- Messages
- 138
- Reactions
- 29
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Im definitely keeping it. Once I repair the stock ill shoot it for sure! Im just confused on the serial numbers of this company. Also, I read that hollenbeck left the company in 1895 and the guns were call "the syracuse" after hollenbeck left. Therefore dating this gun back to 1895 since it is "the hollenbeck" model... Id just like to know the date of production is allWow!
@Andy54Hawken is always a good resource for info on old firearms!
From the pictures, the Damascus Barrels and Plastic Butt, and more modern Tang Safety say early 1920's to 30's, but that's more guess based on the tech of the day then hard fact!
Still, very sweet looking Side by Side, worth keeping and maybe even shooting with brass shells and low charges of black powder!
EditedIm definitely keeping it. Once I repair the stock ill shoot it for sure! Im just confused on the serial numbers of this company. Also, I read that hollenbeck left the company in 1895 and the guns were call "the syracuse" after hollenbeck left. Therefore dating this gun back to 1895 since it is "the hollenbeck" model... Id just like to know the date of production is all
I have been looking closely and I feel like the patent date is 93... I think the 9 is poorly stamped. Im trying to find images of others to cross referenceEdited
That gun is from 1903 (maybe 08) at the earliest from the patent date, Sept 26 03, probably 1910s if that butt plate is plastic (bakelite) and not a vulcanized rubber.
Looks like they used one serial block for everything and the switch to syracuse in 1895 was around 5000 so yours would be an early model maybe even 1893. I'm still seeing 03 in the pat date but that doesn't fit the SN range.
Yeah I couldn't find any to cross refence either, it's probably 93, that's when he started making them.I have been looking closely and I feel like the patent date is 93... I think the 9 is poorly stamped. Im trying to find images of others to cross reference
I appreciate your input. Thank youYeah I couldn't find any to cross refence either, it's probably 93, that's when he started making them.