My new Greener w/Pics
- Thread starter lowman292
- Start date
This is my new W.W. Greener shotgun. I don't know too much about it but it came highly recomended by a friend of mine who knows old SxSs. I paid $560 all in. If anyone can tell me anything about it that would be great. As you can see in the pics the only real issues it has are the small crack behind the trigger guard and the missing piece in the forestock.
Last edited:
When you go into your album and hold your mouse over a picture, you get four links to choose from. Click the one called "IMG code". The link will then automatically copy to your clipboard. Then you just right click and paste it into a post window here. Rinse and repeat for each picture in the same window with spaces in between if you want to add descriptions. 
Ahsan Ahmed
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Great acquisition! Based on what is visible in the images - looks like you have got a good deal there provided the bbls/bores are in sound condition (I'm assuming those are in good shape as well).
Judging at least by the screwheads visible on one side and at the top - the receiver may not have been fiddled with at all or carelessly for that matter which is a good thing. The top lever is still a little off to the right with the cross-bolt poking out which is also a good thing in terms of tight lockup.
You can also check to feel if there is any looseness/movement - grab the bbls with one hand and the pistol grip with another and attempt to "wring" the gun (gently). Repeat the procedure but with the forend off this time. No need to put much force into the twisting motion though.
Appears to me that the shotgun has been neglected/abused quite a bit in view of the fact that the production period doesn't go too far back in time (1985-1997).
Another best (long term) investment on your part would be to have the shotgun checked over end-to-end by a competent gunsmith and have the stockhead and that forend tip repaired.....looks like small cracks have formed on the left side of the forend as well. If the intent would be to hunt Waterfowl as well, then I would use something like Kent TM unless that gunsmith has declared those bbls/chokes safe for steel. Needless to say, the crack(s) will need to be addressed initially.
Any idea on choke constrictions? Would you mind sharing a clear image of the action flats (watertable) too? BTW, what is the length of those bbls?
Judging at least by the screwheads visible on one side and at the top - the receiver may not have been fiddled with at all or carelessly for that matter which is a good thing. The top lever is still a little off to the right with the cross-bolt poking out which is also a good thing in terms of tight lockup.
You can also check to feel if there is any looseness/movement - grab the bbls with one hand and the pistol grip with another and attempt to "wring" the gun (gently). Repeat the procedure but with the forend off this time. No need to put much force into the twisting motion though.
Appears to me that the shotgun has been neglected/abused quite a bit in view of the fact that the production period doesn't go too far back in time (1985-1997).
Another best (long term) investment on your part would be to have the shotgun checked over end-to-end by a competent gunsmith and have the stockhead and that forend tip repaired.....looks like small cracks have formed on the left side of the forend as well. If the intent would be to hunt Waterfowl as well, then I would use something like Kent TM unless that gunsmith has declared those bbls/chokes safe for steel. Needless to say, the crack(s) will need to be addressed initially.
Any idea on choke constrictions? Would you mind sharing a clear image of the action flats (watertable) too? BTW, what is the length of those bbls?
That was the best shot of the watertable i could get, my camera is not great. I tried "wringing" it in both spots and it is very solid. No movement at all. What do all the little crowns mean? Are you sure it is post 1985? I had it checked out by a gunsmith. He said the cracks on forend were no too bad but the one on the stockhead could be fixed. The barrel is very bright and shiny. I am pretty sure its full bore on the first barrel and improved cylander on the second.
Not to sound negative, but be careful here!
The 3" is not a British mark, I beleive it to have been done by BUBBA when he cut the chambers. Special tools are required to measure the thickness of the barrel, special attention must be paid to the area at the end of new chamber and the forcing cones, I beleive 0.080 is the rule of thumb for use with non magnun 2 3/4 inch ammo.
Also note how the 1 1/4 oz proof mark has been overstruck to look like 1 1/2.
The 12 over C in the diamond indicates a 12 gauge chamber of standard length ( 2 1/2 inches), later that same mark would mean 2 3/4 inches but would be accompanied by other marks.
The crack infront of the safety is common to guns with a side safety, but is problematic (minute change in position of safety block due to crack may prevent safety from blocking triggers), do not trust that safety until crack is addressed by a pro.
That is the "Empire" model, it was made very plainly and inexpensively exclusively for export to "the colonies" Although it did incorporate the "Greener crossbolt" it did not incorporate any of Greener's other proprietary and expensive attributes (Facile Princepes, ejectors) nor costly decorative embelishments such as engraving etc.
If inspection by a SXS smith verifies it's mechanical condition is suitable for use, it should provide many years of service with appropriate ammo.
Enjoy
The 3" is not a British mark, I beleive it to have been done by BUBBA when he cut the chambers. Special tools are required to measure the thickness of the barrel, special attention must be paid to the area at the end of new chamber and the forcing cones, I beleive 0.080 is the rule of thumb for use with non magnun 2 3/4 inch ammo.
Also note how the 1 1/4 oz proof mark has been overstruck to look like 1 1/2.
The 12 over C in the diamond indicates a 12 gauge chamber of standard length ( 2 1/2 inches), later that same mark would mean 2 3/4 inches but would be accompanied by other marks.
The crack infront of the safety is common to guns with a side safety, but is problematic (minute change in position of safety block due to crack may prevent safety from blocking triggers), do not trust that safety until crack is addressed by a pro.
That is the "Empire" model, it was made very plainly and inexpensively exclusively for export to "the colonies" Although it did incorporate the "Greener crossbolt" it did not incorporate any of Greener's other proprietary and expensive attributes (Facile Princepes, ejectors) nor costly decorative embelishments such as engraving etc.
If inspection by a SXS smith verifies it's mechanical condition is suitable for use, it should provide many years of service with appropriate ammo.
Enjoy
greener
im with mark on this, ceartainly in my reasearch on greeners with the exception of the farkiller model, they were chambered for a 3" brass or paper cased cartridge, your gun has been remarked by another person, ceartainly not within british proof, 3" guns are very rare in england, 90% are 2 1/2" proofed for 1 1/8- 1 1/4oz loads, also some were 2 3/4" chambers, i wouldnt be pounding todays 3" ammo in that gun, and get that crack adressed is right, wouldnt want the gun to faulter on the safety for sure
i think its a decent gun, but its been altered
also notice behing the " mark, there is another faintly visable behind it,
gun has been re stamped, not a good sign
im with mark on this, ceartainly in my reasearch on greeners with the exception of the farkiller model, they were chambered for a 3" brass or paper cased cartridge, your gun has been remarked by another person, ceartainly not within british proof, 3" guns are very rare in england, 90% are 2 1/2" proofed for 1 1/8- 1 1/4oz loads, also some were 2 3/4" chambers, i wouldnt be pounding todays 3" ammo in that gun, and get that crack adressed is right, wouldnt want the gun to faulter on the safety for sure
i think its a decent gun, but its been altered
also notice behing the " mark, there is another faintly visable behind it,
gun has been re stamped, not a good sign
X3 That may be the reason for the crack at the receiver.These guns were not meant to handle 3" shells.
That Greener was made before 1925 at sometime in it's life the chambers have been lengthened and the "Smith" over stamped the 1 1/4 load to 1 1/2 oz. Then added the 3". The gun lacks the re-proof marks which is a crown over an R. I would Not shoot 3" shells out of that gun.
Ahsan Ahmad says "Appears to me that the shotgun has been neglected/abused quite a bit in view of the fact that the production period doesn't go too far back in time (1985-1997)."
Win/65 says "That Greener was made before 1925"
I am getting conflicting info on the date of production here.
Also, what is your opinion of the Price I paid? Is it worth gettting it completly redone?
Win/65 says "That Greener was made before 1925"
I am getting conflicting info on the date of production here.
Also, what is your opinion of the Price I paid? Is it worth gettting it completly redone?
Last edited:
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
There's no way that gun is post 1985. Mine is almost identical except it has a straight grip and it was dated 1913, I think by Mark.
Nice Greener. I think this gun did not leave the factory chambered for 3" as it has the standard 12 over C and not the 12 over LC proof mark, I may be wrong. Greener made very good guns and you cannot go wrong for the price you paid for it...
The gun we are discussing is made on the A&D action. Few pictures of my Greener made in 1893 on the Greener's proprietary Facile Princeps action.
The gun we are discussing is made on the A&D action. Few pictures of my Greener made in 1893 on the Greener's proprietary Facile Princeps action.
Ahsan Ahmed
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
It is always interesting to look at examples of such nature. Frankly, I’m quite intrigued by that Greener specimen in the limelight at this point in time.
As naïve as it may seem on my part, the thought never occurred to me regarding the presence of Brit shotguns here that may have had their original proof marks “doctored” at some point in the past by a bubba figure……
Given some of the visuals of the shotgun in question, I also thought it strange indeed (not to mention confusing) that the date stamp on that firearm is (supposedly) from a recent past period – letter at left of crossed swords with C at right and inspector's number at bottom – representative of the production period 1985 – 1997.
Nevertheless, peering at the stamps on the bbl – what is apparent to me is the fact that the firearm bears a mix of Birmingham and London proofs and may lend to some confusion in the process of interpretation?
The barrels do bear the stamp of a reproof (London house). Moreover, allow me to draw your attention to the following URL pointing to other pertinent data – obviously such verification would be subject to the info displayed therein as being completely authentic (info on the internet being what it is). However, please consider those stamps indicating gauge, chamber length etc as cited on the page and share your thoughts…..
http://proofmarks.tripod.com/englishproofs.html
I strongly concur with the suggestion that the firearm ought to be throughly inspected (prior to any use) and by a smith who would be more than adaquately qualified for offering info concerning English shotguns.
As naïve as it may seem on my part, the thought never occurred to me regarding the presence of Brit shotguns here that may have had their original proof marks “doctored” at some point in the past by a bubba figure……
Given some of the visuals of the shotgun in question, I also thought it strange indeed (not to mention confusing) that the date stamp on that firearm is (supposedly) from a recent past period – letter at left of crossed swords with C at right and inspector's number at bottom – representative of the production period 1985 – 1997.
Nevertheless, peering at the stamps on the bbl – what is apparent to me is the fact that the firearm bears a mix of Birmingham and London proofs and may lend to some confusion in the process of interpretation?
The barrels do bear the stamp of a reproof (London house). Moreover, allow me to draw your attention to the following URL pointing to other pertinent data – obviously such verification would be subject to the info displayed therein as being completely authentic (info on the internet being what it is). However, please consider those stamps indicating gauge, chamber length etc as cited on the page and share your thoughts…..
http://proofmarks.tripod.com/englishproofs.html
I strongly concur with the suggestion that the firearm ought to be throughly inspected (prior to any use) and by a smith who would be more than adaquately qualified for offering info concerning English shotguns.
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
gunsaholic
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
When you first posted about this gun I assumed it would be an older one and that was why I said I would be leary if it had 3" chambers. Many older guns have had the chambers lengthened so if there is enough "meat" left in the forcing cone area it should be okay. Price wise you did okay if the gun is mechanically sound and functions as it should. I would have the crack repaired in the stock ASAP if you are going to shoot it. I would also repair any cracks in the forearm as I don't see why they would not get worse over time. Is the forearm tight on the mounting lug now or does it have any play, both back and forth or sideways? If the gun is sound, I would not shoot modern, high pressure loads through it. As I mentioned before, there is more to barrels blowing apart in these old guns from high pressure loads such as frames cracking or stocks splitting. These old doubles can be a pleasure to hunt with but should be used with the loads and powder of the time period.
B\/C
/1\ is Birmingham Proofhouse mark for 1977 (they used both CB and BC for 1977, and CB was also used in 1952). Even there, it does not mean that the shotgun was rechambered to 3" at that moment, but usually, it's re-proofed when modified by a gunsmith.
From the Birmingham Proofhouse Historian, Birmingham use(d) AB (1975) to KB (1984), then LC (1985) to ZC (1997) then AD (1998) to OD (2010) - always omitting the letter "I" - the period between either in a circle or with crossed swords.
The number "1" below is the Inspector code.
Just for the records, London Proofhouse use(d) LP and LPH (dropped in 1973) over the two last digits of the year.
There is also the Notthingham branch wich uses
LPN From 1988 to 1990
88
NP from 91 to 95
91
NP From 1991 to these days using B before last digit of the year
B6 then, C0 starting in 2000
Nice gun that needs a bit of love.
/1\ is Birmingham Proofhouse mark for 1977 (they used both CB and BC for 1977, and CB was also used in 1952). Even there, it does not mean that the shotgun was rechambered to 3" at that moment, but usually, it's re-proofed when modified by a gunsmith.
From the Birmingham Proofhouse Historian, Birmingham use(d) AB (1975) to KB (1984), then LC (1985) to ZC (1997) then AD (1998) to OD (2010) - always omitting the letter "I" - the period between either in a circle or with crossed swords.
The number "1" below is the Inspector code.
Just for the records, London Proofhouse use(d) LP and LPH (dropped in 1973) over the two last digits of the year.
There is also the Notthingham branch wich uses
LPN From 1988 to 1990
88
NP from 91 to 95
91
NP From 1991 to these days using B before last digit of the year
B6 then, C0 starting in 2000
Nice gun that needs a bit of love.
Last edited:
gunsaholic
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
Does this gun have a serial number. If it does can the age not be tracked that way or are there no Greener serial number records.
