Thank you Drew! Those are excellent.

I took the firing pins out. They are free-floating and don't use springs.

Hey Drew, I see you are quite knowledgeable about damascus. Any insights about my barrels? Or do you need better pictures? Thanks!

That's interesting. I am asking out of pure interest in old designs. The pictures from the side of the hammers and firing pins show the hammers in a slightly retracted position and one pin in and one out. Are the hammers rebounding or are they resting on a half cock notch. Either way it seems odd that both pins are not fully down with no springs. One maybe more lose than the other. When you had the pins out, did it look like the pin was designed such that a spring would work? It wouldn't be the first old double where someone simply removed and tossed broken springs. I have several old doubles of early 1870s vintage that have half cock notches and no pin springs and the procedure to reload requires a manual half cock before opening to keep from jambing the pins in the primer. Just wondering about the design.

The hammers are rebounding. Both pins move freely in and out. They just happen to be in different positions in the photos. Their design does not support using springs,

I see the price list Dr. Drew posted is dated Feb. 10, 1881, and that rebounding locks had become "standard." The price list in my 1877 catalog has rebounding locks $3 extra on the grades up through 6.

Attachment 130027

My take is that your gun is a No. 6 with the extras of a pistol grip and rebounding locks.

Here is the page from the catalog that states the guns are chambered for brass or paper cases and mentions the chamber lengths.

Attachment 130028

Thank you for those additional pages. I'm guessing my gun is an early one due to the single line patent date, but I found at least one other one with a lower serial number with the 2 line dates. Any thoughts on that?