Brass Ketland barrel (Liege proofed)

[Ezra]

Has anyone purchased one of these from TOW?  If so, opinions?

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/(S(nvh5cn451nf3no45xzauozeo))/categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=14&subId=142&styleId=503&partNum=AAB-191


Ez

[Brian]

Cool!  Say Ez, did you get my e-mail on the brass rifle barrels?

[billd]

Why do people have to post this kind of stuff when I'm broke?

[Ezra]

Cool!  Say Ez, did you get my e-mail on the brass rifle barrels?

No I didn't.  Try again:

fishkiller1742@verizon.net

Ez

[Evil Monkey]

I haven't bought one but looking at the picture, that touch hole would pose a bit of a problem IMO. Left where it is, it would eather have to be buried in the bottom of the pan, or the bottom of the pan would be exposed to the curvature of the barrel. A large liner would have to be installed, large enough cover that TH while moving the TH higher. Or the TH could be drilled out and a brass plug threaded into it THEN a liner installed in the proper location.

[J.D.]

In looking at the second set of photos, the underside of the barrel appears to be of a different material than the rest of the barrel. Anyone care to guess as to why the underside of the barrel appears different?

Thanks,
J.D.

[Jerry V Lape]

Just a note about Belgium proof at the time these barrels were likely made.  They did not have a proof house, the barrels were proofed and stamped by the individual makers which only required firing with the charge of equal weight to the ball.  The lack the  Perron stamp, which was the official indication of an official proof, reflects these were not well proofed.  It was after Napoleon took over Belgium and established a proof house  (1811) that true proofing of Belgium barrels came into being.  So you are advised to carefully evaluate these barrels and proof them to your safety standards. 

OOps, see my corrective post below.  I missed seeing a proof hidden in the rust on the breech lug!    

[Ezra]

Just a note about Belgium proof at the time these barrels were likely made.  They did not have a proof house, the barrels were proofed and stamped by the individual makers which only required firing with the charge of equal weight to the ball.  The lack the  Perron stamp, which was the official indication of an official proof, reflects these were not well proofed.  It was after Napoleon took over Belgium and established a proof house  (1811) that true proofing of Belgium barrels came into being.  So you are advised to carefully evaluate these barrels and proof them to your safety standards.   

This is why I love this site.  There are so many folks with knowlege and are willing to share it.  Thanks JVL, I will be passing on this item.  Besides, I have two brass pistol barrels on order from Ed Rayl right now anyway.


Ez

[J Shingler]

I agree to proceed with caution, but just how much are you going to load in a pistol?

JD, my guess is as it says these lugs are integral to the barrel I am betting that the bottom is just not finished as nice as the rest of the barrel. Harder to work around the lugs.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

I am confused

"Most likely made in the third quarter of 19th century, these antique barrels would make a fine choice for you next flint pistol project"

And the bore size stamped in Metric system......these would seem to be made long after Napolean?   Is there a problem with the proof stamp on the barrels??

[Jerry V Lape]

Dr. Tim Boone,

I must apologize for a mistake.  I reexamined the photos and found the missing proof mark hidden in the rust on the breech tang.  Because that proof is there (The Perron which depicts the Tower of Liege) these barrels would have been from sometime after 1853 and before 1877.  And they would also have been appropriately proofed in the Govt proof house.  The proof load would have been 2/3 of the ball weight in powder under a single ball with a paper wad above the powder, then the ball, followed by a second paper wad.   The proofs would further indicate they were most likely made for export as raw barrels because otherwise there should be additional proofs.  Despite proofs being a matter of law, many variances appear in violation of the procedure (guess their government is no more accurate/reliable than ours.)   

There is another proof mark on the lug which is too obscured by rust to be readable.  If I could determine what that mark is, it is possible we could identify the maker or perhaps the inspector which would more accurately date the barrel's source or age.   

[davec2]

These barrels look surprisingly like the barrels on the reproduction George washington pistols made by Uberti for the U.S. Historical Society in 1976.  Same length, cast in barrel engraving (then gone over with a graver), flats on both sides at the breech, same length, swamped and flared.  The GW pistols have a .58 bore and I haven't dismounted one to see what the underside looks like and the touch hole is not low on the barrel as the photos from TOW show.  Interesting.

[Forrest]

These barrels look surprisingly like the barrels on the reproduction George washington pistols made by Uberti for the U.S. Historical Society in 1976.  Same length, cast in barrel engraving (then gone over with a graver), flats on both sides at the breech, same length, swamped and flared.  The GW pistols have a .58 bore and I haven't dismounted one to see what the underside looks like and the touch hole is not low on the barrel as the photos from TOW show.  Interesting.

Wow those are close.  Although the engraving to the right of the sea shell pattern is different, and the design to the left of the "LONDON" is different as well.  Obviously they were both patterned after the same thing, which only increases my curiosity.  The Belgians produced a huge number of barrels for export, I would be curious to what market these barrels were originally destined for circa 1870. 

[Mike Brooks]

I seriously doubt this is an antique barrel.  The cast breech plug is pretty funky for something old. The low vent would be a deal killer for me.