Help with Belgian proof marks on a big bore percussion muzzleloader.

[Ironoxide]

Hi,

I've pulled a trigger on a very cheap online purchase of a single shot big bore smooth barrelled percussion muzzle loader. I intend to shoot it with shot for fun, but at the same time I'm interested in finding out as much as possible about the history of this gun.

The only marks I can see on the photos (I'll have the gun in about a week time) are (starting from breech area) number 18, number 20.4 (perhaps original bore diameter?), a Belgian provisional proof mark

and three tiny marks that look like letters or digits, but can't be recognised (perhaps a three digit serial number).

The bore diameter is allegedly 21mm, but I can imagine the previous owner made a mistake in measurement and perhaps it is 20.4mm which would make it a 9 bore.

The barrel is heavy octagon transitioning to round. The picture of the underside of the back of the barrel is here:

The main thing that confuses me about this gun is that it has the Belgian provisional proof mark, but no definite proof mark. I read somewhere this particular mark was stamped on barrels blanks and the definite proof was stamped on finished barrels "if they required second proof". I'm not sure what that means exactly. All examples I saw online had the letters ELG as a definite proof, but at the same time all those examples were breech loaders not muzzleloaders. I'm quite puzzled by the fact this mark is missing. My first idea was that perhaps the barrel came from a breech loading gun and someone cut off the breech area that contained the mark when it was being converted to muzzle loader. However, this seems a bit far fetched. Why would anyone convert a breech loading gun to a muzzleloader back then? Also, the way the nipple is installed and the way the stock is suggests that it was made by someone who knows what they were doing - not an amateur.

Also, the numbers 18 and 20.4. I can understand 20.4. It may be the bore diameter in mm. I'll find out when I get the gun, but 18? My initial thought was that maybe it started as a 13 bore which matches 18mm diameter, but then this would be a very heavy barrel for a 13 bore gun. This explanation also seems unlikely to me.

Finally those tiny markings - three digits or letters. The original owner thought this is a serial number. Perhaps he is right.

Can anyone shed any light if those provisional marks were ever used without the definite proof mark, please? Also, any ideas about those other numbers?

I'm attaching two photos of the gun below (the ramrod and the nipple are not original).

 

[TFoley]

Where are the rest of the proof marks, please?

 

[Ironoxide]

Where are the rest of the proof marks, please?

This is what I too would like to know. There are no more.

 

[bang]

Document I have shows the posted mark to be for black powder proof Liege since 1852.

 

[TFoley]

I have a number of concerns about this piece. The 18 is likely to be the bore in mm - 12g in our parlance. The 20.4 MAY also be the bore, measured at a different date. The lack of completing proof marks - no ELG or Perron - is also of concern. No inspector's stamps in the form of initials, either. And the upside-down 3 5 1 [?] - not a clue. ALL the stamps I've mentioned are required by LAW to appear on any firearm made in Liége. It's not a matter of 'let's leave a couple out, nobody will notice', the all-powerful gunmakers' guild of Liége would not let it happen. I'm starting to think that this is a made-up piece, particularly seeing the apparent lack of any ornamentation on the lock - VERY odd, IMO, given the time-frame.

 

[Ironoxide]

Hmm, the bore measured by the owner is allegedly 21mm. I was thinking that perhaps someone took a barrel off a Liege made gun and made this muzzleloader. Alternatively, maybe someone got hold of a Belgian barrel blank with a provisional proof. Made a gun and didn't bother proofing it. No idea.

If this looks like a modern made up piece, perhaps I should reconsider buying it. The seller hasn't posted it yet. The price is pretty low at $300. I've been looking for a while for some original muzzleloaders online and everything I found so far in this price range was a rusted/pitted mess. So I thought this is worth a shot. What do you think?

 

[bang]

Did they make stocks with cheek rest on these older rifles?
Too me the stock looks like a hawken that the butt was shaved flat and the barrel trough reshaped for that barrel. But then I'm not that informed to the history of Belgian builds.

 

[Ironoxide]

I told the seller to hold on. The missing ELG is really making me think this is as you called it a "made up piece". Although I wanted it to shoot for fun I would prefer a gun I can sell in future and recover at least some of the purchase price with clear conscience that I'm not taking a part in misrepresenting an inconsistently marked gun as an original.

It is a real shame, for some reason I can't seem to find any good quality original muzzleloaders. The only one that is not a pile of rust turns out to be probably a fake.

 

[bang]

Though it may not have that much military history I picked up a never fired Ranson Remington Italian Zouave 3 groove on gunbroker 371 shipped. Great for me. I will not pay over 400 for any reproduction bp. Super accurate.
It was posted less than a day. I snatched it up.
Have seen other over the last several months. They don't last long.
May not carry resale or profit in short run but as these guns become scarce it should. By scarce I'm referring to less and less young people getting into bp. Probably lead to drop in manufacturing eventually.

 

[Ironoxide]

It turns out the gun does have the final proof mark, just on the side of the barrel.

Now we're just missing the inspector letter. I'm hoping it is somewhere else, or semi scratched off perhaps.

This makes me consider taking the risk on the gun I think. The seller is happy to wait for my decision till tomorrow as he hasn't got any other potential buyers anyway.

 

[bang]

It turns out the gun does have the final proof mark, just on the side of the barrel.
View attachment 14237

Now we're just missing the inspector letter. I'm hoping it is somewhere else, or semi scratched off perhaps.

This makes me consider taking the risk on the gun I think. The seller is happy to wait for my decision till tomorrow as he hasn't got any other potential buyers anyway.

The one close to that in my doc for Belgian has a crown over it. The one you show matches British proof same house.

 

[Ironoxide]

I found info online the one with crown was used post 1893 and not for muzzleloaders. The ELG mark on the side of the barrel looks like the second one on this picture:

The one you show matches British proof same house.

Sorry, I don't know which mark you mean. I looked at this doc with British marks and none appears similar:

 

[bang]

I found info online the one with crown was used post 1893 and not for muzzleloaders. The ELG mark on the side of the barrel looks like the second one on this picture.

Sorry, I don't know which mark you mean. I looked at this doc with British marks and none appears similar:

Well that is odd. The one I have shows the ELG/* for Belgian has a crown on top and the ELG/* without crown for British. Also missing is more details. Guess I better update it. Live n learn.

 

[Ironoxide]

Though it may not have that much military history I picked up a never fired Ranson Remington Italian Zouave 3 groove on gunbroker 371 shipped. Great for me. I will not pay over 400 for any reproduction bp. Super accurate.
It was posted less than a day. I snatched it up.
Have seen other over the last several months. They don't last long.
May not carry resale or profit in short run but as these guns become scarce it should. By scarce I'm referring to less and less young people getting into bp. Probably lead to drop in manufacturing eventually.

Great. I wish we had a market like this here in EU. Other than local Polish auction and buy/sell sites with lots of replicas and an occasional badly rusted original I know only about egun.de. The problem with egun is that it is filled with very rusted wall hangers that go for 600-1000 EUR (that's $670 to $1120). For example this Prussian musket someone rotated the breech plug in http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=7592872#img There are no pictures showing the condition of the bore. The breech plug may be well seized in this semi rotated state and still there are 47 bids and current price is 571EUR ($630).

Or this English single barrel fowler http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=7594892 No pictures showing condition of the bore are shown. There is some rust outside in the nipple area suggesting there may be more in the barrel. There is no mention of the manufacturer in the listing. Still we have 6 bids and 925EUR ($1021) price.

Finally this Shutzen rifle made by Muller in Bern http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=7598759 At least there are pictures showing bore condition. It is rusted, but no pitting is visible in the barrel, but it is well pitted next to the nipple and there is an uneven gap between the breech plug and barrel suggesting perhaps a diy gunsmith was at it with the rifle. There is also a "small matter" of the front tunnel sight being on the left side of the barrel. To me this looks like an aftermath of some weird repair that ended up with the barrel being rotated right and a new breech plug fitted badly. Still we have 6 bids and 271EUR ($300). Bonkers!

 

[TFoley]

Well that is odd. The one I have shows the ELG/* for Belgian has a crown on top and the ELG/* without crown for British. Also missing is more details. Guess I better update it. Live n learn.

Yessir, you is mistook greatly. And BTW, there are, strictly speaking, NO British proof marks, but only English, as both proof houses are in England. There is one in London and another in Birmingham. The Dublin proof house has been gone over a hundred years.

 

[Zonie]

Although it doesn't seem to apply to the gun in the OP's post, it is fairly common to see both Belgian and UK proofs on old guns.

If a gun is to be used in the UK, as I understand it, the gun must pass a UK proof test and be stamped if it is successful. This is true even if the gun was proofed in another country like Belgium. This results in proof marks from both countries being stamped on the barrel.

 

[TFoley]

Although it doesn't seem to apply to the gun in the OP's post, it is fairly common to see both Belgian and UK proofs on old guns.

If a gun is to be used in the UK, as I understand it, the gun must pass a UK proof test and be stamped if it is successful. This is true even if the gun was proofed in another country like Belgium. This results in proof marks from both countries being stamped on the barrel.

Correct, Sir. Before the CIP agreement came into existence, EVERY firearm intended for sale in the UK was subjected to the same proof as one made here. This is especially true in the case of countries that do not have a national proof house, then, and now. So EVERY firearm produced in the USA sold in the UK or any other of the fourteen CIP signature nations has to be proofed iaw the rules of proof. As you note, during the latter part of the 19th C and well into the 20th C, guns were made in Belgium for the English trade bore both countries proof stamps. the barrels and water tables of these guns could make an interesting read if you got stuck for something to do whilst standing at a lonely peg on some G*d-forsaken upland moor in the rain and 50 mph gale.

 

[Ironoxide]

I finally received the piece and my unhappy surprise with the condition of the stock (shoddily repaired partial crack of the wrist, two non-walnut wood inserts that were not visible on photos) and few non original screws was somewhat offset by discovery that the barrel indeed does have an inspection mark too. Is is a tiny F with a crown on top. So despite the poor condition of the stock I decided not to return the gun, but to use it for training in how to repair wood in future.

I've looked at the barrel very closely outside and inside with a borescope. I found only few shalowly pitted places outside and no pitting inside. I tested that the bore diameter is consistent, but it appears not to match the marking of 20.4 on the barrel. The actual bore diameter is 21.2 or 0.835 so the marking indicates 9 bore white the reality is exactly 8 bore. The barrel has plenty of metal left with outside diameter of 21.6 (0.850 inch) at the thinnest and pretty thick at breech end. I'm planning to proof it again (remotely - pulling on a bit of cord).

Does anyone know what loads were used to originally proof 8 bore smoothbores?

Also, what looks like number 18 on previous photos is actually a rather strange symbol. This is how it looks like under a microscope:

Does anyone know what that might be? To me this looks similar to a sideways crown or maybe Russian letter Я? About what looks like a comma or what is next to it I have no idea.

 

[TFoley]

Does anyone know what loads were used to originally proof 8 bore smoothbores?

I'm sorry to admit that I can't help you with the odd stamp - it does not fit any Belgian or British crown shape.

However, I CAN help you with the proof loads under the Belgian Proof Rules of 1846 and 53 - covering the putative era during which your gun was likely made. Your figure is in bold...

Gauge 1st Proof 2nd Proof

6 28 grams 18 grams
8 26 - 17 -
10 24 - 16 -
12 22 - 15 -
14 20 - 13 -
16 18 - 12 1/2
18 17 - 12 grams
20 16 - 12 -
22 15 - 11 -
24 14 - 10 1/2
26 13 - 9 1/2
28 12 - 8 1/2

1 gram = 15.4gr. Your First proof load will be 160gr of whatever you use in a shotgun - probably 3Fg.

Over to you.

 

[Ironoxide]

Thanks TFoley. Do you happen to know if this load is used with a round ball, or with a certain amount of shot? If shot, what would be an adequate amount for an 8 bore?

I'm leaning towards thinking this strange stamp is a maker mark, but there is no directory of marks like this to browse I know about unfortunately.