16ga.com ~ View topic

*Last edited by Chicago on Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:27 pm; edited 3 times in total*

Much of this is standard vetting for any gun - American, Continental or English. Many of you have forgotten more about guns than I know. So, if I goof this up please chime in.

My suggestion to anyone who wants to purchase their first English gun is to find a gunsmith who is familiar with English guns and have them vet the gun for you. If you put a post here you would probably find a qualified smith in your neck of the woods.

Below are several images of a 16 bore back action Holland & Holland Royal Hammerless Ejector gun. The second image I liked because you could still see all the “safe” lettering in gold. Sometimes this is well worn. The first and third images I was not as wild about because it looked like the action has been brushed, possibly to remove rust or light pitting. The wood on this gun was either new or refinished and I don’t hold that against the condition. The wood to metal finish was tight and without gaps.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/EsRTwDK.jpg?1[/img]

The following images of the action and locks show that the serial numbers matched and these also matched the serial number on the barrels and tang. The serial number of the barrels does not always match because many English makers purchased barrels from outside sources. However, their records will reflect the original barrel number.

Many English gun companies have had their records retained either by the maker or a third party and some were destroyed in the war. Holland & Holland still has there records and I called the Dallas H&H gun room and asked them how the gun was originally delivered: barrel length, chokes, stock length, stock dimensions etc. It all matched except the stock lop and dimensions. The gun left H&H with a 15.5” lop in 1913 and this stock was 15.125”. So the stock was either cut or new at some point. I don’t mind a new stock as long as it is close in length to the original gun. In English Best guns you are paying for craftsmanship and the handling qualities should be the best you have ever held in your hands. If not I am not a buyer.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/caZxY1M.jpg?1[/img]

The signature on the above locks was probably the best indication that this gun was in fact a Royal Best gun. They are marked Joseph Brazier & Son and the lock maker only used the full name for their Best locks. Another maker of locks on these older guns was Chilton. H&H brought all production of their guns in house in 1897 and this gun left the factory in 1913, so why are the locks from Brazier 13 years after H&H brought all production in house? The gun is also marked a Royal and more on that later.

Barrels:
Well struck English barrels will be nicely tapered and chime like any good barrel. If they have pitting or for me a minimum wall thickness below .025 I take a pass. You can get the barrels sleeved but I am not a fan. Here are the barrels from this gun and they looked to be well tapered and properly marked.

Proof:
In England it is illegal to sell a gun that is out of proof. Unfortunately in the United States we do not proof guns and an English gun can be out of proof and still sold. English guns from the early 1900’s generally have 2.5” chambers and if they have 2 3/4” chambers they have been reamed out to fit American SAAMI ammo. Think cracked wood and wear on the action. This guns proof marks are from a later date than 1913 so we know they are not the original barrels. After sending information to Toby Barclay in England he was fairly certain these barrels were in fact commissioned by H&H. If recollection serves me the proof marks are for after 1953. I actually looked at the new barrels as a bonus because they were from the maker (properly marked) and post 1953 with .032 minimum wall thickness in both barrels.

There are numerous charts of English proof marks along with the era they were used on line. If you are interested in some basic knowledge they are a good source of information.

Wood:
Below is an image of the wood with the locks pulled and there is some sign of oil that could weaken the stock head. I didn’t think it looked too bad but I am no expert on that. I have my guns vetted by a gunsmith before I purchase them so my smith Dave would have educated me on that issue.

So why did I pass?
Remember the Jospeh Brazier & Son locks? Holland & Holland brought the production of all guns in house in 1897, so arguably any gun made post 1897 had Holland & Holland locks. This gun left the factory in 1913 so that seemed inconsistent. If you look back at the engraving on the fences you will see oak leafs and that seemed inconsistent with the tight rose and scroll on the rest of the action. These questions haunted me and that is why I contacted Toby Barclay in England. He is an expert on old back action guns. His take was this was a one off gun that someone ordered and they wanted an old back action style gun. He said the engraving was exactly what he would expect to see on a 1880’s Holland & Holland.

The seller represented that H&H was approached by the English Army and many officers wanted a Royal but could not afford the modern Royals of 1913. So H&H took some old parts and made these guns. This gun looks like a fancy H&H Dominion and I was concerned it was not built like a Royal. I shared this story with Toby and he indicated that if H&H marked the gun Royal then it was manufactured to a certain standard and it didn’t really mean the gun had to be a certain action with a self opener etc.

In the end I just couldn’t warm up to the old back action look, although at a certain level the uniqueness appealed to me. So I decided to take the money I would have spent on the H&H and restock the two 16 bore Army & Navy guns I already owned. One gun had a rather ugly extension put on to give me my 15 7/8” lop and the other stock fit one of my sons but not me.

So I end up with sort of a composed pair (guns are different grades). One is open choked for grouse and the other has tighter chokes for pheasant. The H&H would have primarily been a grouse gun (open chokes).

Below is one of the restocked Army & Navy 16 bores and the other gun’s stock is nearing completion. At first I didn’t like the tear drop treatment but I have warmed up to it. I went for a straight grain stock because that is what I have seen on stocks that were original on Army & Navy guns of the same grade back in 1907 when this gun was delivered.

You can see that this gun has a fair amount of original case color and the barrels I had reblacked along with the new stock. The action on the other 16 has gone silver and I will put a French case color on that gun so it more closely matches the below gun.

Although I didn’t end up purchasing the gun I had a blast researching London Best Guns. I learned about the Royal model and about English Best Locks. It also confirmed what has often been published that in English guns anything is possible. In this case a gun of early 1880’s vintage that was manufactured and delivered in 1913 in the exact style and with the very locks a Holland and Holland from the early 1880’s would have had. Did they still have extra locks from that era in 1913, maybe. Did they make them for the English junior officers or was it a one off gun - I don’t know. What I do know is that this was a Royal quality gun delivered in 1913 and the price was right.

Good Hunting,
Mike

Guest

Thanks, Mike. That was interesting.

Member Joined: 30 Nov 2011 Posts: 1696 Location: Minnesota

Really like your Army Navy. What stain/finish did you use on the stock?

Joined: 17 Jan 2014 Posts: 1377 Location: Denver, Colorado

First class job of "vetting"! I had a John Blanch from that era and loved it. Not sure that I could of passed on such a unique 16. Would that be a "Warthog" finish?

Joined: 12 Sep 2010 Posts: 1973 Location: Maine

Nice, informative post.

With English guns (and other nations' makes, too) there is often so much arcane information packed in that deep knowledge is necessary to make a good call whether to buy or not. More precisely, knowledge whether the gun is "right" or not makes all the difference when considering the substantial outlay involved in buying a gun such as the ones featured in the post. My take is that after guns costing about $1200-$1500 in today's dollars, most of the increase in value and price stems from the finer points of "rightness", which your post highlights.

I have my doubts about the story of Holland bowing to the requests of poorer junior officers to make them guns a certain way to meet a price point. That doesn't seem to have been their way back when and definitely is not, today. They're from the land of "if you can't afford it at our prices, too bad". Or, "if you can't afford it at our prices, why are you here?"

As with many of the finer things (and a lot of everyday ordinary things) if the price is too good to be true, it probably is. And the hardest thing to do when presented with an appealing item is to say "no" and walk away.

Joined: 04 Oct 2015 Posts: 280 Location: Clemson

Thank you for taking the time to post this good information.

Joined: 09 Feb 2020 Posts: 64 Location: Southern Illinois

Great thread Mike, thank you. I think you made a great choice, the A&N is lovely.

I think I've a crush, I've had the pic of the A&N open since I saw this thread, and look at it once or twice a day,,,,,,
Laughing