Inherited this old drilling rifle

[davetherogue]

Hi guys. I inherited this old drilling rifle about 10 years ago. I have no information on it and I'm having difficulty finding much. I see what looks like an FW hey but the only thing I find in researching is FW Heym? So I'm assuming that's the maker. I know it has most of the bells and whistles these types of guns came with it has two triggers, one with a set screw, it has a four slot ammo box in the stock, full high relief engraving with stags, pop up rifle sight that pops up when rifle is selected automatically, cocked chamber indicators, Gerber safety?, horn stock cap and trigger guard. I know it is 16 Gauge shotgun and 7x57r which as I understand is 7mm mauser in a rimmed case. Beyond that I have no info on the gun. I can see faint remains of checkering on the stock and foregrip but the rifle was obviously well loved and used as noted by the finger wear in the foregrip. Can anyone give me more info? I'd like to know if I'm right on the maker and when it might have been made. Everything works and it seems to lockup tight as a drum. Also what would something like this sell for? My research has been all over the place with the low end being around 1500 and the high end being in the high five figures. I just don't know enough about these and wouldn't want to go hunting with an exceptionally expensive rifle. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[davetherogue]

More pics!

 

[Red Leg]

I will be interested in other folks thoughts on this gun. Generally, it has the look of a typical pre-war Suhl drilling that was used very hard. However the apparent 70mm chambers are unusual for the period. Also, the shotgun barrels look like they were sleeved into place. That would be beyond unusual as an original production technique for a gun of this period. I wonder if it wasn't sleeved, chambered, and reproofed at some point. The Munich proof house mark would make more sense if that were the case. Such a rebuild and reproof would also explain the very clear 7x57R markings. However, were someone going to all that effort and expense, why not also replace the stock? A small mystery.

Value wise it will be in line with your lower estimate.

 

[davetherogue]

I will be interested in other folks thoughts on this gun. Generally, it has the look of a typical pre-war Suhl drilling that was used very hard. However the apparent 70mm chambers are unusual for the period. Also, the shotgun barrels look like they were sleeved into place. That would be beyond unusual as an original production technique for a gun of this period. I wonder if it wasn't sleeved, chambered, and reproofed at some point. The Munich proof house mark would make more sense if that were the case. Such a rebuild and reproof would also explain the very clear 7x57R markings. However, were someone going to all that effort and expense, why not also replace the stock? A small mystery.

Value wise it will be in line with your lower estimate.

So pre war, possibly sleeved and rechambered? Interesting. Suhl? Is the F W hey not a maker's mark?

 

[franzfmdavis]

I recognize one of the markings as a Munich proof. The eagle beside the Munich proof may be the Federal Eagle, but its a bit blurry for me to tell for certain.

 

[davetherogue]

Here a couple more shots of what might be a federal eagle?

 

[Red Leg]

So pre war, possibly sleeved and rechambered? Interesting. Suhl? Is the F W hey not a maker's mark?

Could be any number of things. The Crown N proof mark was used as the nitro proof mark until 1939. Hence the conclusion it was originally built, probably in Suhl, before the war. Sleeving and 70mm chambers would be very unusual on a pre-war gun, so the supposition it was rebuilt and then reproofed in Munich. The Munich shield mark came into use only in 1968. Unless someone else can establish and actual maker, this would be considered originally a guild gun.

The Eagle over N is definitive nitro proof since 1952. That would match the Munich proof mark that went into effect in 1968. The crown N is pre 1939. So, I am pretty sure this was a pre-war gun with 2.5" chambers that was rebuilt as a 2.75" gun. The rifle barrel could be original or new.

As I say it could be a nice hunting drilling, but it is very much at the lower end of your value estimate.

 

[davetherogue]

Could be any number of things. The Crown N proof mark was used as the nitro proof mark until 1939. Hence the conclusion it was originally built, probably in Suhl, before the war. Sleeving and 70mm chambers would be very unusual on a pre-war gun, so the supposition it was rebuilt and then reproofed in Munich. The Munich shield mark came into use only in 1968. Unless someone else can establish and actual maker, this would be considered originally a guild gun.

Is that a crown N or an eagle N? If I read correctly eagle N came into use in the 50s which would explain the Munich mark as the two were in use together. Maybe this is a post war gun?

 

[Red Leg]

Is that a crown N or an eagle N? If I read correctly eagle N came into use in the 50s which would explain the Munich mark as the two were in use together. Maybe this is a post war gun?

I think I see both, but I could be wrong.

 

[rookhawk]

I will be interested in other folks thoughts on this gun. Generally, it has the look of a typical pre-war Suhl drilling that was used very hard. However the apparent 70mm chambers are unusual for the period. Also, the shotgun barrels look like they were sleeved into place. That would be beyond unusual as an original production technique for a gun of this period. I wonder if it wasn't sleeved, chambered, and reproofed at some point. The Munich proof house mark would make more sense if that were the case. Such a rebuild and reproof would also explain the very clear 7x57R markings. However, were someone going to all that effort and expense, why not also replace the stock? A small mystery.

Value wise it will be in line with your lower estimate.

I think it was made in ‘64 (July) based on the marks. The wear looks like an old gun, but the 3” 16 gauge chambers and 7x57R is a modern configuration.

No idea why the stock and forend have such differences in wear? I don’t understand what happened to the checkering because the wood is still excellent at the head of the stock and proud of the metal. A bit of a mystery on what happened.

With the live rust on the forend and pits in the re-blacked barrels, I’d really need to see the bores to determine if it is safe for use.

It is a Heym of course and was of mid-grade quality when new. (Which is way better than mid-grade French, Belgian, or American guns of the same era)

If the barrels are internally good, it’s on face, functional, and the ribs aren’t loose, it’s worth the low range of estimate or a bit south of that. If those things don’t check out, it’s merely a wall hanger novelty.

All repairs incurred will exceed the value increase of the gun’s value, unfortunately. As a family item, it may be worth putting $1000 into it so it can be used with pride.

 

[rookhawk]

I do see the sleeving. I concur it’s a reworked and reproofed gun. I wouldn’t trust those 3” chambers any more than I trust gas station sushi.

I needs a thorough inspection internally before being fired with low pressure 2.5” loads and light 7x57R loads. Too many cooks have been in this pot.

 

[davetherogue]

I think it was made in ‘64 (July) based on the marks. The wear looks like an old gun, but the 3” 16 gauge chambers and 7x57R is a modern configuration.

No idea why the stock and forend have such differences in wear? I don’t understand what happened to the checkering because the wood is still excellent at the head of the stock and proud of the metal. A bit of a mystery on what happened.

With the live rust on the forend and pits in the re-blacked barrels, I’d really need to see the bores to determine if it is safe for use.

It is a Heym of course and was of mid-grade quality when new. (Which is way better than mid-grade French, Belgian, or American guns of the same era)

If the barrels are internally good, it’s on face, functional, and the ribs aren’t loose, it’s worth the low range of estimate or a bit south of that. If those things don’t check out, it’s merely a wall hanger novelty.

All repairs incurred will exceed the value increase of the gun’s value, unfortunately. As a family item, it may be worth putting $1000 into it so it can be used with pride.

I will try and get some bore pics uploaded in the morning. To my eyes the shotgun bores are bright and shiny with no obvious defects. As to the rifle barrel the rifling looks sharp and bore is mostly bright and shiny with maybe a bit of frosting and again no obvious defects. As for facing it locks up tight and has no rattle with the forend removed. I can say short of actually firing it everything on the gun functions as it should safety, selector, cocked chamber indicators the sight even pops up as it should when selecting the rifled barrel and back down when selecting shotgun. 64 makes sense to me based on what I've seen and learned during my exploration. Thank you for confirming its a heym.

 

[Red Leg]

I think it was made in ‘64 (July) based on the marks. The wear looks like an old gun, but the 3” 16 gauge chambers and 7x57R is a modern configuration.

No idea why the stock and forend have such differences in wear? I don’t understand what happened to the checkering because the wood is still excellent at the head of the stock and proud of the metal. A bit of a mystery on what happened.

With the live rust on the forend and pits in the re-blacked barrels, I’d really need to see the bores to determine if it is safe for use.

It is a Heym of course and was of mid-grade quality when new. (Which is way better than mid-grade French, Belgian, or American guns of the same era)

If the barrels are internally good, it’s on face, functional, and the ribs aren’t loose, it’s worth the low range of estimate or a bit south of that. If those things don’t check out, it’s merely a wall hanger novelty.

All repairs incurred will exceed the value increase of the gun’s value, unfortunately. As a family item, it may be worth putting $1000 into it so it can be used with pride.

I just looked at the original photos on the desk top rather than the iPad, and would now agree that all are Eagle N post 1952 marks. The Munich proof mark is post 1968. Assuming the 764 is a July 1964 date code, then the Munich proof mark is something of an anachronism. The rifle could have sat in the factory awaiting final proof for four years, or it could have been applied after the rework. Judging by the nature of the rework, I would guess the former.

It is clearly marked 16/70 which means it is a 16 bore with 70mm chambers. That is the standard metric designation for 2 3/4 inch shells which is what one would expect on a 60's era drilling or one reworked in that period.

I can find no example or evidence of a Heym ever building shotguns or drillings with sleeved barrels, much less with obvious sleeving lines like this gun shows. The screws on the claw mounts and sight island are also perplexing. They are badly turned by the wrong tool. That sort of ham fisted damage is typically found on much older guns that have seen the "loving" care of careless owners or shade tree American gunsmiths. One can see similar damage on the lifter screws.

I now wonder if a an older drilling barrel set was sleeved to the newer gun following whatever catastrophic event necessitated the work. Perhaps the forearm is a legacy of that donor set?

In any case, it makes it something of a Franken gun. I would also get a chamber cast to insure they kept the same rifle barrel and chambering when it was rebuilt. I own several drillings, and once fired a properly proofed 7x57R in much finer original condition that I was considering buying only to have a fireformed straight wall case emerge from the chamber!

 

[rookhawk]

I just looked at the original photos on the desk top rather than the iPad, and would now agree that all are Eagle N post 1952 marks. The Munich proof mark is post 1968. Assuming the 764 is a July 1964 date code, then the Munich proof mark is something of an anachronism. The rifle could have sat in the factory awaiting final proof for four years, or it could have been applied after the rework. Judging by the nature of the rework, I would guess the former.

It is clearly marked 16/70 which means it is a 16 bore with 70mm chambers. That is the standard metric designation for 2 3/4 inch shells which is what one would expect on a 60's era drilling or one reworked in that period.

I can find no example or evidence of a Heym ever building shotguns or drillings with sleeved barrels, much less with obvious sleeving lines like this gun shows. The screws on the claw mounts and sight island are also perplexing. They are badly turned by the wrong tool. That sort of ham fisted damage is typically found on much older guns that have seen the "loving" care of careless owners or shade tree American gunsmiths. One can see similar damage on the lifter screws.

I now wonder if a an older drilling barrel set was sleeved to the newer gun following whatever catastrophic event necessitated the work. Perhaps the forearm is a legacy of that donor set?

In any case, it makes it something of a Franken gun. I would also get a chamber cast to insure they kept the same rifle barrel and chambering when it was rebuilt. I own several drillings, and once fired a properly proofed 7x57R in much finer original condition that I was considering buying only to have a fireformed straight wall case emerge from the chamber!

Thank you for the correction on the 70mm. My world orbits around 65mm chambers and 67mm chambers so I assumed that was 3” and was wrong. 3” chambers are 75mm.

At any rate, that would be weird for pre-war and so would 7x57r, but it would be correct for post-war 1964 era.

If I had to guess by the quality (lack of quality?) of the rework, this was an old return gun sitting at a gunsmith and they turned an apprentice loose on it figuring he wouldn’t do much harm. The crude claw mount is evidence of an apprentice. This is the first sleeved drilling I’ve ever seen.

The rough tooling marks to the lugs and hook sure do seem like post-war quality control to me, however. Pre-war guns from all the german makers were really refined.

So the million dollar question is how old is the original gun? To have to sleeve a post-war gun and to cause such disrepair to the checkering and forestock is very odd for a relatively modern gun.

 

[davetherogue]

The strange thing for me was having owned this gun for going on 10 years, looking at it this week I discovered the ammo box. Opening the ammo box revealed 4 rounds of seller and ballot SCPA ammo. Which would lead me to believe prior to my inheriting it it was still being shot. Of course that just an assumption.

 

[davetherogue]

Here are pics of the bores. Not sure if this helps or not. Not sure of the best way to get clear bore pictures with a camera phone.

 

[rookhawk]

Bad news, the pics look awful @davetherogue

Good news, pictures don’t mean anything at all. I’ve seen flawless appearance barrels on a $35,000 H&H that would kill you dead if you pulled the triggers, I’ve seen grungy barrels worse than yours that are completely safe.

What you need to know is anyone that looks at the barrels and declares them safe is unqualified. You need someone with a wall thickness tool to check the minimum wall throughout the gun. It should be about .085” minimum 9” from the breech and at least .030” minimum throughout the shotgun barrels or better.

Any qualified shotgun smith will have a wall thickness gauge and can inspect the barrels for you.