Fil

I feel the same as you. BASC propaganda as well as noise. Also felt recoil in my light weight game guns. Also another factor with steel shot is rust in game meat. It was my first comment to BASC when they were grooming us with the "new" Eley vip eco steel cartridge for game. BASC and their loyal followers told me not to be so silly. Guess what, earlier in the year a local game dealer rejected a load of pigeons from a friend of a friend due to rusty pellets in the meat. Another person told me the same story who does not know my friends friend but also knows the game dealer so I feel it is true. Also because I have it from a reliable source that some pheasants from an estate were also rejected due to rust.

Guns like antique cannons and muzzle loading shotguns don't have obsolete calibre status if they are muzzle loading. The cartridge is the subject here, not the bore size. You can have one that's a 20 bore in internal barrel size and it will still be "off ticket" if it's antique and doesn't load 20 bore shells by breech loading. Only cartridge/breach loading guns that have a specific cartridge calibre listed on the obsolete calibre list set out by the Home Office are classed as obsolete. I have a 32 bore breech loading hammer gun. It is still on the obsolete calibre list as no ammo available in the UK. Not on my shotgun certificate unless I get the cartridges and intend on using it. (They are available from Fiocchi in Italy) Your cannon looks like a fun project. Enjoy.

A number of years ago a gunsmith friend of mine in Suffolk told me that the F1 engineers at Benetton came in with a 10 bore yacht starting cannon. They asked him if he could get it chambered and proofed and give it back thus putting on their shotgun certificate. They said they made it as a surprise present for Flavio for one of his upcoming yacht races. Admiring their work he had a strange feeling that something wasn't right. Ah.. gets tape measure. Measures barrel. 20". ******. "Guys" he said. "It's too short to go on your shotgun certificate. It needs to be at least 24" on the barrel length." They looked at each other, said expletives and said that they'd be back tomorrow. Tomorrow came and they returned with cannon wrapped in a towel. "How's this" they said. My friend got his tape measure out and it was just over 24". "That was quick making a new one" my friend said. "Oh no" they said, "it's the same barrel, we added four inches." They turned down the end, threaded it screwed and bonded the extension on. My friend said he could not see the join on the outside and the bore looked like it was all one piece. True story

Hi, From memory (and I would confirm this rather than just take my word for it) If it bears proof marks and modern then it's FAC as the barrel is under 24". If it's modern and isn't proofed then you you don't need on ticket. I have a brass cannon. It is "modern" but I have not had it proofed so it is an ornament. Of course though it does get fired every now and then. As it appears old enough and it bears no proof marks then I would say you are fine. This man is the expert: Simon West, Director of the GTA: https://www.instagram.com/bronzecannons/?hl=en-gb Give him a shout.

😂😂

Beretta do a ladies gun with a higher comb called a Vittoria as a lot of women need higher combs. Both in 12 and 20. But if your willing to spend a little on gun fit then the guns that have already been mentioned will do perfectly. (She might even find one that fits) And definitely avoid going to light. Some women I know were put off by the recoil. Some women don't mind. A lot of clay grounds will let you try the gun first.

I like your maths but normally when barrels are filed for weight we'd take it of the outside in the first place when they are single tubes. Much quicker. But your theory is still possible. I'm an 80's trained barrel maker. Different times now, different minds and different methods in some folk. Perhaps the weight was an afterthought and instead of taking the barrels apart and filing down the thought then was, no we'll just bore the hell out of it to make it lighter. It's unconventional in my time but still a possibility an as we see here, doable. Sorry to drag this thread on and somewhat away from the OP but when you get me talking about barrel making sometimes I can't shut up. Anyway Cheers

👍 I was just watching a youtube video where a guy was showing how to check your chamber depth using two spent shotgun cartridges. That's why they build them idiot proof! 🤣

That's why all guns now are being built 3" steel shot proofed. To negate user error. A manufacturer can produce a 12 bore gun knowing that a user can put any cartridge though it that is available on the market knowing their gun is proofed for anything. Obvs there is the 3 1/2" but most doubles are 3". It's called **** covering. Most of my old customers haven't a clue what make their guns are let alone chamber depth.

What a lovely story. Joseph Manton was famous for giving the proof house two fingers at them to require his guns to be proofed. A lot of his guns were never proofed because he felt he was better than the proof house and didn't require his guns to be subjected to this "new testing regime." He said that he didn't need their proof marks to prove him a good gunmaker. What a lot of us say about the GTA today...LOL. I hope yours is one. I would love to own an untested Manton. Don't bother or worry about proof, that girl is old enough to be a legal wall hanger. Only needs to be on ticket if you use it.

Kynamco in Suffolk still load black powder. Works out about a pound a shot delivered. Having an outing with my Bozard H/G for the last two days our syndicate clear up days with them. Brilliant.

Just for information, Spanish put barrel weight (at time of proof) in gmos. Different from 1200kgs or kp/cm2 or bar. It can be confusing.

Hi John. Yes that term was used a lot years ago. We used rough emery grit like 80 grade for boring of the barrels and a fine grit, say 220 or even higher for a "fine bore." I can't speak for all the "lappers" out there but I don't think many use fine grade grit anymore. 80 grit leaves a very high finish if you have your lead lap working well. And with quality of emery cloth these days I have a polishing rod with ribbons of 320 grade on it to fine polish the bores say during a service or after a re black. Saves getting emery paste all over you again. Nightmare to scrub off!

Yes they would have deepened the chambers. As said earlier, in those days proof loads were the same for 65mm and 70mm so it was a no brainer to re proof to 70mm to expand cartridge choice. I hope they asked him first though. Some people like things original despite the plus points. I normally give the customer the option. Nice to hear someone use the term "lapped out." A lot are honing these days. I am still in the dark ages. I use a lead lapper. Wouldn't swap it for anything.

No I couldn't see them well enough to be sure. The deepening to 70mm makes sense for the new proof but the bore enlargement doesn't. At least not that amount anyhow. I've never gotten into deliberate over boring to reduce recoil. I'm old school. If you want to reduce recoil reduce what you put down the barrel. I do forcing cones and all that but mainly to help ejection with old style chambers originally chambered for roll top cartridges. From memory we saw over boring coming in around the late 80's and early 90's. Purdey and H&H (my other late employer) never really took to it. When we started making the "Sporter" at H&H we had those sort of requests including extra long forcing cones, etc. If the customer wanted it they got. They were paying of course. As you say, back then they were using plastic wads. It doesn't make sense doing that on a 1998 Purdey barrel for that reason. It may always be a mystery why they took that much out the bores at re proof. It still would not put me off buying it. Amongst my Edwardian gun collection is a Damascus barrelled Clarke of Leicester, best quality BLE. It's on an Imperial .740 re proof mark which is the equivalent of 18.8 mm. It is deadly with 30g No.6 with fibre wads. As long as I'm shooting straight that is! I've had a lot of comments from fellow guns, modern o\u owners on how the hell can I bring down the birds I do "with that old gun." You are spot on why the one fails to eject when ejecting both barrels. The earlier ejector tripping drags the other extractor with it enough for the second kicker to not get a full blow on the extractor. Hence they both work fine when firing each barrel individually. Classic problem on most side by sides. Anyhow, the Browning sounds real nice. Leaping into the modern world I do have a Browning myself. A customised (by me) 325 grade 5. I only use it on sim or big clay days. Otherwise I only shoot my Edwardian guns on game. Enjoy your chase. I'm sure you'll get a nice gun in the end.

Rubbish. The Silvers pad was fitted to many Purdeys from client wishes if they wanted a recoil pad fitted. Game or wildfowling Purdey. At 6lb 4 that gun will kick too. The stock length (including pad) is commensurate with the 1890's. Or it is perfectly conceivable that one wanted a recoil pad fitted (keeping the gun to their required length) and the only pad to fit to a Purdey is a Silvers Best London No. 4 pad. Any other pad would be sacrilege. Leather covered Silvers pads were and are fitted but not always. And I would say further that this pad is common on "best" British guns. As for the ejector work, only get it done by someone who knows Purdey ejector work. You time them off the kickers. Not the ejector springs like most other guns.

Hi, 6k is a very good price for a Purdey. Especially one re barrelled by Purdey themselves. 5-10 years ago you would not get a Purdey for under 10k. Just remember the action, ejector work and lock work is still well over a 100 years old. Expect breakages like main springs etc. (main spring minimum 600 pounds) Would you run your Austin Healey down the M4 to London everyday and expect no breakdowns? The Silvers pad is commensurate with Purdey guns. They are the go to pad if someone wanted a recoil pad fitted. The barrels interest me as I was a barrel maker at Purdeys some years ago. New barrels by Purdey is a good thing. In the 80's we re barrelled guns copying the original chamber depths. Which was a bit daft as the proof was the same for 65mm as it was for 70mm so why not chamber for 70mm and give some more cartridge options? I think by the 2000's they caught onto that and it appears by the photo this gun was indeed chambered and proofed for 70mm. Why was it re proofed? Without seeing the barrels/proof marks in person I can only suggest that the bores were enlarged because of pitting or something else. Re proof is required when a gun barrel is converted to ejector, the third bite is re soldered, the lumps are re soldered or the chambers are deepened. Or indeed for voluntary re proof by a gunmaker/gunsmith because of major barrel work was carried out and wanted to ensure the barrels were still safe. Without seeing them I can only assume due to the new bore size that the bores were enlarged beyond their tolerances for some reason and required re proof. We filed up Purdey barrels with good wall thickness so the enlargement of the bores should be still giving good wall thicknesses. My only drawback with a Purdey of this age is tiredness. She's old and depending how often you will be using it something will break. Needs a strip and clean with all pins re blued to see her back shining again. If it's still 14 3/8ths thats Joe average. I'm 5ft 11 and my ideal length of pull is 14 1/2 so I'd get on with this one. It would interest me as a Purdey hunter with caution on age, condition, etc. DEFINITELY get it looked at by someone who knows what they are looking at!! I am in the Hungerford area and would be happy to advise further.

A pain in the ****. You time off the kickers, not the springs. Satisfying when you get it right. a.r.s.e Spot on. Very common on a Purdey.

This advice right here.

Where did you get that information from? If the work is done properly it most certainly will pass reproof. The trouble is where the bulge is. The thicker metal up near the fore end does not "work" like it does further down the barrel. I have knocked back hundreds if not 1000's of bulges over a 36 year period. where you have .030 of metal you can virtually do what you want with dents and bulges. But where the fore end is the metal is so thick you end up just beating the metal with a hammer and not a lot happens. By the way, taking a bulge out of a barrel does not require reproof unless you enlarge the bore beyond its proof tolerance. I have on occasion sent one or two for reproof because the bulge was very bad and took a lot tapping to work it back so sent for good measure. And they pass.

When I was told that proof load story it was 25 years ago. As said not sure what it is now. I just mentioned it for anyone who is interested that's all.

I've successfully knocked back and repaired hundreds of bulges in barrels but from experience (36 years of it) that is scrapola I'm afraid.

Cheers mate. Just trying to help people understand things. FYI: Regarding reproof mentioned. When I was in the London trade we were told a "proof" load was roughly 2 and a half times more powerful than a standard load. (putting in layman's terms) I'm not sure if it is still today.

That heap of sand was where they used to lay the muzzle loaders and gun barrels that were in for barrel proof (provisional proof) with black powder and light it off. I'm not sure they do that nowadays for health and safety reasons. I was always wondering why my barrels were coming back with sand on them until I asked Jeff at the London proof house. They do proof with shot. That's the other half of the purpose. Pressure is one. And shot passing through the choke is another. If we didn't bore our tight chokes properly there was a slight possibility of a small ring bulge at the choke resulting in a failure of proof.

I've seen lead bulge chokes