Hudson’s Bay “The Imperial No. 200”: what did I buy?

Blastattack

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
144   0   0
Location
Winnipeg MB
Title says it all, really. I just bought an HBC Imperial No. 200. What can you tell me about it? Locks up tight, no rust, just normal wear for an old girl.

I know it says 2-1/2 chambers, but I set my bore gauge to .685 and it went almost exactly 3” deep. Safe to shoot normal, modern 20 out of?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7406.jpeg
    IMG_7406.jpeg
    132.7 KB · Views: 101
  • IMG_7407.jpeg
    IMG_7407.jpeg
    82.4 KB · Views: 102
  • IMG_7413.jpeg
    IMG_7413.jpeg
    83.1 KB · Views: 101
  • IMG_7412.jpeg
    IMG_7412.jpeg
    80.4 KB · Views: 106
  • IMG_7411.jpeg
    IMG_7411.jpeg
    68.4 KB · Views: 108
  • IMG_7410.jpeg
    IMG_7410.jpeg
    71.6 KB · Views: 99
  • IMG_7409.jpeg
    IMG_7409.jpeg
    77.2 KB · Views: 96
  • IMG_7408.jpeg
    IMG_7408.jpeg
    86.7 KB · Views: 100
The HBC marketed a variety of guns with the "Imperial" logo, muzzleloading single shots through double guns like yours. Different numbers were incorporated with the Imperial - Imperial No. 1, etc. I do not know if there is any definitive source listing all variations. One of mine is an Imperial Extra Special. It is a muzzleloading double.
These were made for them by various manufacturers. Most were decent, well made, middle of the road guns. Yours is in better condition than most. I think from the proof marks your gun was made between 1925 and 1954.
 
Last edited:
My father bought a 16 gauge SxS from the Hudson Bay in Calgary in the late 50's or early 60's. The make as marked - "Triumph"

It had 28 inch barrels with chokes 6 inches long and choked full and full. Double triggers with extractors. Beavertail forend. Made in Germany.

He could really reach out on passing ducks.

After he passed and after I started gunsmithing I cut the barrels to 24 inches and opened the chokes to improved cylinder and modified, altered the forcing cone considerably longer. I shot a lot of upland and ducks after that.

It had a bad habit of firing both barrels when magnum ammo was used... the shock of the first shell firing let the trigger fire the second shell... just a prolonged b a n g and the felt recoil was hard and the pheasant was destroyed, not worth picking up. After I became a gunsmith I fixed that.

Sold it in the 80's after I moved to Victoria. Wish I had it still.
 
Last edited:
Title says it all, really. I just bought an HBC Imperial No. 200. What can you tell me about it? Locks up tight, no rust, just normal wear for an old girl.

I know it says 2-1/2 chambers, but I set my bore gauge to .685 and it went almost exactly 3” deep. Safe to shoot normal, modern 20 out of?

Sure. Shoot modern ammo out of it. What could go wrong?

Well, here's a few things.

Whoever bored the chamber out to 3" did so excessively. At most it should have been 2 3/4" Now the question is to determine if it's unsafe. That starts by measuring the barrel wall thickness at the end of the new chamber. The most common reason lenghtening the chamber can create unsafe barrels is that the exterior of the barrels begin to taper while the new chamber does not. Thus thinning the barrel walls at the point of greatest pressure when you fire the gun. Barrel walls at chamber's end are typically .10" or more for a reason.

Without examining the proofs, hard to know if it was proofed for modern high pressure ammo (roughly 11,000 psi) or older lower pressure ammon (roughly 7,000 psi). How much do you like your eyes and fingers. Only you can decide what risk is worth while. If it was an American made gun, I'd be a little more chill about it. They tended to err on the sturdy side. Not necessarily so if English made. If it's English, best thing to do is compare the actual bore dimension to the bore dimension it was proofed at. If it's more than a .010 difference, you may have a problem.

How much do you like the stock? Do you want to have to repair or replace it? The most common cause of broken stocks in older guns is shooting modern ammo with modern recoil (sharp and fast compared to vintage ammo). The wood, dried out, pulling away from the action and concentrating the points of contact with the action into ever smaller areas, will give way. The only question is when.

When you say the chambers got reamed out to 3" it makes me concerned about what has been fired out of the gun. Was it regularly fed heavy recoiling 3" shells?

Frankly, I would have it inspected by a competent SxS gunsmith. Which is very different from a typically smith. Oh wait, you are in Winnipeg. I know from experience, there aren't any. Unless something has changed in the last 20 years. I wish you well with it. Could be a great gun. But could also not be a great gun. The biggest red flag to me from what you have posted is the 3" chambers. That indicates that previous owners didn't give a $hit about the gun. Or unknowingly turned it over to a gunsmith who didn't give a $hit about the gun. Probably had a line-up of scopes to mount and just wanted to get this old thing out of his shop.
 
3" from the breech, the barrel diameter is .864, which is within the .100 recommended above.

I may have been a bit confusing but....I'll try again.

The bore diameter, down it's full length, should be within .010 of the bore diameter when it was proofed. That would indicate the barrels have not been overly honed and thus made too thin. If the gun were in Britain and bores were out by over .010, the gun would be illegal to sell.

A completely separate issue is the specific barrel wall thickness measured at the end of the chambers. Typically that specific measurement is over .10". If it is less than .090" I personally would not use the gun with any ammo, never mind off the shelf modern ammo. The thinning of the barrels at that specific point is the reason why lengthening chambers is a risky move. The problem arises from boring out a constant dimension while the exterior of the barrels are tapering. Obviously, the longer the chambers are bored out to, the thinner the barrel becomes. At the specific point where internal pressures are highest.
 
- If the outside barrel diameter 3" from breech is .864"
- Subtract inside chamber diameter 3" from breech
- Divide that by two to determine barrel wall thickness at 3" from breech
- To be safe measure outside barrel diameter 3 1/4" from breech
 
If it says 2 1/2" chambers that is what it was intended for. If you want to test the limit's, butt it against a tree and put the biggest cartridges you have and set it off. If it was mine I wouldn't do the later.
Lost of 45/70 guns like that.
 
What if it takes 10 shots and blow up on 11th 3" shell? What is the point in stressing the old gun? Why not stick to 2-1/2" light loads?
I have no intention of shooting 3" shells, I just want to shoot 7/8 oz. 1200 fps target loads that I can buy from the store. Why not shoot 2-1/2"? Because they don't functionally exist.
 
But they do.
Sellier & Bellot Sport 12 Gauge 1-1/8oz. 2-1/2 inch 00 Buck 12 Gauge. Also there's a light recoil slug version.
But they might be producing more stress than 7/8 oz 2-3/4" you want to use.
 
Last edited:
I have no intention of shooting 3" shells, I just want to shoot 7/8 oz. 1200 fps target loads that I can buy from the store. Why not shoot 2-1/2"? Because they don't functionally exist.

The way shells are marketed this may not be obvious but.....a modern 3" shell and your proposed modest 7/8 oz target loads will generate the same peak pressure of around 11,000 to 11,500 psi. It is only on the recoil they will differ. Not that lesser recoil isn't a good thing. It's more that you are trying to deal with two completely separate problems that come from shooting the wrong ammo for the gun. Peak pressure and recoil are not related.

That said, you don't need a 2 1/2" shell. You already have the 3" chambers. What you need to do is confirm the pressures the gun was proofed for by deciphering the proofs, confirm the bores are within .010" of the proof diameter and make sure there is still sufficient metal in the barrel wall at the end of the new chamber. And by safe, I mean around .10" or more.

As an aside Challenger, a Canadian company, regularly makes a 2 1/2" low pressure target load and they are probably the best priced 2 1/2" low pressure shell. Winchester makes the AA Low Noise, Low Pressure shell in 2 3/4" which would work fine, although they are a bit slow at just under 1000 fps.
 
Last edited:
Just a comment about test firing...
I use sandbags. I have a collection of them made from cut off legs of worn out pants. Turn the leg inside out, close the cut end with a zap strap. Reverse. Fill a plastic bag with sand, kitty litter, etc. Seal it. After putting the plastic sand bag in the cloth bag, close the hemmed end with another zap strap. The plastic bag reduces leakage, keeps the sand dry.
I put some sandbags on the ground or bench. Bags behind to absorb recoil. Bags on top to hold the gun down. Make sure it is pointed in a safe direction. The gun won't be scratched, it can recoil somewhat.
Dry fire a few times with the cord attached to the trigger, make sure its going to work.
 
Back
Top Bottom