doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Double Rifles, Paradox Guns & Gauge Rifles @ doublegunshop.com A puzzling Scottish Percussion 12-bore Double

Last weekend's Game Fair saw me coming away with an unexpected purchase: a 12-bore percussion double rifle, signed "A[lexander] F[oote] MAITLAND" and "MAKER. ELGIN" on the top rib, with "A.F. MAITLAND" on both lock plates. The gun was auctioned at Holt's in 2021. Pictures are available at the Holt's link and in my own folder, here.

The rifle is puzzling in several respects. Maitland is not mentioned in Nigel Brown’s British Gunmakers (vol. 2), and I can find no other signed examples of his work. Scottish trade directories for Morayshire list him at 131 High Street, Elgin, in 1863 and 1878: first as a "gunsmith," later as a "gun and fishing tackle maker," with a second premises at 220 High Street, presumably the tackle shop.

Present are standard London proof marks of the 1855–1875 period, including the "12" gauge mark. Beyond that, however, markings are strikingly sparse: no lock or barrel maker’s stamps, no serial or assembly numbers, no patent references. The only additional marking is a clumsily-applied alphanumeric code "APX-305-EX-73" (possibly "AOX") stamped on the left barrel near the chamber. Similar codes appear occasionally in modern auction listings, identified there as Indian "armoury" or "export" marks, but I have yet to find any authoritative explanation or decoding system. Their presence suggests the gun may have been exported to India (perhaps from new) and repatriated much later.

Another of the rifle's enigmas is the rear sight: a standing blade with four folding leaves graduated from 200 to 500 yards, each neatly inlaid with a platinum centre line... yet none of the leaves is cut with a sighting notch. I believe four folding leaves is at the higher end for this type of rifle, and thus this was possibly a higher-than-standard grade of sight, so it surprises me that the leaves were left unregulated when the gun was built. I would be very interested to know under what circumstances a gun might leave a maker’s hands in this condition.

The rifle is also unusually plain. It shows uniform borderline engraving on hammers, plates, and furniture, and simple starburst rosettes on the screw heads, but not a trace of decorative embellishment beyond that. My first thought was that this might have been built for a client of practical temperament - perhaps the proverbial “dour Scot” - who saw no value in paying for adornment, but fancied himself enough of a marksman to make good use of an ample set of sighting leaves. Yet whoever ultimately received the rifle seems to have lacked the interest or opportunity to have the leaves regulated, and its excellent internal and external condition imply little use and long storage.

Despite the simplicity of its decoration (if one may call it that), the rifle is in no way coarse in execution. Indeed, the filing, fitting, and finish are of a very high order, and somewhat at odds with the obscurity of the maker. Given Maitland’s modest profile, I therefore wonder whether he was truly the maker of this piece, or (like many provincial gunmakers) was acting as a retailer for a larger manufacturer, perhaps in Edinburgh or London: I'm assuming that the rifle would carry Birmingham proof marks if it had been made there. In the event that my rifle is the work of a metropolitan maker, I imagine it should be possible to find a “twin” bearing another, perhaps more prestigious, name, but so far, I’ve drawn a blank.*

I would be very interested to know, therefore, whether anyone: (a) has seen, or owns, a similar gun (b) knows more about A.F. Maitland (c) knows whether guns routinely left their makers with un-notched sights (d) knows how the regulation of those sights was achieved, and (e) since I aim to shoot this curious creature, might recommend a load (I am thinking of a patched round ball over between 90-120 grains of Swiss #4). So many questions!


Update: I've found images of a double 10-bore percussion rifle by John Dickson & Sons of Edinburgh with some very similar features

Attractive rifle. Congratulations on the acquisition.

You are right about the rear sight leaves having no notches. Quite odd. But then I'm not that familiar with percussion rifles of that era. The trigger guard/pistol grip is very nice. I have a Dickson 500BPE double from 1882 with the same style.

I believe that those sights are indeed regulated. The Victorian Brits had quite a few ideas that differ greatly from today's views on how iron sights should be used. I believe with those sights you simply place the front bead on top of the leaf and line it up with the platinum line. I would start with a ball a few thousandths of an inch under bore diameter and a cloth patch of about .010", a lubricated felt wad is always a good idea on bore rifles, at 11lbs it should take a pretty stout load of powder, I would think at least 5 drams to regulate though I would start out around 3&1/2 drams and work up. Very nice rifle, and the lack of engraving is not an indicator of low quality. I like it quite a bit, enjoy it in good health and let us know how it shoots!

I have observed the notch less sights on percussion rifles before.
Such sights have yielded very good results with my aging eyes on my own rifles. I can't see the platinum line, so don't bother with it.
They seem to work like an aperture sight, where one's eye naturally centers the bead on the leaf.
A bead somewhat larger than normal is a big help. The size is not a problem blocking the target, as the bullets strike at the top of the bead.

It's in very nice condition.

Thank you, Mike and SKB, for your remarks on the sights. That is most reassuring, and most interesting to know. It resolves the puzzle of the "unfinished" gun, inspires me to learn more about Victorian sighting ideas, and makes me even more keen to try and connect with distant targets.

SKB, additional thanks for the load suggestions, and for giving me a place to start.

Following the pointer on un-notched leaf sights, I thought I should look in W. W. Greener's The Gun and its Development (London: Cassell & Co., 1896). Greener does not discuss un-notched leaf sights, but he does depict them, as part of what he calls a "cape sight", which also incorporates a folding slide that permits shots to be taken "at any range up to 1,000 yards" (p.632).
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6oqe...qv0bpe1zofl76id&st=4pn45bi4&dl=0[/img]

Further references to un-notched sights can be found in the following classic publications:
1) Caswell, John, Sporting rifles and rifle shooting (New York; London: D. Appleton and Company, 1920), pp.56-57 (https://archive.org/details/sportingriflesri00casw/page/56/)
2) Sharp, Henry, Modern sporting gunnery (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & co., 1906), pp.257-59 (https://archive.org/details/modern-sporting-gunnery-1906/page/260/)

You might look at "Notes on Sporting rifles" by Burrard as well. My copy is a misprint....of course it is the chapter on sights that is incomplete in mine.

JulesW,
I appreciate you sharing this rifle with us. I had never heard of rears sites without a notch. Very interesting. I’m learning a lot from this thread. Keep us updated as you research it, and let us know how it performs if you eventually shoot it.

SKB, thanks for your suggestion. I have Burrard's shotgun "trilogy" and his Gunroom, but not his Sporting Rifles, a title that also appears to be absent from the Internet Archive. It seems some further shopping may be in order.

Nice rifle! I read of notchless rear sights with only a platinum line, but never actually saw one. I suppose that could indicate such sights were a short lived fad that were simply found to be less practical and precise than a more conventional rear open sight. Few people approaching middle age would be able to simultaneously focus on the platinum line, the front sight, and the target with any speed or precision.

Mike Rowe's comment above saying the bullets with such an arrangement would strike at the top of the bead seemed a bit problematic, because with my own black powder rifles, the average sight bead can cover a fairly large portion of the target at longer ranges. I had one .50 cal. flintlock that was difficult to get the precision I wanted because the rear notch was narrow, and the bead fairly filled the notch. That made it hard to know I was centered on the heart of a deer at 100 yards, especially in low light conditions, so I modified the rear sight notch. And if my bullet were to hit at the top of the bead at that range, that could mean a shot intended for the heart would result in a very high lung shot, or worse. Or it would mean consciously holding low to make a heart shot, which isn't a great idea either.

I looked at your photos and was surprised to see there wasn't as much difference in height between the 100 yard and the 500 yard blade as I expected, especially for a percussion 12 bore rifle. It seems like there is a lot more difference in height on small bore higher velocity military rifles with ladder type rear sights when you elevate to longer ranges. So it seemed like the sight graduations on your rifle were optimistic at best. I shot my .50 and .54 cal. flintlocks at longer ranges to check the trajectory with hunting loads, and they really start dropping like a rock when you get much past 125-150 yards. I'd be very surprised if your gun shoots to the sights once you find a regulation load, and actually fire it at the longer ranges.

When I was in my 20's, I bought a .69 cal. percussion replica rifle and mold from a friend. I asked him what load he used, and he said 160 grains of FFg with a round ball that weighed around 450 grains, as I recall. That would be a 5.85 dram charge, which in hindsight was probably much too heavy for the gun. The recoil set me back a step or so, but it was a literal blast to shoot. It turned out to have poor accuracy, even when I varied the charge a bit, so I sold it. The trajectory at longer ranges was worse than my smaller caliber flintlocks, and I never tried it past 200 yards. I'd guess a 12 bore round ball trajectory would be even worse.

I saw that Francis Lovel had some nice muzzle loaders on his rack,,was it from him or Giles Marriot?

Flat topped long range sights have an advantage in that you can lay off for wind without losing the same elevation.

Not that shooting at 500 yards in a cross wind when using a 12 bore rifle is likely to be productive if you are shooting at anything smaller than a closely formed battalion.

I agree with Parabola that notches in a flat top leaf would be distracting when shooting long range targets in the wind. I can see a reason for the flat top notchless rear sight.

My thanks to Eightbore, Parabola and Keith for your comments.
I agree that it appears the 500 yard leaf would provide insufficient elevation, but - having learned that notch-less sights were a "thing" - I'm inclined to trust their maker.
Nonetheless, I shall look for an opportunity to set up the rifle in a rest and see just how much vertical difference there would be in the presumed POI at, say, 100 yards, when using the 100- and 500-yard leaves, respectively; then play around with some numbers in a ballistic calculator. I think the G1 BC of a 575-grain 0.72" round ball works out at around 0.11. How much better it would be for a conical bullet is another matter to look into.
Additionally, I have just received a copy of Graeme Wright's Shooting the British Double Rifle, from which I'm sure I'll learn much of use and interest.

Keith
I have not found a problem when hunting, with the bullets striking at the top of the bead. It doesn't matter how large the bead may be, it's not covering the strike spot.
In use, I align the sights (well, as best I can!), and raise them up the animal until the top of the bead reaches the spot I need to hit. Then press the trigger.
It's worked so far.

BTW If y'all have read "The Art of Still Hunting" by T.S. van Dyke, published, I believe, in the 1880's, he recommends a flat bar rear sight made of black rubber. The old first hand accounts like this are always a great source of inspiration. Too many good methods have been lost to time.

A great reference. Here's the quotation:

"The back sight I use is a straight bar of hard black rubber about thirty-five hundredths of an inch wide, perfectly level on top. Iron or bone soaked with ink will do as well; but iron should be kept corroded with tincture of iodine and then blackened withink. With such a sight and ivory on the ball in front you can swing your rifle around the horizon in the sun and see no change of light-center and not a glimmer from the bar. And you can shoot ten degrees closer to the sun’s eye with them than with any other set of open sights. The very best of all is a piece of hard soleleather, made still harder by boiling and hammering and drying in an oven. Soaked with ink, not a ray of light will this cast. It can be screwed in through a hole." (pp.357-58)

Theodore S. Van Dyke, The Still Hunter (New York: Fords, Howard & Hulbert, 1882)