doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com W C Scott and Son chamber size question

As the title says .........

I have a 16,000 ish serial number W C Scott and Son, 12 gauge, SXS,
in measuring the chambers it appears to be a 2 and 3/4 inch gun.
My question is ........was it common to have a side lock hammer gun chambered for 2 3/4 ? I was under the impression that it would have been 2 1/2 inch chambers. there are no proof stamps indicating size.

It does not appear that the chambers have been lengthened but it is hard to verify.

any thoughts would be appreciated.

If it says between the barrels "imported by Abercrombie and Fitch" it was probably made for the American market and the chamber have been 2 3/4" all along...Geo

16,000 serial numbers fall in 1872 according to the W&C Scott history.

Prior to the Proof House revisions of 1925, 2 1/2" chambers were (usually) marked 1 1/8 oz. and 2 3/4" chambers marked 1 1/4 oz.

Any almost 100 year old gun deserves a good check and clean, with a bore scope examination and wall thickness measurements. If the end of chamber wall thickness is > than about .100", if the chambers were lengthened, though out of proof, it doesn't matter if using loads for which the gun was designed.

OK - just saw the DOM post. There was no load indication prior to the 1896 revisions.

thx so far.......but still trying to determine if they were chambering sidelock hammer guns in 2 3/4 in 1872......?

anybody know if 2 3/4 inch is possibly original....?

2 3-4� almost never. If the gun has been in the us long? If so most likely answer is somebody eased the chambers from 2.5 to 2.75. Measure the wall thickness. If greater than .100 you should be ok with same pressure loads. If under .080 I would not shoot it. Between you must decide.

2. 1/2� was standard for the period. Even longer shells often just were loaded with more, better wadding. Nothing was loaded to what our factory 2 3/4� factory hunting loads are today. That�s a complete non starter. Plus at 130+ years caution is your first responsibility to the gun, yourself and others.

Thx KY
when you say almost never, I am assuming then that it was indeed possible (although unlikely) that it could be original chambering.

can anyone tell me in what circumstances it would be possible that the gun was chambered in 2 3/4...?

FYI the gun lives in Canada and has been here for a very long time in the same family.

or maybe a better question is

Does anyone know when (date) they actually made a 2 3/4 inch, available for commercial purposes, 12 bore shell......?

thx everyone for your informative answers it is much appreciated.

If your gun dates to 1872 I'd say your chambers are not original length. The British standard stayed 2.5" but a gun built for export to the USA after USA standard became 2 3/4" would have been built to that chamber length if specified by the dealer. In that time period I would think a hand built gun could be ordered with any chamber length a buyer wanted, but 2 3/4" just was not standardized even in America or Canada in 1872...Geo

Somebody married Dolly, just not me. Rare is one thing but extremely rare would be another. A 2 3-4� or 3� factory chambered gun in that time period would be a true Dolly.

It is my understanding that for the pigeon ring longer chambers were sometimes ordered from the factory, even at that time. The loads might not have increased but it allowed additional wadding, therefore better gas seal. I am aware of 3� chambers ordered around this time, perhaps a decade later. Remember, in the early 70�s the only powder available was black and 3 1/2 drams of black with 1 1/4 oz shot left almost zero room for wadding in a 2 1/2� hull. If the gun you are referring to is relatively heavy, contrasted with a light game gun, then I suggest it�s possible the chambers are original.

thx Joe

it is a fairly meaty gun. Barrels are 30 inches and measure .727 front to back, with a couple thou variance at the most. Its a Damascus barrelled gun with very nice engraving, i could definitely imagine it as a live pigeon gun. You have given me much more to research, thx again for everyones input.

WWG 1st Edn 1881 refers to chamber lengths only as - "12 gauge and larger should be 2 5/8", 2 7/8" or 3 1/4" - better ballistics for heavier than standard pigeon/trap loads being produced by brass case guns, compared to a falling off in pattern quality in paper case guns with extended chamber length. (I guess that 3 1/4" refers to 8 G only at this date.)
As Joe points out there was an acknowledged problem to accomodate heavy loads and incorporate adequate length of wadding column in standard chamber length cartridge cases (hulls).

Presumably TT's Scott could be either 2 5/8 or 2 7/8" , if not actually 2 3/4" - as original or lengthened at some stage.

Boring of .727" would suggest a paper case gun rather than a brass case gun ( and if built actually in 1872 this date would likely be too early for it to be a designated brass case gun ).

As usual, more information provided on proof marks may help to indicate the primary design and intended quarry/use of the gun.

With regard to a date for introduction of 2 3/4" chambers it may be helpful to look through a few of the early catalogues of the ammunition manufacturers.

Quite right in that the Standard length was 2 1/2" back then but extra length chambers could be ordered for Live Pigeon guns and Wildfowl guns. Chamber length was not marked on the Proof Marks back then. The only hammer gun I have from that period with long chambers is a W.J.Jeffrey Live Pigeon gun. It was proofed for black powder when I got it but is now nitro proof. It was marked 2 3/4" with a small mark by the maker and was stamped on the forend loop and not on the barrel flats where there was no indication by the Proof House. Have a look with a magnifying glass for any small mark in an obscure place on the barrel. Slightly later ones were just marked with the letters 'LC' in a diamond mark with the bore size such as '12 LC' to indicate a long chamber; this was a Proof House mark. This mark appeared after 1887. After that chamber length was indicted by shot weight and not shown on the marks with the actual length until after 1925. Hope that helps but as someone says it may also have been later lengthened but if original I would expect some indication by the maker somewhere. Lagopus�..

great info everyone......thx again.

TT

I had a C&J 12ga sxs marked 2 3/4 on the fore-end loop, in small numbers, also in Canada.
Later than 1880, but maybe more common for the "Colonies"

The vast majority of Target and Live Bird guns using 1 1/4 oz. in the U.S. in the 1870s were 10b
January 3, 1878 Capt. A.H. Bogardus broke 5000 glass balls at 18 yard�s rise in 10 hours 40 minutes 35 seconds, missing 163, using a 10b W&C Scott with 3 1/2 dram 1 1/4 oz. 8s.

Jan., 1879, The Chicago Field
Jamaica Plank Rd., L.I., New York
Brooklyn Gun Club vs. Philadelphia Gun Club, 8 guns per side. Only two Parker guns on the grounds. Mr. T.E. Broadway of the Brooklyners used a Parker 10 ga. with close choke weighing 9 1/2 lbs shooting 4 1/2 drachms of DuPont's Diamond Grade and 1 1/4 oz of Tatham's soft shot. For the Philly club, Mr. H.A. Burroughs shot a Parker 12 bore with medium choke weighing but 7 lb 14oz. He shot 4 drachms of Hazard's Electric Powder and 1 1/4 oz. of chilled #7 in the left barrel and #8 in the right.
U.M.C.'s new paper shells were said to be the choice of most to carry their loads.
W&C Scott was the choice for most shooters with a pair of Remingtons and a Moore and a Williams & Powell.

That began to change in the 1880s

In 1883, Dr. W.F. Carver �The Evil Spirit of the Plains� was matched against Capt. A. H. Bogardus by the Ligowsky Clay Pigeon Co. in a 25-match series. He and Capt. Bogardus shot 100 targets each in 25 different cities, with Carver winning 19 matches, tieing three and losing three.
Bogardus shot a hammerless Scott, 7 lbs 6 oz; Carver a hammerless 12b Greener 7 lbs 12 oz.

A Cashmore hammerless Pigeon gun (I don't have the DOM) marked "3 1/4" CASES"

All very interesting, but if the focus of attention for the gun in question is a manufacture date of 1872, it should be realised that choke boring was only just being introduced. Proof marks at that date IIRC were principally stamped as bore gauge - and also muzzle gauge if barrels were choke bored. The word "choke" was stamped at a later date, choke designation having earlier been accorded the words "not for ball".

There are many references in the early 1880's to heavy loads used in trap shooting, in both 12 and 10 bore guns ( eg Capt. B and Doc C) - frequently heavy powder charges were matched with light shot loads in both 12 and 10 Gs, as also were moderate powder charges and heavy shot loads ( although 1 1/4 oz was max load under some rules). However these notes do not clarify matters on the question in hand.

So with the only information provided, and lacking a note of the actual proof stamps on this gun, the bore and muzzle measurements should give some clue to date of manufacture and intended use and by inference the original chamber length. Bear in mind that Greener, Scott and possibly Westley Richards were the main suppliers of trap and sporting guns to Nth America at this date, (and a few guns might ? have had specific chamber/bore/load stamps) but the great majority would carry the bare minimum of proof marks on the standard model exported to The Colonies.
Greener 1st Edn does not seem to specify standard - or even non-standard chamber length, however he does make reference to the powder available overseas being inferior in strength and by inference that larger charges may be necessary to achieve the desired performance ! - so presumably chamber length may be increased on specific instruction by the purchaser.
Perhaps also information on the lock design would help the guesswork here ie non-rebounding or rebounding ?

greener4me, you refer to the marking of 'NOT FOR BALL' as being relevant to this 1872 gun but in fact the NFB mark came in 1875 and were in use until 1887 so the original marks would not have this mark.
Also, it is little known that the word 'Choke' was introduced at the same time for recess or jug chokes guns. These show an identical muzzle and breech (9") measurement followed by 'CHOKE' not NFB. So the proof marks might read
M 12
B 12 CHOKE
for recess chokes
M 14
B 12 NOT FOR BALL
for normal chokes.

Here is another example of manufacturer's marking longer than normal chambers.

Toby, my apologies to all, if my earlier post was construed as the gun having been proofed under 1875 Rules, as that was not intended.

Anyway, to avoid the apples&oranges conundrum, the "facts" laid before us by OP :
1. chambers might be 2 3/4" (but could be 2 5/8 - 7/8" ?)
2. heavy gun
3. cylinder barrels (.727 "straight thru'")
4. presume to have been Proofed under 1868 Rules.

The likelihood is that it was built for use of "ball and shot"....and not as Trap/Wildfowl gun.

Of course this suggestion has the usual caveats that bores are "as original", etc, etc. Supporting this suggestion would be that many shotguns imported to N A were intended for use on larger game in addition to birds. Also that this contention is not being substantiated by citing of post 1880 trap shooting reports, the products of "gunmaking" firms not existing at the 1872 date relating to the gun's serial no. and so forth.

Toby, that was an interesting picture of Whitworth barrels. Would you happen to know in what year the gun trade started to use Sir Joseph's steel in barrel manufacture?

Drew and Toby, those are nice clear marks. My example is a very small mark best viewed in a good light with a magnifying glass!

Had a look at a book I have that is a biography of Sir Joseph Whitworth by Norman Atkinson. Had a good but quick look through but only found reference to the fact that he was supplying guns for the American Civil War as the earliest reference. I tried to find reference to the use of the 'Wheatsheaf' Trade Mark but without success.

Another book I have on him; 'Joseph Whitworth. Toolmaker' by Terence Kilburn lists his patents. Patent No.3062 of 1874 for Compressing fluid metal may refer to his sporting gun barrel steel. He has one for Breech loading firearms and cartridges; Patent No. 963 of 1867. He was by all accounts a Mechanical Genius but a right old misery and a tyrant with his workforce. Lagopus�..

I am doing my best to post some pics, this is all I could get to work. The gun is presently under restoration in my shop.
There is a very faint E.W.H on the left tube. if you click on the pics they will enlarge.

We're getting OT but this is my short version for Sir Joseph's shotgun barrels

Sir Joseph Whitworth's adaptation of Bessemer's principle of hydraulic pressure casting was patented in 1874. The primary advantage of the �fluid compression� process was uniformity, and the absence of porosity and voids.

https://shotguncollector.com/2017/06/21/the-beginning-of-the-steel-age/

Sir Joseph Whitworth, Miscellaneous Papers on Mechanical Subjects: Guns and Steel, 1873
https://archive.org/details/miscellaneouspa02whitgoog
On p. 18 Whitworth states that the tensile strength of No. 1 Red Gun Barrel steel is 40 tons/89,600 psi, the same number claimed by Henry Bessemer. No mention is made of carbon content or composition.

The Mechanical and Other Properties of Iron and Steel in Connection with Their Chemical Composition, 1891, reported Whitworth �Gun Steel� as .30 - .42% carbon and .24 - .31% manganese.
For comparison, Vickers was .24 - .27% carbon and .22% manganese; Krupp .46 - .52% carbon and .07 - .13% manganese.
https://books.google.com/books?id=-c8xAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA196&dq

Wm. Powell & Son used Whitworth steel for barrels in 1875. The first Purdey Pair Nos. 10614 & 10615 were delivered January 1, 1880 with the �New Whitworth Fluid Pressed Steel�.
Lefever Arms Co. was the first U.S. maker to supply Whitworth steel for their Optimus in 1887. Parker Bros. used Whitworth for the first AAH Pigeon Gun in 1894 SN 79964 delivered to Capt. Du Bray. Hunter Arms first offered Whitworth on the Monogram, A2, and A3 in 1895.

Thank you Drew for that information. Much appreciated.

Recoloured action.
Barrels original proof mark 13, worn brown.
Barrels now .727 = .001- .002 just below out of proof.
Anything else to add, tiger ?

Drew, I found an earlier reference to the use of Whitworth barrels. Lord Walsingham records using a Purdey in 1872 with Whitworth barrels but had Purdeys replace them with Damascus tubes as he didn't like the sound they made when fired. Lagopus�..

Yes, here it is
�Hit and Miss� in Experts on Guns and Shooting, G.T. Teasdale-Buckell, 1900
http://books.google.com/books?id=4xRmHkr7Lp8C

https://books.google.com/books?id=4xRmHkr7Lp8C&pg=PA175&source
Lord Walsingham himself recollected: �On August 30, when I killed 1,070 grouse to my own gun in the day, I shot with four breechloaders. No.1, a gun made in 1866 by Purdey, subsequently converted from pin-fire to central principle, to which new barrels were made last year. Nos.2 and 3, a pair of central fire breechloaders, made also by Purdey, about 1870, for which I have likewise had new barrels. No.4, a new gun made by Purdey this year to match the two mentioned above, but with Whitworth steel instead of Damascus barrels. The guns are all 12 bore, with cylinder 30 in. barrels, not choked.�
�My cartridges were loaded by Johnson, of Swaffham; those used in the down-wind drives containing 3 1/8 drs. Hall�s Field B powder to 1 1/8ozs. No. 5 Derby shot; those used in the up-wind drives (where the birds, of course, came slower) had 3 drs. only of the same powder, with the same shot; not hardened shot in either case.�
�I find I never go out shooting without learning something. If I had the day again, I should cut off the extra eighth of an ounce of shot, not on account of recoil or discomfort of kind � from which I never suffer, although always using black powder � but because I failed to get as much penetration at long distances as I do with an ounce only. I distinctly remember firing three barrels at one bird, striking well in the body every time, but killing dead only with the last shot; the powder seemed to burn too slow.�
�Another thing I learned was that Whitworth steel barrels are not desirable for a heavy day�s shooting. The explosion in them makes quite a different sound from that given off by Damascus barrels: there is more ring about it, and I can imagine that this might prove a serious annoyance to anyone who minds the noise of shooting. I have no recollection myself of ever having had a headache from gun-firing. Moreover, the Whitworth barrels become hot much more rapidly than the Damascus; and this is a serious drawback, especially to a man who shoots without gloves. I can well imagine that they last much longer, and are in many ways suited for ordinary light work; but am now replacing them with Damascus, as in all my other guns.�

The 1880 date came from David Trevallion. Walsingham's 1870 Purdey would be 4 years before Whitworth patented the process.

I believe this is Bro. Robertovich's site
https://shotguncollector.com/2017/06/21/the-beginning-of-the-steel-age/
Whitworth was involved in military arms as early as 1854.

Curiouser and curiouser as Alice would say! The grouse shoot referred to by Walsingham took place in 1872. Maybe he got his facts mixed up when recalling the incident. Lagopus�..

Walsinghams record was shot on August 30th 1888 with breechloaders.
He did shoot 842 on August 28th 1872 but with 2 muzzleloaders and 2 breechloaders.
HTH.

thx again everyone.......the combined knowledge on this forum is outstanding.

Question for Greener4me

first let me say thx for all your help. In your previous post you mention 13 as bore size and that the barrels are almost out of proof. My understanding is that given the age of this gun, the 13 stamp translates into an expected bore size of .710, therefore making this gun out of proof, given that the bores now measure .727.

Do i have the correct information or am i missing something.?

13 means at proof a plug gauge of 0.710" diameter (but not one of 0.719") would enter the bore to a depth of 9".
As previously said, the gun needs careful measurement of the barrel wall thickness from breech to muzzle, esp. at the end of the chamber.

Rules of Proof show 13 as .710, so quite correct.
" " " " 12 " .729.. so presumably a 13 goes "out of proof" when/if it measures at the next gauge upwards.
Also not unknown for different gunsmiths to get a variation of .002 +/_ when measuring the same gun! (Been my experience anyway). I don't know which way this variation of measurement works - as the vendor may say "just in" and the buyer's adviser may say "just out" of proof !

barrel wall thickness is as follows

right barrel 9 inches from muzzle min .035
right barrel 9 inches from chamber min .065

left barrel 9 inches from muzzle min .032
left barrel 9 inches from chamber min .064

Just to muddy the waters still further, when this gun was proofed in 1872, fractional proof sizes had not been introduced so the 13 proof size stretched from 0.710" to 0.728".
The proof laws that applied when the gun WAS LAST PROOFED (or reproofed) is that which is applied in ascertaining whether a gun is in or out of proof.
So a gun marked 13 proofed in 1874 (before the fractional sizes were introduced) is still in proof at 0.728" but a gun proofed in 1875 (when the fractional sizes had been introduced) would only be in proof up to a bore size of 0.719".
Enjoy!

Very interesting Toby, I thank you for that additional information.
It would appear then that my Scott DOM 1872, would still be considered "in proof" with a bore measurement of .727, add to that the wall thickness measurements and the overall condition of the the tubes.

I think I'll shoot a pheasant with her this year.