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
Topics38,479
Posts545,209
Members14,410
|
Most Online1,335 Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,785 Likes: 185
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,785 Likes: 185 |
From Greener's 9th Ed., page 187, I can't say for sure that the Deeley ejector gun required the front screw and so it may very well have been Perkes which was "actuated by a lifting lever, pivoted near the hinge-pin, pressing upon the extractor leg as the gun opens." And from the pic, the screw could be the source of the pivot but I have seen the screw as a stabilizer for the kicker.
Kind Regards,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202 |
Bret, does your gun have an Anson and Deeley use number on the receiver ?
Raimey, I have looked at Pat. 1968 of 1878 and cannot relate this Perkes patent to Terry's gun. The drawing is just not clear enough to me to understand what I am seeing. Page 180 of the second Crudgington and Baker volume has a lengthy explanation of the patent. Terry's gun does not seem to have the "pins" in the standing breech described in the Perkes patent, but I'm sure modifications could be made. I guess that's how the evolution to Southgate came about.
Last edited by Daryl Hallquist; 03/11/08 11:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 134 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 134 Likes: 3 |
Daryl, yes mine has a use number of 3588 if my eyes are telling the truth. I had this gun figured for the mid 1880's a few years ago, but I forget what evidence I had.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202 |
Bret, now I am more confused. Your gun's serial no is higher than Terry's 438 to 299, but your use number of the A&D patent is lower Yours is 3588 vs. Terry's 7560. ?????
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 134 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 134 Likes: 3 |
I found a magnifying glass, and looked again. I am still not sure, but that 1st number could be an 8. That would make more sense, providing they were in the sequence, of the Pgh Arms numbers.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202 |
Bret, Yes, that would make sense.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,881
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,881 |
Regarding these WR guns I have a E. Thomas Jr. Chicago 10 gauge, Extractor, two barrel set, one by WR and one by Thomas. No. 366 is on the tang, water table and barrels. The A&D No. is 7698. The Thomas barrels are unmarked.
MP Sadly Deceased as of 2/17/2014
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866 |
I have to admit that my knowledge of the various ejector systems is pretty fuzzy.If it is helpful I could take the forend wood off and take some pics or any other shots that would be useful?
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid,than open it and confirm.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,785 Likes: 185
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,785 Likes: 185 |
Terry:
Possbily if you could remove the inspection plate and snap a photo on the mechanics, we might arrive at a consensus.
Kind Regards,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866 |
A few more pics of the ejector system etc. [img] [/img] [img] [/img] [img] [/img] [img] [/img] [img] [/img]
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid,than open it and confirm.
|
|
|
|
|