Gentlemen (and any ladies who may be among our group),

Thanks to all for the many kind and complementary things that have been said on this thread. What began for me as the helpful posting of a photo of a “sling hook” has turned the spotlight onto me and a rifle I own. We are way off topic. I wish this were a separate thread, because the topic is far more interesting than sling hooks. Maybe NitroX can do something with his computer magic.

I want everyone to understand that the portions of my last post in which I expressed profound grief and rage were drafted with my tongue firmly inserted in my cheek. Considering the condolences I received, the humor I intended to convey may have been misinterpreted. I now feel like a hospital inpatient who is being clucked over by a gaggle of concerned friends and relatives. I do appreciate the kindness, but I am not upset. Specifically I want to state that I did not take 400NitroExpress’ revelation as an insult to me or my rifle. I received it for the information it contained. I take no offense whatsoever.

My other statements in my last post saying that I appreciate the information about my rifle and that I love the rifle just the same were serious. I want to reiterate and emphasize that I do appreciate the information. I would not be logged on to NitroExpress.com if I had no desire to learn more about the rich subject of double rifles. Having said that, I would like to ask 400NitroExpress whether he can suggest a comprehensive reference work on British proofing.

There seems to be an undercurrent here that I have suffered some great loss by learning that the barrels of my Woodward date later than the gun. I would heartily agree if these were replacement barrels from Ferlach or some similar mis-match. Not only would that disturb the originality of the gun; but also its very integrity as a Woodward. But that is not the case. These are Woodward barrels on a Woodward creation. As I said, “Woodward through and through.” Although the rifle is not exactly as it was when it first sallied forth in 1891, this is because the former owner saw fit to obtain an improvement or upgrade from the original maker. I can't say that I am offended by that. I still wonder whether these are the original barrels submitted later for nitro proofing? They have the black powder proof.

There are interesting issues implied here. First is the issue of whether the fair market value of Woodward rifle #4457 would be greater if it were accompanied by its original barrels in .450/.400 3Ľ” BPE instead of the replacement barrels, condition being the same. That question is certainly subject to debate, and I invite all opinions. Frankly, I am not sure of my opinion on that topic.

On the corollary issue of whether I could have bought the rifle for less money, had I known at the time of purchase that the barrels were replacements I will say this: I firmly doubt it (although I probably would have tried).

Finally, I mentioned in my last post that I had written Purdey’s asking for a letter on this rifle. To my delight, the reply arrived in this morning’s mail. It confirms what has been said. The original caliber was .450/.400 BPE. As soon as I got home from the office I photographed the letter. Here is a link to it:

Purdey letter.

I note with wry interest what the letter does not say. There is no mention of the nitro proofing, although I sent the photo of the barrel flats on the CD. Just as Rusty said, “The evidence was there in plain sight for all to see.” Nevertheless, Purdey’s overlooked what 400NitroExpress astutely pointed out.

In closing, thanks again to all for your participation in this discussion. We are all enriched by the knowledge of others. I strive to be a good contributing member to the forum, and I hope as I grow older I will approach mastery of this wonderful world of double rifles.

Sincerely,
Roscoe Stephenson
“CptCurl”