Need some help with these marks, I think the London marks are from the late 1800's and the Birmingham marks are from about 77. Would the Birmingham proof house mark the barrels as reproofed if the original proof was done else where?






press and hold the
"Ctrl" key on your keyboard, and at the same time, hit the "+" key several times. Do the same thing with the "Ctrl" and "-" key to reduce it back to the usual size.

Looks like Belgian, then London & sleeve effort in Birmingham? Or maybe it was London & then sleeve effort in Birmingham w/ a set of Belgian tubes?


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

they might be Belgian replacement barrels and proofed in London and Birmingham? It's a London gun, so I'm totally confused! Maybe made in London, sleeved in Belgium and proofed in Birmingham when it came back?

With the term >>sleeved<< on it I would hazard a guess it was sleeved by a Birmingham mechanic, that is unless it was mandatory to note if a gun was sleeved regardless of where it was performed?


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

It seems to me that the sleeving in Birmingham was done with donor tubes cut/removed from a Belgium gun. Otherwise any Belgium association would have been lost in sleeving. If there are no other Belgium marks located on the Flats this would tend to confirm this. Other thoughts are welcome!

From what I can decipher the tubes have the provisional Belgian marks, bore size and inspectors mark that falls in The date range of 1976/1977 when it was also proofed in Birmingham , all other proofs are London and Birmingham. Why no reproof stamps? Could it have been purchased and sent to Belgium, repaired while there, then sold and brought to England for proofing? All speculation but it’s an interesting set and kind of fun!

I'm with Bro. Hugh - donor Belgian tubes.

Do we have an image of the flats?

None of those markings are on the tubes? This makes more sense, I hope this isn’t your site.
http://damascus-barrels.com/Belgian_All_Proofmarks.html

Still thinking the tubes were out sourced for sleeving,
* S ( bore size) provisional Mark. Makes more sense than the above, where are the other markings for Belgian proof? Belgian proofed barrels are highly decorated!

Re: Re Proof Mark (crown over R)would have been considered redundant if submitted for proof as "SLEEVED" and so marked.
I don't believe Belgium provisional proof would have required bore dia in 0'1 mm increments at provisional proof .s
If it had been sleeved in Belgium and prooved there should be a Belgium proof mark on the action as well.
I doubt the economical viability of sending a gun from the UK to Belgium to be sleeved then returned to Birmingham for Proof.
I'm a little bit in the dark on this as I can only see the first photo on the original post.
Interesting tho'

Hope this fixed it, safe to assume “3 Tons” is nitro proof? What was meant was the tubes were bought from a Belgium supplier.

Banc D'Epreuves Des Armes a Feu De Liege (Proof House for Firearms of Liege) report from 1906
https://books.google.com/books?id=5fxGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA53&lpg

First Obligatory Proof Load (Provisional Proof) for “Double-Barreled Breech-Loading Sporting Guns” - breech plugged tubes
The bore is ascertained by means of cylindrical steel rods, graduated to tenths of a millimeter, and other apparatus.
The size of the barrel at its muzzle is taken, if it is the same size along the whole of its length, whereas if the barrel is choke-bored the dimensions are taken at the muzzle and also at 22 centims. from the breach. The size of the bore is then stamped with a steel punch on each barrel, those which are choke-bored being
marked with their diameter at the muzzle, and also with the diameter of the barrel 22 centims, from the breech, as has been explained.
The size of the bore thus marked on the barrels by the controllers indicates to the men charging the barrels for testing the quantity of powder and lead to be used in order to create a corresponding pressure on explosion to each barrel tested.
In addition, the number indicating the size of the barrel at its first test effectually prevents the maker from altering the size of the bore after testing, such alteration being directly contrary to Section 15 of the law.

Second Obligatory Proof - joined barrels, fine bored and finished
The barrels on being received for the second proof are again measured for the dimensions of bore, and an infinitesimal alteration in diameter of 1/10 millim. (0.003937 inch) is permitted between the measurements impressed on the barrel at its first test, and those when it is accepted for second proof. This alteration of
1/10 millim. in the size of the bore is allowed for grinding and polishing the interior of the barrel. If the difference between the first proof figures and the measurements taken before the second proof exceeds 1/10 millim, the arm is refused by the controllers of the proof house.

Third Obligatory Proof for double breech loading sporting weapons; finished barrels attached to finished action.

Yes, the tubes were sourced in Belgium and carry the First Obligatory (Provisional) Proofmarks. I deleted the confusing Third Obligatory Proof stuff in the previous post.

Drew, I might be missing something here but I don't see any choke dimension on the tubes.18,3m/m would give us .7205 at provisional proof with no choke (+/- <.008")whereas the B'Ham Sleeved proof shows .729" (less than .739")
It seems incongruous to me to send it/source from Belgium tubes at ..720, sleeve the gun, then bore them out to.729".Sleeve and submit for B'ham Proof..
Could the original poster give us some accurate bore & choke restriction dimensions.
All in all it's adding up to a bit of a mystery of why?

Can’t do the bore, but we’re looking at a loose 1/4 & 3/4 chokes.

But on the tubes there is the >>*S<<, or spangled S, being the Belgian inspector's mark; then the 18.3mm diameter, then the interlaced Liège mark. Under there is the odd or lesser seen Birmingham Crown over cipher then the typical Crown over BNP. But is the touchmark above the >>BNP<< surmounted by a >>Crown<< is that a Birmgingham or London Cipher? Can you source a enlarged image?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

The gun will be in my possession next, these are the photos I have on hand.

Many thanks for the effort but the marks I mentioned were higher on the tubes, closer to the forend lug.


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Ahh, yes no other markings above the *S 18.3 P marks. But did find out what’s going on, the gun was built in 1888, sold in the white to The maker from Osborne on June 28th 1888. The gun was rebuilt roughly in 77 and sleeved using sourced tubes from Belgium and proofed in Birmingham per records on the gun. Mystery solved!