What year was this Belgian shotgun made? Maker?
- Thread starter MR-Ruger
- Start date
Check out this thread to help yourself out with proofmarks (click here).
This was made during or after 1893 as proof by the E LG over the star in the crowned oval. It also bears the Liege proof of blackpowder testing for a breech loading firearm which is the stylized 'EL'.
The Lion over P.V is a semi smokeless proof. Not to be confused with modern smokeless.
'Choke 18.3' is the degree of choke.
Star over T is likely the inspectors mark. Currently can't ID it myself.
C with 12-65 inside is the gauge.
The phallic looking object in the middle of the barrels is likely the Belgian view 'Perron' mark and is worn down.
Hope that is of some help.
This was made during or after 1893 as proof by the E LG over the star in the crowned oval. It also bears the Liege proof of blackpowder testing for a breech loading firearm which is the stylized 'EL'.
The Lion over P.V is a semi smokeless proof. Not to be confused with modern smokeless.
'Choke 18.3' is the degree of choke.
Star over T is likely the inspectors mark. Currently can't ID it myself.
C with 12-65 inside is the gauge.
The phallic looking object in the middle of the barrels is likely the Belgian view 'Perron' mark and is worn down.
Hope that is of some help.
antiqueguy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- windsor ontario
so that would most likely make it 2 1/2" shells and black powder or very low pressure smokeless loads(most likely have to reload for it) only
gunsaholic
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
By the proof marks the gun is not as old as one thinks. I also believe from what I can see in the pics is that it has a fake damascus finish. All the proof marks on it are from 1924 to the present. The letter T with the star above it is for an inspector Laenen Clement who was at the proof house from 1952 to 1986. The mark was also used by 2 other inspectors after the 1986 date. So in my opinion it was made likely somewhere around 1952.
I also have an old Belgian hammer gun in 28 gauge. It only has black powder proofs and I thought it was old. I was informed, from the proof marks, that it is from the 1950's. I was also told by other "experts" on another forum that it was not uncommon to see guns go out the door without the modern smokeless proof mark (kind of like a Monday morning or Friday afternoon sort of thing).
I also have an old Belgian hammer gun in 28 gauge. It only has black powder proofs and I thought it was old. I was informed, from the proof marks, that it is from the 1950's. I was also told by other "experts" on another forum that it was not uncommon to see guns go out the door without the modern smokeless proof mark (kind of like a Monday morning or Friday afternoon sort of thing).
Last edited:
- Location
- Kawartha Lakes, Ontario
It seems that the gauge and shell length in a Greek letter omega mean it is post 1924.
As for the lion over PV mark, most places simply describe it as "smokeless powder proof, 1898-1968"
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/17575181
Could someone point out where it is shown that it is NOT a modern smokeless proof?
EDIT: I just looked at the Old Man's Belgian double. I had previously dated it to 1928. It carries the lion over PV proof mark, and I'm pretty sure it's a modern smokeless proof mark.
As for the lion over PV mark, most places simply describe it as "smokeless powder proof, 1898-1968"
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/17575181
Could someone point out where it is shown that it is NOT a modern smokeless proof?
EDIT: I just looked at the Old Man's Belgian double. I had previously dated it to 1928. It carries the lion over PV proof mark, and I'm pretty sure it's a modern smokeless proof mark.
Last edited:
gunsaholic
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
The gun in question has the nitro proof mark for smokeless loads. As I mentioned before, the finish on this gun appears to be the fake damascus finish that was applied to many Belgian guns. It is not true damascus but rather a lower grade fluid steel barrel. There is nothing to signify that this gun is old, certainly not just because it is a hammer gun. All proof marks dictate otherwise including the choke designation, the PV with the lion, the gauge and length in the omega and the inspectors mark.
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies,
What I am hoping someone will know is the connection between the "f" (date code) and the "star above the T" (Inspectors stamp) and the "star above the AD" (controllers stamp).
The "f" is confusing to me because it can mean 1927 or 1967. If the other stamps were used only in certain years then I might be able to eliminate one of the two date possibilities.
This is where the trouble is, no info on the Star T or Star AD...
Another thing that might help is the 4 AD on the bracket, is this the makers initials?
Thanks again for the help,
I have two of these shotguns, one belonged to my late Grandfather, trying to figure out which one was his. Will post the other one soon, it is a 10 gauge.
What I am hoping someone will know is the connection between the "f" (date code) and the "star above the T" (Inspectors stamp) and the "star above the AD" (controllers stamp).
The "f" is confusing to me because it can mean 1927 or 1967. If the other stamps were used only in certain years then I might be able to eliminate one of the two date possibilities.
This is where the trouble is, no info on the Star T or Star AD...
Another thing that might help is the 4 AD on the bracket, is this the makers initials?
Thanks again for the help,
I have two of these shotguns, one belonged to my late Grandfather, trying to figure out which one was his. Will post the other one soon, it is a 10 gauge.
gunsaholic
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
As mentioned before by rgbai, go to the link below. (It won't allow a copy and paste). This site clearly shows the proof marks as well as the inspector's marks and the years they were at the proof house. The letter T with the star above for the inspector is clearly shown in the chart. It started with Laenen Clement in 1952 to 1986, it was also used by Vostes Gustave from 1974 to 1988 and by Crommen Hubert from 1994 to the present. So if the letter f is used for 1927 or 1967, then it is made in 1967 as the letter T inspector's mark was not used in 1927. However, I'm not sure if that mark on your gun is a letter f as it has a line through it. The 4 AD on the barrels could just be the person who struck the barrels when the gun was being made.
http://damascus-barrels.com/Belgian_All_Proofmarks.html
http://damascus-barrels.com/Belgian_All_Proofmarks.html
OK sounds like this is a 1967 that is made to look old.
This makes my uncles memories of these guns incorrect... He says this 12 gauge belonged to my grandpa. But since he passed in 1970 and apparently had the gun for many years this is impossible.
This makes my uncles memories of these guns incorrect... He says this 12 gauge belonged to my grandpa. But since he passed in 1970 and apparently had the gun for many years this is impossible.
gunsaholic
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
Well nothing to say the chart is not wrong but the info in these charts is pretty much what everyone goes by. Or maybe the letter T got stamped later which again wouldn't be possible either because your grandpa would have owned it by then. So don't really know what to say. We do know it is definately after 1924.
- Location
- Kawartha Lakes, Ontario
The "f" suggests a date of proof of 1927, if I understand the codes. That is consistent with the short chamber (not 2 3/4), and the apparent age of the gun.
The markings are a bit of an enigma ......
The markings are a bit of an enigma ......
I am going to disagree with some of the info given above. I don't see any reason to believe that the gun is not damascus; I have looked at quite a few damascus barrels and only ever run across one or two with "damascus pattern" stamped on the barrels. (that label refers to fluid barrels etched to resemble damascus) I have also refinished a number of barrels, a few of which I was convinced were fake and yet the pattern came out as definitely damascus. Sometimes polishing the barrels with abrasive cloth, at the bottom breach end and then treating with copper sulphate will show a pattern when their type is in doubt. I also think that damascus barrels were used up until around 1920 or a bit later and probably made for 5 or 10 years past 1900.
I would also suspect that the gun was made far closer to the 1920s that the 1950s and 60s that some have suggested
cheers mooncoon
I would also suspect that the gun was made far closer to the 1920s that the 1950s and 60s that some have suggested
cheers mooncoon
gunsaholic
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
I think the op has found out more info that hopefully he will post.
Last edited:
infideleggwelder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
i hope so, have a similar shotgun some of same proof marks, looking for parts on EE. father gave it to me, said it was junk. i want to rebuild and maybe use for fowling again
gunsaholic
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
Start a new thread and post pics. There were many, many Belgian shotguns (and other countries) produced back in the day. While it may look similar, it could be quite a bit different as far as parts go.
- Location
- Kawartha Lakes, Ontario
As I understand, these shotguns were often made in a (literal) cottage industry, with small shops buying parts from different suppliers and assembling, fitting, and finishing the guns on their own.
Unlike guns produced by big manufacturers, there may be quite a variation in tolerances and fitting. The Old Man's gun is a bit crudely finished. I remember shooting it decades ago, and finding the recoil punishing, in part because the stock was too short, but I wonder if shooting regular length shells in it might have had something to do with it .... not sure why it would, but .........
The Old Man used to use the heaviest available loads in it (2 3/4 shells in the 50s and 60s), and it didn't blow up, so I guess the proofs were for real, lol!
Unlike guns produced by big manufacturers, there may be quite a variation in tolerances and fitting. The Old Man's gun is a bit crudely finished. I remember shooting it decades ago, and finding the recoil punishing, in part because the stock was too short, but I wonder if shooting regular length shells in it might have had something to do with it .... not sure why it would, but .........
The Old Man used to use the heaviest available loads in it (2 3/4 shells in the 50s and 60s), and it didn't blow up, so I guess the proofs were for real, lol!
