Quote:

---

It is a beautiful gun but it is not pristine and it has been fired.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

It was made in 1897, and seems in outstanding condition,
maybe never fired.

---

Grenadier ,
I was commenting on the above quote. I tried to buy the gun several years ago when it was in the hands of Fred Roberts in Oz. But I don't believe it had been reproved at that time. What's your feeling on the gun or do you have one?

--------------------
"Recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant" The Maharaja of Cooch Behar

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It was made in 1897, and seems in outstanding condition,
maybe never fired.

---

Grenadier ,
I was commenting on the above quote. I tried to buy the gun several years ago when it was in the hands of Fred Roberts in Oz. But I don't believe it had been reproved at that time. What's your feeling on the gun or do you have one?

---

I was just trying to carry your thought forward.

No, I don't have one. Unless you count Paradox guns, the heaviest gun I have is a 450NE Rigby single shot.

The gun looks like it's been freshened up, probably by H&H when it received the recent nitro proof. It looks like a sound example of a classic gun that I would be happy to own but I must admit that I have no point of reference to judge the price.

--------------------
~

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

It is the same rifle
which is still on Drake's site. marked sold. Seems curious.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It is the same rifle
which is still on Drake's site. marked sold. Seems curious.

---

It is not the same gun. The gun that was on Dr. Drake's site was a 1921 'Royal'.

---

Lewis had this gun also in addition to the 1921 Royal. I spoke with him about this gun last fall.

--------------------
"Recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant" The Maharaja of Cooch Behar

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Well, and this is JMO I would have liked to seen it reproved for the 650gr light nitro load, if reprooved at all. I really like the underlever hammerless look and it is a Holland and a 577.

---

Let me jump in with an opinion which is worth just what it costs you.

Be not concerned what load it was reproved for. It clearly is a black powder rifle, weighing less than 12 lbs. It wasn't made for the all-out .577NE stomping load. Evidently it demonstrated sufficient strength at the proof house to merit re-proof. That doesn't take anything away from the rifle, nor does it change the original essentials of it. The new proofs don't require the shooter to use the full-stomping load. Quite to the contrary.

If this were my rifle I would load and shoot it as a NFB configuration using black powder equivalent loads to duplicate original ballistics for which the rifle was made.

I can give an example from my own toybox. My James Woodward .450/.400 3.25" is a black powder rifle that was later prooved for the full nitro load. What do I shoot in this lovely rifle? Nitro-for-black loads duplicating original .450/.400 BPE ballistics. Sure it's wearing the nitro proof stamps. That doesn't change the rifle one whit, and it certainly doesn't take anything away!

http://www.rbsiii.com/collection/rifles/woodward_400NE/woodward_400NE_1.htm

So, have no regret of the nitro proof. The rifle is what it is. Use it as originally designed and intended.

Curl

--------------------
RoscoeStephenson.com

YOUR DOUBLE RIFLE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well, and this is JMO I would have liked to seen it reproved for the 650gr light nitro load, if reprooved at all. I really like the underlever hammerless look and it is a Holland and a 577.

---

Let me jump in with an opinion which is worth just what it costs you.

Be not concerned what load it was reproved for. It clearly is a black powder rifle, weighing less than 12 lbs. It wasn't made for the all-out .577NE stomping load. Evidently it demonstrated sufficient strength at the proof house to merit re-proof. That doesn't take anything away from the rifle, nor does it change the original essentials of it. The new proofs don't require the shooter to use the full-stomping load. Quite to the contrary.

If this were my rifle I would load and shoot it as a NFB configuration using black powder equivalent loads to duplicate original ballistics for which the rifle was made.

I can give an example from my own toybox. My James Woodward .450/.400 3.25" is a black powder rifle that was later prooved for the full nitro load. What do I shoot in this lovely rifle? Nitro-for-black loads duplicating original .450/.400 BPE ballistics. Sure it's wearing the nitro proof stamps. That doesn't change the rifle one whit, and it certainly doesn't take anything away!

http://www.rbsiii.com/collection/rifles/woodward_400NE/woodward_400NE_1.htm

So, have no regret of the nitro proof. The rifle is what it is. Use it as originally designed and intended.

Curl

---

Curl,
Let me amend my statement;

Well, and this is JMO, I would use the rifle with the 650gr light nitro load if used with a nitro load at all. I really like the underlever hammerless look and it is a Holland and a 577.

--------------------
"Recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant" The Maharaja of Cooch Behar

Post Extras: