doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Advice needed on Purdey

I emailed Teague some 8 or 9 months ago about lining a gun.
He said he no longer did that.
Sam Ogle, Lincoln, NE

I found out you are correct Steve, there were issues apparently, thx, Mike

Give the 'Old Gal' a rest and just use it occasionally if at all with your reloaded black powder cartridges. Keep the case and its accessories as conversational items as you warm your feet by the fire with your hunting buddies holding your brand new James Purdey.

I would counsel caution in reproofing nice old guns where there is no need.
In the course of my restorations I almost invariable reproof and in the last year or two have gone from a very occasional failure (about one per year or one in twenty) to the majority.
Having said that, they nearly all pass proof eventually but now I presume to have to knock down bulged chokes, 'lift' invisible bulges, strike off 'unevenness' in original damascus and generally deal with a proof house that seems to have lost the plot!
The incidence of bulged chokes is getting beyond a joke yet my barrel specialist who has been doing proof work for decades had NEVER had a proof induced bulged choke until the last year or so.
Basicly I have no choice but to submit my guns for reproof but I wouldn't recommend anyone else to do so unless really necessary.
Even freshly sleeved guns are often failing proof on first attempt!

Lining was a nice idea but it failed practically so forget that idea.

If the gun is sound and with good walls, it should pass nitro proof. An inspection would be required and you are right, re-proof is always a risk.

Mike,

The tubes are everything on a gun this old.You need to find out the condition of the barrels. Are they pitted and by how much? What is the wall thickness? Any thing less than .022 is too thin. Since this gun shot black powder early on, look for signs of corrosion around the firing pins.

I own a Grant and a H. Holland, both made in 1874, both with damascus barrels but with no pitting and bright bores, although the H. Holland had to be polished to clean up some minor rust, inside and out. Damascus barrels made in the 1870's for London firms are surprisingly robust. They were exceptionally well made. I shoot low pressure ammo through mine and I have had no problems at all.

Personally, I would not buy a Purdey hammer gun if it need liners.

Toby, thank you for giving some credence to my post about "proof".

I thought there was a law in Great Britain wherein a gun cannot be sold unless it is proofed (proven). I also thought this especially applied to guns that are imported.

Obviously there is a crack in this thought as we see guns with only BP proof marks being sold here every day and the onus in regards to shooting nitro loads lies with the owner.

What exactly is the straight dope on the British mandates regarding this stew of gun proofs, sales, importing etc?

To clear up the Brit proof thing.

It is an offence to have a firearm with no proof marks at all i.e. I made this action and barrel in my workshop and did not enter it for proof test at one of the recognised proof houses and then sold it.
Or this gun was made outside the UK it has been proofed but the proof marks applied to the gun are not recognised in the UK. This is just as bad as having no proof marks at all.
A gun with UK black powder proof marks is recognised here in the UK but it must be used with black powder as the propellant. Also the bore size of the barrel must be within the size limits of the size impressed on the gun barrel. Under no circumstances should a charge using smokeless powder be used in a gun that has only black powder proof marks.
So as they say size also matters here in the UK.
So a gun having Nitro proof marks but having a bore diameter larger than the specified size limits for its bore size is out of proof and can not be offered for sale hire or to be lent to another person but as long as you keep it for your own use you are not breaking any law, so you can injure you self with an out of proof gun but your life insurance will not pay out if the worst happened because you willingly ended your own life (suicide).
Though there are some twists and turns in the whole thing but I think that is it in a nut shell.

Is this correct? I have a gun made before proof was compulsory.

My understanding is that;
It is an offence to SELL a gun that REQUIRES PROOF and is not in current proof. i.e. possession of an 'out of proof' gun is not an offence, and possession or selling a gun that did not require proof is not an offence.

I may well be wrong, but I have been informed that to own my 1810 built gun which bears no proof marks is not an offence - and nor would it be an offence to sell it because it was made before proof became a legal requirement.