|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,443
Posts544,799
Members14,405
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,482 Likes: 390
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,482 Likes: 390 |
I'll be looking forward to seeing it John. Patrick and I have been trading envious texts about it and your good fortune. LOL See you in June if not sooner.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 426 Likes: 76
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 426 Likes: 76 |
John, I’m looking forward to June!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,991 Likes: 402
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,991 Likes: 402 |
Lovely gun, enjoy it in good health!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164 Likes: 11 |
FYI the barrels on the Atkin are new replacements.
New barrels are proof tested and marked to reflect the applicable standard of the day they are not marked reproof.
Original Barrels that exceed the dimensions set by the Original proof marks but have been reconditioned to meet the next higher Proof house standards, are marked as reproof, always provided they pass the proof test.
Roy Hebbes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105 |
NB:
It is highly likely that the Damascus barrel blanks used to re;barrel this gun were drawn from old stock made By W & C Scott.so as to match the original barrel material.
Roy, I'm trying to match the above to your most recent post. My point--re the proofmarks--was that the barrels, whether new or old, would have been submitted for proof when they were refitted by Webley & Scott to the Atkin. And in the case of that particular set of proofmarks, which includes the 2 1/2 mark, the proof could not have taken place any earlier than 1925--chamber length being a required proofmark under the rules of 1925.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164 Likes: 11 |
Hope this explains my reference to W & C Scott.
W & C Scott was, as you are probable aware, the fine gun making division Of Webley & Scott and would have been be the logical business location to make the replacement barrels for the Atkin.
Based on the proof marks, most guns of that era were using steel barrels. At that time Scotts would still have had access To Damascus barrel blanks, suitable for making the replacement barrels to matched the Atkin originals. Hence the proof marks appear to be out of historical sequence!.
You may recall that in recent years W.W.Greener made several guns fitted with damascus barrels, using old barrel blanks from their Inventory. Following passing proof test, these guns would have the proof marks of the day applied without any regard to the age of the Damascus barrels.
Last edited by Roy Hebbes; 04/11/19 09:28 AM.
Roy Hebbes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105 |
Hope this explains my reference to W & C Scott.
W & C Scott was, as you are probable aware, the fine gun making division Of Webley & Scott and would have been be the logical business location to make the replacement barrels for the Atkin.
Based on the proof marks, most guns of that era were using steel barrels. At that time Scotts would still have had access To Damascus barrel blanks, suitable for making the replacement barrels to matched the Atkin originals. Hence the proof marks appear to be out of historical sequence!.
You may recall that in recent years W.W.Greener made several guns fitted with damascus barrels, using old barrel blanks from their Inventory. Following passing proof test, these guns would have the proof marks of the day applied without any regard to the age of the Damascus barrels.
Thanks. We're on the same sheet of music. The chamber length mark (1925 rules of proof) on new Damascus barrels had me scratching my head.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 31
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478 Likes: 16 |
Like Rocketman said, the forearm shows lots of use (checkering worn to the nub). Add replacement barrels, I’d wonder if not at least a bit tired, if not more so. I’d want to examine that gun closely before I jumped in. A lot would depend on the price for me. As a side note, I once asked David Trevallion what he thought about Henry Atkin guns, and his response to me......’they’re old’. Not sure what that means. When Dale Tate examined my 1930 Atkin lightweight self opener he was ecstatic over the condition and quality and felt that the resale value would be north of $20K... far more than I paid for it a couple years ago. I don't know how optimistic his estimate was. As far as "old" goes, Atkin made guns until about 1960 - forget the date when they merged with Grant & Lang, et. al.
Last edited by Chukarman; 04/11/19 04:15 PM.
C Man
Life is short
Quit your job.
Turn off the TV.
Go outside and play.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105 |
When the late English gun writer Gough Thomas decided to order a bespoke gun, it was--if I recall correctly--an Atkin. (Tried to find the reference but couldn't.)
|
|
|
|
|
