2.51". The later Ford (chamberless 10ga) is 2.61".



The one thing I don't like about the gun is the hinged front trigger that must have been added later, as its workmanship doesn't match the balance of the gun.