JP Sauer Hammer 16Ga SxS with Ed Kettner Barrels Pics

[ellenbr]

Why should S&S place their trade- and quality stamps on one gun two times? Granted, on some these marks are found on the watertable like your's, on others on the barrel flats.

1st, your opinion is seldom humble and show me an original Sauer from the 1880s-1890s w/ process marks that mark for mark, Imperial Eagle, Wildmann w/ a Staff, S&S over crossed scepters & lowercase script g that does not wear them on the water-table & flats. Again, such an absurd statement.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

[Axel E]

I saw it differently. As the top lever is inlaid ED.KETTNER / CÖLN the gun was made for retail by Ed . Kettner. The S&S serial number 36490 points to the early 1890s. So imho the gun was made and sold before March 1, 1893. As to imperial order dated January 4, 1893 the crown/V "Vorratszeichen" was stamped during March 1893 only, just before the proof law became effective on April 1, 1893. The Sauer "quality crowns" served as private proofmarks before. Several years later, 1912 on, an owner had the gun Nitro proofed. As the gun then passed the proofhouse for the first time, it was marked with the eagle and crown/U , crown /W, not the crown/R for a repair proof.
OK, the gun may have been rebarreled post-1912 too, by S&S or another. Up to WW2 most often complete new barrel assemblies were made and fitted to existing guns. But if so, a complete second set of proofmarks with a crown/R mark should be present on the watertable.

[mike ford]

Axel, Jim, Raimey,
As has been discussed before, the serial numbers don't always represent the date a gun left Sauer. As I recall, it has been known for serial numbered, partially finished guns to be "in stock" for some time (sometimes years) before being sold, finished, proofed, and sent out to the customer. Is it so unbelievable that a gun could be started in the early 1890s, then finally included in a shipment to ED. KETTNER post 1911? It would be reasonable, to me, for Sauer to offer Kettner a better price in order to move "old stock". This way a 1890s serial number could carry post 1911 proof marks. Of course this is rank speculation, but seems possible to me. I'm not one that puts so much reliance on serial numbers to id the date a gun was finished, this can be clearly seen by the serial number vs barrel date on many Springfield 1903s. I would never pay a premium for a Springfield with a "correct" barrel; I know how many got that way. It applies to other makes as well. Discussion?
Mike

[Jim Cate]

It also could have had the chambers lengthened in 1912 or later, and then it was proofed. Also, many times the 'Nitro' marking appears on period guns proofed at Zella-Mehlis. This one is a puzzle and we may not ever have all the pieces. Regards, Jim

[BillK]

I sent the gun to Gunter Pfrommer for a strip & clean and restoration evaluation. He sent me some pics of the locks and the stock, after he took it apart. He agrees, it is a high quality hammer gun. Let me know what you think of the inside of the locks and the stock. Does your hammer J. P. Sauer and/or Kettner hammer gun has the same type of locks? The horn trigger guard was cracked and needs repair, however I knew that when I bid on the gun.Your thoughts are always appreciated. BillK
IMG_0500.jpg
IMG_0506.jpg
IMG_0507.jpg
IMG_0508.jpg

[kcordell]

I would say it's quality but not a best.

[BillK]

Happy Thanksgiving Kcordell.
In my gun example, the workmanship is excellent, the wood to metal fit is great, the fine checkering is 26 lines or so, the engraving covers 100% of the metal, the walnut stock shows to have a very good grain, the internal gun parts are polished, the locks reveal a 3-pillar bridle, and the lines and balance are excellent. What other attributes and workmanship define a gun as a best gun?
BillK