|
|
|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,303
Posts555,149
Members14,502
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 2 |
Pls post pictures. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 51
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 2 |
That is an interesting conversion. I haven't seen the indents left that way in the barrels. Thanks for posting the pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 2 |
Really intrigued by this gun as it looks as though the action between face and table is radiused?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 51
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 51 |
That is an interesting conversion. I haven't seen the indents left that way in the barrels. Thanks for posting the pictures. Montana, I wondered about this too, with the indents for the pinfire pins left at the breech of the barrels. However, the gun shoots fine with low pressure 2 1/2 inch shells. No flame escaping at the breech end and plenty of barrel thickness both at breech and muzzle. I suspect the gun has been here in the States since at least the 1940's, but have no way to prove that. Do you know when import or export marks were first required? Also, I don't have a good reference on older British proof marks and I have yet to decipher the ones on this gun. Thanks for the interest, I think it's a fascinating gun. Brad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 2 |
Pls describe or somehow photograph the proof marks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,458 Likes: 88
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,458 Likes: 88 |
Did I see skip-line checkering ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 347 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 347 Likes: 11 |
Not to take anything away from Brad's early hammergun, but thought someone might enjoy seeing a picture of a hammerless Blanch not too much later in Ser. No. This one is #5738, and was sleeved several years ago after UPS managed to bend and rupture the original damascus barrels. Back in service with 30" tubes that weigh right at 3 lbs. even, as did the originals. Sleeving done by K. Merrington. http://www.jblanchdatabase.co.uk/5738%20BA%20SLE%20hra%20800.jpgAll Best, Rob Harris
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 518
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 518 |
Here is J.Blanch & Son #5658  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 51
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 51 |
Here is J.Blanch & Son #5658 Both of those are gorgeous guns. You can definitely see the difference between the pinfire conversion gun that I have and bamboozler's made for centerfire sidelever gun, even though both are back actions, the hammers and other details around the hammers and breech are refined in his gun, very rough on mine. I wonder if J. Blanch did the conversion or another smith. I suspect that it wasn't done in house. The work isn't nice or finished to high quality standards of in-house work. As for Robert's hammerless, Merrington did a fantastic job on those barrels. Beautiful gun, thank you for posting it. I am thrilled to see all of these J. Blanch & Son guns here. Were they considered a first or second rank name in the trade in London or? Brad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
