Thank yall for the info. For the price I paid, It didn’t need to be real or shootable. But I think it’s both. If she checks out safe with a smith I’m gonna hunt something with it next year.
First of all this is not a Westley Richards gun. It's not a knock off either.
It is a William Henry Richards, 27 Oldhall St, Liverpool circa 1878-1894, ref Nigel Brown, British Gunmakers Volume Two - Birmingham, Scotland & the Regions, pg 317.
Damasacus-twist-mandrel wound-pattern welded barrels. Safe to Shoot? Maybe, maybe not.
XRay inspection is the best way to check the barrels for inclusions. Magnaflux will identify surface cracks only. Inclusions are the danger in these type barrels.
I would be more concerned about action lock up. Without looking at the gun in person, I can not see how it locks up. There is no birds head for top lock up.
You can check to see if it is off face, by pulling down on the barrels an see if the gaps between barrel and action widen. Not good if there are gaps, especially ones the widen.
As to hammers. Agree the left may be a replacement. Something is up with the right hammer also, it doesn't align with firing pin very well. It may be bent. But there is somethin else about the hammer that says this not a good quality gun. The checkering is very poor quality.
This gun with out the inspection of a very knowledgeable Double Rifle person, is a gun to pass on.
I agree whole heartedly with AHall, as usual he knows what he is talking about. Listen to him.
You might find better help at https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=1&page=1
It is a William Henry Richards, 27 Oldhall St, Liverpool circa 1878-1894, ref Nigel Brown, British Gunmakers Volume Two - Birmingham, Scotland & the Regions, pg 317.
Damasacus-twist-mandrel wound-pattern welded barrels. Safe to Shoot? Maybe, maybe not.
XRay inspection is the best way to check the barrels for inclusions. Magnaflux will identify surface cracks only. Inclusions are the danger in these type barrels.
I would be more concerned about action lock up. Without looking at the gun in person, I can not see how it locks up. There is no birds head for top lock up.
You can check to see if it is off face, by pulling down on the barrels an see if the gaps between barrel and action widen. Not good if there are gaps, especially ones the widen.
As to hammers. Agree the left may be a replacement. Something is up with the right hammer also, it doesn't align with firing pin very well. It may be bent. But there is somethin else about the hammer that says this not a good quality gun. The checkering is very poor quality.
This gun with out the inspection of a very knowledgeable Double Rifle person, is a gun to pass on.
I agree whole heartedly with AHall, as usual he knows what he is talking about. Listen to him.
You might find better help at https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=1&page=1
That is good to know! Thank you! It sounds like proving this gun is safe to fire will cost more than the gun. Maybe this one will go on the wall. I guess i'll just have to adopt another old gun to shoot things with.
Great, now I need to buy some more books. Thanks D.
The proof marks were all in use during Double D's production dates of 1878 to 1894.
All the proofs are from Birmingham, which also corelates to Double D's reference.
The "Choke" stamp came was use around 1887 so:
The gun dates should date from 1887 to 1894.
Nitrocellulose based powders were just starting to enter the market when this gun was produced.
The proof tables I found don't show any English nitro proof marks for guns of that era. The nitro proofs show up around 1896. So, we should conclude the barrels were not engineered, manufactured, or proved for smokeless powder.
WW Greeners book, and others from the era discuss the dangers of shooting nitro powder the older guns and the potentially catastrophic results. The articles were about top end guns, and the changes in shell geometry we discussed earlier did not exist yet. The black powder era guns were simply proved at lower pressures. When the nitrocellulose-based shells hit the market, some older guns could take more, and others ruptured. Granted, the smokeless powders of that era were a bit less predictable and less stable than what we use today, but they still had issues with black powder proved guns blowing up with smokeless loads, and this gun was not reproved for smokeless ammo.
Bottom line is it was never intended for today's ammo.
Also, it has appears to have a "false" dolls head engraved at the top of the standing breach. The retailer may have wanted the gun to appear to have dolls head for marketing reasons but not wanted the extra manufacturing cost.
Burmingham trade gun with a more prestigious London address on the barrel.
A name on the barrel stamp easily mistaken for a more prominent maker,
Engraving to mimic higher cost features.
Are we seeing a pattern?
It was probably sound in its day with the loads it was intended for, but
I would not advise shooting it today.
The other marks
Diamond 16 is the gage - 16
Crossed stamp with a V at the bottom and crown at top is the visual inspection
Crossed samp with a Crown, B, P, and C arranged counterclockwise is the final black powder proof.
The crown over script BP is a temporary proof
So cool old gun, best used as a wall hanger.
The proof marks were all in use during Double D's production dates of 1878 to 1894.
All the proofs are from Birmingham, which also corelates to Double D's reference.
The "Choke" stamp came was use around 1887 so:
The gun dates should date from 1887 to 1894.
Nitrocellulose based powders were just starting to enter the market when this gun was produced.
The proof tables I found don't show any English nitro proof marks for guns of that era. The nitro proofs show up around 1896. So, we should conclude the barrels were not engineered, manufactured, or proved for smokeless powder.
WW Greeners book, and others from the era discuss the dangers of shooting nitro powder the older guns and the potentially catastrophic results. The articles were about top end guns, and the changes in shell geometry we discussed earlier did not exist yet. The black powder era guns were simply proved at lower pressures. When the nitrocellulose-based shells hit the market, some older guns could take more, and others ruptured. Granted, the smokeless powders of that era were a bit less predictable and less stable than what we use today, but they still had issues with black powder proved guns blowing up with smokeless loads, and this gun was not reproved for smokeless ammo.
Bottom line is it was never intended for today's ammo.
Also, it has appears to have a "false" dolls head engraved at the top of the standing breach. The retailer may have wanted the gun to appear to have dolls head for marketing reasons but not wanted the extra manufacturing cost.
Burmingham trade gun with a more prestigious London address on the barrel.
A name on the barrel stamp easily mistaken for a more prominent maker,
Engraving to mimic higher cost features.
Are we seeing a pattern?
It was probably sound in its day with the loads it was intended for, but
I would not advise shooting it today.
The other marks
Diamond 16 is the gage - 16
Crossed stamp with a V at the bottom and crown at top is the visual inspection
Crossed samp with a Crown, B, P, and C arranged counterclockwise is the final black powder proof.
The crown over script BP is a temporary proof
So cool old gun, best used as a wall hanger.
Last edited:
My old Damascus double shotgun made by someone for a hardware store gun actually shot black powder shells very well but you couldn’t see if you hit what you were shooting at.
Had a friend in the business that magna fluxed it for me to see if any cracks in the barrels were evident. They were not, but still wouldn’t fire because the percussion cap nipples were mushroomed, not allowing a cap to be mounted.
I’m kind of an amateur machinist, so built some new nipples from stainless steel.
The gun was one of mine stolen 30 years ago from the home.
Every gun show or auction I go to, always on the lookout for those SS nipples. That’s the identification marker given to LEO as there was no S/N.
Had a friend in the business that magna fluxed it for me to see if any cracks in the barrels were evident. They were not, but still wouldn’t fire because the percussion cap nipples were mushroomed, not allowing a cap to be mounted.
I’m kind of an amateur machinist, so built some new nipples from stainless steel.
The gun was one of mine stolen 30 years ago from the home.
Every gun show or auction I go to, always on the lookout for those SS nipples. That’s the identification marker given to LEO as there was no S/N.
Similar threads
