Is it or is it not a Daly?

[sharps4590]

I'm trying to help a guy on the forum liked below and frankly, I'm stumped. Can anyone identify the proofs on this beat up old drilling?

https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/thr.../#post-2011756

[algmule]

Hello

Numbers 1,and 3 are in my opinion J.P. Sauer & Sohn. Number 2 may also be J.P. Sauer & Sohn. The other one could be for Luck. I'm unsure, however. Axel will know.
Vic1.JPG
EDIT: no, it's not Luck. Sorry.

Kind regards
Peter

[algmule]

Hello

Vic2.JPG

The Drilling is old. Before the introduction of proofs as we know them.

Also: sorry for two posts but the forum wouldn't allow me to post two images in the same post. Could be I'm not computer friendly, though!!

Kind regards
Peter

[algmule]

Hello

Here's a comparison between thread topic and a Monopol-Drilling (Nitro-marked). I've seen J.P. S&S-Drillings that are spitting images of my Monopol. The only difference are the Krupp markings on the J.P, S&S ones. The Monopol does not have any steel marking.
Vic8.JPG

Kind regards
Peter

[mike ford]

sharps4590,
Peter is correct, the Drilling was made before the 1891 proof law came into effect in early 1893. It therefore, does not have real proof marks. The marks that are on it are a combination of "in house" Sauer quality, ID, and workman's touch marks. I agree with the comments in the other forum regarding condition and the need for a chamber cast. Early Sauer made Daley Drillings were commonly made chambered for American cartridges. Due to it being made before 1893, it could not be chambered for 30-30, 25-35, etc. This makes 38-55 as suggested in the other forum, the most likely cartridge, with 32-40 less so; but only a chamber cast will tell, for sure.
Mike

[sharps4590]

Thanks alg and Mike. I KNEW I'd seen that large crown before but.....blame it on age and chemo that I forgot.....