Help with LeFaucheaux 16ga Hammergun ID

[Recoil Rob]

A nice little 16 hammer gun with no makers name in the usual places. Do the J.W. or BA tell us anything? Is the small roebuck head a makers mark? Is the 10.05/19 a production date?


thanks,

Rob

[sharps4590]

I'll take a stab at a couple of the marks. When Mike or Axel or any of several others come along, if their comments differ from mine, believe them!!!!

I think your gun falls between the 1891-93 proof law and the next one in, I think, 1912-13. I don't believe "10-5-19" is the proof date. If any of those numbers is a proof date I would suspect 10.05 but, I would think if that so the date would be stamped on the barrels and not the rib.

I have no idea as to the other marks, except the "crown over" the various letters denote; "S", shotgun, "W" choked barrels, "U" a close, visual examination, 16, obviously the bore size and circled 16 is for 2 /12 in. chambers....which you probably already knew.

[mike ford]

Recoil Rob,
I agree with sharps4590 that the "10-5-19" being on the rib likely precludes it being any mark by the proof house. I think it is more likely to be a mark by the "rohrmacher(?)"( the person assembling the barrel blanks into the barrel set. I suppose it could be a date but in my limited experience, I don't recall seeing a workman dating his touch mark, especially on the rib. The 577 ,being on both the barrel set and receiver, I believe is the serial number. Since the B.A. in the ellipse is collocated with the serial number, I believe it is the maker's mark. It is familiar, but I don't recall, now, what it stands for. If someone else doesn't ID it, I will do some research. I'm not sure what the JW means. Since it is on both the barrel set and receiver, I suppose it might be that they made the "rohling" or blank parts and supplied them to B.A. assembled, stocked and finished them for sale. Of course this is only my conjecture. The Rehbock in a circle might be the "housemark" of "JW" or of the barrel maker. My guess is it was proofed in Suhl, so would have been made near there. This is based on the fact that Zella-Mehlis dated their proofs much earlier than Suhl and marked the ledger number, whereas Suhl did not. If you can find a mark for the proof load or duty load, I might be able to make better guesses. If Axel comes in and contradicts my information, accept his as correct.
Mike