[ghp]

I'm not going to tell you what I was told it was, but I'd like to know what you think this is.

On the underside of the barrel, in large characters, it is marked "N800Z" or "Z008N".

[robert garner]

But if it shoots good as it looks,she's a keeper!
Tell us more!
double action, in the .40+ range?
robert

[ghp]

It's double action only, I haven't shot it yet, waiting for bullets which might not be all that common, the calibre is quite a bit smaller than your guess: I was told it is a 120 bore (8,585mm, .338"), but I haven't taken exact measurements.

I'm glad you like it too. Would you shoot it if it was yours?

[robert garner]

Do you mean you havent YET? Of course I would shoot it but, am half crazy.
Just aquired a 1917 Artillery Luger and shot it, and will many times in the future.
course its at least 50 yrs Younger than what you've got there. Unless the peice has some mechanical difficulties? Am envious,never seen a piece like that one,
sure hope it shoots as good as it looks! best of luck with it.
robert:cool:Lee Precision has a suitable mold, either 90415 or 90418, slug the
cylinder and go a coupla thousandths over,you want to cut a ring of lead of the ball.
r

[Jim Watson]

Kind of a hodge-podge of design features.
DAO like an Adams; wedge and rammer like a Colt. Manual safety catch, "dueler's" butt shape without the prawl of a British percussion revolver.
As far as I can tell, just one of the great sea of Continental knockoffs.

You are in Belgium, you tell me; what is the reluctance of gunmakers there to put their names on their products? You sure don't see it on English or American guns, not the good quality ones at least. We are proud of our work.

[deadin]

I agree with Jim. Probably a Belgian knock-off of an Adams, Deane or Trantner. (The "large" marking under the barrel also leads me to think this. (British guns were usually "tastefully" marked.:D )
Just not enough information given to make a positive ID.

Dean

[ghp]

My guess about the reluctance of belgian gunmakers to put their name on the weapons would be: it takes time, it adds little functionality. But that is a guess, I handled an old, very simple belgian revolver recently, I thought it was made as fast as possible, but still was marked.

Was there anything, on this gun, that made you think it was belgian? I was told the marks (see the cylinder on the first picture, that mark is also on the underside of the barrel) were british.

[deadin]

The cylinder mark is too small to see in the picture. Any way to give us a better close-up? Also, is that the only mark on the cylinder, or does each charge hole have one?
I think the reason several of us guessed Belgian is that British revolvers from this era are usually marked with a maker or retailers name. Belgin and Spanish weren't necessarilly marked. (So it could be Spanish, but Spanish usually weren't engraved.) Also English proofs don't always mean an English maker. British proof law requires that all guns sold commercially in England be proofed in an English proof house. (I own Smith & Wessons with English proofs.)
And we are not saying it's a "bad" gun just because it may be Belgian. A lot of very fine firearms have come out of Belgium.

Dean

[ghp]

There is one between each chamber, and you can see two of them on the barrel.

I wanted to show you the rifling too.

[Jim K]

The proof marks are small but I am almost certain they are Birmingham proofs, so there is a good chance the gun was made in England. Many English makers did not mark their guns, as large retailers preferred to have their own names engraved on the guns for retail sales, similar to the "trade name" guns in the U.S.

The Pryce and Cashmore rammer makes me think it may be a Daw revolver, even though the grip doesn't look like a Daw.

If it is Belgian, it should have Belgian proof marks, but IIRC, England (at least in the later years) recognized Belgian proofs and did not re-prove.

As to Belgian makers, much of the gunmaking in Liege was by consortiums of makers, each small company turning out some part or parts. The result was that, since there were often many companies involved, none of them put its name on the guns. They weren't necessarily ashamed of the guns, though quality can range from superb to terrible, but it was simply impractical to put a dozen names on a gun.

Jim

[DWARREN123]

Just one simple thought, "PRETTY".

[ghp]

I'm glad you like it too, DWarren.

And I appreciate your post a lot, Jim. Indeed, I was told this gun was made by George H. Daw. But the information on him that is available on the web, is very scarce. I only found a couple of shotguns, which had similar decorations. So you disagree with Jim W., about the existence of unnamed english revolvers? Would you care to put a date on mine?

I've checked about the Birmingham proof marks. They're the only ones resembling those on my revolver, with a magnifying glass I could make out the little "v" underneath, but I'll have to put the gun underneath a microscope to be sure.

The grip is the weakest link, it's rather loose fitting, the top screw (which is decorated, so may be original) can be pulled out with your nails. The top sides are very thin, well, the spring has to go somewhere.

Would someone care to offer some advice on removing the hammer? I'm afraid to damage the screw, which is very tight.

[Jim Watson]

Jim K. has pronounced the conventional wisdom of why you see nameless Continental and English firearms. It leaves a couple of loopholes, though. First, how have so many guns gotten out without a vendor's name added?
Second, I would expect the assembler of those specialist guild shop parts to take the chance to put his name on the final product. Maybe they are nicer than that over there.

The only picture I have of a George Daw revolver is of a gun with that type rammer and even much the same style of engraving. But it is a DA-SA action with prawl at the top of the grip and a ribbon in the engraving bearing something I cannot make out. I bet it is either "George Daw" or "John. Q. Ironmonger."

I haven't a clue as to how to get it apart.

[Gordon]

Cool when you're stumped!! Nice looking antique, I'd not fire it though as I have had BAD luck firing old antique guns, I don't care what Ross Siegfried says! The old wood dries from the metal and tends to crack and split when fired. I fired a Howdah Lancaster once in .577 Snider and it cost me $1000 a shot! Others too!
:uhoh:
It looks like what other George Daw pistols I've seen over the years (50 + looking at guns) looked like.:)

[ghp]

Jim, would you mind showing that picture you have? Or is there a copyright problem?

I'll see if I can make (or have someone make) a replacement grip, and put the old one aside.

[Jim Watson]

The picture I have is in a book, 'The Handgun' by Geoffrey Boothroyd.
I am not set up to scan and transmit pictures. Maybe after I get my new digicam running.

[ghp]

Geoffrey Boothroyd? What a coincidence: my "modern" handgun is a Walther PP, but not a PPK.

[Jim K]

Hi, Jim W. and folks,

Well the conventional wisdom might be conventional because it is true. While many British makers left the markings on some or all their guns up to the retailer, not all retailers marked the guns, so they ended up with no mark at all. While the law required proving, there was no requirement for either serial numbers of manufacturer markings. As to some maker putting his own name on guild parts, why? The advertising would do him no good because his name was unknown.

GHP, I think magnification will show that the mark is a crown over crossed scepters with a V (viewed) underneath, the Birmingham proof mark from 1812 to 1904. It almost certainly indicates manufacture in or around Birmingham.

I think that gun would have been made toward the end of the percussion period, around 1857.

Jim

[Jim Watson]

What do you see as the reason for the difference in US and European practice? There are innumerable brand name guns here, nearly all with some sort of trademark that may or may not be traceable back to the actual maker.

[Jim K]

The main difference was the mass private market. The firearms industry grew with the demand for guns as the nation expanded westward. In addition, the Civil War gave a huge boost to innovation (as wars usually do) and also built the industry that could profit from it. The increase in demand spelled the effective end of the small maker, who could not compete with the huge factories built to meet the demand. Further, the US armory system pioneered mass produced, interchangeable parts guns, something that did not happen in Europe for many years, and then only in factories owned by or working mostly for, the government.

In Europe, the demand was small and more stable. There was no frontier to open and no Civil War in a time of changing firearms technology. There were only so many people who had the money to buy guns and the market needed only to supply them. Early gun laws reduced demand still further. That meant that individual craftsmen and small makers remained in business long after they had become obsolete in the US, and also that custom guns were more common and makers more willing to accommodate direct customers and retailers. Even large makers would modify a grip or change a lockplate if that was what a customer or retailer wanted. (I once speculated that Webley never made two guns exactly alike, and they were a large maker. I was being facetious, but not much.)

Jim

[Jim Watson]

I understand the market differences, but it does not make it clear to me why an Englishman would be willing to buy a nameless revolver. But it is demonstrably true, and in considerable numbers. I guess I will just have to conclude that Those People do not think the way we do.

Ref Webleys: I trust you have read 'The Greatest of All Webley Collectors' by Reginald Bretnor in the 1981 Gun Digest.

I also recall the guy who said "They made two million Lugers and to listen to an advanced collector, you would think each and every one was a separate and distinct model."

[Jim K]

Thanks, Jim, for reminding me of that story. I reread it and it is as delightful now as it was in 1981.

Now, I would like to obtain more information on my Schlusselhalter Luger with the unique marking of the 2184 Pz Gr Division, a very advanced unit which fought against Napoleon at Waterloo or, as we would say, Waterrestroom.

Jim

[ghp]

Not in my thread, you won't, Jim K. ;-)

Anyhow, thanks once again to those who liked this piece, and those who took a wild guess at who made it, and where and when it was made.

It was sold to me as being an 1850 Daw, but I had no way of judging this to be true, so the previous owner could have told me anything, if he would.

Probably he wouldn't, being one of the guys behind www.littlegun.be, he has a reputation to keep up.

It would still be interesting to know why Daw would have his guns proofed in Birmingham.

It was a pleasure doing business with y'all, I owe you one belgian beer (a "pintje" in flemish).

[Jim K]

George H. Daw is shown in the books as being at Threadneedle St. and St. James St. in London. But it is possible (even probable) that that was a sales and showroom address and the guns were really made in Birmingham or environs, so they would be proved at Birmingham.

That was not unique to the English trade. Colt revolvers of that era were marked "New York" even though they were made in Hartford, and many modern guns show the company headquarters address, not the address of the factory where they were actually made.

Jim

[Lo.Com.Denom]

I have the evil twin of your gun here, I believe.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=187908

I trawled through a lot of books, but came to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to identify it. The closest match I found was a Webley-Bentley, as illustrated on page 176 of Boothroyd's, "The Handgun".

So many copies, so many variations...

[ghp]

Lots of similarities, indeed. Main difference would be the grips.

Poor thing. Did you get it functioning again?

[Lo.Com.Denom]

Alas, no. The barrel wedge is completely rusted in place and the metal is so soft that we were denting it even when tapping it gently with a wooden mallet. Guess when he oldtimers spoke of "shootin' irons" they really did mean iron! I wouldn't have thought that this thing was safe to fire, even when brand new, let alone after 150 years of deterioration...

Your gun looks to be in very good condition, though -- I'm quite envious! Look after her, won't you?;)

[ghp]

Oh, but I do! It's making my girlfriend jealous.