Wm P. Scott Shot Guns New York

J

jtmader

Inactive
I have just purchased a gun marked Wm P. Scott New York on the side plates and American Field Gun Fine Damascus on the rib. It is a break action double. I have a percussion double made by Wm & Chas Scott & Son - England. That I can trace to about 1871 by number. Is it possible that William set up a separate US operation in the mid to late 1870's? There are proof marks on the bottom side of the barrels. On the bottom plate of the receiver there are the numbers 7 and 5 with space between. There are no serial numbers any where.(????).

Does anyone have any information on this maker?
 
More likely somebody making knockoffs of W.C. Scott guns and hoping you wouldn't remember the middle initial.

What are the proof marks?
 
Junior Member

On the underside of the barrels there is are very deep stamps. The one which I can, sort of, read looks like a crown over the letters B F in script. Each barrel is also marked twice with crossed swords with indistinguishable marks on the top, left and bottom that look like they might be very small letters. Even using a loop, I can't do any better than that. They are also marked "12B Not for Ball" and "14M". Both barrels have the numbers 7 and 5 spaced about an inch apart. The rib is marked, on the underside, "WP".
 
Those are British proof marks, as used at the Birmingham, England proof house. Probably made by some small outfit in Birmingham for sale out of New York with a brand name kinda sorta like W.C. Scott. Lack of a serial number indicates it is not a top grade gun.
 
Wm P Scott New York hammered shotgun

Thanks for the reply. I've been thinking about this being a "cheap gun". You are probably right. Every piece of metal is elaborately engraved. Somebody spent a lot of time on a cheap gun. The slotted ends of the screws are engraved as Sunbursts. Even the cut ends are engraved with cross-hatching. Still, it is probably a cheap knock-off.

The William Scott of "Wm & Chas Scott and Son" was named William Middleditch Scott. My thought that this William P. was the same man is mistaken. Still, I am curious.

John M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top