Gunman

Does look a bit strange but not a terribly clear . Proof stamps have changed slightly from time to time ,but there is no way that a gun reproofed in Birmingham would have had a London mark as well. It is also odd that there would be a reproof mark as this was usually only done if it was under the same rules of proof . As the second marks were under different rules and a different set of stamps I can only assume this was marked as reproof as they have not used a full set of marks ,the original chamber and load being the same ,only the bore size altered as far as I can make out . Having dealt with both proof houses directly for over 30 years years , I can say is that they were law unto themselves and were occasionally beyond the understanding of mere mortals .

No its Birmingham . The BNP under a crown is the clue .as is the crossed pikes and crown date stamp .London stamp date in 2 digits but that did not start till 2000.

It has 2 sets of marks .One set 1975 the other post 1985 The 8-83 you mention which I admit I cant see has nothing to do with proof and is most likely a makers ID mark of some kind .

It has two sets of Birmingham marks .The earlier is the .7292" / .719"with the proof code which looks like AB in the circular stamp which would be 1975 .This would be the year of import . The later with crossed pikes I cant make out .As to why it was reproofed is a question I would not even guess at .

Plus one .

So 30 plus minutes to talk about an old restocked Webley , thats Birmingham , not London made , signed and sold as by Evans .Dont know who this guy is but he seems a bit short on gunmaking knowledge .

It means the barrel is made of a superior grade of steel than the normal barrel steel .This used to imply was a higher resistance to corrosion and be able to withstand higher pressure loads . This has nothing to do with the proof specs and is largely a marketing ploy . What the specifications are will only be known to the makers .

High mounts ?

Originally the word sleeved had to be stamped by the submitter but once the Proof Houses accepted sleeving as a standard practice , it was the Proof Houses not the submitter who stamped the word sleeved on the original back ends above the bars on all sleeved guns . This was the norm until the early 70's [if memory serves ] when pressure put on the Proof Houses to stamp on the flats . Westley's were a big player in the early days of sleeving but like many in the trade considered it a repair job that would give a gun another 10/15 years of life . Thus they were not to concerned if joints showed and many engraved around joints .Some London Gunmakers continued this practice for several years to show it was sleeved and not original barrels as techniques improved and joints became less visible to invisible , some unscrupulous people trying to pass off sleeved barrels as original , even before welding became the preferred practice .

Good question, often wondered myself and suppose it was one of those things that I meant to find out .Probobly most common on O/U's if British made where the was not a lot of room on the "flats" . Another oddity was that a lot of Westley Richards guns had the proof marks on the tubes rather than the flats . If you ever find a satisfactory answer and only the Proof Houses will be able to tell you the real reason , then please let me know .👍

Just remember to drop the block before you unscrew the barrel . Most do but its very easy to knacker the extractor if the block is not fully down ..

Sorry to say there are " gunsmiths" and those of us who know what we were doing . Cant agree with " gunmakers make guns -gunsmiths ruin them " as a gunmaker turned gunsmith myself . Country gunsmiths was the term used in Birmingham meaning bodgers who welded ploughs one day fixed guns another then dug the ditches . Then agian as I worked in the country for many years I found the term some what annoying doing work for both the Birmingham and London trades .

Great . Glad it was a simple fix , those nut do come loose , some have crimped ends others have lock nuts , Just check that nothing has come off the ends and got wedged in the stock head .

I used these to polish chokes after boring as well as polishing chambers . I would not have liked to or attempted to use them for much else ,dependent on the stone grit they will be quite effective but need a lot of lubricant and frequent cleaning and time ,as the cutting rate is very slow . If you want to polish bores then I suggest a rod with split end and abrasive cloth wrapped round the end padded with foam , diven with a slow speed drill [200/300rpm ] I used this method ,although driven on a honing machine , for polishing out after blacking , removing leading as well as taking of minor surface marks ,going down the grades from 220 to 600 . For old and rusted barrels may be a 100/ 120 to clean the **** out prior to any attempt to bore . As a by the by , in my younger days in the Birmingham gun trade some of the old timers used this method of polishing but used tow , grit and grease driven with a hand brace! .

RUAG were one of the worst companies I dealt with or tried to deal with when it came to spares or in fact anything if you weren't one of their " signed up " dealers .

The cam or " cocking knibb"as I have heard it referred to will be removable but getting a replacement may not be simple as they change over time . They can also a right pain to fit and get right as it has to be very tight with no movement at all . Prior to retirement I've had to correct numerous guns of similar design. It may be that you have to look at the whole cocking chain , cam /rods or plate / intermediate cam under the hammers if fitted , before attempting or deciding which will be the best way to increase lift speed without stopping the hammers from falling fully . It may only be a matter of a few thou in the right place . Welding or metal spraying can be OK but all the bearing surfaces have to be hard .Many parts are cast so do not weld well and are hardened in a specific way so heat can have a detrimental effect on their integrity .

Be very careful . A few thou can make a lot of difference as can the radii. Before even thinking about doing anything else you need to check whether the hammers are dead fall or have some rebound ,which is often set with " nuts" on the mainspring guides [ long time since I had one of these part so not sure ]. It is very easy when adjusting the forend cam pressure on the cocking plate or rods to get it to over cock as well as not cocking early enough or at the right progression . As said previously there are a lot of things to look at and take into consideration for what appears to be a simple problem .

A gun with built in obsolescence and to many complications .Apparently designed by the same team who designed the awful Winchester revamp failure . Best advice would be avoid and buy a real [ Miroku made ] one .

.Who knows what hast happened to the gun since new . So why not just get it measured .Takes 3 minutes and any gunshop /RFD should be able to do it for you . If they cant then its a shop to avoid .

Not so bad for an " oldun" . Retirement has suited me down to the ground ,I dont miss the daily grind at all .☺️

Sorry for the delay in answering but its been taken . Graham.

Its the extractor stop pin . It stops the extractors from coming out to far when you eject . By the look of the extractor legs the gun is fitted with either a Baker or Deeley box ejector system so the pin in this case servers a dual function of actually stopping the extractors from coming out but also stops them from hitting the cam nose on ejection .

A bit of grease soulsd keep any water out or a squirt of dewatering oil if its been very wet .Structurally , its probobly been like it is from new . If it really concerns you then it would be possible to either get the break through filled with solder , which will require quite bit of heat or use a cold casting repair epoxy then carefully re-drill the stop pin hole with as small a drill as possible , If the front bite is deep enough a thin plate could be fitted across the bite and soldered into place , but any soldering will need getting enough heat into such a small and awkward place and there is the risk of loosening the tail and top ribs . Any of these would be a cosmetic and could come out at some future time .Personally I would make sure there is no more loose or flaking solder and leave as is .

It looks very much like the extractor stop pin hole has broken through to the bottom bite has been cut or deepened when fitting the lever work . It could well have been " filled" with solder to disguise it at some point. I have seen this before a few times and wouldn't worry about it as long as every thing else is OK .

This is an old argument that will never be settled so comes down to personal choice . OK it is possible that a striker or firing pin may break ,but more likely on an O/U where there is frequently bigger differential in diameters of the spiker . May be relieving the tension on the main springs , which will still be under some tension may help , but the ejector springs will still be under full compression . Snap caps ? well the juries still out on that one , I always used once fired cases when testing ejectors and pulls as some snap caps IMHO do more damage than good . Having worked in the gun trade for 48 year , I have dry fired shotguns of all makes on many many occasions without any problem what so ever [ double rifles with much smaller strikers are another thing ] and do not see any problem in doing so occasionally , I found in my experience you are more or as likely to break an extractor head off when opening an empty fired gun .