I saw this gun this weekend for sale at a Gun Show. It was made in the early 1900s and was in great condition. It was European of origin and engraved beautifully. The owner said it was a Joe Springer. It was truly a very well built combo. Would anyone know the value of this drilling?

Is this a Drilling or combination gun? Drilling has two shotgun barrels over the rifle barrel 12/12/25-35, a combination gun will only have a single 12ga barrel over the rifle barrel 12/25-35

First be sure it is a 25-35/6.5x52R, there is a cartridge that was fairly popular in Europe the, the 6.5x58R that has the same rim diameter and the bore will mic out nearly the same as the 25-35, so unless there has been a chamber cast done or the gun has been checked to see if it will actually chamber a 25-35 round. If it is actually marked 25-35 it was more than likely made for export. The 12ga chambers could be 2 1/2" on an early 12ga not a big deal as RST and a few others make 2 1/2" shells (there will be a 65-12 on the barrel flats) and reloading components and data are readily available.

I would guess at a minimum it would be in the $1500+ if it is all original and barrels are not pitted and no mods made to it. It really depends on how much you want the weapon. You could not get the same made today for anything close to buying used, it is a desirable combination not commonly seen , a great coyote/predator hunting rig, useable on deer, great for turkeys.

I use a 16/16/6.5x58R Sauer for coyote hunting see link.

https://imageshack.com/a/img923/1262/mF8Jow.jpg

6.5x58R in the center

https://imageshack.com/a/img924/3559/6v77Cn.jpg

12 bore on a drilling that early would definitely be outside the norm, 16's being much more popular and common....and for good reason. I'd ask to see the proof marks. There is NO FLY's on anything by Johann Springer if it's in any condition and most firearms from that era from Germany exhibit a quality we aren't used to seeing. I concur with Erich's pricing.

This is a 12ga. single barrel over a 25/35. The condition is great. His asking price is $1000. This gun was bought into the US in 1925.

Jump on it regardless of the chambering. I always thought the 25-35 was under rated as a deer cartridge and in a brake action you could load spire points if they will regulate. I like the 12 gauge for less expensive ammo even if the 16 is more traditional.

vixen,

What you are describing is a O/U CAPE GUN, which was very likely made in Austria or Germany. - VERY FEW 12 gauge shotguns were made in Europe for "domestic use" in the pre-WWII period, though any number were made for export to Africa, British India & the Western Hemisphere.

To me, the most important thing before firing either barrel is to have the caliber/gauge/condition CAREFULLY CHECKED by a competent smith who KNOWS European combination guns & their "quirks".
(There are at least 2-3 other possibilities in .25 calibers for the rifle barrel, other than the .25-35WCF & more than one "case length" for shotshells, too. - Also, do NOT believe the marking on these European guns; remember that Europeans were just as likely to have "modified" weapons to non-standard calibers as USA owners are.)

Inasmuch as I've NOT seen the cape-gun, nonetheless, I would guess that it's worth 1,000-2,500 USD at a fair retail price.

yours, tex

If it was brought it back in 1925, it wasn't a war souvenir and he more than likely has used it, so it sounds like he might had it made or was in the right spot at the right time. I'd jump on it in a minute. I have a fondness for combo guns also. $1000 is a very good price if the condition is as you say.

This is my travel gun, in fact it is about 10" over my head as I sit in the back of my RV typing this. See link

Brno 12ga/22 Sav. Highpower(5.6x52R) with a extra set of Tula choked skeet barrels

https://imageshack.com/a/img923/332/XG9jHC.jpg

erich,

Fwiw, I have an Austrian drilling by Peterlongo in 20x20x.22SAV.
(I bought it from the son of the original owner in Munchen, in 1971. = The son said that his dad bought it about 1930 for small game up to roebuck, when he was a gamekeeper on a large private estate.)

Note: The original owner, whose name was Jacob E. Fuchs, was (according to his son) was a draftee, was later a CPL in the German Army in WWII & was thereafter appointed as a WACHTSMEISTER of the "New Germany" in 1946.
(WACHTSMEISTERS were the first "civil police", that were appointed after WWII.)

yours,tex

It's actually not a cape gun. Cape guns are SXS, not O/U. It's a BBF (bockbuchesflinte). In German a cape gun is a buchesflinte.

The 12ga will be chambered for 65mm ammo of a low pressure. You should do OK using 2 3/4" light trap loads. They didn't chamber these guns in 2 3/4". The maker is one of the very best, and the price is good. Be sure to take off the forend, and with the gun closed sans forend shake it while holding the grip only. If you feel any movement it has a loose hinge pin, which could be costly to remedy. But, at that price if all else if very good the gun could still be worth the price.

I'd love to see some pics of it.

luv2safari; All,

YES, I know what the Germans call the various sorts of "combination guns", both SxS & (less commonly) O/U, whether 2,3,4 or even 5 shots. = I simply didn't confuse the issue by using the (quite different from USA) German nomenclature.
Note: When I went to school to get my German hunting license in 1970, one of the instructors showed us a SIX barreled combination gun. - 2 rifled barrels over 2 PAIRS of "stacked" double shotgun barrels.
(VERY heavy to carry in the field, imVho.)
I'm GUESSING that it was "an experiment" & likely was "one of one".

WAFFEN BENNEWITZ in "K-town" describes all 2-barreled long-arms, with one rifled & one smoothbore barrel, as Cape Guns.


Also, 65mm is 2.590 inches.= I therefore believe that firing 2.75" American shotshells may be "hazardous to your health" = It may be OK & it may not, depending on how the maker bored the shotgun barrel.
(I stand by my advice to have the combination gun, by any name, carefully inspected by a smith that KNOWS older European firearms. = I regard firing any antique firearm, absent a through inspection, as UNWISE & possibly dangerous.)

yours, tex

It's been proven many times, by actual pressure-testing, that firing 2-3/4" ammo in chambers as short as 2-1/2" doesn't raise pressures. It has nothing to do with "how the maker bored the shotgun barrel." But this myth continues to wander along.

The only possible problem is modern ammo loaded to higher pressures than old guns can handle. But it has nothing to do with whether the chamber is 2-1/2" or 2.59".

Mule Deer,

So if the OP follows your advice & damages the firearm & possibly himself because he didn't have his nearly century old firearm checked out by a competent gunsmith, are you going to take full financial responsibility for offering him your poor advice??

I know of a person who was seriously injured at Ramstein AFB Rod & Gun Club in 1971 by firing a shotgun in a short European 16-gauge chamber. - While I didn't actually SEE the incident, I did see the ambulance take him away to the ER.

yours, tex

Did I say he shouldn't have his shotgun checked out? No. In fact I mentioned "modern ammo loaded to higher pressures than old guns can handle."

Again, NO tests have found any difference in pressure when 2-3/4" shotgun shells have been fired in 2.5" or 2.59" chambers. Read Gough Thomas on the subject, who published the info decades ago. But the same old BS keeps getting repeated, over and over again.

Just because you ALMOST saw a "short-chambered" shotgun blow up many years ago doesn't mean (much less prove) a short chamber was the cause. That line of logic is known as a false syllogism: A "short-chambered" shotgun blew up, therefore the cause was the "short" chambers. There are several other possible reasons, and based on what's been repeatedly proven about 2-3/4" ammo in "short" chambers, one of those would be the cause.

My second shotgun ever owned was a 2 3/4” chambered 1100. In my youth, I never thought twice about shooting 3” shells in the gun. Other than an occasional ejection issue due to the added length of the expended 3” shell barely being able to clear the port. I never had an issue and shot probably thousands of rounds through the gun. I realize your issue is regarding an old gun and pressures are the general concern, but shell length in a shotgun, in my very limited experience, should not be an issue in a single shot.

Mule Deer,

Fwiw, after reading your original post, I called C.E. Harris (who has forgotten more about firearms & loading than most of us here will ever know) & asked him about 2 3/4" shells in 65mm chambers.
His comment was, "Well, he may get away with that & he may well lose some fingers, too. Bad plan, in my opinion, as most of those old Euro barrels are thin & many of them are unsafe with any modern shells."

Reference: the fellow who lost his left hand to an exploding shotgun barrel, I'm going by what the ER doc said that caused the injury.

As for me, I'll be cautious & have all antique firearms CAREFULLY inspected by a competent smith before firing them.
(Fyi, I started collecting hammer combination guns of various sorts in 1969.)

Note: I have a "reissued for WWI" 1888 Commission Rifle that has the "S-marked chamber". Nonetheless, it was NOT re-bored to the standard 7.9x57mm (.323 bore) size. = It shoots .320 PBCB using 10 grains of Red Dot @ 1400FPS beautifully.

just my OPINION, tex

I spend a lot of time over at Doublegun and this comes up quite often and I gather it does raise pressure, how can it not when your openning the crimp into a much smaller area and have to compress the charge to get through it. The amount of increase might not be large but it might be enough that shells loaded to max pressure then go over. Why take a chance with a fine old gun that is nearly irreplaceable. 2 1/2" shells are readily available(RST, Vintagers, Kent and others) plus BP has plenty of data as do some of the powder companies. MEC Makes an adaptor to load 2 1/2" fold crimp shell on their presses(I load 2 1/2" 16ga and 12ga on my MEC 600). Roll crimp heads are also available from a few suppliers and you can load new primed hulls without a press, new 2 1/2" hulls available from a couple of places).

I don't even bother with 2 3/4" shells anymore as 2 1/2' work just fine in my 2 3/4 and 3" guns. My duck/pheasant load is 7/8 or 1 oz of ITX or Bismuth or 1 oz of lead 5's where I can use it, coyotes get either and ounce of NP BB's in the 16ga or 1 1/4 ounce of the same in the 12. 3/4 ounce of lead 8's break clays in either.

erich,

AQUILA out of Mexico makes 2" shotshells in 12 & 20 gauge in buckshot, #4, #6 & in 7 1/2 shot or at least the company did the last time that I got a flyer from them. - Those shells should work fine in a double-barrel, presuming that the tubes are in sound condition.

yours, tex

The myth began with Major Sir Gerald Burrard, one of the top shotgun writers of his era. In the second of his set of books on THE MODERN SHOTGUN, published in 1931, Burrard states that it’s “distinctly dangerous to fire 2-3/4 inch 12-bore cartridges in a gun chambered for the ordinary 2-1/2 inch cases.” Yet he provides no other proof other than that statement.

Later on another famous British shotgun writer, Gough Thomas, took on this myth. He wrote about it in magazines, and later in GOUGH THMOAS’S GUN BOOK, published in 194. Since he has a lot more to say than Burrard, I’ll extract the pertinent parts:

“But in the particular case cited by Burrard, the main danger arises, not from the constriction when the cartridge is fired, but from the fact that the longer-cased cartridges he had in mind invariably carried heavier loads, and heavier loads…of necessity involve higher pressures. It is, in fact, pressure that causes the danger: no gun was ever burst by a cartridge case….To satisfy myself on this point, I arranged some years ago for a test to be carried out.”

In the test, Eley 2-3/4” ammo was fired in both 2-1/2” chambered and 2-3/4” chambered barrels. Thomas provides a table showing the results, and in both barrels the pressure and velocity results are practically identical.

But Burrard’s untested myth lives on today, as evidenced by this thread. This isn’t unheard of, because once faulty information becomes established by a popular “authority” it’s extremely difficult to dislodge. I even known people in the American ammo business who were surprised when they ran the same basic tests, with results identical to Gough Thomas’s. The most recent test one I heard about was performed by Winchester Ammunition used an old 2.59” chambered 16-gauge Sauer—in which 2-3/4” ammo produced the same industry pressure and velocity specs as it did when shot in 2-3/4” chambers.

The reason pressures don’t rise is a 2-1/2” or 2.59” chamber’s forcing cone is long enough to contain the unfolded crimp of a 2-3/4” shotgun shell. Thus the wads and shot are NOT constricted inside the actual bore by the case. Yet despite plenty of pressure-tested proof going back more than half a century, this myth continues to march on.

satx78247 , while I have plenty of respect for C.E. Harris, he may or may be aware of the pressure tests I cite. As noted above, even many professionals in the gun business don’t.

Erich, so you “gather” from Doublegun “it does raise pressure.” I’ve spent some time on that site now and then, and would be very interested if any of the people you “gathered” it from provided any proof. My guess is they’re still parroting Burrard, even if they don’t know he’s the original source of the myth.

Again, here is my original post on this thread:
“It's been proven many times, by actual pressure-testing, that firing 2-3/4" ammo in chambers as short as 2-1/2" doesn't raise pressures. It has nothing to do with "how the maker bored the shotgun barrel." But this myth continues to wander along.
The only possible problem is modern ammo loaded to higher pressures than old guns can handle. But it has nothing to do with whether the chamber is 2-1/2" or 2.59".”

Mule Deer,

I don't know Mr. Gough but do know Mr. Harris very well. - Pardon me for taking Mr. Harris' opinion as a known expert in firearms, generally & in loads/reloading, in specific, over the opinion of a person that I don't know anything about nor do I have any personal knowledge of his procedures/testing protocols.

yours, tex

My short answer to the 2.5 vs 2 3/4 chamber lengths....I don't know. I find it difficult to not believe pressure tests. I'm also not going to shoot 2 3/4 shells in any of my old guns whether it's safe or not. What I do know is part of the romance of the older guns that appeals to me is their short chambers but, I'm a bit of a romantic at heart. Much preferring to go to the effort to shoot in it what a firearm was designed for. For a long time, long before 2 1/2 in. shells were again available, I've been cutting back 2 3/4 hulls to 2 1/2 length and roll crimping them with an OSC. Why go to all that trouble if 2 3/4 shells will work? Because that's what the chamber was cut for, I enjoy doing it and they work just fine for any application I have for a shotgun. That and I am not about to have the chamber lengthened on any of my old German guns. I did that with my first drilling nearly 30 years ago and regretted it ever since. Had I known at the time how easy it is to make 2 1/2 in shells it never would have happened.

The argument over Damascus barrels is similar. Old wives tales say one thing, pressure tests another.

With my home rolled shells it's also kind of fun when youngsters, that's anyone under the age of about 40-45, look at my shells and question the OSC and a roll crimp. "Where did you get those" is a common question. Or, "I've never seen anything like that". 'Course, I get that a lot, whether shotgun or rifle and the ammo for either.

sharps4590,

Thanks for your post.

In many ways I feel (rather than think) the same way you do. Have both stuck to 2-1/2" shells in short chambers, and also some roll-crimp loads.

But eventually also shot plenty of 2-3/4" shells of appropriate pressure, in older shotguns/drillings with "short chambers," including some over a century old. However, I did have them checked out, and sometimes tightened by top professionals, before using the "modern" loads. Never had a problem. (Of course, am also aware of Sherman Bell's pressure tests, which are very interesting!)

Have also talked to more than one top-notch shotgun smith, including one who's worked on hundreds of British "bests," who says lengthening chambers in older guns "to reduce pressures" can result in the barrel thickness at the front end of the chamber can become too thin to contain pressures of SOME newer shotshells. In other words, "fixing" short chambers due to the old myth can make older guns unsafe.

satx78247,

You don't know Winchester ammunition?

Am sorry to hear your knowledge of gun writers is so limited. "Mr. Gough" is not his name. Instead Gough is the first name of his pen name. His entire name was Gough Thomas Garwood, but dropped Garwood when writing magazine articles and books, for whatever reason.

He was consider one of the top all-time British writers on shotguns, who published far more articles than C.E. Harris, along with a number of books on the subject. (Again, can't recall many articles on shotguns by Mr. Harris, and have always read his articles in numerous publications.)

Gough Thomas published at least half a dozen books on shotguns, which are still considered top references on the subject today. Here's a post from the Doubleguns.com site erich mentioned: "Gough Thomas was a highly qualified professional engineer first and gun writer second, and his engineering expertise puts his books in a special category. In short he knew precisely what he was talking about. I corresponded with him over the years and treasure his hand written letters. All his books are worth reading. Shotguns and Cartridges would be the best one to read for an overall take on shotguns. Shooting Facts and Fancies is a more detailed look at some specialised issues."

Of course, since he was British, many Americans don't know his work, but his works have been referenced by a bunch of well-known American shotgun writers, including Bob Brister, Gene Hill, Michael McIntosh, Terry Wieland and many others. But based on your response, I suspect you might not "know" them either.

Mule Deer,

NOPE. Never heard of him. = That's WHY I called Mr. Harris, whom I've known/trusted for 2+ decades.
(I'm a lawman/hunter, rather than an expert on firearms.= I started collecting hammer drillings & particularly pre-1900 Cape Guns, when I was 1st stationed OCONUS in 1970. = In those days they were DIRT CHEAP.)

Ask me about Crimes Against Persons, especially with terrorized female/child victims.
(That I know all too much about.)

yours, tex

tex,

Have you ever slugged the bore of that '88? I had an unaltered one that had a "generous" diameter bore and throat that slugged to .320. I loaded for it with 32 Special .321 170gr bullets and a light H380 and light 4320 load, giving about 2,350-2,400 fps. A lot of these older guns had widely varying bores from gun to gun. Most of my "J" bore guns had .320 and .321 bores, and back when .318 bullets were unknown on this side of the pond I loaded the .321 32 Spl bullets in the generous bores. I never saw any pressure problems, never blew anything up, bulged a barrel, or had extraction problems. As a matter of fact, I got far better accuracy with the .321 bullets than I could achieve, once we could get and shoot the .318s, than I got with the smaller pills.

Of course the regulation was a bit skewed with the use of the lighter bullets, but they got me shooting when ammo and bullets were made from unobtainium. Stoeger could supply "proper" ammo, but I couldn't afford DWM or RWS ammo from them back then. Money for gas to get me and my buddies 200-300 miles out hunting in Nevada's vastness was the top priority. Next in priority was gas back home.

I learned a long time ago when one is fooling with an older, say WWI or earlier, European firearm you better slug the bore and cast the chamber. I have a couple 9.3's that are more 9mm than 9.3. I shoot .358's in them. A few rifles that were sold to me as one cartridge turned out to be something completely different but that's more a reflection on the seller than the rifle. However, it showed me the wisdom of casting the chamber and slugging the bore. My Strover Mauser from about 1919-20, supposedly well into the .323 era, still has a .318 groove diameter. Not an uncommon occurrence for "between the wars" sporting rifles until one gets closer to WWII proof dates. Even then, a fella better check. Of course that's a good part of the reason I like to fool with those old rifles. Figuring out what they are, learning about them, working up cases and loads and putting them back to use. Makes for some interesting conversations among the "tacti-cool" and non-handloading crowd. The questions I get then are , "how did you do that", or "how did you know" and most often...and for a dedicated and thoroughly committed handloader probably the most amusing, "can you buy ammo for that"? I can't buy ammo for probably half the rifles I own!

Sherman Bell's "Finding Out For Myself" Part V was a study of shooting longer shells in a short chamber and he did find an increase, note as "insignificant" 10% or less but an increase. I would suspect difference in forcing cone length and bore diameter would also be a factor. I have 12ga shotguns with bores that run from .710 to .732 and forcing cones that go from almost shoulders to fairly long tapers

I think the statement "2 3/4" with the appropriate pressure" is the big issue here. The factory 2 1/2" loads I shoot (B&P High Pheasant) run in the 6000psi 1 oz and 7000 for the 1 1/16. Finding modern 2 3/4" ammo with that low of pressure would be quite a problem as most 2 3/4" ammo is a quite a bit higher pressure to run modern gas operated Semi-auto's reliably.

I still think that if the gun has 2 1/2" chambers, that's what should be shot in them.

luv2safari,

My '88 Commission rifle's barrel was "given a good bath", relubricated, slugged & the chamber cast shortly after I got it from a garage sale, for 20 bucks, as it was filthy/oil-SOAKED. ====> It had accumulated so much dirt/crud over the years that I first had to use a brush & soapy water to see what I had bought.
(The previous owner's widow said that it had been "hanging up in the barn" for "a long, long time".)

After I finally/thoroughly cleaned it up, it looks "near new"! = The chamber is "within specs" & the bore is actually .319 & shows NO signs of pitting. ===> As I said, it shoots homebrewed .320 PBCB at .32-40WCF ballistics beautifully out to well beyond 200M.
(Every time that I take it out to the local military range, uncase it & shoot it, it draws any number of young soldiers' attention, who want to look at & "hold" my "old relic". - They are generally DELIGHTED that I let them shoot it. Homebrewed CB/Red Dot reloads are CHEAP enough to let any number of them try it out.= Any number of younger GIs have gotten interested in classic/antique military rifles & in WWII history by firing the old '88.)

Note: While the old-school .32-40WCF was designed in 1884 as a "match cartridge" for BP-SS rifles, the .32-40 has cleanly taken many thousands of WT & other similar sized game over the last century plus, so I'm sure that my PBCB loads at about 1400FPS will still efficiently do the job on our small TX whitetails, coyotes, bobcats, etc.. = Game animals are no harder to kill in 2018 than they were in 1884.

Btw, the original reason that I mentioned the '88 was that it is "chamber-stamped" with the "S" that supposedly means that the reissued 1888 rifles were re-bored for WWII issue to second/third line troops, to police formations & the late-war home guard. = I don't even want to consider what might happen if S-bore/full power ball ammo was fired in that .319 bore. - SOME of the surplus WWII ammo is way TOO HOT for ANY of the Commission rifles.
(One wonders HOW the H that the chamber got "S-marked" but NOT rebored??? - I've wondered if it "got missed" at the arsenal OR if perhaps the importer marked it "to sell better".)

yours, tex

erich,

AGREED 100%.

yours, tex

tex,

Have you tried Trail Boss for shooting small pills in your 88? I load 9,3X72R brass to the top with Trail Boss and top it with 95gr Makarov bullets. They're .365 diameter and 95 grains and make a perfect plinking and small game load.

Where are you finding the B&P short 16ga ammo? They are not shipping any to their new US supplier, so I had them take me off their email list. I REALLY liked their classic 16ga 67mm ammo. I have only one box left, and I strongly don't like the Kent Gamebore ammo. I've found it to be anything but uniform in shot drop and velocity. The crimps tend to fail, also.

luv2safari,

NOPE, I've not tried & likely won't try Trail Boss in the '88 anytime soon, as a I've recently bought 5# of Red Dot & 3# of Varget, cheap (I prowl the garage & estate sales, looking for bargains.) & 10 grains of RD seems to work FINE in this particular rifle.
Fwiw, I'm trying to get permission to use the antique rifle at a local military maneuver area to take feral pigs & HOPEFULLY an Axis buck. ====> Post regulations limit the use of modern CF rifles to "lottery drawing winners" for WT deer during the reservation's deer season.
The rest of the year, several sorts of small game & "invasive species" can be lawfully taken with shotguns (with shot smaller than #4), .22RF, "traditional" muzzleloading rifles up to .58 caliber & archery equipment by Active Duty, Active Reserve, serving ANG/ARNG & retired military personnel.
ONLY those "classes" of authorized military personnel "may enter or remain within" the facility at any time, except by "special exception to policy", i.e., field trips by students, who are guided by Range Control officers.
(There are LOTS of both invasive species on the reservation.)

IF permission to use a pre-1898 antique rifle out there (with lead cast bullets) is granted by the supervisor of Range Control, I'll probably go up to the 13 grains of "The Load" by C.E. Harris, which is fully equal to the pre-WWI "high speed" .32-40WCF behind my homebrewed CB, i.e., about 1550FPS out of that long 29" military barrel.
(In my request for "an exception to policy", I pointed out that a cast lead bullet of 200 grains is "no more powerful" & no more likely to cause a range safety problem than a .58 caliber Minie Ball out of a WBTS rifled musket and/or a .22LR cartridge is.)
From up in one of the permanent "elevated tower-stands", the old '88 should take pigs/Axis out to 100M+, as from "way up there", you can see over/through certain areas of the thick brush.
(At ground level you cannot see game more than 20-50M. - YEP, the brush really is THAT thick.)

yours, tex

I bought a few cases of B&P 12ga High Pheasant before they stopped importing them. 16ga I load my own.

Thanks MD.

Data trumps opinion and even more so, hear say opinion

I have a 20 gauge over 25-35 combo rifle that I acquired last year. I just came back from the gunsmith shop where it has been residing the past 6 months (much to my consternation). He is fixing some stock related things that were not done properly by his apprentice last fall. It is looking good though!

Anyway, I have a bunch of information on the 25-35, old reloading data and magazine articles that were sent to me by a fellow campfire member. I used this information to work up a load using Hornady's newer 100 FTX bullet and CFE-223 rifle powder. Works great! I did have the gunsmith lengthen the chamber and forcing cone on the 20 gauge barrel last fall as I didn't want to source 2-1/2" shells exclusively. I did shoot some AA 2-3/4" rounds through it before the work and nothing bad happened

erich,

EXCELLENT PLAN.

yours, tex

carbon12,

You may want to rethink your statement, in that the MORON LEFT's gun-HATERS & brainless LOONS have lots of FALSE data that has been published in all sorts of publications, including official government documents out of OSHA, CDC, Department of Justice, USDA, BATFE, FBI, etc..

The same is TRUE of the books, movies, magazine articles published by the "climate change" crazies & propagandists (like Al Gore for example) who claim to have done "peer reviewed, double-blind studies" that they "dreamed up" without doing any serious research.
(Sorry Al, there NEVER were any "poor little drowning polar bear cubs", that you FALSELY claimed to have seen & wrote about in more than one "science publication" to raise money from the terminally naïve "animal lovers".)

As my grandfather used to say, "Figures don't lie but liars certainly do have figures."

That said, I know little or nothing about Mr. Gough Thomas & his published works but neither do I consider him to be THE EXPERT on shotguns or anything else, absent PROOF from neutral/independent sources of the truthfulness of the published data.
Mr. Charles E. Harris, otoh, is a well-known EXPERT on firearms, ammo reloading, cast bullets & other related subjects. AND he too is a published author, with a near-worldwide reputation.

yours, tex

.

Happy to rethink my statement.

However, can we limit the discussion to ballistic lab 'data', shotgun chambers, shell length and pressure. No need to obfuscate the discussion with alphabet.gov you purposely brought up to muddy the waters.

I am a fan of CEH and have a binder filled with his writings that I removed from various gun mags. I somehow missed those he wrote on shotgun chambers, shell length and effects on chamber pressure. Since you are a personal friend of CEH, could you ask what ballistic data he relied on which you base your opinion?

Looking forward to comparing, contrasting and perhaps rethunking.

carbon12,

My point was NOT to "muddy the waters" but rather that in 2018 that the government agencies are just as likely as any random person, who is standing out by the road in front of your home, to TRY to convince everyone that their OPINION is the SOLE valid point of view & W/O any actual PROOF of its accuracy.
(Just because something is published/broadcast/spoken says NOTHING about its truthfulness whatever.)

And YES, I'll ask him for you.

yours, texd

luv2safari,

Since you mentioned 9.3x72R, I'll tell you that my FIRST hammer gun was a 9.3x72R under the pair of 16 gauge shotgun barrels. It's bored Modified & something near to Improved Cylinder - It's PROBABLY built about 1885-90 & rather "plain Jane" in looks. The actual maker is un known & probably was a "group effort".
What I first thought was the maker's name (W. Deist) is the name of a tradesman/merchant that had his retail business in Lower Saxony from about 1875 until about 1900.
I still like "Plain Jane" very much, as for a drilling, it's quite light to carry afield & seems to point better than my other shotguns. I have several "fancy" circa 1900 combination guns that are ornately decorated but that stay home in the safe on most hunting trips.
(A German friend loaned it to me to go on a circle hunt in 1970 & I liked it so much that he sold it to me "for peanuts". - Erich loaned it to me because he didn't like the old drilling at all. = "Opinions are what cause horseraces", applies here.)

yours, tex

The first drilling I hunted with a hammer 16/16/9.3x72 in the 1960's doing control work on feral dog packs, with two loads of buckshot and the rifle barrel it was nearly the perfect weapon for the job. Near or far it did the job, my partner carried a scoped rifle and always liked the fact that there was a double dose of buckshot to back him up. The drilling was borrowed and returned after the work was done. I was totally taken by that drilling and was able to find one like it a number of years ago, It was in rough shape, broken stock that I repaired and got it up and running again. The barrel is pretty rough but still shoots well enough to hunt with and I'm going to experiment with paper patched bullets in it. The shotgun barrels are great and would make a superb shotgun by itself, 2 1/2" 16ga.

erich,

IF you have enough "meat" in the chamber/barrel, you might consider reaming out the chamber/barrel to 10.3x76R (which is nothing more than the 3", .410 brass shotgun shell).. - That was a fairly popular method of dealing with rusty barrels in the 1880-1910 era & the 10.x76mm Rimmed is a considerably more powerful cartridge than the 9.3x72R is, while remaining a "period combination gun" cartridge.

yours, tex

I have one drilling that isn't Nitro proofed nor is my combination gun. Back to that "somewhat of a romantic" bent of mine, I've always loaded Mag Tech, 2 1/2 in. brass hulls with BP and the old, traditional wad column. Even use waterglass to hold the OSC in place. Have always used the classic, "2 1/2 drams, 1 oz of shot" load as well. Works great for me! Only difficulty that arises is I have to keep the hulls separate from gun to gun as the chambers differ slightly. If I could find a 16 bore sizing die that problem would go away but every place I've looked is out of stock......unless some have arrived recently.

Much the same as my cut back plastic hulls, the brass hulls always elicit comment. Once fired the comments are.......always interesting and sometimes amusing. I really want to relate this story. The first round of sporting clays I ever shot I fired with the aforementioned drilling and BP loads. The young fella setting birds for us was.....I'm guessing 12-14 and, I suppose had never seen a shotgun loaded with BP. The first bird he tripped for me I hear OH!!!!!! right after the shot. It wasn't until we got back to the club house the young man told me, "your first shot I thought your gun blew up". Needless to say doubles on that humid, spring day down in the woods were.....nearly impossible. One of the gentlemen in the group told me, "you don't shoot too bad......if you could see the second bird". I went back a month later for a second round and proved him decidedly wrong. I didn't shoot much better with smokeless than I did BP so I do "shoot too bad". IN MY DEFENSE......I am not much of a shotgunner to begin with. If nothing else when I have a shotgun in my hands I can provide comic relief. Gimme a rifle any day!!!!

I viewed this Johann Springer again Saturday. It does have some issues. The main one is a fracture in the stock in the wrist area. It has had some minor freckling on the highly polished blueing. Neither of the barrels are marked, but there is a letter with the gun stating that it is a 12/over 25/35. I can't remember who the letter was from, but it was from a society of gun collectors. The drilling is mechanically solid and if the fracture was repaired and the freckling cleaned up it would still be a nice shooter. The rifle bore needed cleaning and it looked as if it had a rapid twist. The bore was dark but I think it would clean up very well. The only other issue is the original butt plate or pad is bad. I think that it is original with the drilling. He wants a grand for it and I don't think I will buy it. It does have matching serial numbers. The drilling was imported in 1920. It is still a great old piece of history.

I think you're wise to pass on it. You can get a true drilling (three barrels) these days for around $1,500-$1,900, scoped and ready to hunt.

Amen. Look at Simpsons LTD for a taste of the forbidden fruit. If I lived anywhere near that shop they would have to leave a water bowl out for me because I would be the stray dog that never goes away.

I made a big loop trough the Midwest a couple years ago and spent two days in Galesburg (great campground in town) going through guns in Simpson's shop. Ended up having them ship three guns to my FFL., they shipped the receivers and I took the barrel sets with me to save shipping. They even took me on a tour of the back rooms .

I've been there several times and never left without something. The back room is amazing.

Vixen...

Here is a real decent gun that is improperly described as an 8X57JR. It's a post-war gun and is 8X57JRS. It is a .323 diameter bore gun, so you can load for it using standard 8mm bullets we use today. The chambers are 2 3/4", so no worrying regarding shell length that some might do. The scope is a bit big, but it's a good scope for the period. I would call and ask for Floyd and see if he would go $1,800.00.

https://www.simpsonltd.com/products/z23288

There's another "sleeper" there that I would discuss in private with you.

Good find, luv! Were a fella so inclined the right barrel could be opened to Modified and he'd have about the perfect drilling. Only thing I saw was the front set trigger was called a double set and it isn't, it's a single set trigger. That ain't no thing....just terminology and no doubt an honest mistake.

OLD THREAD...but I just bought that gun, and it's rock solid with perfect bores. The scope is as clear as any from that period. I was going to drop it down on a gun show table and ask plenty, but it's too straight. I might keep it and sell something to pay for this one. I have to do that $ort of thing.

BUMP away from the Spam post

So what is a competent smith?? I have had 2 guns worked on by 2 different smiths one was 80 and was a smith all his life ,even as a Armorer in the army, and he made a mistake that was very bad , no point in going into details about it.


the second one was recently. I had a gun worked on 2 times by him.. it appears that all he did was clean and oil it, the problem was still there after $160.00 charges. so I decided to fix it myself if I ruined it I would toss it , but it was easier than I thought..I had worked with him a long time ago and felt he was a competent smith...A third smith I took a Winchester mdl 12 12 ga take down to have the barrel adjusted. he diden't know how to take it down so I took it home. there are no more smiths in this area....