Cape gun - 20 gauge over 6.5x52R (25-35 Win). Anyone know details on this?!

[cotis]

Hello, I recently purchased this combination gun at an estate sale. Any information you can provide would be most welcome. I have been unable to find the manufacturer of this gun. I know that it is a 20 gauge shotgun over a 6.5x52R rifle (25-35 Winchester). The shotgun is quite tightly choked, but shoots very accurately. The rifle twist is approximately 1 in 9.5 inches. The shotgun barrel is stamped in the left side "Nitro" in script lettering. There is "Krupp Essen Flusstahl" which I understand to be the steel manufacturer of the barrels. On the top of the shotgun barrel on either side of the rib are the words "E. Stegmann" and "Weilheim". On the receiver where the barrels lock up are the stampings "EHS" and the serial number of "2218". Thank you in advance for your insight on this intriguing weapon. I am really enjoying owning and shooting it.

IMG_7948.jpg
IMG_7949.jpg
IMG_7952.jpg
IMG_7954.jpg
IMG_7963.jpg

[cotis]

IMG_7992.jpg
IMG_7993.jpg
IMG_7994.jpg
IMG_7997.jpg
IMG_8001.jpg

[cotis]

IMG_7961.jpg

Thanks!

[sharps4590]

I can tell you a few things but not the maker. That will take Axel or Mike or one of the others with extended knowledge. I believe the date of proof for your combination gun is August of 1927 and it was proofed in Zella/Mehlis by the "Nitro" being in script rather than block letters and was the 353rd gun proofed....that month(?).

You are correct that Krupp made the barrel steel. E. Stegmann was at least the retailer and Weilheim probably the town in which his shop was located. By the Kmg the rifle barrel was proofed with a 7,5 gram copper jacketed bullet. I can't see a sear adjustment screw on the front trigger but often they are single set triggers. 6,3 should be the bore diameter and obviously 52 the case length.

Proof marks are pretty much standard for the time period.

Pretty decent old piece!!! Congrats. I think 20 bore is a bit uncommon for the time but it's certainly a good combination. I can't tell if what appears to be a crack in the stock in the left panel is much to be concerned about or if it's really a crack or a really deep scratch. If a crack it should be easily repairable. Well done!!!

[cotis]

You are correct that is a small crack on the left side of the stock. The gun is currently at my local gunsmith who is repairing this crack along with the forearm crack along with some other restoration work on it. The shotgun chamber is 65mm long currently (2-1/2" shells), the gunsmith is going to lengthen it to 2-3/4" to keep the pressures down. It is choked very tight, I patterned it at 25 yards and was quite surprised. I shot a round of trap with it and hit very consistently. I acquired some dies and reloading components for the .25-35, when I get the gun back I will work up a load for it.

I purchased an old Zeiss Jena 4x scope and several sets of claw mounts that will be fitted to the gun at some point.

[sharps4590]

A tight choke is not uncommon for that era of a gun. I wouldn't be surprised if it's also long.

[mike ford]

cotis,
You may get some "push back", about lengthening the chamber, but it is yours and you can do what you want with it. If you don't want to buy 65mm shells and use modern 2 3/4" shells, they will shoot much tighter than the ones it was made for. The old shells had fiber wads and no shot collar, new ones will have more efficient wads combined with shot protection. If you have the chamber lengthened, you may as well have the choke adjusted as well. I think if you look hard enough, you can find Ammo, as well as the components. New 25-35 ammo is much more efficient, since they started loading the "Leverevolution" type, with pointed flex tip bullets. I'm afraid you may have a difficult time using the claw mounts, unless they are new. Old claw mount parts have been specially fit to a different rifle and scope combination and have been altered in the process. I won't say it's impossible, because I haven't seen what you have. One part of the procedure you need to know is you shouldn't fit the mounts by filing the "hooks" on the rear mount. Rather, you should file the underside of the "slider", which may have to be replaced, if it has already been filed too much. Doing it this way, takes up the "slack" in all the parts. If you look closely at the right hand side of the rear base, you should see a small screw, the removal of which allows the "slider" to be removed. There will be two small springs inside, which should be removed and safeguarded. New England Custom Guns will be able to help you.
Mike

[sharps4590]

I had the chambers lengthened on my first drilling something over 20 years ago and have regretted it ever since. It won't happen again.

[Diz]

cotis,

I am not going to tell you what to do with your gun but lengthening the chamber will not help pressure wise if using factory loads. All are loaded to fairly high pressures in order to get a clean burn with the powder. All target loads and "low brass" today are all near 10K psi especially in the 20 gauge. Smaller the bore generally the higher the pressure due to a smaller area for the pressure to work on. Your only benefit of a lengthened chamber would come from careful handloading as the additional space afforded allows easier component selection and for more cushion and filler that helps reduce pressure. RST loads some very nice ammo for the 2-1/2" 20 gauge and with nitro proof there should be no problems. It is a very nice looking gun and best of luck with it.

Thanks, Diz

[cotis]

Mike,
I appreciate the info on the scope mounts. I know I am in for a challenge, but I am pretty capable and that's part of the fun.

Mike / Diz,
Thank you for the info on the 2.5" shells vs. lengthening the chamber! I didn't realize 2.5" shelles were so readily available, that may change my mind on having it lengthened.

I already worked on the scope one evening, filled previous holes in the main rail that won't be used for my setup. Some 17-4 steel rod cut, glued, and filed flush. Only thing left is to paint to match the original on the scope body.

IMG_8175.jpg
IMG_8176.jpg
IMG_8178.jpg
IMG_8192.jpg
IMG_8204.jpg

[cotis]

Diz, would you have any concern shooting mild or target 2-3/4" loads through this gun? I box a few boxes of the Winchester AA reduced load when I shot the gun (sub 1000 fps). They were definitely light, I had no concern with these loads. Curious how a modern 2.5" shell compares.

[Axel E]

Shooting ANY 2 ¾" = 70mm shells from a 2 ½" = 65mm chamber is a NO-NO! On firing the modern star crimp unfolds into the forcing cone, forming a constriction. This may rise pressure to a dangerous level, depending on shell wall thickness and shape of the cone. I've seen 3 rare Sauer & Sohn Luftwaffe 12g drillings blown up by doing this. The only exception: European 67.5 mm = 2.66" shells with thin, plastic case walls are designed to be used safely in both 65 and 70 mm chambers.

[Diz]

Axel, is correct about shooting 2-3/4 in a 2-1/2 chamber. While there is a lot of discussion about it pro and con on the internet, some tests I was part of showed an increase in pressure and I wouldn't do it. So this would leave out even your light factory ammo until you get the chamber done. If you are going to do the chamber than I might suggest an extra long forcing cone as that tends to reduce pressures and improve patterns as well. You may as well go all the way and have the choke relieved as Mike suggests.

All the factories strive for the cleanest burn possible and I have found that velocity is a very poor indicator of pressure. So I cannot say for sure about the pressures of even the light factory loads. You should be able to contact someone at the factory about the pressure specification of those shells. I have used the RST 2-1/2" shells and they have been excellent, however I now load my own for even lower pressures. Components are available on the markets and loading the short shells is easily done with spacers. MEC offers a kit just for the purpose.

Thanks, Diz

[mike ford]

cotis,
OK, it looks good so far. I don't know if you got the plate with either of the front bases, if so, you should use it. The foot and plate were sold together as one unit and were manufactured with matching radii, widths, spacing, etc, and forced together using a hydraulic press; in other words they would fit each other in a manner you can't achieve by hand. If you have to use mismatching parts, I suggest you use the scope( or fabricate s bar as long as the scope) as a lever to force the foot into the plate, during fitting. You may find a small scraper useful in fitting to the corners. Once you get the front foot fit, you should "zero" the reticle and then bore sight the scope on an object a good distance away. In doing so, rather than the rear foot, use a small metal block with a screw in it to make(essentially) a small machinist's jack, which will be used to adjust the elevation in the bore sighting. Since no one has three hands, you may find it easier to insert a close fitting wooden dowel into the chamber and tie the scope to it, trapping the "jack" between the rail on the scope and the rear base. By adjusting the jack to zero the scope, and then measuring the height of the jack, you find the necessary distance between the bottom of the rail and the top of the rear mount. If the "foot" you intend to use is the necessary height, you will be very lucky. The bases you have were already milled to fit a different set of bases on a different rifle, taking away your options for adjusting the height. The angle filed on the hooks seem to have been intended to fit an o/u instead of a drilling( in other words tapered on the inside, rather than outside), so you got a break on that. To keep the drill from "running", when you drill the rib for the screw, you will need to make a flat( through the hole in the foot ie use the foot as a jig)on the side of the rail, using something like a small end mill (to fit the hole) chucked in a bit stock/"brace". Do this on both sides. Then drill the hole, through the holes in the foot, using the normal procedure of a "center" aligned with the twist drill, on the bottom side. If you have any questions, I will do the best I can to answer them. You can PM me and I won't have to bore everyone else.
Mike

[cotis]

cotis,
The bases you have were already milled to fit a different set of bases on a different rifle, taking away your options for adjusting the height. The angle filed on the hooks seem to have been intended to fit an o/u instead of a drilling( in other words tapered on the inside, rather than outside), so you got a break on that.
Mike

Mike,
Thanks for the info, I understand completely what you are saying. I purchased these rear bases knowing they were tapered correctly for a O/U, not a drilling. Your idea for finding the rear height is quite a good idea. I modelled all the angles in CAD today, but they are showing my rear base to be too tall. This assumes two things - parallelism between the rifle bases and the rifle barrel, and scope adjustment at center on elevation. I actually do have some wiggle room for lowering the rear base, I can wire EDM below the windage screws and above the hooks to the correct height and re-weld together. Unfortunately this fitting work has to wait until I get the gun back in a month or two.
Chaz