Hi Slivver,
You have an interesting J. P. Sauer shot gun there. And quiet old. You are correct:
Quote:
|
I think this gun began life as a black powder gun sometime before 1891 (Crown/V proofmark). It does have some more recent marks, including Eagle/J, Eagle/N, and 442. I think this means that it was repaired and reproofed in Suhl in April 1942.
|
Yes, it was already there, when the German Gun Law came into force on April 01, 189
3. The crown/V was only used between January 01, 1893 and March 31, 1893 for existing guns which did not need to be proofed. The c/V was a “proof” to make a gun legit not being proofed. But most guns were proofed according to the new law anyway, just like your gun. And yes, some repair was carried out in 1942.
Regarding the “13”: well, this isn’t unusual, but quiet common on German prewar shot guns in 12 gauge. Much more unusual is the “9 within circle”. This combination doesn’t make any sense at all, because the combination should be: “12 within circle” = calibre of the chamber (i.e. 12 with a case length of 65 mm = 2 9/16”) and 13 = calibre of the barrel. It’s an odd German system to mark the calibre. Rifle calibers are even more odd before 1912.
Why the chamber should be in 9 gauge….. I have no explanation.
The other calibre stamping on the barrel is quiet unusual also:
Pappe 12-65 (Pappe = cardbox) 5 ¾ (no explanation for this, maybe 5 ¾ gram ) S.P. (= Schwarzpulver = black powder) 34 ½ BL. (? Probably the abbreviaition of “Blei” = lead).
Seems to be a proof load, but in this form I haven’t seen it before. The other marking “Nicht für Kugel” (not for balls) can be found quiet often.
The 717Q probably is an internal Sauer marking. Such markings can be found regularly on Sauers.
Regarding the age: a 45xxx SN is very old. OK, you knew this already, I know. But it is hard to give an exact figure due to missing records in the Suhl archive where also the Sauer files are kept. At least, I can tell you, that I’ve seen an other Sauer shot gun, also with a SN in the 40.000s and also having c/V markings. Obviously, this must have been made before April 1893.
Best regards
Martin