Search found 410 matches
- Tue Mar 01, 2022 11:46 am
- Forum: Shotgun
- Topic: Birmingham gunmaker H Cross
- Replies: 3
- Views: 993
Re: Birmingham gunmaker H Cross
The Cross family were active well into the 1900s. You need to look at the history of Joseph Wheeler Cross of Price street. Thomas Cross had a son named Henry / Harry (b.1873) who may be the person you are looking for. I've yet to get around to checking the 1921 census.
- Mon Feb 07, 2022 4:43 pm
- Forum: Shotgun
- Topic: William Cashmore
- Replies: 1
- Views: 888
Re: William Cashmore
Hi Hayley, This is not a gun of any quality and it is in poor condition, it is a gamekeeper's or farmer's gun, sorry to say it has no value except as a "wall Hanger". I certainly wouldn't use it. I expect the barrels are more pitted inside than out ! Cashmore made a lot of guns some of ver...
- Mon Feb 07, 2022 4:39 pm
- Forum: Shotgun
- Topic: William Cashmore
- Replies: 1
- Views: 888
William Cashmore
Hi I would like to find out more about an early W Cashmore gun we have in our museum but don't wish to pay to join. Is there concession for not for profit groups? Or is there someone I could email with information I am after? Many thanks Hayley - Collections Manager, Millthorpe Museum.
- Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:47 am
- Forum: Shotgun
- Topic: Serial Number information for Rossons of Derby
- Replies: 2
- Views: 1057
Re: Serial Number information for Rossons of Derby
Hi Barry, The only serial number records relate to Norfolk. No numbers are recorded for Derby, so we can't help at all other than to say that the boxlock shotgun was probably made by Charles Rosson and the Rook & Rabbit rifle was made by the Birmingham trade. The shotgun would be very interestin...
- Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:52 am
- Forum: Rifle
- Topic: Possible barrel makers mark on a Rook & Rabbit rifle
- Replies: 4
- Views: 1643
Re: Possible barrel makers mark on a Rook & Rabbit rifle
Possibly George Rooker & Son, 1906, Handsworth, Birmingham.
- Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:42 am
- Forum: Rifle
- Topic: Mysterious English Rook Rifle
- Replies: 16
- Views: 6017
Re: Mysterious English Rook Rifle
On second thoughts, I don't think the scrolled R is a reproof mark because it is not accompanied by a crown. Maybe it is the barrel maker's or finisher's mark, but this is unlikely because it wouldn't normally be in scroll. Maybe the proof house just forgot to put the crown on the R ? Mistakes were ...
- Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:28 am
- Forum: Shotgun
- Topic: CW Andrews hammerless SBS
- Replies: 14
- Views: 6432
Re: CW Andrews hammerless SBS
The C W Andrews is about 1907, not very specific I'm afraid. William Lee, about 1892, again not very specific. Salter & Varge - no idea, no serial numbers at all. BSA - 1910-1911 but serial numbers not very reliable. Midland Gun Co - 1910 about. If you don't drink you will die !
- Thu Jan 06, 2022 1:47 pm
- Forum: Shotgun
- Topic: John Patstone - email from James Warren posted by moderator
- Replies: 4
- Views: 1368
Re: John Patstone - email from James Warren posted by moderator
Hello John, Thank you ever so much for your input. Very helpful as usual. Unfortunately there is no address on the rib, and no other marks on the barrels in front of the flats. The buttstock is a later replacement so no info there. This one will remain an enigma as to any closer dating. Best Regards...
- Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:46 am
- Forum: Shotgun
- Topic: John Patstone - email from James Warren posted by moderator
- Replies: 4
- Views: 1368
Re: John Patstone - email from James Warren posted by moderator
EX would stand for Express and this would mean Nitro Powder proof, nothing to do with 1887.
Your gun is actually a 24 bore under the old descriptions, the 25 is a slightly more accurate, .577 merely confirms the calibre in inches
Your gun is actually a 24 bore under the old descriptions, the 25 is a slightly more accurate, .577 merely confirms the calibre in inches
- Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:45 am
- Forum: Shotgun
- Topic: John Patstone - email from James Warren posted by moderator
- Replies: 4
- Views: 1368
Re: John Patstone - email from James Warren posted by moderator
My article on British proof could be wrong, maybe you would know; in that the proof marks just show the gauge “25” and not an added “EX” (or .577 EX) that would mean before proof rules of 1887?
Wondering if the “.577” looks like it was stamped later?
Wondering if the “.577” looks like it was stamped later?