You may be absolutely correct regarding the throat. Serial number here in the 4 thousand range. This would explain perfectly why the "disappointed purchaser" was able to feed it a .40-65 (and being a veteran gunsmith most probably would have had more radar up if doing so was difficult). It would also explain perfectly why my initial experiments with bullets in the 300-350gr range produced dismal accuracy (such "freebore" may be the secret to Weatherby's success, but in the "un-Weatherby" a potential detriment when using normal weight bullets-and no paper patch).
Have not (and probably won't) do a chamber cast, but your morsel offered here is I think valuable. As to paper-patching, no plans to go there either. The gun currently averages 1.25" groups (100yds), with a number of clusters produced in the .85 range (and probably my fault...also a number that approach 1.5"). Since I am a hunter, not a competitor with these guns, such is sufficient, and I don't need another arts and crafts project. Plus, that extremely top-heavy cartridge is downright weird looking, and therefore appeals to me. I do want to play with it at 200 (perhaps 300) yards, just to record readings on the tang sight, and see if MOA results remain consistent, fall off, or (as in some cases) even improve.
Also have a .45-70 Montana Roughrider with fancy options that would qualify it in Texas as a "Barbecue Gun", ordered in the early '80's, and a Jaeger Rifle in .30-40 Krag that was bought from Wolfgang personally. Both have taken Pronghorns, and the Jaeger makes Rockchuck hunting a whole different game. It is my observation that these early guns with more hand-work done exhibit fit and finish that is not seen in the newer stuff. No flies on Shiloh's current quality, but I wager anyone familiar with the guns could pick out an older one from a newer one pretty darn quick with no help from a serial number.
