Purdey 18.7 re-bored barrels from 1998

[JR111]

2 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

This 

and to add Birmingham proof would put me off 

along with enlarged bore’s possibly because they had to be polished to remove marks 🤔

however if you like it and it fits go for it and enjoy 

butt pad on my purdey 

Nice looking gun.

I have nicer guns than the Purdey I am looking at, however the new barrels was the big seller for me. Still making up my mind. Barrels were probably a year old when they were opened up, so I'm not concerned about the barrel condition. The original chokes from Purdey were 1/4 and 1/2, however with this opened up it has tightened them. I was hoping this would be for when I needed to shoot standard steel. I have several original barrels from 1900 and some have been lapped out and it is noticeable. These barrels are as good as I've seen. But the ejector issue has changed my mind. Thanks again for advice and opinions

Very glad I have joined this forum. Nice to be able to talk old guns to people. I was hoping to stop another gun heading across the pond! 

[Dave at kelton]

7 minutes ago, JR111 said:

Nice looking gun.

I have nicer guns than the Purdey I am looking at, however the new barrels was the big seller for me. Still making up my mind. Barrels were probably a year old when they were opened up, so I'm not concerned about the barrel condition. The original chokes from Purdey were 1/4 and 1/2, however with this opened up it has tightened them. I was hoping this would be for when I needed to shoot standard steel. I have several original barrels from 1900 and some have been lapped out and it is noticeable. These barrels are as good as I've seen. But the ejector issue has changed my mind. Thanks again for advice and opinions

Very glad I have joined this forum. Nice to be able to talk old guns to people. I was hoping to stop another gun heading across the pond! 

I follow your thought process on new barrels. I bought a Dickson a few years ago for the reasons you set out. In my case not by the original maker but by McKay Brown so as good as it gets in my view.

[Old farrier]

7 minutes ago, JR111 said:

Nice looking gun.

I have nicer guns than the Purdey I am looking at, however the new barrels was the big seller for me. Still making up my mind. Barrels were probably a year old when they were opened up, so I'm not concerned about the barrel condition. The original chokes from Purdey were 1/4 and 1/2, however with this opened up it has tightened them. I was hoping this would be for when I needed to shoot standard steel. I have several original barrels from 1900 and some have been lapped out and it is noticeable. These barrels are as good as I've seen. But the ejector issue has changed my mind. Thanks again for advice and opinions

Very glad I have joined this forum. Nice to be able to talk old guns to people. I was hoping to stop another gun heading across the pond! 

Not trying to influence you just offering my opinion 

as a footnote firing any steel standard or hp through a light weight game gun is not pleasurable in more than the odd shot 

[JR111]

22 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Not trying to influence you just offering my opinion 

as a footnote firing any steel standard or hp through a light weight game gun is not pleasurable in more than the odd shot 

Appreciate all opinions. I am fairly well versed with regards to the old guns so I can differentiate between bad advice. But always keen to hear opinions and keen to learn more. 

[Old farrier]

9 minutes ago, JR111 said:

Appreciate all opinions. I am fairly well versed with regards to the old guns so I can differentiate between bad advice. But always keen to hear opinions and keen to learn more. 

Having tried steel through that purdey I moved it on and went for a heavier weight English gun sad to see it go as it was a pleasure to shoot (with lead ) but no good for what the future holds 

[button]

1 hour ago, JR111 said:

Nice looking gun.

I have nicer guns than the Purdey I am looking at, however the new barrels was the big seller for me. Still making up my mind. Barrels were probably a year old when they were opened up, so I'm not concerned about the barrel condition. The original chokes from Purdey were 1/4 and 1/2, however with this opened up it has tightened them. I was hoping this would be for when I needed to shoot standard steel. I have several original barrels from 1900 and some have been lapped out and it is noticeable. These barrels are as good as I've seen. But the ejector issue has changed my mind. Thanks again for advice and opinions

Very glad I have joined this forum. Nice to be able to talk old guns to people. I was hoping to stop another gun heading across the pond! 

Get some pictures posted on the side by side club, it’s been a bit dry of late!

[JR111]

7 minutes ago, button said:

Get some pictures posted on the side by side club, it’s been a bit dry of late!

On it....

[button]

51 minutes ago, JR111 said:

On it....

Looking forward👍

[ditchman]

2 hours ago, JR111 said:

Nice looking gun.

I have nicer guns than the Purdey I am looking at, however the new barrels was the big seller for me. Still making up my mind. Barrels were probably a year old when they were opened up, so I'm not concerned about the barrel condition. The original chokes from Purdey were 1/4 and 1/2, however with this opened up it has tightened them. I was hoping this would be for when I needed to shoot standard steel. I have several original barrels from 1900 and some have been lapped out and it is noticeable. These barrels are as good as I've seen. But the ejector issue has changed my mind. Thanks again for advice and opinions

Very glad I have joined this forum. Nice to be able to talk old guns to people. I was hoping to stop another gun heading across the pond! 

proberly the best thing for it.................it will be re-stocked to a full LOP..in a much nicer grain...metalwork will be re-engineered...the metalwork for the age of the gun looks far too bright.....over there they will spend maybe another 6k to get it proper.....something they would not think twice about...

[JR111]

Thanks for all the info. Once I find more about the ejectors I will make a decision. This will be a working gun. My criteria for a gun is a fast handling and feels right. Which this does. My preferred option is 30" barrels, but the gun is quick. Aesthetics and name are not important to me. Shootability is. 

1 hour ago, button said:

Looking forward👍

So do I need to join or do I just post on the group. What sort of things should I post which would be of interest?

[islandgun]

26 minutes ago, JR111 said:

Thanks for all the info. Once I find more about the ejectors I will make a decision. This will be a working gun. My criteria for a gun is a fast handling and feels right. Which this does. My preferred option is 30" barrels, but the gun is quick. Aesthetics and name are not important to me. Shootability is. 

So do I need to join or do I just post on the group. What sort of things should I post which would be of interest?

You should have a fair choice for £6000

[JR111]

2 hours ago, button said:

Get some pictures posted on the side by side club, it’s been a bit dry of late!

Not sure where to post. These are my main two guns I use which I'm happy to use in the rain. In the summer won a local clay comp against the over and unders. The Atkin has been flawless all season and has had some big days. Injectors were slowing a bit after a big drive, but never missed a beat. Cant beat the old ones...

[button]

3 minutes ago, JR111 said:

Not sure where to post. These are my main two guns I use which I'm happy to use in the rain. In the summer won a local clay comp against the over and unders. The Atkin has been flawless all season and has had some big days. Injectors were slowing a bit after a big drive, but never missed a beat. Cant beat the old ones...

Lovely 👍

[Windswept]

This is the thread mentioned: 

 

[Fil]

On 28/12/2023 at 09:47, London Best said:

New barrels from the original maker will not affect price so much as barrels from another maker. 
I don’t think the chamber alteration will devalue much. Many might say it would increase the gun’s desirability.  
Chokes can be set at your wish.
The gun market generally is dead. 
But if anything retains any value it will probably be a Purdey with modern barrels.

This advice right here.

[Fil]

On 28/12/2023 at 14:33, London Best said:

It is my understanding that timing the ejectors on the Purdey/Beesley action is not so straightforward as other actions. This may be expensive.

A pain in the ****. You time off the kickers, not the springs. Satisfying when you get it right. 

Just now, Fil said:

A pain in the ****. You time off the kickers, not the springs. Satisfying when you get it right. 

a.r.s.e 

On 28/12/2023 at 16:39, button said:

Is it not a Silvers pad?

Spot on. Very common on a Purdey.

[Fil]

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.

[Fil]

On 28/12/2023 at 16:23, enfieldspares said:

It isn't worth £6000 IMHO because it is a short stocked gun that has been extended with this butt pad. It is also an early Purdey before the mechanism was "improved" later on. If the gun isn't exact to your needs in length of pull and the ejector timing isn't correct I would walk away. At the very least get a quote from Purdey regarding the ejector work (best and worst case costs) and use that as a lever to reduce the price if you do make an offer to buy.

The "best" gun market is in the doldrums and the 2023/24 Season ends in but four weeks. I'd wait until then and get a better gun with a stock that is all wood and all one piece at a much lower price. The new barrels mean little and IMHO a long stock "best" London sidelock gun with original barrels in proof and with adequate thickness is better than any "best" London sidelock gun with a rubber butt pad and ejectors out of time regardless of the barrel age.

Now if it were a boxlock "duck gun" or other with a 2 3/4" chamber by Bland or Midland or Greener with a rubber butt pad that'd say "function" and be in my opinion quite reasonable and even likely requested when the gun was purchased. No problem and a beneficial feature to some. But a red rubber butt on a "best" London lightweight game gun suggests...nay screams out...that the person that had such put on couldn't afford to do the job of having the thing fitted to them properly by having the gun fitted with a new stock and (from the same blank) matching forend.

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. 

[retromlc]

Maybe he had it bored out to lighten the barrels a bit to improve the feel???

[London Best]

49 minutes ago, retromlc said:

Maybe he had it bored out to lighten the barrels a bit to improve the feel???

Don’t be ridiculous!

[JohnfromUK]

Sadly many 'gunsmiths' advise boring out any pitting, and if the owner isn't careful and allows the gun to get pitted, then sends it for service, it may well get bored out.  My old Powell has a little light pitting - been there this last 48 years I have owned it.  IF bored out (and I'm assured it could be), it would leave it very near needing reproof.  As long as the gun is properly cleaned - there is no problem.  However, nowadays, there are various cleaning solutions (e.g. bore snakes) that may be fine for modern chromed barrels or even unblemished barrels - but may not really clean in a gun that is even slighly pitted.  I always use a dedicated solvent cleaner designed for barrels that is supposed to neutralise any powder residue, but many people use something like WD40, which is (in my view) only suited to it's design purpose - water removal.  Yes, it does remove the visible soot and residue, but does it neutralise any burnt powder residue hidden in any (even shallow) pits?

Pitting was a common issue in older guns as the cartridges of the time were more prone to leaving corrosive residue.  I appreciate this particular gun has 'modern' barrels, so is unlikely to have encountered older powders and primers.

I knew someone with a lovely pair of Churchills that he (and his father before him) looked after well and had 'serviced' every year.  Then one day he was told that his guns were now in need of 're-proof' as years of 'light polishing' the barrels had gradually taken them to the limits.

I believe he had them sleeved eventually, but never liked them much afterwards.

[JR111]

18 hours ago, Fil said:

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. 

I measured the LOP and with the pad it is just under 14 3/4. That is about perfect size wise for me. The pad seems to be an addition at some point and the original stock length of the wood seems quite reasonable for that year. 
 

I had a good play about with the ejectors when I looked at the gun. Both eject well when individually fired. What is happening when both are  fired, the first ejector is firing fractionally before the left barrel. This is slightly pulling the left ejector forward and therefore the left extractor lever is not hitting the extractor. We fired light snap caps and this was always happening. Thankfully, I had old heavy brass snap caps. They obviously took more force than the light caps and therefore the ejector did not move and they both fired. However, with a 1/4 second delay on the left barrel. Timing is out just enough to cause this issue. Thankfully, the springs all appear to be working fairly strong. 
 

Do people think that the gun would be serviced by Purdey when the barrels were being made. It would seem crazy not to be?

Edited December 30, 2023 by JR111

[JohnfromUK]

There is some background to the Purdey (and Atkin) ejectors here. 

https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/purdey-atkin-sidelocks

Because the Beesley patent action (shared by Purdey and Spring Opener model Atkin) doesn't use a conventional cocking lever, the ejector is apparently 'tripped' from the tumbler (Purdey) or sear (Atkin).  The actual design of the ejectors is also not the same.

[JR111]

19 hours ago, Fil said:

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.

Thanks for replying. I really appreciate your time. I'm not sure if you can see the proof marks well enough from the poor upload quality. It has the manufacture date of 98 from Purdey. The flats have two bore sizes on them. Both 18.5 and 18.7. The 18.5 bores are proofed london and the 18.7 from Birmingham. The 70 mm stamp appears to have replaced 65 mm. I have checked all of the marks and I'm happy with them all. 
spoke to the current owner (inherited) and the gun was purchased 2001. Also of note, £8000 was paid at that time. The owner did not alter the barrels, or actually fire them. So the timescale between manufacture and alteration is a max 3 years. I'm more than confident there would not be pitting in this timescale. 

without removing the mechanism you can never really tell what it's like behind the plates. However, the old gentleman who died was an avid gun collector and his guns were spotless. From paperwork, it would appear he had three Purdeys. ( one of which was a pigeon gun). Two were unfortunately sold before he passed away. His collection consists of browning b25 d5g which has never been fired. This again is worth a considerable amount. 
 

this is the tightests gun and the wear on the external is spotless. I personally agree, £6k is a good deal. I have spoken to a few gunsmiths who deal in guns of the era and they advised me that " it is cheap as chips"

I would be interested to hear when back boring a gun became a popular thing. I know Browning over bored their guns to 18.7 and it is something many still do. Back then people shot plastic wads more commonly and I could see the benefit for them. It would certainly help with recoil. I would be surprised if someone would be doing that about 2000 and with a Purdey. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by JR111

[JR111]

On 28/12/2023 at 17:30, Old farrier said:

Not trying to influence you just offering my opinion 

as a footnote firing any steel standard or hp through a light weight game gun is not pleasurable in more than the odd shot 

Agreed, it's not something I intend doing a lot of!