I repeat, but understand, there were 20, not 17 Britte/Desart/Pissart sidelocks. This is not confutable.
They are not all 12 bore.
Only the 17 which remained after the first choices were purchased by private parties were 12 bore, reportedly acquired by Griffin & Howe.
Three 16 gauge Holland & Holland-style finished sidelocks, were part of the 20, originally removed from the Britte factory at or about the time the Britte family became more and more conscious of other nearby manufacturing facilities being taken over by the Nazis for wartime production purposes.
Two were purchased by a private party whose name is known, in New York, offered by and purchased through Luc Vander Borght at a Vintage Cup event; later offered for sale on consignment by Niles of Safari Outfitters.
One of those was later purchased used from British Sporting Arms by a Gentleman lawyer in Texas, whose name is also known. Those two were initially offered new by, and purchased through Luc Vander Borght at a Vintage Cup event.
The third 16 was also offered by and purchased through Luc Vander Borght. It is signed in not one, not two, but in three places my one of Belgium's Master Engravers. How many guns can boast that, eh? It remains new and unfired.
My information is not vague at all. Mine is factual and can be supported with thorough documentation, my friend.
The information in Shooting Sportsman Magazine is erroneous.
The reason I asked you is because you asked for a picture. You asked me to post a picture here? Me?
Clearly, unequivocally it is the responsibility of Shooting Sportsman to publish the truth, the entire complete valid truth; it is what is expected of a Magazine thought to be of high ethics and a valid source of factual information. It's readership should expect that as basic to their reason for reading the magazine.
Anyone who would disagree with that reads the magazine, why; to look at the pictures? To say they subscribe to this highly regarded publication? Why, if not to be able to rely on it?
No need to talk vagueness or suggest lack of credible documentation on my part, and no need to diminish the importance of this information because I offer it here on the internet. This is a venue we choose and use to communicate about out sport and its Sporting traditions.
How many pins or screws does a 1917 Boss sidelock have?
This is where we come to ask and to learn and to share information. What do we do if someone says 10, but it really has 11? We share that here.
But this is bigger.
So big, the article's sub headline is "Griffin & Howe's fine-firearm find of the century.
A find like this is a big-deal to the Sporting community; Shooting Sportsman thought so- they published an article about it.
It's just that they got it wrong.
It's not Griffin & Howe's find of the century, it is all of our's find. It's history. There are not 17, there are 20.
Is it their responsibility to put forth articles which it's readership presumably takes as factual, but which promotes one of their advertisers of considerable import yet refuse to put forth the whole story, the Rest of the story? Is that what we expect from them?
Are we not fed up with just that sort of thing from some of our leaders in Washington?
It is their responsibility to each and every single reader, to the maker's of these fine guns and to the guns themselves to make it right.
I don't believe I am fishing for anything. I don't know why you would ask others to explain what I mean.
Do I want people to know the whole story? Yes, of course. In fact, I think the readership of Shooting SPortsman should expect and demand no less.
Here is not the place. Shooting Sportsman is the place. It is not my responsibility to provide to you, here; it is theirs to provide.
They know where all the documentation is.
And Steven, not ever having met you personally, I am well sure I have never insulted you or come close, but you my friend have come close enough to insulting me.
If the readers of Shooting Sportsman don't care if the material put forth is credible, is supported by full documentation, and is a source of valid information; if I am alone on this, so be it. But I've shared too many wee tots with too many members of the Sporting Community to believe I am.
Daryl, you may be right. They, and the information about these fine sidelocks, their documentation, photos, communications with their engraver, his personal recollections of the times, the family, the highly sought after barrel makers and gunmakers, and more, may never be seen in Shooting Sportsman.
That would be too bad.
I have only met Guy Bignell on two occasions and only for a short time. If I am any judge of character though, I think he would agree; things need to be made right by the Magazine which got it wrong. It's not like they can not.
Perhaps if he would ask them they will change their mind?
Let me say, I doubt sincerely that he or the author or the magazine intentionally mislead the readership.
Daryl, Steven, I would be pleased to show you in person all that I can; further I would ask the other gentlemen if they would do the same.
