Can someone who has a finer knowledge of proof marks tell me what these marks mean? These marks are found on the barrels of my Thomas Hepplestone, Jones action, double barrel rifle in 450 3 1/4" BPE. Also am curious when it may have been made. Currently I estimate 1885 +/- 5 years

Any other markings on the barrel flats, not shown to the left?

NO

A few pics of the gun

Nice looking rifle. And how nice that it has load data engraved on the barrels (from your additional pictures, not the first).

London proofs before nitro. I'll wait for someone smarter than me to add a more useful reply.

Overall I like the condition. Lock to metal fit is still good. Doesn't looked messed with. The flat wide top rib and carving of the fences are earlier styles. You might narrow down the date by seeing when the Anson push button forearm release was patented, as it looks to have one in the last photo. Barrel is marked for use with solid, not coiled case, so that might give you another reference date if you don't find more on when the maker was active. Also looks to have rebounding hammers.

If I were wagering a beer, I'd guess 1874-1882, but I can't tell you that from the proofs, just that it's pre-nitro and post 1600s. You know it's post 1867 as that's when the maker moved to 25 Shude Hill.

Lastly, for some reason the marks closest to the barrel flats suggest the rifle spent some time in India or points further east.

Please keep us posted if you learn more.

Here is a picture of the forend release which is stamped with the patent number. I have not yet discovered any date for this patent but still looking. If I could find that it would at least close one end of the time scale with regards to when this rifle was built

My guess is that it is a use number for W Anson's 1872 patent number 3791 for fore-end push rod fastener.

Thanks Ian, I had found the 1872 reference to #3791 but had not thought of your "use number" comment. Am I correct in that a use number would be like a contract permission of using the Anson patent?
So we now know the gun was made after 1872.
Hepplestone made guns at the address (25 Shudehill, Manchester) on the barrel from 1867 to 1910. So my rifle was made between 1872 and 1910. A broad range. If anyone has any more information that refines the dates I will appreciate it.

You are correct about patent use numbers. They indicate authorized licensed use of a patent for which a fee was paid. When patent protection expired, PUNs were no longer necessary. I believe UK patents also required an annual fee to be paid to renew protection, and if this lapsed, protection and PUNs would end. How to find out when renewals stopped for this patent is something I couldn't find. So even at 20 year's duration, you know production should be no later than 1892.

Well, I do wonder when the London Proofhouse commenced using the bore diameter in inches instead of gauge, which in this case was a 56.61 Bore.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, just based on what I've looked at, I would have thought this early a gun would have no bore marking or one in gauge, not caliber. To me those 440 markings are odd, and the strange stampings to the left of the V-crown marks don't fit with British proof marks. Magnifying them just shows they are the same (vs a canceled mark), in my opinion.

It looks like the dies were worn & then there was a bit of tube work that partially worked the marks off a bit??

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

I think they'll allow a .440" diameter plug to pass, but not a .450".
I have seen another pair just like it, i.e. probably the same stamp.

Thanks Mike

I think we should drag Dig in on this. Shall I hit him up????


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

I think this is reasonable to estimate as a latest date of manufacture. Thanks

Sure if he is interested, that could be helpful. He could offer some more on the Thomas Hepplestone's as a gunmaker

CJF, I would be interested in more info on why you think what you said in your comment. That mark you speak of is very smeared and hard to see exactly what it is. If you think you know or can find a picture of it that would be helpful.
To me the history of an old gun is as interesting as the gun itself

LRF, totally fair question. I think I am wrong.

Below I've highlighted the proof that did not look right to me, and seemed perhaps to be Hindi script, particularly the barrel pictured on the right in the pic below. But I think we're seeing only the right half of the full mark on your gun. I should have first ruled out the more obvious possibility -- that of a poor stamping, before suggesting less likely possibility.

Below are London proofs and the mark I think shows only the right half on your gun.





If this is the mark, the downside is it doesn't really help with dating the rifle.

I think your onto it.