16ga.com Forum Index
Author Message
<  16ga. Guns  ~  New 16 SXS in the stable
CitoriFeather16
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:12 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 989
Location: Las Vegas

Thanks everyone for their kind replys!

This gun is becoming very interesting! SBS was kind enough to look up the serial number in his book "British Gun Makers Vol 2" by Nigel Brown. The serial number dates the gun to 1882-1883!!!

The importer of the gun in the US was Woodcock Hill of Benton PA. In a phone conversation with them yesterday, they informed me that they had a fairly extensive file on the gun. They informed me that they originally sold it to one of the Chigago Bears football players!

They are going to write up their history of the gun and send it to me. I will keep you posted on what I find out. On the advice of SBS470 I will also be calling William Powell and Sons to see what they can tell me about it.

Russ, it is interesting that you should mention the lock up. Woodcock Hill also mentioned during our brief conversation that it had and "interesting" lock up. There are 2 patent numbers on the breech of the receiver. One says Powell 476 Patent and the other says 5318 Anson & Deeleys.

Under the splinter forearm there is another patent which says W. Anson 14302 Patent.

There are quite a few markings under the barrel's at the bore. Under the right barrel there is a 16 followed by a dot then a 9. Then a 16 followed by a dot then a 70 There is also a a BV a BP a R and a NP, all with a crown above them on both barrels. There is also "Nitro Proof 1oz." stamped on both barrels as well as "900 BAR". Also, on both barrels is a "16" over a "0" inside a diamond. Lastly, the right barrel is stamped 2 1/2" and the left is stamped 21/2" choke.

I am assuming this gun started as a 2 1/2" bore and at some time was re-bored to 2 3/4". However, if the gun was manufactured in 1882-1883, shouldn't it have Damascus barrels?

I appreciate any help and will keep you posted on what I find out!

Thanks again!

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Foursquare
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:12 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 398
Location: S Fl

Matt,
Lovely gun you've got there!
The 2 1/2" marks are original chamber length.
16 over 0 in diamond: original bore size measured 9" from breech =.662.
16.9: bore size in MM under the metric Euro proof system Britain adopted ca. 1993. 16.9 = .665
16.70 is the gauge and chamber length in MM. (2 3/4")
All the marks under the crown are from Birmingham proof house -
BP=final B.P. proof for use with nitro
BV="View" or inspection after final proof
NP= semi smokeless proof applied to all guns
R=Re-proof. seen on BP guns which were reproofed for smokeless at a later date.
No doubt the new proofs were applied when the gun was refurbished recently.

Fluid steel barrels began appearing in the 1870s. The 1880s and 90s were largely a transitional period when one could order a gun with either type of barrel material. Many people didn't trust that new fangled fluid steel, but the use of damascus gradually petered out, and had pretty much disappeared by 1910.

Enjoy,
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RWG
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:09 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 317

Pete nailed the proof marks. Interesting that the bores have stayed very consisent in diameter at 9" from the breech face. Very little honing, if any, has occurred since the earlier proof marks.

(After looking at the phamplet I noticed that 16.8 mm is actually 0.637". If these barrels are marked as 16.9 mm, then they are very tight for the gauge. right around 0.640". Which makes me believe they are new tubes. Any evidence of sleeving? Or did you read that measurement wrong?)

That said, the proof marks would indicate that this gun is newer than one from the 1880s. Some sound like the 1925 marks. I would have thought a choked barrels from the 1870s-1880s would use the "not for ball" marking instead of "Choke". I need to reference the birmingham proof houses phamplet to be 100% sure when some marks went out and others came in. But I'm beating this gun is newer than a 1880 model.

My guess is this gun is a post 1925 gun just based on the proof marks. There should be a date code on the reproof marks as well. Which would be post 1989. All in all you have a beauty of a gun, no matter when it was originally made.

I will check that Powell Patent no. Guessing it covers the locking action. The others deal with the foreend latch and A&D action design in general. Russ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RWG
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:21 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 317

PS. I bet that few other guns in the US have that unique lock up action. If she fits you'd do well to keep her.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larry Brown
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:46 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 743

The "choke" marking first appeared under the rules of 1887, but was continued under later changes. It means that the barrel in question has more than a minimum amount of choke, something like .006 if memory serves. Since the other barrel is not marked "choke", it is likely bored quite open. Russ has it on the reproofs. The combination of chamber length in MM and the 900 BAR marking would mean reproof some time since 1989. Sounds like a nice gun!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sbs470
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:22 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 171
Location: sheffield.Tasmania Australia

Hi Guys
CitoriFeather16 was kind enough to send me photos of the Powell.
I feel that the gun has had a new set of barrels fitted latter in its life between 1904-----1925 and was reproofed in 1990.
the crown over R denotes reproof
the chamber would have been lengthened then
the crossed swords with RC over 1 means it was done in 1990
as I indicated to CitoriFeather16 Both of the Powell brothers have been Master of the Birmingham proof house so they will be able to translate in no time as well as provide the guns history.
good shooting
sbs470
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KyBrad16ga
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:36 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 295
Location: Jackson, Mississippi

RWG wrote:

(After looking at the phamplet I noticed that 16.8 mm is actually 0.637". If these barrels are marked as 16.9 mm, then they are very tight for the gauge. right around 0.640". Which makes me believe they are new tubes. Any evidence of sleeving? Or did you read that measurement wrong?)



Russ, if it had been resleeved, wouldn't it be stamped "sleeved" on each barrel flat along with the reproof mark(assuming the resleeving was done in the U.K. of course)? I know that if it is resleeved, the finished barrels must be submitted to the Proof House along with a declaration that they are in for re-proof as sleeved barrels.

This is because with well sleeved barrels, it can be virtually impossible to tell that the barrels have been resleeved just by visual examination, as you very correctly note in your remarks above. After the barrels pass the Proof House they are stamped with the reproof mark and "sleeved" on the barrel flats. So if the gun was properly resleeved in the U.K. it should be very easy to tell.

Just a thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Foursquare
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:40 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 398
Location: S Fl

Russ,
Are you sure about that bore measurement?
My reference, as well my calculator say 16.9 = .665.

As in 16.9 / 25.4 = .665354.....

Did I miss something?
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CitoriFeather16
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:30 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 989
Location: Las Vegas

Thanks for the continued help guys!

When I was examining the proof marks I noticed that the barrel had a different serial number than the gun. Still marked William Powell & Son 35 Carr St. Birmingham on the rib. Re-barreled? Probably so. I will be calling Peter Powell to, hopefully get this sorted out.

I don't know how well this picture will come through, if at all, but it shows the proof marks.

Matthttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/nevcom/IMGP0293.jpg

[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CitoriFeather16
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:34 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 989
Location: Las Vegas

I'll try one more time with the pic.

Matt

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RWG
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:24 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 317

Foursquare wrote:
Russ,
Are you sure about that bore measurement?
My reference, as well my calculator say 16.9 = .665.

As in 16.9 / 25.4 = .665354.....

Did I miss something?
Pete


I'm metricly challenged. So don't ask me to do the conversions. I just quote the figures used by the proof house. Maybe the Birmingham proof house's Appendix 1 is wrong. There may have been human error in the conversions. (One would hope not in a publication quoting the then new proof law of 1989.) Do you have the Phamplet? If not, I can e-mail you a pdf file of it that I have. PM me your e-mail address. Russ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RWG
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:26 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 317

KyBrad16ga wrote:
RWG wrote:

(After looking at the phamplet I noticed that 16.8 mm is actually 0.637". If these barrels are marked as 16.9 mm, then they are very tight for the gauge. right around 0.640". Which makes me believe they are new tubes. Any evidence of sleeving? Or did you read that measurement wrong?)



Russ, if it had been resleeved, wouldn't it be stamped "sleeved" on each barrel flat along with the reproof mark(assuming the resleeving was done in the U.K. of course)? I know that if it is resleeved, the finished barrels must be submitted to the Proof House along with a declaration that they are in for re-proof as sleeved barrels.

This is because with well sleeved barrels, it can be virtually impossible to tell that the barrels have been resleeved just by visual examination, as you very correctly note in your remarks above. After the barrels pass the Proof House they are stamped with the reproof mark and "sleeved" on the barrel flats. So if the gun was properly resleeved in the U.K. it should be very easy to tell.

Just a thought.


Usually it is marked. My sleeved guns are so marked. Russ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RWG
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:31 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 317

CitoriFeather16 wrote:
I'll try one more time with the pic.

Matt



Matt:

I copied the image and blew it up on my photo editor, but the picture distorts too much to read the proof marks. If you would e-mail me a larger photo I would appreciate it. Russ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KyBrad16ga
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:38 pm  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 295
Location: Jackson, Mississippi

RWG wrote:
KyBrad16ga wrote:
RWG wrote:

(After looking at the phamplet I noticed that 16.8 mm is actually 0.637". If these barrels are marked as 16.9 mm, then they are very tight for the gauge. right around 0.640". Which makes me believe they are new tubes. Any evidence of sleeving? Or did you read that measurement wrong?)



Russ, if it had been resleeved, wouldn't it be stamped "sleeved" on each barrel flat along with the reproof mark(assuming the resleeving was done in the U.K. of course)? I know that if it is resleeved, the finished barrels must be submitted to the Proof House along with a declaration that they are in for re-proof as sleeved barrels.

This is because with well sleeved barrels, it can be virtually impossible to tell that the barrels have been resleeved just by visual examination, as you very correctly note in your remarks above. After the barrels pass the Proof House they are stamped with the reproof mark and "sleeved" on the barrel flats. So if the gun was properly resleeved in the U.K. it should be very easy to tell.

Just a thought.


Usually it is marked. My sleeved guns are so marked. Russ


LOL, I think thats what I was trying to say... you said it much much more succintly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Larry Brown
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:34 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 743

I can't make out anything off the photo either.

Sleeved . . . it would indeed be marked if it had been done in England and the gun submitted for reproof. However, I know of at least one gunsmith in this country who does a fair amount of sleeving and does not mark the barrels. And of course there is no proof law in this country.

Different SN on the barrels . . . where do you find it? If it's on the forend loop, you can disregard that. If it's under both barrels or on the barrel flats, and that # is different from the number on the receiver, then something else is going on. If the gun had been rebarreled by Powell, I'd think the SN would still match.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT - 7 Hours

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
16ga.com Forum Index  ~  16ga. Guns

Post new topic   Reply to topic


 
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB and NoseBleed v1.09