As part of a larger trade deal I acquired a Walter Clements 12b Laminated Steel barrel hammer sxs. Pics are below. All appears in great shape, and tight on face, with exception that (1) it seems the pin on the right barrel is frozen, as it doesn’t seem to move when the hammer hits it. And (2) I am unsure of the proof for these barrels. I am trying to decipher the proof marks and I other marks. If anyone has any info to share about this make, the vintage of gun, or laminated steel in general, I’d love to hear. Pics are clickable for larger versions.

[img]https://photos.smugmug.com/Cat...2286146996795444015-DSC05990-S.jpg[/img][img]https://photos.smugmug.com/Cat...3369240222552686133-DSC05991-S.jpg[/img]

http://littlegun.be/arme%20belge/artisans%20identifies%20c/a%20clement%20walter%20gb.htm

Belgium proofs prior to 1922

https://www.shotguns.se/html/belgium.html

Pre-1893 and likely pre-1891. Note forward of the "Laminated Steel" (the barrels are Twist) is the place where "Belgium" was usually marked.
It was not until 1891 that the U.S. required the country of origin to be clearly marked on an imported gun.
It does not carry Smokeless powder proof, which at that point was voluntary and would have been with "E.C." or "Schultze"

Whatever the experts tell you about this gun, it is an extremely high condition gun. Many early hammer guns that have not been shot in decades have seized up plungers. Break them loose with solvent and a plastic hammer and dismantle them and lubricate. Everything should work just fine.

Drew, are not these barrels different, left to right? Are both twist?

Thank you all this far!

Both are (not well matched) Plain Twist Bill.
And I agree very high condition.
The chambers are likely 2 1/2 or 2 5/8", but were not marked in that time frame.
The bore looks to be 18.2 mm = .7165" with R choke < .008" and likely cylinder
Left muzzle constriction is 17.5 = .689 or .0275" choke = Imp. Mod.

If the bores and wall thicknesses check out should be a fun shooter! In light of the 130 year old wood I'd suggest 7/8 oz. at 1200 fps loads, which have been commercially available from Fiocchi and others; and nominal 2 3/4" Fiocchi loads tend to run about 2 5/8".

nice lookin ole gon...git some black powder loads an have sum fun...

I might have to search out some 12g black powder shells. I shoot 16g black powder shells out of an old 16 I acquired:

http://www.fishrising.net/home/rodgun/belgorgerm/index.html

Thoughts of this being restored? Or does it appear in original condition? I can get some more pics of anything specific over the next few days when I get it chance.

It certainly seems original condition to me, but it also seems to “good (clean) to be true.”

That looks like original condition to me. Very nice. If the barrels are in good shape, no dents, bulges or deep pitting, I think low pressure smokeless would be fine. If you can, have someone measure the barrel wall thickness.

Not saying that it is, but it resembles the early Scott - Daly's. Drew, the inspector's marks forward of the flats are letters surmounted by a Crown. Well made smokepole.


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Ah, the Daly's had 3 pins:

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=467518&page=all

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

here is link to source for bp shells...

https://www.buffaloarms.com/obsolete-hard-to-find-ammunition/shotgun-ammo

Looks to be original condition to me, not restored. Nice find. Unless a gun has family value it does not pay to restore a modestly priced gun like this one. Why put a thousand dollars into a $750.00 gun? Now if the gun was worth a thousand and it cost a thousand you could at least break even in the deal.

What Raimey observed. Belgian bench test controller's (inspector's) personal marks used 1853-1877 were a smooth crown over the letter. After 1877, the inspector's mark was a star over a capital letter.
Some marks are however spangled, and it is likely inspectors used what they had.

I agree original or very long ago restored. It is impossible to reproduce the aged appearance of the Twist barrels by recoloring.

Yes, Drew, I see them mixed also. So the tubes may pre-date the 1877 change over after the Liège mechanics wore out their Crowned inspectors dies and commenced using their new spangled letter dies. But the tubes were utilized after the change-over, so maybe the tubes or longarm in the white experienced proof and the spangled letters were applied. Too, I've seen that odd >>7 1/2<< stamp near the forend hanger and I believe it was on pattern welded Remington doubles?



Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Replaced forearm wood....the fit and finish is no doubt better than the original fit and finish of a lower quality gun like this.

I'm going with restored.

AARBC...Above average restored Belgium Clunker

joe, be nice...

Whew...i have to say I have a hard time buying it being original like this after 150 years. A gun of this age...ANY gun...if original in this condition, should come with a story of how it remained that way, where it was, etc. The fact that it was lumped into a group sale with no further attribution gives me reasonable doubt.

As Drew said, it's tough to fake age on these Twist barrels, so they may have only seen a "0000 massage." But the rest...

Either way, a sweet gun if priced right. Certainly a lot more interesting on the clay course than yet another cookie cutter Beretta or Browning O/U. 🥱

The 7/8 Fiocchi "Trainers" are the ticket.

NDG

notice the sharp metal stamps...dont see that sharpness on redone metal...

Just got a new Trader's Dispatch today and noticed an auction with a "J.B. Clement 10 ga double barrel exposed hammers" Also has an Eclipse and an L.C. Smith Hunter Arms Co., also with 'exposed hammers'. Auction is 25 Sept. near Sidney, MT. 406 480 2778. Guessing beat up ranch guns, but you never know.

Been awhile with this gun. Got put in the safe and forgotten about. But thank you all again all! Now I’ve got 2 more questions:

1. The plungers are moving now. Are there supposed to be springs to either retract the firing pins once the gun is either fired or opened? And same question for the plungers? They move, but there is no resistance or anything to force them in a particular direction. I’m guessing no springs as such that I am asking about and the loading of shells and opening/closing of the gun will “manually” move the firing pins. But I don’t know.

2. Finally was able to get some flats of lower pressure 2 1/2” shells. I am using these for some of my older British doubles. What do you think of these in this gun? Not 7/8oz like some suggested. But the speed is in the range some suggested.

If you would share the wall thickness at the end of the chambers (and confirm the length thereof), the forcing cone, 3", 6", 9", and 12", and the MWT and location we could provide meaningful (rather than hopeful) advice.

I don’t have anything to measure the barrel wall thickness. But…I am going to visit Mitch Schultz at Gunsmithing LTD tomorrow to see if he wants to take on some work for two of my other guns. Maybe I can pay him to measure the walls for me while I’m there.

Dropped it off with Mitch at Gunsmithing LTD. He is going to measure it out for me. But his initial review was (1) the gun is a survivor and he thinks it’s all original, never refinished. (2) He thinks it will be fine to shoot lite loads in it, but again, is measuring just to have the extra confidence. Will get it back in a few weeks when my other gun work is done.

jOe needs an eye exam. There's no way this gun is not original. But then, he's been wrong before.

RSTs should be fine pressure wise if the gunsmith gives the OK. Recoil is another matter. A one ounce shot load will recoil about 1/7th harder than a 7/8 oz shot load at the same velocity and will put 1/7th more stress on the head of the stock. If your gun weighs six pounds that might make a difference. If it weighs eight pounds, less so. How heavy is the gun?

Hodgson publishes recipes for 7/8 and even 3/4 oz 12 ga loads, if you load cartridges.

Nice gun. Have fun!

That looks like an original shotgun that’s just been sitting in a closet. Even the old oil is patinizing.
All the surfaces tell me lack of use, not somebody’s been trying to change something.

I would not do anything to it.

Checkering and wood fit and finish were the dead give away for me....look at the low quality metal work in comparison to the wood work.

I stand by my first assessment.

I believe jOe may be cOrrect

Just a nicer JABC.....

Got it back from Mitch, and he thinks it’s all original. He measured wall thickness told me it is good to go with RST lite shells…below is a pic of his work order supposedly measurements but I can’t decipher them.

I see R .040 and L .035 in the "Notified" section. Barrel wall thickness? From your earlier post, it's not choke constriction.
Looks like you're set for the season!

Original in every way. Easy call.
JR

And used her today: