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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (J.B.Patton),
410
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,900
Posts550,591
Members14,458
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,393
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,393 |
Monty, please say you are pulling my leg, right Mike
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 820 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 820 Likes: 1 |
Just joking
RELAX ! You have been eating too much moose meat.
monty
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
JDW Miller, I have a WW Greener, circa 1892 that has 13 on the receiver. Am I correct in your saying that it was not a .710 bore, as there are no other numbers there? The 13 for the bore would not be marked on the receiver, but thr bbls. If the bbls are marked 13 then in 1892 this would mean that a plug gage (Ground or polished steel bar) of .710" diameter would enter the bore, but one of .719" (13/1) would not enter. It could not be stated exactly what it measured originally, other than it would have been within those limits. If the bore is subsequently enlarged to the point it will accept the .719" gage then it has become out of proof.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,457 Likes: 88
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,457 Likes: 88 |
Maybe Larry can weigh in on this he's always good for a loose chamber...or two
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,763 Likes: 68
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,763 Likes: 68 |
Miller, thanks for the interpretation. I had originally thought the bores were .710 and now know they could have been up to .719. I will recheck them to the 9" from breech as you stated to see what they now read. I can't remember at what length I read the other numbers, but I'm sure the barrels were honed somewhat.
Thanks again.
David
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133 |
Miller, I have a WW Greener, circa 1892 that has 13 on the receiver. Am I correct in your saying that it was not a .710 bore, as there are no other numbers there? The right bore is .727 and the left is .728. I hope that is the case as it would make me feel better about the bores. The chokes measure .009 in right and .034 in left. It is kind of scary looking at the muzzle end. The barrels measure 27 1/8" and the gun weighs 6 lbs. even. JDW, if your 1892 date is correct on your Greener, it would currently be out of proof as a 13. As Miller stated earlier, subdivisions to the gauges were added under the 1887 rules of proof. Standard bore size for a 13 was .710, but it could have been as large as .718. .719 was standard bore diameter for a gun marked 13/1. Yours is almost out of proof for a 13/1, with standard bore diameter for the 12 starting at .729. However . . . "out of proof" due to an oversized bore is not necessarily a safety issue. It does indicate that your bores have seen some honing. But your gun may have started life with very thick barrel walls, and even as overbored as it now is, you may still retain sufficient thickness so that you don't really need to worry about your gun, at least not from a minimum barrel wall thickness standpoint. But if your gun were to be submitted for reproof and your measurements are correct, it would be remarked as 13/1.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,763 Likes: 68
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,763 Likes: 68 |
Thanks Larry. I have shot it with low pressure, low velocity reloads, 7,000 psi with 1050 fps. Tough to get used to a safety mounted on the side for walk-up upland bird hunting. I can see for driven birds no problem.
David
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133 |
Correction to the above: under current proof rules, it would not be marked as a 13/1. Rather, each barrel flat would be stamped with the bore diameter in millimeters.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,103 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,103 Likes: 38 |
I tentatively date my JB Warrilow Damascus barreled hammerless around that time period, I too find that modern shells are looser in the chamber than more modern guns. Makes for easy extraction and no problems with any splitting hulls.
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. - Errol Flynn
|
|
|
|
|