On the "Reilly: History Chronology, Serial Number" line below, Wootang mentioned that in 1855 the UK mandated that bore size be stamped next to the barrel proofs.



However, there apparently were makers who were already stamping bore size before it was regulated. With Reilly's, there are not enough pre 1855 guns to establish how much of marker this regulation could be. An 1847 Reilly had no bore size marker. A December 1855 had it.

So what about other London and Birmingham gun makers? Can anyone look at SN chronology for other gun makers and see if the 1855 date marker....bore stamp...applies.

To start the ball rolling...
The only gun in my possession that i am 100% sure is pre- 1855 is by Westley Richards, Birmingham maker.
Date is confirmed as 1841 it has stamps for visual and definitive proofs but no bore size stamps are present.

Argo44:


Lovely effort in all directions but I have a question. In your study of the Reilly assembled longarms is there a hard date where the mechanics were sourcing pattern welded tubes inland and then began to source the talented mechanics in Liège for their tubes?


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, I've only found one Reilly with a Belgian proofed barrel and I think it was a replacement.

Many thanks Argo44 are there any ledgers, etc. that would point to a tube source? More than likely it was inland & a British tube maker imported the rough bored tubes & finished them. Have you any idea if Reilly bored their own pattern welded tubes?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Note that beginning in 1868 & continuing through 1925 there are two marks with the word "OR" between them. The mark to the right is the ordinary preliminary/provisional proof, which was applied to the rough barrel tube before much work had been put into them, so if they failed not as much labor was lost.

The mark to the left is the same provisional proof but it was applied after the barrels had been completed & actually at the same time the final/definitive proof was applied. Apparently by 1865 barrel-making had advanced enough not so many barrels were being lost at the provisional stage so the gunmakers were given the option of all the proofs being applied in the finished state, though still in the White. This cut down on their expense as the barrels made only one trip through the proof house instead of two.

My, I Hollis & Son 12 gauge carries this optional proof mark so was made after 1868. It has the bore mark. The only older shotgun I have is a W&C Scott pinfire which dates to ca 1863-65. It carries the standard provisional proof mark & also has the bore marking.

Raimey, Reilly claimed to bore his own barrels in an 1840 advertisement. He even offered to rebore bad barrels with a claim "no cure, no charge." In an 1861 advertisement he claimed to make every part of his serial numbered guns in-house. See the post on the Reilly line about a "vertical company" making guns vice a "horizontal company." Thus I've assumed he bored his own barrels. This may have changed as time went on and economies of scale impinged....

I have a mid-1840s John Manton stamped with bore size - 15.

I understand that Manton and Greener, and maybe one or two other makers, were stamping bore size prior to the 1855 requirement to do so. Cadet's 15b J Manton proves this exception.
Generally though, i believe the 1855 marker is a good guide for help in dating most early English guns.

5512, the J.C. Reilly muzzle loader with both the 502 New Oxford St. address and 316 High Holborn address, turns out to be 16 Bore. There is a bore stamp between the proof marks. Thus, Reilly may have been bore stamping his guns prior to 1855 like Greener and Manton. Need more examples to confirm this,

I have a Henry Egg with a 14 bore stamp. Unfortunately, Henry used that name and address from 1850 to 1859, so it could fit either pattern.

Joseph Manton , percussion muzzle loader, #8875, crown over GP, crown over V, 16, initials WF