Hi, my name's Aleksei, and I can't read proof marks.

Seriously, I am not an expert, and hope you can tell me whether I'm correct in my conjectures.

This here is a 20 ga BLE signed by Ivan Alyoshkin. Alyoshkin worked in St. Petersburg, Russia, from about 1890 to 1917, and some collectors put his guns above Matska and Maslov (or, at least, at their level). Alyoshkin's shop mostly dealt in guns by other makers and related merchandise, and he didn't make more than 10-15 guns a year. This gun is No 83, and it probably left the shop in 1905-1906, because the next known gun, No 90, is dated 1906.

The seller advertises it as having "Full London proofs". And the flats do have what looks like pre-1904 proofs to me. In addition, there are marking suggesting that the barrels were made by Kilby. However, there are a few things that don't add up.

1. Where's the Nitro proof stamp?

2. According to the seller, the gun has 70 mm. chambers. However, there's no mark for long chambers.

3. What does 21 stand for? The actual bore size?

Am I right in thinking that the gun was supplied as a barreled action, with barrels deliberately underbored so that the maker could bore them to whatever dimensions the client specified, and that's how it skipped Nitro proofs?

Unfortunatly I have misplaced my list of British proof marks so I can not give a definative answers so am relying on memory .What does concern me is that there are no proof marks on the action .If the gun was sold as a barreld action it have them .If the gun had later been submitted to London proof it would have been marked as "Not English Make " therefore I have doubts as to the authenticity of the marks on the barrels .Fake British proof marks on non British gund are not uncommon .

21 is the bore size the barrels were proofed at , this equates to .605".

It is a 21 bore(@ time of proof) set of serialized tubes sourced from T. Kilby, more than likely in the white. Typical platform for makers on the Continent who would finish it as their sporting arm. Looks like the number >>20<< in the rhombus.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...true#Post231200

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

I'm with Gunman, these marks are a bit fishy.
No marks on action, very fishy.
The proof marks on the barrels are pre-1904 black powder, 20b chamber, nominal 21 proof size (0.605-0.615").
I would guess that the barrels were from another gun proofed as above and transplanted to this action.
Technically the chambers could be anything under 3" as there was no specific chamber length mark until 1925 other than an LC in the diamond for chambers over 2 3/4" proofed for heavier than normal loads. Sorry, really unhelpful!
However, the normal chamber length in the UK at that time for 20/16/12b was 2 1/2" so one could assume that if they measure 2 3/4" they have been 'dropped'.
I would consider the proof marks as an irrelevance purely on the basis of no marks on the action. The rest is arguable.

http://www.shotguns.se/html/uk.html

What I see is a London (Kilby, 23571 ) tubeset mated to a Russian receiver (Alyoshkin, 83).

Mike

Yeah, it looks like a continental action, with English barrels to me.

Additionally, the 2 1/2 ...2 3/4 measurement question, is a pretty common problem when a person just sticks his ruler into the forcing cone.

Here is a similar topic & I am not convinced the Rhombus stamp is that of the London Klan of Worshipful Gunmakers:























http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=130190&page=1


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

I am of the opinion that the action was never in the little British Isles. Also, Matska was born in Bohemia & had close ties w/ Weipert / Vejperty. So a serialized tubeset was ordered and an action from elsewhere was married. Maybe the owner wanted English proofs on his & didn't know any better?

>>The #17 Matska looks very similar to a Sauer Model 2 frame from Suhl. I'd like to see if anything is stamped on the backside fo the locks. Also I noticed on the right side of the watertable letters that look Slavic. After re-reading Geno/Bill Wise's article, I see that there is a Gustav Bittner, Weipert, Bohemia, frame connection. In the article it notes frames were from Gustav Bittner's Austrian factory, a group effort that made components for the Mannlicher for the Austro-Hungarian armed forces. So easily, there could have been a Russian-Bohemina-German connection. And the "E(backwards)P" stamp must have been Bernard's due to the fact that Paris the proof facility wasn't online in the 1880s. And it is the name "Kilby" in gothic that is adjacent to the "Trade Mark" stamp(Thanks Geno for the effort).<<

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=130190&page=3

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

And it has been discussed ad nauseam that Matska's wares do not wear the full contingent or regiment of English proofs:


400NE-
>>No. That's the point, the full set of London marks aren't there. This gun was never sold in the UK.

The provisional London mark on your gun, John, is the first mark on each barrel flat nearest the breech (the rest of the marks are from later London definitive proof). British provisional proof is conducted on barrels only, when they are raw tubes, before they're finished and joined, and before they're fitted to an action. That's why a foreign gun made with British tubes can have this provisional mark on the barrels without any other British marks on the gun, as Geno describes.

British definitive proof (the second, final proof) is conducted on guns (functional barreled actions), not barrels, and any gun sold in the UK must be definitively proven in the UK, unless it's of foreign manufacture AND proven in a foreign proof facility recognized by the UK proof masters. Simple importation of an unproven gun does not require reproof, but it's illegal to sell it in the UK without it. Whether of domestic manufacture, or of foreign manufacture for sale in the UK, definitive proof is the same. By law, successful definitive proof of breechloaders must be marked on both barrel and action. At the time that your barrels were proven in the UK, the mark required for the action was the view mark, one for each barrel. These were impressed on the water table of the action that your barrels were proved with at the same time the other definitive marks were impressed on each of the barrel flats. Since your action has no such marks (maybe I'm blind, or maybe it's the lighting of the photo, but I can't see any), it has never been through proof in the UK, and your barrels seem to be dancing with a new partner. Further, as previously mentioned, that number on the barrels is somebody's serial number, and it obviously isn't Matska's.......<<

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=130190&page=3

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Thank you.

Is there a way to date Kilby barrel tubes by serial No's?

Some good reading

https://www.internetgunclub.com/archived-forum/posts.php?topicid=1182

Just one thing I'd like to add to the discussion. Neither Matska, nor Maslov, nor Alyoshkin, not any other Russian gunmaker would benefit anything from faking English proofs on the guns they sold under their own names. At their time, the Russian public believed that a "best" gunmaker should turn out every part of his guns himself. Having guns made by the trade was seen as inferior. "If he gets them from England" - the customer would reason - "I might as well get the original". The guns of bespoke St. Petersburg gunmakers were priced above the market - you could buy a similar BLE by Webley&Scott or W.W.Greener for about 2/3 of the price, and a quality Belgian or German gun would cost even less. So, the more work the gunmakers put in their guns, the more valuable they would be in the eyes of their customers.