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
|
|
|
1 members (Fudd),
473
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,499
Posts545,462
Members14,414
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
Last edited by AmarilloMike; 05/08/08 07:16 PM.
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,807 Likes: 187
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,807 Likes: 187 |
Mike:
Just from a numbers perspective, it is a 13 bore(0.710") proved(Londong) during the period of 1887-1904 and then reproved post 1954(Birmingham) due to boring, polishing, wear or some change to 0.700. At the time a whole number was desired over one of the "vulgar fractions"(13/1, etc.). And with the steel tubes & metal butt plate, it was not a conversion?
Anyone have any info on the number of Purdey & Sons reproof in Birmingham, or is that sacrilege?
Kind Regards,
Raimey rse
Last edited by ellenbr; 05/08/08 07:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,417
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,417 |
Raimey: Did you get your C&H rifle back from Jim? How did it turn out?
Best Regards, George
To see my guns go to www.mylandco.com Select "SPORTING GUNS " My E-Mail palmettotreasure@aol.com
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
It's a conversion. The serial # is way too early for a breechloader - pin or centerfire.It doesn't look like it was done by Purdey, either. Did you email them the serial #?
The first Purdey centerfire breechloaders were around 7100 or so. I think pinfires were around 6800+.
I think the bbls on your's have a shoe lump on them. The flats & lumps were welded onto the bbls because muzzleloaders didn't have either one.
OWD
Last edited by obsessed-with-doubles; 05/08/08 08:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
The Purdey book by Donald Dallas says manufacture date of 1847. I forgot to post that. Someone told me that in a conversion all they reused was the barrels. Surely they reused the locks? And the stock?
So in the conversion was the gun was designed to shoot a thin wall brass shell? If you subtract the chamber diamter and from the bore diameter and divide by 2 the cartridge wall thickness comes out to about 0.015".
The tubes are Damascus.
Best,
Mike
Last edited by AmarilloMike; 05/08/08 08:25 PM.
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
Just from a numbers perspective, it is a 13 bore(0.710") proved(Londong) during the period of 1887-1904 and then reproved post 1954(Birmingham) due to boring, polishing, wear or some change to 0.700. At the time a whole number was desired over one of the "vulgar fractions"(13/1, etc.). And with the steel tubes & metal butt plate, it was not a conversion?
So if it was made as a muzzleloader in 1847 then it seems likely that it was converted between 1887 and 1904. Can yall pick out any proofmarks from 1847? Thanks Raimey Thanks OWD Best, Mike
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
I think it was designed for a paper shell. It was converted into the a paper shell era, right?
When they converted it, they used the bbls, wood, locks, fences, and probably the hammers. They built the action, toplever, bold, etc, and added the flat/lumps to the bbls. An amazing amount of work, really.
I can see a the remains of a some London proofs on the water table and it looks like there's some on the bbls. There may have been more that the shoe lump covered up.
Beautiful wood, BTW.
OWD
Last edited by obsessed-with-doubles; 05/08/08 08:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
Why would they convert it with a sixteen chamber and a thirteen bore. There was a post on a thread last week saying that guns chambered for thin brass shells were "overbored".
Thanks OWD
Best
Mike
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,807 Likes: 187
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,807 Likes: 187 |
Mike:
The only reason I would guess the 1887 on period was that I assumed it had steel tubes but it doesn't have the "12C" in a rhombus. Just by the marks on the Damascus tubes, I would again guess 1855-1875 which would include the 1867 Purdey bolt date as well as the 1865 Scott Spindle date and steel butt plates were used then. But it doesn't have those large all or nothing firing pins w/ the percussion fences. If from around 1870 it may not be a conversion? What type forend does it have?
13 bore just happen to be the plug gauge that went the entire length.
Kind Regards,
Raimey rse
Last edited by ellenbr; 05/08/08 08:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
I guess they could have gone 12g or 16g, right?
Maybe there wasn't enough there for a 12g chamber, so they went with the 16g, even though the bores were 13.
Does that make sense? I'm not sure.
So you have a 16g gun that is real big in the bores. I wonder what kind of patterns it will throw.
OWD
|
|
|
|
|