WW Greener .577 Express For Sale On Guns International

Same year as mine but a cracked stock and a 2 3/4 chamber. May need a load work up nitro for black but it looks pretty nice.

@Thomas Rutledge I wouldn't disparage another member's gun, but since this isn't a member's gun, here goes:

It's about the most useless and overpriced gun on that site at present. A .577 is a ballistically ineffective or inefficient weapon in general, but once brought to tremendous velocity and pressure it works quite well. Once neutered from a Nitro Express velocity/grain weight the bullet is simply too wide in relation to its relatively low mass to penetrate properly on most anything. The gun you're referencing is a diminutive oddball of a ~500gr bullet in .577 held in a 2-3/4" oddball case that will provide only slightly more stopping power than a .50 caliber modern muzzleloader shooting three 50gr pellets. The latter is considered ethical in an inline modern muzzleloader with optics for shots out to ~300 yards max on animals elk and less. (because it drops tremendously and has little energy at reasonable distances) The .577 bullet would make the comparison worse as its like shooting a hubcap it will have such a poor BC and no sectional density.

Now moving that to a double rifle that will never provide accuracy in that caliber and load out to anywhere near 300 yards, the .577 - 2.75" - 510gr load with 160gr of BP is literally a gun for hunting at around 50-75 yards. But then, what will someone hunt with such a gun at 50-75 yards? Kudu? Elk?

Add to that, the gun has a rotted stock (that's what caused the crack...you can see the rot compressions from the wood going soft) and you've got a novelty. I'm uncertain what someone would do with such a marginal bullet at such low velocity. Which kinda brings us to the bullets...they would have to be cast lead with a custom mold, or custom made jacketed bullets because that regulated bullet weight doesn't exist on any shelf.

In short, its the kind of gun that someone would buy for $4000 WITH a good stock to have some fun and shoot at the range. At north of $10,000, the gun is absurdly overpriced and has no particular utility even if the stock was replaced.

Be thankful you have a 3" version that has considerably more use cases than the subject you're referencing above.

I figured it has limited capability as you say. These are relics as you say but at the right price I would say worth saving. I am mainly concerned about the history and scarcity of these rifles. Also, I noted this one is later in the year than mine and says grade 413 vs list 413 as mine says. Do you think the pad is original configuration? I would have thought the crack was caused by the trauma that occurred near the crack. I didn’t see it as rot.

Thanks, Tom

Tom, greener side safeties were used by WW Greener and also extensively on German Drilling’s. If you look at the guts, there is a lot of material removed from the head of the stock to get them in. Rain, and oil, run into them and cause stock rot. If you look at the example cited, you’ll see all the depressions in an otherwise restored stock. Those aren’t gouges from abuse, that is done just by pushing one’s fingers into the rot. The crack began where the rot is.

Rare is a subjective term. They are al uncommon, but demand is far less than supply. Full nitro guns are both in demand and rare, BPEs are not.

The pad isn’t original, but it is correct. It had a steel butt plate and a pad was added. How do I know? People were little. The current 15” length of pull is modern long, for a guy 6’5”. It was 14-1/4 originally. Plate removed, then sanded to 14-1/8”, then a 1” pad added.

Rookhawk,

You are probably correct about the pad being added later in the rifles life but when assessing who a 15” stock is likely to fit it’s worth bearing in mind that British sportsmen have generally used somewhat longer stocks (shotgun & rifle) than Americans have.

John Brindles book ‘Shooting Techniques & Technology’ contains a good explanation as to why.

In the UK a 14’-1/4” original length stock would be considered on the short side of average even if it was from the 1890’s.

Regards
Russell

PS I normally shoot with a 14-7/8” to 15” stock & I’m not even 6’ tall.

Russ-F said:

Rookhawk,

You are probably correct about the pad being added later in the rifles life but when assessing who a 15” stock is likely to fit it’s worth bearing in mind that British sportsmen have generally used somewhat longer stocks (shotgun & rifle) than Americans have.

John Brindles book ‘Shooting Techniques & Technology’ contains a good explanation as to why.

In the UK a 14’-1/4” original length stock would be considered on the short side of average even if it was from the 1890’s.

Regards
Russell

PS I normally shoot with a 14-7/8” to 15” stock & I’m not even 6’ tall.

Click to expand...

I don't have data to cite for you, @Russ-F so all I can say is I respectfully disagree via anecdote. I've owned at least 150 English made doubles over the years, several of them double rifles, almost all of them from the period of 1880-1910. I've handled at least 1000 more. That is just my anecdotal personal experiences because I cannot show production data and ledgers to assert my point though. I've seen no indication that British guns of that era had length of pull as long as you suggest as a standard course of manufacturing. In fact, I'd say 80%+ of the guns I've owned or handled were between 14-1/8"-14-3/8" length of pull and with DAC and DAH of about 1-1/2" and 2-1/8" respectively. What you do see are many guns stocked to a horn plate or iron plate at 14-3/8 all the way to 14-5/8" that then had the plate removed and a 1" silvers pad added. That's where you find the 15" to 15-1/2" vintage double guns with long LOP. You also find that their cases were torn apart trying to get them to fit now that they are nearly 1" longer.

Average height and weight of an Anglo in this period was about 5'8" tall and around 165lbs. The guns were built to accommodate this general body type. As a generalization, heavier people have shorter stocks (their chest shortens LOP) and thinner people have longer stocks. Longer arms also longer stocks.

Particular emphasis was placed on NOT overstocking a double rifle in this era to make them any longer than necessary. Longer stocks necessitate more cast and in turn, more perceived recoil.

If you take a look at Michael Yardley's notes in Gunfitting, 2nd edition you'll see supporting examples of my assertions.

In any case, I do not believe the subject gun was stocked for this length when new, a plate was removed and a pad added to bring it to modern dimensions.