Tex,

All I know about the rifle is five photos on the WR website, and that's not much at all. WR doesn't even give a verbal description of their wares.

What do I think I see?

The barrels look like they have been re-blacked more than once. The engraving around the breech ends of the barrels is almost rubbed off. The current blacking is almost gone.

There's no way the barrels could be worn that much without the action being worn, yet the barrels are worn almost white and the action is jet black. Impossible! Look at the doll's head compared to the action around it. How do you rub the blue off the barrels and dolls head without rubbing the blue off the action? Look at the barrel lump protruding through the bottom of the action. Why is the barrel lump worn and the metal around it black?

The screw slots are all spread open, and some off-time. If the action is cherry, why did somebody take it apart several or numerous times?

The finish on the stock doesn't even come close to resembling an early 20th century finish.

The red rubber pad isn't 100 years old.

Again, just five small photos I have seen. I haven't seen the rifle. Maybe I'm way off base. You do your own evaluation and make your own decision. I'm not posting to bad-mouth this rifle.

I don't think I ever saw an original Webley action that was blacked. The actions were color case hardened, and the floor plates were charcoal blued. The screws were fire blued. None of those finishes are present in the five photos of this rifle.

You have heard other learned opinions here. Sinner knows a little about double rifles. He probably ownes a couple million dollars worth. 470evans handled this very rifle. Maybe we are all wrong. You decide.

No matter what its condition might be, it's not a Rigby anyway. It's a Webley. A Webley is a fine rifle, and I like them a lot. I'm not going bonkers over a Webley marked "Rigby" and calling it an original Rigby under any circumstances. It could be marked Army & Navy and be the same rifle.

Best,
Curl