What sort of importance do you put on pitting on the action face?
I know it can be remedied but other than looking a bit ugly is there anything to be concerned about?
Assuming of course it's not indicative of other issues elsewhere.
Yet to see the gun in hand to judge overall condition.
Thanks,
GDU.

Ugly but (in itself) irrelevant unless really extreme. In this case, it would be hard to sell but otherwise irrelevant to safety or function. However, with these removable WR striker plates and multiple internal components I would assume some serious pitting inside and maybe the striker plates seized in. I have replaced all the parts in previous WR guns and it isn't rocket science but more than a little fiddly.

It appears one of the pins, if not the plate itself, may have been replaced in the past.

Best,
Ted

Could that be a conversion from pinfire to centerfire ?

Daryl,
It does look like it might be a conversion, from the shape of the hammers. People wonder why I won't shoot black powder in my old guns; this is why.
Mike

From what I can see it appears to be a Westley Richards "Bar in Wood." It was the first English shotgun to employ Glock strikers. Just joking.

I had one once and enjoyed shooting it over the years. The breech face can be restored with new striker plates and judicious laser welding and filing.

In the last year I have seen half a dozen Westley Richards conversions to center fire. All are decently done, but some are real works of art. Amoskeag Auction had one around the first of the year that was a conversion from a muzzle loading percussion, to a pinfire, to a centerfire. I was outbid by a well known dealer for the gun and he handles thousands of guns a year. But, he said this gun would go into his collection. The workmanship and condition of the gun was just the very best.

I think the one pictured is on the lower end of the conversion styles, as the pinfire hammers look to be ground off at the nose.

I do shoot those old conversions if barrels measure out ok. Lots of fun, now that I don't have to get limits every day in the field.

Here's the catalog description of the conversion Westley Richards I was referring to.

http://www.amoskeagauction.com/112/371.php

Daryl, I do not think that the gun is a conversion. The hammer style carried over from pin fire to centre with WR. The early non-rebounding centre fires used the long nose on the hammer to stop the gun being opened for reloading until the hammers were at 1/2 cock. Then when WR moved on to rebounding they still used a stylised 'pinfire' hammer.
This is a slightly later centre fire that I sold way back. You can still see the hint of 'pinfire' style.

Having said all that, it MAY be a conversion but the hammers are not necessarily an indication.

Toby, you could be right on the subject gun. You have seen and handled many more than I have. I would like to see the standing breech on the gun you picture. I wonder if it has the firing pins installed like the gun in question. Seems like a lot of work to install firing pins this way, when one could just drill them in if it was not a conversion.

Here is another gun done like the gun in question. Guns International has a few Westley Richards hammer centerfires they call conversions. This one calls the gun a pinfire, but of course it is now a centerfire, converted sometime after 1873 with a Deeley and Edge forend, similar to the Amoskeag conversion. Note the breech face is done like the gun from NZ.

http://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-fo...un_id=100858561

Ill post more pics if I end up with it,but its an interesting discussion re conversion or not.

There were guns set up for pin and central fire in one; that looks a bit like one...