Is it possible for a Belgian SxS from the 1930's to only use black powder?

I

ihaveonequestion

New member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
this is a followup... sorta to a post i made about an old Belgian shotgun. anyway, im trying to find smokeless proof marks on it, but all i found was black powder. anyway, what is the chance a shotgun from (people from that thread guessed 1932) being only black powder rated? the only mark i don't understand is what looks like an R or K (it's hard to make out) with a star above it. Also someone told me to try using mini smokeless shells instead of black powder shells, i was wondering if that is a good idea or not...

and i know... get it inspected.
 
Short answer to your original question......yes, the Belgians continued to make really cheap (and poor quality) guns up until WW2 that were proofed for black powder only. This included not only shotguns but also muzzleloaders intended primarily for sale in isolated areas in Africa. Three likely reasons for this.
1. Nitro proof cost a little more. A cost saving measure for guns being sold where no nitro proof was required.
2. Many of these shoddy guns likely would fail nitro proof.
3. There was ( and still is) a brisk market for the cheapest guns that could be produced.
 
I made suggestion that the year code might be 1932 but who knows, maybe the inspector's initial was "K"? It has to fit with whatever else is known about the gun - for instance the history of the maker and their various names over time might help with the dating.
Can you remove the barrels and post a pic of the water table? That's the flat part of the receiver that the flats on underside of the barrels meet. More clues should be there.
 
I have a 28 gauge double barrel made by Liege United Arms. It only has black powder proofs. I asked about this on doublegun forum a few years ago as it was felt that the gun is from the early 50's. Below are some opinions I got at the time.

(Also while most did receive it I seem to recall that the Smokeless proof was not compulsory in Belgium. From the description of the marks it would appear your gun received the regular & superior provisional proofs & then the regular black powder definitive proof. Perhaps of course it was simply a mistake on the part of the stamper.)

(FAUL was formed in 1919 and was around until about 1959. It was a consolidation of Albert Simonis, Antoine Bertrand & fils, Pirlot & Frésart.

Miller is right about the typo...sorry.

There was no compulsory nitro proof required. Though I highly doubt this one is black powder only. All barrels were proofed for black powder, then returned to the maker. Once the gun was finished, it was presented for final proof. It would be this final proof when they did the nitro proof. )

(It appears to have been proofed around 1952-1953. If the gun is in good condition and checks out ok, I would use modern loads. I have a 28ga Pieper from the same era and shoot modern loads in it.)

(There were periods of confusion at the Belgian proof house. For example from 1899-1904. As others have stated, I have seen incomplete marks in the early 1950's as well. I am not sure what the cause. You found 2 controller marks because one controller was in charge when the barrels were proofed. A second had replaced him when the final gun was proofed. )
 
ihaveonequestion said:
this is a followup... sorta to a post i made about an old Belgian shotgun. anyway, im trying to find smokeless proof marks on it, but all i found was black powder. anyway, what is the chance a shotgun from (people from that thread guessed 1932) being only black powder rated? the only mark i don't understand is what looks like an R or K (it's hard to make out) with a star above it. Also someone told me to try using mini smokeless shells instead of black powder shells, i was wondering if that is a good idea or not...

and i know... get it inspected.
Click to expand...

Post pics here so we can have at it, rather than speculate about what may or may not be.

Once we've looked at the proofs we may be able to advise you on what is and isn't a good idea. If I were you and valued my hands, forearms and eyes, I'd hang off shooting it until you know what you have.

Edit: Sorry, just looked at your other thread. Hard to see very clearly in that pic. Take some chalk or other like material and rub in into the whole area of the marks and then wipe. That can sometimes make things much easier to read. Then take a decent photo that includes all marks and post again.
 
Last edited:
ry8LnOW.jpg
l6uLpyL.jpg


i don't have any chalk, i tried using wax paper but that didn't work... hopefully this is still helpful. the only one im not sure of is the "JL" and the one circled.
 
Appreciate the effort. I'm trying to see the totality of markings, not just the ones you think you can't read or decipher. Not just the barrel flats but anything on the barrels ahead of the flats and as John asked for, whatever may be on the action flats.
 
As mentioned in your other thread, the letter K and those other letters in red I don't believe are actual proof marks. I believe they are marks having to do with the barrels or with the making of the gun. Whether they are marks for who ever struck the barrels or factory id markings during assembly I'm not sure. I have or have had Belgian guns with similar type markings that I and others could not decipher or know the true meaning/purpose. The 18.2 is the dimension of the tubes when the barrels were made. In you other thread, it looked like there was a picture of an O with a star above it. That is the inspectors mark. The one pic also looked like it had the word choke in front of the 18.2. If so, that is just indicating that the muzzles have some degree of choke but actual constriction is not given.
 
Thanks. So none of there are nitro proof marks, then? I know for sure that this was made after 1924 because the black powder proof used was put into use that year... i think. So did they just not put one on it but it is? Like suggested by gunsaholic? Or is this some weird cheapo gun that only used black powder? And im guessing the "jl" is the company, or an abriviation for someones name, if anyone has any guesses to what it would mean
 
My gun. What I was saying it is believed mine is from the early 50's and it bears no nitro proof marks. One would surely think a gun from the 50's would be nitro proofed. That's why some of the guys who responded to my question think it was either just an error that it didn't get stamped with a nitro proof or because there was confusion at the time at the proof house regarding markings or rules.
 
ihaveonequestion said:
ah, ok. how would i know what the max load is then for it? or just take it in to get inspected?
Click to expand...

Okay, you are thinking about this the wrong way. You shouldn't be thinking in terms of max pressure, you should be thinking in terms of what is good to shoot through it, if anything. You have a gun that has some black powder proofs and no evidence of nitro proofs. You think the gun is fairly old because of it belonging to your great grandfather who was dead by 1950. I'll make the assumption it's fluid steel, not Damascus. I'll also assume the bores are decent with little to no serious pitting and the same on the exterior of the barrels, especially in the first 18" from the breech.

Get the barrel walls measured. Make sure minimum wall thicknesses meets appropriate standards and any gunsmith who can do the measuring knows what the standards are. Then shoot low pressure shells, either re-loads or low pressure factory. That DOES NOT MEAN TARGET LOADS!!!

If your barrels meets wall thickness minimums, even if you do shoot modern loads, you are highly unlikely to blow the barrels, unless you are shooting steel through a tight choke. But what you will do is crack and then break the head of the stock.

What all this boils down to is if you want to shoot vintage guns, educate yourself as to the pitfalls and understand the gun's limitations. Model T's don't do 120 mph, keep you warm in the winter or have a good stereo. But they still have their charm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom