Earlier this year I wrote about my research of an Army&Navy double and I got some very interesting information from other members, THANKS!!

The stamps of the barrel says it was made sometime between 1904-1925. However, I have recently visited the archive in Glasgow that keeps the A&N record books. I had one big problem: my rifle has no "guard number". But it has one number on the barrel and another number on the forend lever. In the books there are two numbers noticed, the guard number and the makers number. The guard number is a cronologigal serie in the books and are easy to find. The makers number is not cronological and I had to look through all the books to find it.
The barrel number, 11033, does not exist in any of the books but the number of the lever, 7467, exists as a makers number on one rifle related as "A&N Express rifle", bore .303, sold 31 07 1895, finished by Webley&Scott.

Generally according to the record books .303 rifles was mainly produced between 1895 and 1900. After 1900 in average less than 3 per year. I would say that 9 of 10 .303 double rifles were made before 1900 wich makes my date probable.
I also checked an A&N .500NE to a friend of mine. I found it easily based on the guard number. On his rifle, the fore end lever number was the same as on the barrels and was known as makers number in the books.

Everything seems to be correct except for three things:
1)Did W&S make their LongBar Action that early?
2)The rifle should be regulated for 215gr Mk2 cartridges if made 1895, but it shoots perfectly(<20mm/100m with scope) with 174gr Mk7 cartridges. Is it "re-regulated"?
3)The stamps.
Stamps: http://bildbanken.nordiq.net/pic/ems093211.jpg

-Any comments or theorys?
-You who have A&N doubles: Is the number under the fore end lever the same as of the barrels?
-Are my stamps 100% sure made after 1904? If so, is it likely that it has been reproofed?

Hopefully I realy have found "my rifle", or what do you believe?
Martin

(PS. I only found three .600 bore rifles through A&Ns total production, all made between 1904 and 1910)

[ 11-02-2003, 17:03: Message edited by: Martin ]

The number on the forend hanger is the same as the serial number on the water table and on the grip area of my gun..It also has a 14 behind the forend catch on the barrels and thats common...my gun is No. 55002, made about 1920 as I recall with a spade dolls heae and a beatiful side swing forend latch...W&S action box lock.

It may or may not have been re-regulated for the lighter bullet. I have an 8X60RS that shoots several different bullet weights into an acceptable pattern. As light as 150 grain and as heavy as 220 grain bullets can be used in it, with patterns not over 3" @ 100 yards. My theory is smallbores which shoot lighter bullets using smaller powder charges may be less susceptible to bullet weight changes as regards regulation. Perhaps?? This is an idea which would be fun to test, if one had access to a number of doubles of 9mm and smaller bore diameter.

Ray:

Army & Navy SN 55002 shows up in their serial number table as in the range for 1907-1911, not 1920.

Martin:

This one still bumfuzzles me a little, but not as much as it did the first time. The update helps. Thanks for posting it.

In answer to your questions:

1. Yes.

2. Reregulation is possible, but the Mk VII load sometimes shoots fine in a rifle regulated for the Mark II. It is also possible that the existing barrels were originally regulated for the Mk VII (174 grain) load. The Mk VII load appeared in 1910 and I still believe that your rifle, or at least the barrels, comes from that period.

3a. Yes, the proof marks are post-1904. The definitive London Nitro Proof mark (the letters "NP" surmounted by an arm dexter in armour embowed holding a scimitar) was INTRODUCED in 1904 and is still in use today.

3b. No, these barrels have not been re-proofed. When re-proof is conducted, the old marks are not struck out or defaced and a new, full, second set of marks are struck right alongside the old. A "Reproof" mark (the letter "R" surmounted by a crown) is also usually applied. Only one, original set of marks are present.

If we assume that the barrels are original to the rifle, there is NO possibility whatsoever that it was built in 1895. The proof marks don't lie.

There is no doubt that the piece IS a Webley & Scott product. I still have no idea why there is no Army & Navy number on it, but there is none. The new information that you have provided from the records brings to mind two possibilities.

I remain certain that the number 11033 on the barrels is Webley & Scott's (the "maker's") number. The way the records are structured, clearly, you should be able to find both the "maker's" number and the "guard" number, together, in the records. The first possible explanation, which presumes the barrels to be original, is strongly suggested by the absence of any "guard" number (Army & Navy's number) from the rifle and the "maker's" number (Webley & Scott's) from the records. Why would there be no Army & Navy serial number on the piece at all and no mention of 11033 as a "maker's" number in the records at all? Because, through some foul-up, it wasn't recorded in the records at all. That was the only explanation I could think of, other than the one I posted when you originally posted this, and your new information seems to possibly confirm it.

BTW, did the 1895 entry for "maker's" number 7467 have a "guard" number in it as well? If not, that would still not tell us why there is no "guard" number, but it certainly might confirm the second possibility - that your rifle was indeed built by Webley & Scott (actually Philip Webley & Son - the merger with William & Charles Scott & Son did not take place until 1897) for Army & Navy in 1895 and was subsequently rebarreled to the original caliber between 1904 and 1925. The fact that your fore-end lever, which is a Wilkinson Sword Co. patent btw (yeah, the razor-blade people used to be gunmakers and are still registered as such, although they no longer make guns), has a number on it that does not match the number on your barrels and the numbers on your friend's rifle do match (I have an identical rifle built by W & S for William Evans which has the makers number on the barrels but no number on the lever), suggests that the barrels have been replaced. No. 7467 would have been the original "maker's" number and would have been the number on the original barrels. A & N would almost certainly have returned the rifle to the original maker (W & S) when new barrels were needed. Most of the British makers were in the habit of assigning new serial numbers to the new set of barrels when this was done. The number 11033 is the number for the new barrels and fits for the W & S serial number range for the 1904-1925 period.

Not only does this explanation seem to address all of the elements of the mystery, save the guard number, it also provides a ready explanation as to why the barrels were worn out so soon. If your rifle was built in 1895, the original barrels were almost certainly Metford rifled, as almost all .303s of the time were. The British were then still discovering that the combination of the shallow, round-shouldered Metford rifling and Cordite Mk I, which burned white-hot at peak pressure, was a disaster. The barrels would often wash out in a few hundred rounds. The British Army adopted Cordite, replacing black, in the .303 in May, 1893. At that time, the standard rifle was the Lee, with Metford rifling. The conversion to the deep, square-shouldered Enfield rifling (the Lee-Enfield rifle) occurred November 11, 1895, and the existing Lee-Metfords were then rebarreled. As you can see, the wear must have been pretty fast. The British sporting rifle makers soon followed suit.

I don't know what the answer is, but I would bet real money that it is one of the two. I'm fairly certain it is the latter. I hope this helps. If you discover any more I would love to hear it.
-------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

[ 11-07-2003, 01:33: Message edited by: 400 Nitro Express ]

Martin, a question for you...
Tell us how the dang thang shoots. And show us a picture of the rest of the rifle.

400,
you are correct, you already told me that once and I couldn't remember without looking up your email on that gun, so I took a guess!! oooops. Our guns were made on consecutive days or something like that if I recall..Wish I knew where I filed that correspondence, it was somewhere that it would always be easy to find I remember that!!

Ray if I remember correctly it was our 450/400 3 1/4" doubles that were made a few numbers apart. I will see if I can find the thread for you.

Ray check out the African Big Game Hunting forum:
My New Rifle: By you, I sent it BTT.

Ray, 400NE, 450, eldeguello

-400NE: As you say, the barrels ARE MADE AFTER 1904 according to the stamps. The barrel number 11033 dates(the barrels) to aprx 1907 according to the makers number serie(W&S) in the records. If the whole rifle is made than, it should have a guard number close to 46XXX in A&N records. My friends 500NE has a makers number 112XX and guard number 469XX, made 1907.
The books associates the makers number 7467 to A&N guard number 16991, wich dont exists anywhere of my rifle.

In the books it is written: "Finished by W&S". Is it possible that Philip Webley & Son hadn't merged with the Scotts earlier than 1897 or did W&S stand for "Webley&Son"?

-400NE, I dont think you would loose any money on your bet! I believe that the rifle was originaly made in 1895 and rebarreled in 1907. It is the only resonable expaination if the lever number is the makers number, wich it seems to be.

-eldeguello: Some more pictures:
http://bildbanken.nordiq.net/show.php?which=150

Thanks again!!
Martin

[ 11-07-2003, 13:35: Message edited by: Martin ]

Martin
Nice looking and shooting double! And a scope no less. I have a scope on my 9,3x74R in QD mounts and have found it very useful. I would not even think of buying a new made double and not have QD scope mounts on the rifle. Even if it was a 470.