Talk:2 bore

true 2-bore?
On this forum (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/02/18/sh-2-bore-blackpowder-express/) folks sed that Samuel Baker's "Baby" was more like a 3-bore with half-pound shell, propably connical bullet, not half-pound ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.160.110.255 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am the Editor of The Firearm Blog and the author of the above linked to blog post. It is my opinion that this page be renamed 2 Bore S&H. By definition no caliber can be invented by anyone, but Colin, to my knowledge developed the first true 2 Bore cartridge, the 2 Bore S&H.

No my knowledge no true 2 Bore existed before, definitely no 2 Bore cartridges existed before. This article makes more sense to be about the 2 Bore S&H than about the concept of a 2 Bore cartridge since few, if any, exist (for very practical reasons) other than the rifles Colin made. Baker's 2 bore rifle was closer to 3 bore in caliber (but was and is referred to as a 2 bore).

Can someone knowledgeable about wikipedia rename this article?

Steve9x19 (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really willing to do that, there is no solid sourcing on this page about the S&H gun. Blog posts and adverts are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes.  A brief search for book sources turned up a few mentions of a 2-bore gun by Moore  but nothing on the S&H gun.  Why should Wikipedia not have an article on 2 bore?  It seems better to me to let this article develop into a general discussion of 2-bore. SpinningSpark 08:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you point, as if 'Baby' used a non-spherical bullet, then it could have been almost any similar calibre, not necessarily 2 bore. (A 2 bore is sized from a half pound spherical ball. If the projectile weighs the same, but is bullet shaped rather than spherical, it's likely to be less than 2 bore diameter.) Do we know what calibre it was, as a linear dimension?
 * As to the rest though, then this should stay here as "2 bore". It should cover Baby and it should cover S&H. Clarification should be by good structuring and headings within this article though, not by splitting it and trying to link between separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gun history
Schroeder is named as the gun designer in the infobox, but the Schroeder & Hetzendorfer page linked appears to be for the manufacture of historical copies. There is no indication that this was the original production of the gun. Schroeder is not mentioned in the article at all, but a well known British gunmaker, Holland & Holland is talked about at length. Another British gunmaker, Purdey, is mentioned in one of the references. So it is quite clear at least that Schroeder & Hetzendorfer were not the only manufacturer and there is no reference saying they were the original one. The history section of the infobox is thus quite misleading. Perhaps the article was originally intended to be on the Schroeder & Hetzendorfer 2-bore, in which case the article was misnamed and a new one should be created for that gun. SpinningSpark 10:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They may have been the "original" makers (i.e. "first" makers), as the Victorian 'Baby' can quite reasonably be challenged for being an exact 2 bore (although I think it should stay).
 * As noted above, no-one really "invented" the concept of "2 bore". Particular chamber sizes are an invention within this, but they belong in sections, not in the overall article. Any gunmaker with a size-obsessed client could produce such a firearm and even if a "true 2 bore" there's no reason or expectation that its ammunition would be the same as another 2 bore. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Schroeder is NOT named as the gun designer in the infobox. The header for said box is titled "2 Bore Metallic Cartridge". The infobox refers ONLY to Schroeder being the designer of such. The associated data would apply ONLY to a rifle built around this cartridge and would definitely NOT apply to an historical smoothbore muzzle loader of dubious metallurgy. Schroeder & Hetzendorfer are not gun makers nor have they ever been, they are munitions designers. They do not make "copies" of anything. Stolzer & Sons built the first 2-Bore cartridge guns on new Jones under lever type actions. The only 2-bore cartridge guns ever made, currently total quantity of 2, were produced by Mr. Stolzer. The cartridge design and subsequent rifles are very well documented. See Guns & Ammo, May 2011.

Debating who built what and when in historical terms, is much like religion. Any reasonable person would want to see proof (photographs, period drawings, makers registry) that such a rifle existed. If there is none, the reference should be noted as hearsay, rumor, fiction, propaganda, fantasy, etc, or deleted. King Tut might have hunted with a 2-Bore.

There has been some discussion that Baker's rifle now resides in The Tower Museum in London, this should be easy to validate or refute. If the rifle does exist and it's provenance verified, the barrel should be slugged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.189.188 (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, if the infobox is for the cartridge that makes more sense. However, that makes it an inappropriate infobox for this article.  I propose to remove it (infoboxes are evil anyway).  The information content could be converted to running text, or else the box could be used to start a separate article. SpinningSpark 11:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would keep the infobox (if it's a sourceable example from one gunmaker), but make it clearer that it applies to a section of this article, not the whole topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Baker's 2-bore
The 2-bore, as a shoulder held sporting rifle (either single shot or double rifle) is a modern invention of the mind set "mine is bigger." No sporting 2-bores existed in the vintage years except as punt guns used by commercial waterfowl market hunters. Baker's rifle is not found in the ledgers of the maker as a 2-bore but as a 4-bore. Baker describes his 3500-grain projectile as an elongated exploding bullet. A true 2-bore's 3500 grains must be a ball to be of the correct 2-bore diameter as listed in the British proof house. If Baker's bullet was a 2-bore and elongated it would weigh considerably more than 3500 grains. What Baker shot was a single shot 4-bore firing a heavier than normal bullet. In twenty years of bore rifle experiences and research, no 2-bores of vintage age have surfaced, nor have any ledger pages. Cal Pappas calpappas.com216.152.180.150 (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC) The British Bore Rifle Holland and Holland ledger pages as well as ledgers from Jeffery, Purdey, Lang, Wilkes, Henry, Dickson


 * Do you have a citable source for this being a 4 bore? I take your general point, but from what I know and can source, it could have been anything from a 1.5 bore (a Minie bullet can be lighter than a ball) to a 6 bore.
 * Also please note that isn't an article on "vintage 2 bores", it's on "2 bores". If the only example was made last week, it would still belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed Cal's contribution for now while it is discussed. For convenience, I am posting it below;
 * ''The refinances to Bakers's rifle as a 2-bore is an error that has been made by many writers over the past century. Baker's rifle was a single shot 4-bore rifle (bore diameter of 1.052"). Allow me to explain and the details of which can be found in my book, The British Bore Rifle. First, a true 2-bore would be far too heavy for a shoulder sporting arm. Between 35 and 40 pounds would be needed to control the excessive recoil. Second, there are no records of any English maker, Holland and Holland included, which specifies a 2-bore. Third, the only 2-bores were very heavy punt guns made for commercial waterfowl hunters. These guns were mounted in a boat, called a punt, and were not held to the shoulder to be fired. Fourth, look at the logic of it--a 2-bore ball weighs 3500 grains or 8 ounces. Again, as a spherical ball. Baker's exploding 3500 grain projectile was not a ball but an elongated bullet. If elongated, it was not a ball, and could not weigh 3500 grains if it was any shape other than a spherical ball. Balker's 3500-grain projectile was an 8-ounce 4-bore bullet propelled by 10 drams (275 grains) of powder. However, in other writings, Baker states he used 16 drams or 440 grains." Cal Pappas Calpappas.com


 * This needs cleaning up for a number of issues, but primarily there is an issue with sourcing. I cannot locate Cal's book on Gbooks, Amazon, or WorldCat.  Cal's blog seems to indicate that the book is not yet released.  Cal, is this book self-published?  Does it have an ISBN?  Self-published books are usually not considered reliable here.  The claim that there are no vintage 2-bores is flatly contradicted by this article in The Gun Digest which discusses a 19th century 2-bore rifle by William Moore.  This book says that Holland & Holland made 2-bore shotguns in the 19th century (surely shotguns are included in the term 2-bore).  Also, we do not present our own personal argumentation in articles in Wikipedia's voice or write in the first person, nor do we sign our contributions to Wikipedia.  If kept, this should be put in the form of "According to author Cal Pappas, describing Baker's rifle as a 2-bore is an error..." SpinningSpark 11:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be a very tenuous claim to claim that old 2 bores just don't exist, when both punt guns and Indian wall guns are both up to around that size. The likelihood that H&H et al didn't make them doesn't change that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your Google links are not functioning. Please don't infect your work with Google anything, this page is problematic enough as it is.

One of the problems with "editing" work on a topic without depth of expertise is lack of context which leads to recurring errors of logic. A 2-Bore shotgun, is a punt gun not a shoulder fired rifle. Please refer to opening paragraph "The largest size ever created for a shoulder rifle and used mainly in the 19th century for hunting large dangerous game animals." Punt guns are not shoulder fired and shotguns are not rifles. A wall gun is a punt gun sans punt. Neither are rifled or were used to hunt Dangerous game. Perhaps waterfowl are considered dangerous game in the UK? Wait, the header states the Dangerous Game was hunted in Africa and India. Hmmm ... I'm confused, what are we talking about here?

If your intent is to broaden the focus of this page from 2-Bore rifle to 2-Bore anything, including 2-Bores in name only, or 2-Bores that might have existed, then the entire page should be scrapped, written properly offline, and reposted here. I recently attached a Jaguar D Type chassis tag to my MGA, I've decided to represent it's a legitimate D type since it falls into the category of old English clunker with no roof, four wheels, and seating for two. Problem is, the bastard has gone missing and since I'd neglected to take photos and had no other documentation, no one believes the thing ever existed. Ok, right, back to my PG Tips (with added clove, ginger, coriander, and anise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎75.83.189.188 (talk • contribs)


 * If you put as much effort into providing reliable sources as you do into sarcasm we might start to get somewhere. And learn to sign your posts. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

To which reliable sources are you referring? There are none other than the ones previously mentioned. Where is the "somewhere" you're trying to go? Seems You're trying to document something that doesn't exist, to prove a negative, an errand best left to those in the field of quantum mechanics? Many highly qualified and reputable researchers have looked at this over a very long period of time. The historical 2-Bore is part archaeology part myth. If you're looking for adventure, you might consider picking up the phone and calling all the historical English gun-makers and requesting access to their archives. Maybe a trip to Tower Museum? Phone Giles, he was, I believe, an adjunct to a firearms museum in the UK while he developed his whaling gun reproduction. Maybe he knows where Baker's rifle is today? Maybe he knows where all the 2-Bore rifles have gone? This has the makings of a great reality TV show. - Colonel Mustard 75.83.189.188 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources to which I am referring are the sort described in the link I provided to Reliable sources in my previous post. If "reputable researchers" have looked into this then you ought to be able to point to their published results.  Wikipedia is based on sources, not on your, or anyone else's, assertions or claimed knowledge.  Sorry, but that's the way it works here.  Without sources to look at it is a waste of time arguing the point. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Firearms by caliber
Category:Firearms by caliber appears to be tagged as a container cat (subcats only), but this and other articles are there - unsure of the best solution. --Slivicon (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it's not a container category any more and the tag should be removed. Or else create a new, more suitable, category in which the n-bore articles can be placed. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * any suggestions on an appropriate subcategory name that would group the n-bore articles? Slivicon (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Why not just remove the tag? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 06:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally I'm all over removing container tags that don't belong, as I've actually been working on them all via my user page. However, in this case, it just seemed to me that it could arguably make sense as a container since it's basically saying 'Firearms grouped by caliber subcategories', but without knowing more about the subject matter, I risk creating a subcat name that ends up in CFD...'Obsolete firearm calibers', 'Firearm bore calibers' - I don't even know if people who know the subject would agree with those, I'm guessing...Slivicon (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Firearms by bore", or anything similar, won't do because "bore" can refer to the bore in inches or mm as well as the n-bore system. However, the term gauge is a synonym in this context, and as far as I know is only ever used with the n-gauge format.  Thus, you could have category:firearms by gauge as a sub-category to group all the n-bore articles.
 * Mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms for any additional input/consensus Slivicon (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)