3 ton nitro?

AJ Russell 28ga.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=297079

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=98

Looks like 3 1/4 ton. But I can't read that or the chamber length, even blowing up the photos. 2 1/2" or 2 3/4"?

Looks like reproofed at 2 3/4 to me

I don't know if it was reproffed at 2 3/4 or just restamped to look like it was. Maybe our British board members can tell us. Clearly it looks like it was proofed at 2 1/2" and it clearly reads 2 3/4" now. Were 2 1/2" guns proofed at 3 1/4 tons or just 2 3/4" guns? Either way CIP loads should be the max used in this gun. Some of the reloads Skeet and Sporting Clay shooters load will be above those proof loads.

The new line reads per 1954 rules. As per stamping without actual proof I guess consider the source, caveat emptor.

There should be a reproof "R" mark somewhere if it has been to a UK proof house ?

I am sorry to be negative but the marks do not look good to me. Or at least some don't. We need a much clearer photo taken perpendicular to the flats to be even vaguely sure but it looks a bit like some over-stamping has taken place. I have seen this before and was happy that it was genuine but the general rule is that length and load were not over-stamped so that one could read the history. View and definitive marks were often over-stamped especially where room was at a premium.

It's not at all unusual to find Brit guns that have clearly undergone reproof (as the marks show) but don't have the R/crown reproof mark.

I'm getting the gun under 3 day inspection. I'll get better pics taken when I take possession.

New pic


,

Sure looks like a re-proof

to 2 3/4 " cartridges
and 3 1/4 tons per square "

Mike

Birmingham nitro proofs. Does look a little strange, but I have limited experience looking at reproofs. The Birmingham proof house could tell you definitively whether these proofs were done by them. Send a clear photo and ask them?

Sorry battle, but I am still unsure about these marks. The '1/4' that follows the '3' overlaps with the 'tons' in a most unusual way and the '3' looks rather different (and fresher) than the 'tons...'.
Also the '1/2' of '2 1/2' has been overstamped with the '3/4', again most unusual for this to be done when there is plenty of space to put in a fresh '2 3/4"'mark.
The date stamp is unclear but appears to be in the range of 1950 to 1974, left letter might be an S which would be for 1967. The Imperial bore measurement was introduced in 1954 along with 'tons per [square]"' mark.
Quite correct that the reproof 'R' was sometimes missed off but by this date it was the exception rather than the rule.
I have to say I think the marks are suspect at best.
As Chukarman says above, only Birmingham Proof House could confirm one way or the other. Phone them, they are quite helpful.

Never mind the proof marks .I would worry about the rest of the gun form the batted look of the lumps in the photo .