W. Richards Shotgun

[tkendrick]

I recently acquired an old double 12 guage, and am trying to get some info on the maker and possibly the history and date of manufacture.

It has back action percusion style locks, an under swivel lock where the forearm would be on a more modern gun, and the only markings I can find are W. Richards stamped on the locks.

I do not believe this was made by Westley Richards in England, I'm pretty sure it was made somewhere in New England during the black powder era, but can't find any references to a W. Richards in any of my reference material.

Any ideas?

 

[Jim Watson]

I'd look for Belgian proof marks. There were all manner of cheap guns made with variations on name brands, hoping the stupid colonials would take them as the real thing. Westley Richards never marked a gun W. Richards in this case.

 

[BigG]

It's interesting how times change. In the early years of the twentieth century, Belgian manufacturers had the same shoddy reputation of the Japanese following WWII, now look at em.

 

[Jim K]

The shoddy reputation of Japanese products was actually before WWII, which is one reason the U.S. never took seriously a Japanese threat to the U.S. No one believed that a nation that made only cheap trinkets could produce aircraft carriers and fighter planes.

As to Belgium, many Belgian makers always had good reputations; for example, FN, Pieper, Bayard, and Nagant were well known for quality products. But the Liege area was home to hundreds of small makers who produced, individually or in combination with others, a lot of lesser quality guns, mainly shotguns and cheap revolvers. Many were at least worth the low prices charged, but others were complete junk from day one.

However, the W. Richards guns are not Belgian, they are American, made by Crescent. See:

http://www.briley.com/articles/grampas_shotgun.html

The upshot is that the shotgun in question has very little value, most probably has Damascus barrels, and should not be fired. It can be made into a wall hanger, but I strongly recommend it be made unusable by removal of the firing pins and welding the holes.

If it is an heirloom, you can always tell folks how your great, great something or other shot "Native Americans" with it, or defended the Overland Stage.

Jim

 

[Ron James]

However, I beleve those marked Wm. Richards instead of W. Richards were in fact make in Belgium. Could be wrong.

 

[tkendrick]

the shotgun in question has very little value, most probably has Damascus barrels, and should not be fired. It can be made into a wall hanger, but I strongly recommend it be made unusable by removal of the firing pins and welding the holes.

Crescent Arms. That doesn't surprise me a bit, I have 2 other old doubles with obscure names on them and both were made by Crescent.

As to the value, you're right. That was one of the reasons I bought it, It looks like a good restoration project, all the parts are there, although somewhat worn, and the barrels are in good shape.

Have disagree with you on shooting Damascus guns, provided they are in good shape. Been doing it for years. Key is to use the right ammo. Black powder charges and don't stick 2 3/4 inch shells in a 2 1/2 or 2 5/8 inch chamber.

My personal opinion is that more of those guns were destroyed by using over-length shells than by shooting smokeless loads in them. It's near the same as shooting with an obstructed bore.

 

[Jim K]

I hope you never have a problem with Damascus barrels, and you may not if you fire only guns with top quality barrels and stick to black powder. But I have seen too many Damascus barrels that you could literally see light through, and I have poked through a couple with a scribe point. I warned one man not to fire his gun. He came in the next week with a bandage on his left hand and parts of three fingers missing.

The concern with smokeless is not that smokeless loads have much higher pressure, but that the progressive nature of the powder keeps the pressure high further out. That means that there is still a lot of pressure where the barrel gets thin, which is right where the off-hand is gripping the thin fore-end.

I have heard the same argument from others, and as I said, I agree to a point, but I will stick with a general recommendation that guns with Damascus barrels not be fired.

Jim