Chamber proofs on a 1916 navy

Navy · 03-16-2004, 11:16 PM

All,

I have seen, disassembled and gone over this gun thoroughly.

My *guess* and it is only a guess, as I can find nothing to back it up, is that this proof is a "secondary" proof, applied by some government entity for foreign manufactured weapons.

As Belgium was a significant colonial power during the latter part of the 19th and first part of the 20th Century, it is not beyond a reasonable speculation that this gun was acquired by Belgian forces in a foreign area of operations

(Africa, where Belgium had the Congo, and Germany had a great deal of West Africa -Remember "Last Voyage of the African Queen" with Bogey and Kate?)

and given a secondary proof by a colonial armory.

Granted, this is pure speculation, however I will ask the group for a better theory.

Cheers,
Tom A.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

03-16-2004, 11:16 PM	#6
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	All, I have seen, disassembled and gone over this gun thoroughly. My guess and it is only a guess, as I can find nothing to back it up, is that this proof is a "secondary" proof, applied by some government entity for foreign manufactured weapons. As Belgium was a significant colonial power during the latter part of the 19th and first part of the 20th Century, it is not beyond a reasonable speculation that this gun was acquired by Belgian forces in a foreign area of operations (Africa, where Belgium had the Congo, and Germany had a great deal of West Africa -Remember "Last Voyage of the African Queen" with Bogey and Kate?) and given a secondary proof by a colonial armory. Granted, this is pure speculation, however I will ask the group for a better theory. Cheers, Tom A.