March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 829 guests, and 6 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,015
Members14,391
Most Online1,258
2 hours ago
Thread Like Summary
Argo44, graybeardtmm3, Imperdix, JulesW, MattH, Parabola, Tim Cartmell
Total Likes: 40
Original Post (Thread Starter)
#574708 07/02/2020 5:39 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
There are wonderful threads on this board that follow individual makers, and models. In keeping with the spirit of sharing, and to provide a different distraction in these trying times, I am starting a thread on the pinfire game gun.

When I started researching and collecting British pinfire game guns some 25 years ago, there were few suitable reference books, the Internet was a plaything for University academics, and knowledge was something painstakingly gathered. Now there are amazing print and on-line references on British gunmakers and gunmaking, and sharing and exchanging information on-line is commonplace. While the research part has gotten easier, the gaps in knowledge are still there.

I expect some followers of this board already know quite a bit about pinfires. Many of you will have one or several in your collections, and I hope you will contribute to this thread. To those who are very familiar with the story of the British pinfire, I ask for your patience -- something in these posts will surely be new to you. I will try to cover as many makers, types and features as I can to make this interesting. I will be adding to this thread every few days.

So, here's going right back to the beginning of British breech-loaders.

At the Great Exhibition in London in 1851 an example of Casimir Lefaucheux's pinfire was on display, and Eugene Lefaucheux was on hand to answer any queries about its features. The British shooting press didn't make any notable mention of Lefaucheux's gun prior to the Great Exhibition, despite the gun being in use in France since the 1830s. Perhaps it was believed the British sportsman would stick to the muzzle-loader, and leave the "crutch-gun" to foreigners. With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to differentiate a curiosity from a real developmental step, but it was clearly not obvious back then.

British gunmakers could have just copied Casimir Lefaucheux's pinfire, much as the earlier generation of makers copied the French flintlock. The pinfire gun was, after all, a design in working use and not just a prototype. A straightforward copy with recognisable names on the lock plates might have been reassuring enough for at least some sportsmen to try the new system, and to make this possibility easier Lefaucheux did not patent his invention in Britain. This left the door open to anyone copying the gun and the cartridge system. That this didn't happen is an indication of the tremendous reluctance that existed towards this invention, pre-dating the Great Exhibition. Trusted names spoke ill of the French breech-loader, which seems to have deterred even the slightly curious. Who would want to try a gun boldly proclaimed by the experts to be unsafe? The muzzle-loader was also at its highest level of refinement, with quick-firing locks, strong barrels and quality craftsmanship. There would have to be a change to the design to make it palatable to the shooting community.

Giving a British character to the Continental pinfire was indeed the first step towards its acceptance. Not just a respected name, but a design make-over was needed. This is what Joseph Lang accomplished, by having a wooden fore-end instead of an iron one, substituting a discrete lever to release the barrels instead of the long Lefaucheux lever, limiting decoration to tasteful acanthus-leaf engraving and fine chequering, and, most importantly, sticking to the lines, proportions and dimensions of the British double-barrelled muzzle-loader.

The version offered by Lang is believed to have been first built by Edwin Charles Hodges, who convinced Lang to market it. Hodges became the most sought-after actioner of early breech-loaders, and his work was used by the top makers (this is not surprising, few at the time knew how to accomplish this task well). The Lang gun has the lever engaging with a single notch or bite on the barrel lump, relatively close to the hinge pin. This proved adequate but less robust than the later double-bite fastening mechanisms. The original Lefaucheux patent of 28 January 1833 clearly shows a double-bite fastener, and the addendum of 13 March 1833 shows the typical double-bite fastening mechanism found on Lefaucheux sporting guns. The Lefaucheux gun illustrated in The London Illustrated News of July 1851 appears to have had this typical double-bite mechanism, so it is anyone's guess as to why this engineering feature was not copied by Hodges and Lang. Perhaps they surmised that a single bite was sufficient to the task. It was nevertheless a good working design, as guns with this mechanism have survived hard use, and single-bite guns were made by many noted makers well into the 1860s, even after the double-bite fastener (the Henry Jones double screw grip) came into widespread acceptance.

The following is a good example of the early design, a 16-bore forward-underlever pinfire sporting gun by John Blissett of London, number 3742, possibly made before 1860. This is an early Lang-type single-bite forward-underlever action with the assisted-opening stud, and the action is signed by Edwin Charles Hodges. When the lever is opened fully, a rising stud on the action bar lifts the barrels slightly and makes it easier to fully open the gun and load/remove the cartridges. Curiously, Hodges or Lang never patented this feature. The 29 7/8" damascus barrels, signed "John Blissett, 322 High Holborn, London," still have mirror bores, despite the gun showing signs of great use and period repairs. The gun has thin fences typical of pre-1860 gun, and the hammers have prominent stylized cap guards, a carry-over from percussion guns. The back-action locks are signed "John Blissett London" and have foliate scroll engraving, with dog and game scenes. The stock escutcheon is vacant, but it is in gold instead of the usual silver.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

The IGC Database tells us that John Blissett was the son of Isaac Blissett, a gun maker and jeweller. John's father set him up in business as a gun maker and jeweller at 74 High Holborn, around 1834. In 1835 John Blissett moved to 321-322 High Holborn as a gun maker and repository for guns (selling second-hand guns), but his principal business address was 321 High Holborn. The 322 High Holborn business address started to be used in 1851. In the 1861 census John was recorded living at 322 High Holborn with his son William, also a gunmaker. In about 1866 the firm was re-named John Blissett & Son. John Blissett died in 1872, and William died in 1876. William James Tomes took over the business re-naming it Blissett Son & Tomes. In 1883 he moved the business to 98 High Holborn where he changed the name to Tomes & Co., and ceased trading in 1885.
Liked Replies
#634884 Aug 31st a 02:49 AM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
What causes a British gun to lack proof marks? Here is an interesting gun, as single pin-fires usually are, with a whiff of mystery about it.

Gunmakers were businessmen, their businesses had their ups and downs, and not all were successful. The economics of gun-building was complex, and wealthy patrons were not always the best at paying their bills on time. Credit was the norm, though skilled workmen had to be paid – a situation frequently leading to bankruptcies. Not sending a barrel and action to the proof house might save a few pennies, but the financial risk was great, not to say the damage to one’s reputation.

On the surface, this single-barrel pin-fire gun signed "H. W. Whaley, Strood, Kent" is a fine-looking gun that has undergone period repairs and perhaps more recent (and less skilled) repair or restorative work. The dimensions are for a person of typical stature, and the level of decoration is in keeping with a second-quality London gun or a first-quality gun of provincial make (Strood is a small town about 40km east of central London). The action is the design of Robert Adams of London, conforming to his patent No. 285 of 3 February 1860, though it is unmarked. In a letter to the weekly sporting paper The Field dated 6 February 1864, Adams stated his guns were "my own patent, made on my own premises, and under my own supervision," when challenged about the origins of his pieces, clearly establishing his 76 King William-street workshop as the builder and purveyor of his patent action, though a number of provincial makers sold guns with Adams actions, possibly under some arrangement with Adams.

I expected to find a patent mark or a patent-use number on the action, so I was surprised to find no markings of any kind on the action, not even provisional proofs. The story got darker, finding no proof marks on the barrel, only a bore stamp (15). The 28 1/16-inch barrel is of twist construction and is half-16-sided to half-8-sided towards the breech, suggesting it might have been repurposed from a muzzle-loader; the chamber is bored for the 14-gauge cartridge. Whatever marks might have been on the original barrel were gone, and once rebuilt, it was never submitted for proof to the London or Birmingham Proof House, an offence under the Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1855. Mr Adams was not unaware of the risks of avoiding the proof house: in February of 1860, he was fined £10 for having sold a rifle whose barrel lacked proofs, claiming in court he had sent it out "by mistake." He subsequently had to recall twenty rifles, to avoid paying additional fines of £20 for each one. One can assume he did not want further risk to his finances and reputation.

If Mr. Adams had not made the action, it could have been made by the provincial gun maker, or a Birmingham workshop. With no way to date the gun, it possibly was made after the Adams patent lapsed. However, there would have been far easier and more robust designs to copy by such time than the Adams. The Adams action was popular in the early 1860s; a correspondent wrote about the Adams action to The Field on 29 November 1862, stating, "I have used one for the past two seasons made by Mr Adams, of King William-street, City; whose principle, for simplicity and strength, I consider the best out." He further noted, "last season I fired from this gun 2000 shots, and over 1000 this season," giving an idea of how pin-fire guns were used in the field. He noted "another great advantage in Mr Adams's breech-loaders, which is, the absence of that mass of iron-work at the junction of the barrel and breech, which makes it as light and handy as any muzzle-loader." Adams's guns under this patent were of the bar-in-wood type, hiding a narrow action bar and the hinge beneath the woodwork. Some of his guns had a permanently attached fore-end, though this one has a removable one. Making any bar-in-wood gun is not for the faint of heart, and this is the only bar-in-wood single-barrel pin-fire gun I've ever come across, in hand or in print. It has an "island lock," and very little metalwork is apparent, giving it the look of a fine muzzle-loading gun from just about every angle.

The name and address on the gun, Henry Watson Whaley of Strood, Kent, offers another avenue to the investigation. He was born in Lynn, Norfolk, around 1805. His father, John, was born in 1781 and was a gunmaker by trade, and Henry likely apprenticed under him. John Whaley & Son traded in High Street, Strood, starting in 1831. Henry married in 1834, but happiness was replaced with trouble in the business. In June 1839, the company was dissolved, with both the father and son being sued and ending up in the notorious Marshalsea debtors prison that year. Around 1844, Henry resumed the business under his name at 46 High Street. There must have been a severe falling-out between Henry and his father, as on 13 November 1849, he took out an advertisement in the South Eastern Gazette announcing "that John Whaley, Sen., his father, has left him, and has no connection whatsoever with his business, and that the said John Whaley, Sen., is not authorized to receive any money or take orders on account of Henry Watson Whaley, from this date." Nothing much is known about the business, but Henry was recorded as a master gun maker. He did not have any children to continue the business. In the 1851 census, he is recorded as having a 15-year-old apprentice, Henry Jackson, and in the 1861 census, another 15-year-old apprentice, George B. Richardson, is listed as living with him above the workshop. Henry died in 1881, and the business, gun maker and cutler, was continued by his workman Edward Palmer until around 1894 (Palmer may have apprenticed under Henry).

Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing if Robert Adams's workshop made the action, or if it was made under licence (or not) by Henry Watson Whaley at the High Street address. From the possibly repurposed barrel, I presume it was fitted and the gun assembled by Whaley; the special-order nature of the gun might help explain why the action and barrel were never proofed, being a one-off order, perhaps made under time pressure. In any case, it is fine work and aesthetically pleasing. 14 gauge was popular then, and the single barrel and bar-in-wood construction made for a light gun at 5 pounds 10 ounces. The silver stock escutcheon is unmarked, leaving no clue as to the original owner; the gun is unnumbered, which is not unusual for a gunmaker producing a minimal number of guns in a year, and in any case, no Whaley records have survived. The period repair, an inletted pinned metal strap straddling the hand and comb, shows that someone wanted to keep the gun in the field despite a broken stock, perhaps sometime after the pin-fire system was out of fashion. Two other repairs, filler added around the lock and a possibly replaced fore-end tip of darkly-stained wood instead of horn, suggest later amateur repairs or restoration work of a lower quality, perhaps when the gun was relegated to wall-hanger status. Despite these minor blemishes, the gun is interesting, unusual, and storied. The stock is nicely figured, and the flat-top chequering is well executed. Exactly who made the gun cannot be determined; so is the reason for its construction or why it escaped the proof house. Few Whaley arms of any type (by father or son) have surfaced, so it is impossible to know if it was typical in build or quality. Perhaps something will turn up that will help fill out the story.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
4 members like this
#635885 Sep 27th a 07:48 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
Since this thread started, I've learned a few more things and made new friends. Thanks to two remarkable gentlemen, I've obtained an early James Purdey pin-fire, shown below.

One of the many reasons I am interested in mid-Victorian British gunmaking is the remarkable ingenuity and creativity on display. Everything we take for granted in modern break-open shotguns appeared then, from centre-fire cartridges to extractors to choke-boring and the numerous action types that ultimately settled into the top lever and sliding underbolt design. But though all of these are standard today to the point of not being given a second thought, the best ideas were not necessarily apparent then. There are reasons for this. Shooters did not change guns easily; they were expensive, and once you found a gun that shot well, you stuck with it. My research into the writings of the day has shown me that back then, the barrels (and their shooting qualities) counted for 99% of a gun's perceived value – with the rest being the gun's action, decoration, and stock figure, if these were considered at all. Actions were judged on their strength, ease of use, and potential for failing at inopportune moments, not their ingenuity. Quality was generally taken for granted, and guns of a given price tended to be equal in build and finish. No one had a monopoly on quality; for the most part, the various makers in places like London and Birmingham shared the same outworkers. Parts often came from the same sources, be they barrel tubes, locks, etc. Inventiveness paid off in patented designs that could be promoted by word-of-mouth, patronage, or print advertising. And even then, such designs were not necessarily exclusive, as one maker could use another's design and pay a royalty. Common then, not so much now. Try going into a Ford dealership and asking them to supply their product but with a Honda engine…

So, with slow product turnover, ideas and designs did not radiate quickly. Patents could be maintained for many years and renewed. The gunmaking business (and it was a business, just as it is today) gradually gravitated towards easy-to-make, reliable designs to squeeze the most profit. The boxlock double gun is the epitome of this evolution. The action was invented in 1875 by William Anson, foreman of Westley Richards' gun action department, and John Deeley, the managing director of Westley Richards. Add to this a top lever, patented by William Middleditch Scott in 1865, which moves a spindle and cam. When rotated, the lever withdraws a horizontally sliding bolt that unlocks the barrels, allowing the gun to open. For the sliding bolt, two slots (or bites) were found to be far structurally sounder than a single one, with one slot closer to the hinge and the other close to the breech face. This latter invention by James Purdey dates from 1863, and the patent for it expired in 1877, explaining why almost all boxlocks made after this date have this locking mechanism. The story of the Purdey sliding underbolt is intrinsically linked to the evolution of the pin-fire game gun.

The Purdey gunmaking family line started in the 1700s. The founder of the firm we know today, James Purdey (the Elder), was born in 1784 to a gunmaking father, who had learned the trade from his father, having moved from Scotland around 1690. In 1798, the London gunmaker Thomas Keck Hutchinson took on 14-year-old James as an apprentice for seven years. In 1805, Purdey began work as a stocker for Joseph Manton, and in 1808, he worked as a stocker and lock filer for the Forsyth Patent Gun Co. On 31 December 1812, James Purdey became a Freeman of the Gunmakers Company, and in 1816, he set up a shop and workshop with an apprentice at 4 Princes Street, Leicester Square. Around 1820, the firm became a member of The Society of Master Gunmakers of Westminster. At this time, Purdey made guns under his name and for other gunmakers, notably Joseph Lang and Charles Lancaster. Purdey also ran a good business in second-hand guns. In 1826, the business moved to Oxford Street. In 1838, Queen Victoria started buying guns from Purdey. In 1843, James Purdey took on his son, James, as an apprentice. In 1853, James (the Elder) retired, and his son, age 29 (and since then known as James the Younger), took over the business. In 1857, possibly 1858, Purdey built its first pin-fire gun, but very few were made. These would have been made according to Joseph Lang's design (who was, after all, James the Elder's son-in-law), with a short forward-facing underlever and a single-bite attachment. In 1860, James Purdey (the Younger) became a Freeman of the Gunmakers Company and bought the business outright. In 1861, the firm made 41 pin-fires, all built on sliding-barrel actions from the Bastin Brothers of Hermalle-sous-Argenteau, Liège, Belgium. The actions were purchased in-the-white and made into guns at the Oxford Street premises. Also, in 1861, James took out the first Purdey patent for a pin-fire cartridge turnover machine, the first genuinely effective design.

While the Bastin action was good, the user had to manually operate the lever to close the action, as with all other actions at the time. The Frenchman François Eugène Schneider appears to have come up with the first snap underlever, patented in October 1860, and the design was acquired by George H. Daw in 1861 and immediately improved for the Daw centre-fire breech-loader that first appeared in late 1861. The advantage of a spring-assisted action that secured the barrels upon closing was quickly appreciated, and a flurry of snap-action patents began to appear. In order by patent date (which is only a rough guide), Thomas Horsley brought out an action with a spring-tensioned trigger-guard lever in February 1862; Joseph Needham patented his snap side-lever in May 1862; the first top-lever snap action was Westley Richards' pull-lever of September 1862; and J.W.P. Field's snap underlever was patented in December 1862. James Purdey followed suit, obtaining a patent for his double-bite snap action in May 1863, with a sliding underbolt linked to a peculiar thumb-operated lever in the trigger guard. This patent is the one illustrated here. Eventually, Purdey married his double-bite underbolt with W. M. Scott's top-lever (which Scott patented in October 1865), creating what became the general standard action for double guns to this day.

Let's have a closer look at Purdey's patent No. 1104. The bolt is operated by a long under-lever hinged at the front, which is grasped through a wide bifurcated trigger guard; both the bolt and lever are spring tensioned. This is the version correctly known as the first-pattern thumb-hole under-lever patent. In February 1865, the design was much improved with a lever hinged immediately in front of the trigger guard and a single spring to tension the lever and bolt; that one is the second-pattern thumb-hole under-lever. As the design quickly improved, few examples of the first pattern were made. The second-pattern thumb-hole action survived well into the central-fire period and is popular today. Purdey also built the thumb-hole action for other gunmakers, so various names turn up on thumb-hole action guns.

How many first-pattern thumb-hole guns were made in the 18 or so months between the first gun and the appearance of the second pattern? I don't know; it couldn't have been more than a handful. At the time, the weekly newspaper The Field did not speak well of the action, questioning its durability, which would not have been good for sales. But some were made, but here is one of them in its original pin-fire configuration. It is a 12-bore, number 7080, probably one of the last made on the first pattern. It has the famous double bolt of the 1863 patent and has 30" fine damascus barrels inscribed "J. Purdey, 314½, Oxford Street, London." James Lucas would have done the extra fine scroll engraving in-house. At some time in its life, the chequering was re-cut, the gun weighs an even seven pounds, and the bores are lightly pitted.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
4 members like this
#635307 Sep 9th a 07:56 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
Thanks for the kind words, Daryl. Here goes with another instalment of the story, which I hope readers of this thread will find interesting..

The paradigm shift between the pin-fire and the central-fire systems was not a sudden one. Just as the first pin-fires sought to imitate the looks of the muzzle-loader, the first central-fire guns borrowed much of the design and decorative features of the pin-fire, as we’ve seen in current threads on early Reilly and Dickson central-fires, looking very much like their contemporary pin-fires. But technology at the time was moving apace, faster than we perhaps recognize today, with changes in steel-making, barrel-making, and propellants. On the latter, for example, a letter published in the 27 December 1856 issue of the weekly sporting newspaper The Field describes using nitrocellulose powder in their breech-loader, rather than the usual black powder. In 1856! Subsequent correspondence shows that at least some sportsmen were loading their cartridges with the new propellant, and more were wanting to, though no pin-fire gun was ever proofed for anything but black-powder loads.

One area in which the guns of today have their roots firmly ensconced in the pin-fire game gun, is the matter of choke. Choke is one of those subjects that elicits strong responses. It is a clever solution to the problem of getting the most pellets into a given space, at a distance. To some, it is a panacea; to others a go-to excuse for missed shots. I consider choke a part of the mysterious, unknowable phenomena that occur milliseconds after the firing pin strikes the primer, hidden from view and happening too fast for human senses to make sense of. Trying to make barrels shoot evenly, consistently, and tightly has been on gunmakers’ minds since, well, guns. Before the days of compressed fluid steel barrels, the process of making barrels involved many different craftsmen, often in other countries. In Europe, the area around Liege, Belgium, produced the best barrel tubes of twist and damascus. They made the finest patterns, free of the defects that plagued tube forgers in other regions, such as Birmingham. Birmingham barrels might have been suitable for Brown Besses and Enfield pattern muskets in their tens of thousands, but few were of the grade required for fine sporting guns – Belgium was the preferred source. But the tubes are just the starting point.

Add barrel boring and external shaping, and you get closer to something recognizable. With bored tubes, the magic seeps in, as the idea of regulating the shooting qualities of a barrel through manipulation of bore dimensions, gauges, and shot quantities has been around since the flint and percussion-cap days. There is a reason why percussion guns could be had in, say, 11 or 13 or 15 gauge, and it wasn’t simply because that was the size of the available tube. It was all part of a maker’s calculation on how best to have the gun shoot, with available qualities of powder, shot, wadding etc., in that particular barrel. Once you had a perfect barrel, you stuck with it. If you wanted to keep up with new technology, you had a gunmaker make you a newfangled gun, but with your old barrel – one of the reasons why there were so many percussion-to-breech-loader and pin-fire to central-fire conversions. And if you had a new barrel made to replace a worn one, you went to a respected maker who would guarantee their work and would likely let you use it for a season before you paid the bill. While barrel boring for best results was a subject of conversation in The Field in the 1850s, it was still mysterious in that there were no standards, only gunmaker secrets. Some claimed opening the bore towards the muzzle gave tighter patterns, while others, correctly, believed the opposite to be preferred. There were fantastical claims of impossibly long shots on game, pooh-poohed as Munchausen-esque by bewhiskered gentlemen over cigars and port. Wonderful reading.

While the invention of choke boring cannot be attributed to any one person or a specific century, the first patent can, and the honour goes to William Rochester Pape of Newcastle. But before bestowing too much credit, he included his method for choke boring as an afterthought to his patent for a new breech-loader action, which he obtained on 29 May 1866 and given No. 1501. The Pape action consisted of two bolts on a vertical spindle, operated by a small thumb lever to the right of and just in front of the trigger guard, under spring tension. The bottom bolt engages with a slot in the barrel lump, and the upper bolt engages with an extension above the barrels. Pape claimed that the action was self-tightening so that even after wear and tear, it would remain tight (becoming loose over time was one of the biggest fears of the snap-actions at the time). The patent concentrated on the action, not on the choke boring, and it was not renewed in 1873, suggesting Pape did not consider choke boring to be of particular importance at the time. As choke boring became a ‘thing’ when everyone started doing it, Pape stated to be its inventor, a claim shared with great acrimony with another Newcastle-born gunmaker, William Wellington Greener. In 1875, to settle the matter, The Field set up a committee to decide the winner, and Pape won the £10 prize because of his patent. It did not stop Greener from subsequently claiming it was he who perfected choke boring, to anyone who would listen.

It was with guns of the 1866 patent that William Rochester Pape won The Field trial of 1866 in London. The trial was set up to pit choke-bored guns against each other and with un-choked guns. In the 12-bore class, Pape took first, second, fifth and seventh place out of a field of 32 guns (1st, 2nd and 5th were pin-fires, and 7th was a central-fire). Greener took third place with a ‘wedge fast’ pin-fire of his make. Only two guns were taking part in the 16-bore class, and Pape won with a pin-fire gun. Interestingly, pin-fire guns outperformed central-fire guns on that day, the last great hurrah of the pin-fire in Britain.

On 3 September 1867, Pape was granted patent No. 2488 for an improved design incorporating his thumb lever (sometimes called a ‘tap’ lever or ‘butterfly’ lever), and this latter patent is the one which is most frequently seen on Pape’s central-fire guns today, as he continued making them for some years. It can be distinguished from the first patent by the angle of the thumb lever, which lies at more of a right angle to the gun. Pape could not have made many guns of the first patent in the 14 months between the two designs.

Pape was known for having guns built for him in Birmingham, but he also produced them in his Newcastle workshop, where he employed nine workers and four apprentices. Whether Pape himself made guns is an open question. He aggressively and tirelessly promoted his business, such as participating in the trials and advertising widely in the sporting and general press. Of his 1866 patent gun, which he sold for £40, he announced it in The Field, the English Mechanic and Mirror of Science, and local papers, including the Derby Mercury, the Gateshead Observer, the Kelso Chronicle, the Leicester Mail, the Lincolnshire Chronicle, the Newcastle Courant, the Newcastle Daily Chronicle, the Newcastle Guardian and Tyne Mercury, the Newcastle Journal, and the Shields Daily News. This rush of advertising was more self-promotion than an expectation of business, as the number of people who could afford the most expensive gun would be few – but one can dream, I suppose. In his adverts, Pape could claim to have “Won the only three great Sporting Gun Trials Open to the World,” and offering “...unrivalled Steel-Barreled BREECH LOADERS made with our New Patent Pin or Central Fire Actions… all Bored upon Pape’s Principle, which stands unequalled by proof of Public Contests.” His range of guns started at £12, which was still a good bit of money then. Pape spent much of his time pursuing his other interests, namely dog breeding and falconry (in 1859, Pape organized the first dog show in Britain, held at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corn Exchange, offering one of his shotguns as a prize).

What does a £40, 1866-patent, William Rochester Pape pin-fire game gun look like? Here’s one. And it is only the 13th gun built to this patent – early indeed. It is a 12-bore made in 1866, number 1366. The top rib is signed “W. R. Pape Newcastle on Tyne Winner of the London Gun Trials 1858, 1859, & 1866 Patent no. 13.” The bar locks are marked “W. R. Pape,” and the action body is fluted in shape and engraved “W. R. Pape’s Patent.” The gun is decorated in best foliate engraving with dogs in ovals (very appropriate, on a Pape gun). The hammers are well sculpted, and the forearm has ornate chequering borders, both characteristics of the maker. The gun weighs a hefty 7 lb 14 oz, suggesting it might have been built as a live-pigeon gun. I do not possess the tools to measure choke boring correctly, but this gun likely has some degree of choke. Pape guns have always been well regarded for their quality, and by the late 1800s, Pape was known as “the Purdey of the North.”

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
3 members like this
#637451 Nov 11th a 05:20 AM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
Originally Posted by Argo44
An appeal for help. In 1854 or 1855 the then new outdoor magazine "The Field" ran a review of the Lefaucheaux center-break type breech-loader just being offered for sale by Joseph Lang. It including analyses of the gun and detailed drawings. I have searched in vain for this article or articles without success although it is referenced in numerous subsequent letters to the editor, etc. Does anyone know where this article/review can be found? In view of its significance, might it be posted here?

Gene,

There were no mentions or descriptions of Lang’s pin-fire gun in The Field in 1854 and 1855, let alone any illustrations.

In 1854, the year we can be sure Joseph Lang had started to build and sell pin-fire fowling pieces, there was no mention of breech-loaders anywhere in the pages of The Field. Not even in Joseph Lang’s own advertisements, which ran in the July-December 1854 issues. This lack of any mention by Lang of his new breech-loader is curious in the extreme, as Lang was quite willing to use The Field to promote his business. Perhaps he was waiting for word-of-mouth feedback from customers using his new guns in the 1854-1855 shooting season, to address any concerns or flaws before actively promoting them—but this is only speculation on my part, in trying to understand Lang’s silence on the matter.

Lang’s advertisements remained unchanged in the January-April 1855 issues. In May 1855 Lang advertised needle guns and Flobert’s rim-fire, but not yet his pin-fire guns. It was not before the 21 June issue of 1856 that Lang finally included, in his first advertisement of the year, mention of his breech-loader, albeit rather obliquely:

“Guns by Purday [sic], Moore, Lancaster, Lang, S. Nock, Forsyth, as also several genuine Joe Manton’s, warranted, at LANG’S, Gun Manufactory, Cockspur-street.
N.B. — Single and Double Rifles, as also the improved Breech-Loading Guns and Rifles and Revolvers, on the most approved make. 22, Cockspur-street, London.”


The advertisement was repeated, spelling corrected, in the 28 June issue, throughout July, and in the 9 August issue. There were no further Lang advertisements in 1856.

From all other advertisements and from articles and letters on guns and shooting appearing in The Field, one would hardly believe breech-loading fowling-pieces existed, let alone had been in use across the Channel for decades. The subject was singularly ignored. Then, in the 1 November 1856 issue, a cryptic response to a query from “Major R” was published in the To Correspondents section, “— It is a French invention; we never shot with one, therefore cannot give an opinion.” Unfortunately The Field’s practice of not including the original question is unhelpful, but it appears Major R may have been seeking information on the pin-fire gun.

In the 20 December 1856 issue, also in the To Correspondents section, a more informative reply to a query from “Capt. B” was provided, which at least indicated the Editor was familiar with the subject of Lefaucheux and Beringer guns:

“Capt. B. — The patent for the breech-loading fowling pieces was taken out about the year 1848, by M. Lefaucheux, of Paris, and effectually brought before the world in 1850. They have been manufactured in Liège for the Patentee. Several improvements have since been made, but not with any material change; except Beringer’s, which drops the barrel down by the action of moving the guard on one side; the other improvement being the tubes with a nipple attached, so that the gun can be turned into an ordinary gun to load from the muzzle — which tubes are made of brass, and fit exact in the barrels where the cartridges go when loading at the breech. The Lefaucheux gun acts by moving a lever (which lies flat against the bottom of the breech end of the barrel) on one side, which drops the barrel.”

Finally, in the 20 December 1856 issue, in the Shooting section under the heading Breech-loading Shot Guns, the following innocuous-sounding question appeared: “Sir, – If any of your numerous correspondents have used the breech-loading shot guns, would they be so good as to say what they think the advantages or disadvantages of them may be? Curious.” In hindsight this was the proverbial starting-gun, whereby the subject of the pin-fire would begin to occupy a substantial portion of The Field’s shooting columns.

The article or writings you may be referring to, might be John Henry Walsh’ s book “The Shot-Gun and Sporting Rifle,” published in 1859. The book does describe and illustrate Lang’s gun. Walsh became The Field’s shooting editor in late 1857, but he was working for the paper earlier than that. As Walsh and The Field became somewhat synonymous with shooting matters after that, the confusion in later writings might be understandable.

I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong, but I have gone though The Field from 1853 to 1870 in great detail.
3 members like this
#636708 Oct 22nd a 08:34 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
An interesting account, Gene. One can only hope that the information on royalty payments and arrangements might see the light of day.

Guns evolve. We don’t see it much now, as the major mechanical advances behind most popular guns have been around for some time. Just in popular autoloading guns, the gas, inertia and recoil systems have been around for 79, 123 and 125 years respectively. The ‘classic’ double-barreled central-fire hinge-action gun appeared 170 years ago, an advance over the first pin-fire cartridge guns that first saw daylight in France some 190 years in the past. Over/under shotguns are more recent, but have nevertheless been a thing for 114 years now. Inventions, though, never occur in a straight line, as the first central-fire cartridge was developed 215 years ago, and the first hammerless action was designed for it four years later (though shooters did not like giving up their hammers, and it was to be another 60 years before the hammerless idea came back). The only major shotgun advance that has occurred within my lifetime is removable chokes, which have been around for 64 years (though I’ve managed to avoid them so far).

Within these larger developments, there were smaller ones, and there probably wasn’t a single invention or feature big or small that did not meet with opposition. Today’s gun is an example of engineering creativity to increase the speed of loading and re-loading, though it is hard to imagine a time when the shotgun feature of being able to operate an action and close barrels quickly was ‘new,’ and not necessarily appreciated by all. While some viewed the effective use of a breech-loader in a positive light, this opinion was not necessarily shared. James Dalziel Dougall, in his 1857 book Shooting Simplified: A Concise Treatise On Guns And Shooting, did not consider speed desirable:

It is this word, "quickness," on which the whole question hinges. Is this great quickness desirable in sporting as well as in war? And is it quite an improvement to deprive the pursuit of game of those little rests, while loading, to men and dogs, which preserve their strength throughout the day, and add a zest from the incidental conversation during these pauses? In grouse and partridge shooting can the dogs be so handled, after firing and killing, as to render the quickness in loading advisable? Were extermination of game the purpose of the sportsman, the use of a gun which can be loaded in a few seconds would certainly be a desideratum.

In the 22 January 1859 issue of the weekly sporting newspaper The Field, one correspondent argued against the breech-loader for its excessive efficiency, with ‘sport’ and ‘fair play’ giving way to ‘slaughter,’ and ‘a murderous day’s work.’ The muzzle-loader, he argued, was enough, the breech-loader being far too deadly. To the proponent of the ‘battue,’ or driven shoot, speed of loading and re-loading was a definite plus, and any means to simplify or quicken the process was advantageous. The appearance of snap-action breech-loaders in 1861-1862 would have been seen by some as essential for a battue, while to others it presaged the death knell of game numbers. The quickest snap-actions incorporated self half-cocking features, as the rebounding lock was still distant in the future. One such action is that of Joseph Needham of Birmingham, one of several famous inventors with that family name, and whose history is intertwined with that of the breech-loader. Near the beginning of this thread, I pictured a Needham snap-action game gun by John Blissett. It should not be confused with a very similar action by Joseph Smith, which has a different locking mechanism, also pictured earlier in the thread.

William Needham (b. 1800) and Joseph Needham (b. 1813) of Birmingham were related, though the relationship is not clear. Both were gunmakers. William began his business around 1830, and in 1845 William moved to London where he opened at 26 Piccadilly under the name William Needham & Co.; from 1849 to 1851 the firm was renamed William Needham. In 1851 Joseph joined the business and the name was changed to William & Joseph Needham. In the same year, at the Great Exhibition in London, William and Joseph displayed a version of needle-fire gun after the design of Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse. Joseph Needham patented his ‘hammerless’ needle-fire lock in 1852. Needham’s needle-fire guns proved to be popular, though from their complicated nature they were only produced as ‘best’ guns, and correspondingly expensive. Pictures of a Needham needle-fire are also covered earlier in this thread.

In 1853, the name of the London business was changed to Joseph Needham & Co. Around 1858, Needham granted John Rigby of Dublin a licence to manufacture his needle-fire gun, and Rigby apparently built 102 guns and rifles on this design between 1858 and 1864, before the needle-fire was replaced entirely by the pin-fire and central-fire systems; Rigby may have made more examples of the needle-fire gun than Needham himself. However, by the early 1860s the pin-fire gun was predominant amongst the early breech-loaders, and George Daw’s snap-action central-fire gun had also appeared on the scene.

On 22 May 1862 Joseph registered patent No 1544 covering several mechanisms for pin- and central-fire guns, including a rotating-bolt single-bite snap action, with a side lever acting directly on a transverse spindle behind the action face. On the spindle was a lug that engaged a slot in the barrel lump, and the mechanism also incorporated an automatic half-cocking mechanism, as the spindle lifted the hammers; the central-fire version also retracted the firing pins. The Needham side-lever was used by London, Birmingham, and regional makers such as the earlier-mentioned Blissett, Harris Holland, Westley Richards, John Rigby, Charles Ingram and others, and Needham of course produced guns under his own name. A fair few have survived, perhaps owing to the high quality of their manufacture.

Here is a particularly fine example of a pin-fire game gun, a 12-bore Needham patent action signed John Rigby & Co. of London and Dublin, number 13192. It has the Needham patent with transverse spindle, sidelever-opening and self half-cocking action, and it was made around 1868-1869. It is likely the gun was built for an Irish client, as the barrels and action are lacking proofs (though the double-R Rigby trademark is present); had the gun been destined for the London showroom it would have had to have been submitted to the London or Birmingham proof house, to comply with the Gun Barrel Proof Act. The 27 ¾” fine damascus barrels are marked “John Rigby & Co. Dublin & London” in Gothic script, and the bar-in-wood design incorporates a non-detachable fore-end, this latter feature being different from other Needham actions I’ve seen and handled. The bores are moderately pitted, but otherwise, the gun is in fine shape. It is one of the most beautiful bar-in-wood guns I’ve ever come across, and its original wealthy owner, who I’ve not yet been able to trace, would have been very proud of it. I am most indebted to two fine gentlemen, readers of this thread, who helped me acquire this exquisite gun.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

The exact origins of the Rigby gun-making line are unclear. There have been claims the business was started in Dublin in 1735, though the recognized date is when John Rigby founded his business in 1775, first at 14 College Green, Dublin, moving later to Suffolk Street. John died in 1818, and his sons, William Rigby and John Jason Rigby continued the business, re-naming the firm Wm & Jno Rigby; by 1841 it was known as Willian and John Rigby. William died in 1858, and John succeeded to the business, without changing the name. In 1865, the firm opened a showroom at 72 St James's Street, London, and the name of the firm was changed to John Rigby & Co. (still in business today).
2 members like this
#636767 Oct 24th a 09:33 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
Originally Posted by lagopus
That Rigby above is not unlike the the Henry Drew pin-fire pictures I sent you. Lagopus.....

Indeed, Lagopus... It takes a sharp eye to tell the difference between the Needham action and that of Smith, as on your Henry Drew shown here:

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Thanks for sharing the picture!
2 members like this
#637506 Nov 12th a 10:42 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
To go with the illustration from the Manual of British Rural Sports (2nd ed., 1856) above, here is Walsh's description of the Lang gun in its entirety:

The Breech-Loading Gun.– A gun of this description was introduced some years ago by a French maker, but which was little known in this country until recently taken up by an English gunmaker, Mr. Lang, of Cockspur-street, London, who has succeeding in improving upon the principle to such an extent as to produce a really useful gun, which can be discharged four times while a common fowling-piece can be loaded and discharged once. The principle is exceedingly simple and beautiful, but it requires good workmanship to carry it out; and certainly in that respect Mr. Lang has done full justice to the original idea. The following is a description of this most ingenious invention, which will be better understood by a reference to the engraving: – The barrels are united to the stock by a strong hinge, which is set at liberty by moving the lever (a, fig. 1), a quarter turn to the right, as shown in fig. 2. This turn releases a bolt which connects the barrels firmly to the stock when ready for firing, as shown in fig. 1. After turning the lever, the barrels may be raised from the stock, as shown in fig. 2, and are then ready for loading, for which purpose a cartridge is used, containing within itself all the requisites for the gun’s discharge. These cartridges, which will be presently described, are carried loosely in the pocket of the shooting-coat, or in a properly-made belt, and supersede the necessity for powder-flask, shot-pouch, cap-holder, wadding, &c., &c. In loading, the shooter turns the lever, the barrels then raise themselves by their own weight, and he places into each the cartridge, turns back the lever, and the gun is ready for use, the whole operation being only an affair of a few seconds. On reloading, it is necessary to draw out the discharged cartridge before inserting a fresh one; but the time required for this is scarcely more than that consumed in removing the exploded cap before putting on the fresh one in an ordinary gun. In Mr. Lang’s gun, the old breech-chamber is entirely done away with, and the barrels merely drop down against the flat surface of the false-breech, just as in the revolving pistol. They are bored larger at the breech-end to admit the cartridge, the calibre of which should exactly correspond with that of the rest of the barrel, and thus form with it a continuous tube; the barrel, therefore, has a shoulder at the part where the cartridge ends. The cartridge itself is composed of a thick brown paper-cylinder two inches long, and varying in bore according to that of the gun; one end is open to receive the charge, which is the same as in the ordinary gun, the other is closed by a brass capsule, which overlaps the paper nearly a quarter of an inch, forming a strong joint. In the middle of the inner surface of this capsule, is a small brass chamber, firmly supported in its place, and containing the small cap which fires the charge. A brass pin eight-tenths of an inch in length, and about a line in diameter, passes through the capsule and one side of the small chamber, and receives the cap on its point in the same way as the the ordinary nipple. The other end of the pin projects beyond the cartridge about one-fourth of an inch, and lies in a notch between the barrel and the false-breech, beyond which it stands up to receive the blow of the striker. All this will be more readily understood by a reference to the engraving (figs. 3 and 4). The cartridge-case is sold with the cap, all ready for receiving the powder and shot; and this is the best plan of using it, because then dry powder may always be obtained, and they are as easy to charge as an ordinary gun. Their price is a penny a-piece, containing a cap; but, as the cases may be recapped, and used many times, the additional price is very trifling indeed. The advantages of this gun are manifest, and to all those who value rapid and safe loading as highly as it deserves, I should strongly recommend a trial of it, since it appears to me to supply a great desideratum, and if as good in practice as it appears to me to be theoretically perfect, its invention will be almost as great an era in gun-making as that of the detonator itself. Time, however, and time alone, must decide its merits.

This is the earliest published description of the pin-fire game gun and pin-fire system in Britain that I have, written in 1855, a year after Lang's gun appeared on the market.
2 members like this
#591434 Feb 4th a 10:47 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
It was a minor annoyance that the update to the board did not like my use of quotation marks, assorted punctuation, currency symbols, and the occasional French character, leaving in their place tiny black squares like so much black powder residue sprinkled over the texts... This detracted from the reading experience and as some may wish to re-read the pages someday, or others may come across this thread for the first time and might otherwise be deterred by the texts' appearance, I'm happy to say that my 100 or so posts on this thread have now been cleaned up.

Thanks again to all who have contributed to the thread and, of course, I hope it will keep going.
1 member likes this
#595416 Apr 12th a 08:29 PM
by AaronN
AaronN
Welcome, ivanhoe. There are at least a few of us!

I just picked up a couple neat excavated English pinfire shotshells:

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
1 member likes this
#597994 Jun 9th a 07:04 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
When I first started researching the pinfire game gun, the few available mentions and illustrations in print gave me the erroneous impression that only a select handful of makers had made them. In a book that might illustrate but one pinfire, not surprisingly, it would be an exquisitely preserved example from a top maker that would be chosen.

Ivanhoe’s research might offer raw data, but it is data nevertheless, and the more names that can be acknowledged as makers of pinfire guns, the better. In his latest post, he lists a 20-bore pinfire marked Durs Egg. An unusual size for a British pinfire, to be sure, but I hadn’t realized guns under his name were sold as late as 1865 (and possibly 1874), as Durs Egg died in 1831. His nephew’s son, Henry, is the usual Egg I associate with pinfires. I know a little bit more today than I did yesterday!

If anyone knows of examples of pinfire game guns, a mention in this thread is good; pictures even better. I have a wholly selfish reason to see more pinfire maker's names listed here, as anyone looking up the names on the Internet is more likely to end up reading this thread.
1 member likes this
#601168 Aug 10th a 03:05 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
It must be time for a new pinfire post...

In studying the origins of the breech-loading game gun in Britain, the same questions keep popping up. Were French and other continental guns competing with British ones at the same time? Were some British makers importing continental guns or actions? Was there diversity in the types available, and if so, what were they?

There is very little information concerning the earliest years of the pin-fire game gun in Britain, the space in time between Joseph Lang’s gun of 1853, and the Field trials of 1858 and 1859. One might presume that the guns of Lang, along with those of the earliest London-based proponents of the pinfire system, John Blanch and Edward M. Reilly, would have dominated the market at that time. The Field trials of 1858 and 1859 indicate what was available to sportsmen of the day, showing various patterns on the market.

In the 1858 trial, there were pinfire guns by Christopher Penryn Aston (Birmingham), Moore & Harris (Birmingham), Ladmore (Hereford), E. M. Reilly (London), Fletcher (Gloucester), and Adolphe Jansen (Brussels). However, the guns are not described, though reportedly all were of the forward-underlever type. In John Henry Walsh’s 1859 book, The Shot-gun and Sporting Rifle, written under the pen-name ‘Stonehenge,’ he illustrates two guns from the 1859 trial, a forward-underlever gun by Reilly and a ‘lever-over-guard’ mechanism from Prince and Green (the latter being novel enough to rate a mention). At least two other action types were present in the 1859 trial, a Joseph Needham side-lever and an Auguste Francotte gun with a Bastin action with sliding barrels. What is not helpful is that anything other than patent systems was referred to as “Lefaucheux Breechloaders.”

John Blanch obtained a Béatus Beringer (Paris and St Etienne) gun in 1855, not long before he started offering pinfire guns from his London shop, presumably for study and analysis. I’ve not found evidence that Blanch copied the action, but the classic ‘lever-over-guard’ design was probably inspired by Beringer, if not directly copied.

My earlier post on the Robert Ringer gun got me thinking about Norwich, Norfolk shooting grounds, wealthy patrons, and the fact that in the 1850s, it might have been faster to trade with the continent than overland to London. If continental guns weren’t appearing in London, could they appear elsewhere?

So I was curious when a query about a pinfire game gun turned up on another forum, concerning a 16-bore signed Robert Marrison of Norwich, which looked to have a typical Beringer action. Correspondence ensued, and I’m happy to report the gun is now part of my collection.

The IGC Database gives part of the history. The Marrison gunmaking family started with Samuel Marrison, born in 1796 in Norwich. In 1821 he established his business in St Benedict’s Street, and by 1843 the business had moved to 50 Great Orford Street. In the 1851 census records, Samuel described himself as a gunmaker employing one man and one boy. This may refer to Samuel Ray Marrison, 24, and Robert Marrison, 20, recorded in the census as an engraver. Benjamin Marrison, 17, was listed as a gunmaker’s son. Around 1855 Samuel died, and Robert continued the family business in his name. The 1861 census records Robert as a gunmaker and ornamental engraver. On 17 December 1863, Robert Marrison registered patent No. 3185 for a forward sliding and side opening breech action, so he was a capable inventor, too. The 1871 census records Robert employing three men and three boys. In the 1881 census, Robert was a gunmaker and manufacturing chemist employing two men and two youths. The 1891 census recorded Robert as a gunmaker, but the 1901 census records him as a 70-year-old cement manufacturer and Benjamin as a retired gunsmith. The Orford Street business had closed in the 1890s.

The press of the day records a much more entertaining history. In 1855, Samuel’s widow published an advertisement informing the public that all stock was being sold off "at a very small per centage above cost price." She further recommended her sons Samuel and Robert “as being fully qualified to carry on the business" and that the firm would continue under the name Robert Marrison. I wonder what the elder son Samuel thought of being passed over. Also, in 1855, Robert Marrison took out several newspaper advertisements announcing his father’s death and that he would be continuing the business. He assured customers that “orders would be attended to with the utmost punctuality, and the work executed in the first style of the trade.”

However, in July 1858, Marrison was bankrupt. His entire stock was sold off at less than cost price, including ‘very superior Breech Loading Double Guns, made upon the newest and most approved principles.’ The business continued, but in late 1860 Marrison suffered another setback when his shop blew up, possibly from a gas leak, an error concerning a large quantity of black powder, or both. Tragically a young man was killed, and walls and part of the street were demolished.

Marrison went bankrupt again in 1867. He declared ‘losses arising from the bursting and in the manufacturing of guns, and in the invention of a breech-loader, and other losses in my business, and badness of trade.’ Marrison was again before the courts in 1870 for selling fireworks without a license. In 1873 Robert Marrison published a notice in the Eastern Daily Press claiming his skill, knowledge and inventiveness, and that ‘all the Patterns and Principles of the various BREECH-LOADING INVENTIONS in GUNNERY were made by himself’ and whereby ‘it is left to the Public to form their own conclusions as to the value of the unjust references by which his brother attempts to injure the reputation of Robert Marrison.’ I could not find out if this referred to slander emanating from Benjamin or Samuel Ray.

But the final chapter is the most bizarre, when in 1891, Robert Marrison was convicted for fraud, involving several lurid bait-and-switch schemes about hunting dogs, and guns, using advertisements in The Field. Quite the history, all in all.

But let’s go back to this most interesting gun. In outward appearance, it looks like a typical Beringer gun, with a short wooden fore-end and a rearward under-lever that doubles as the trigger guard. By the 1850s, the Beringer patent appears to have run out. This particular action was made by ‘M. Godin,’ presumably Jean Louis Mathieu Godin, of Herstal, Belgium. The action bar is marked “M. Godin 1865” and “brevete 603”, which I presume to be patent no. 1865, and patent use no. 603. I have tracked down photos of a few examples of Godin-marked guns, all of which have the “M. Godin 1865” patent stamp. I do not know what the patent refers to, as guns with this mark are found with both Beringer-type underlevers and ‘lever-over-guard’ actions. The gun has grip-safety variation, where a small stud behind the triggers has to be depressed by the returned underlever before the triggers can be pulled – clever! I thought the patent might have been for this variation, but other guns with the mark don’t appear to have grip safeties.

The top rib is signed “R. Marrison, Great Orford Street, Norwich, No. 2281,” though no records have survived against which the serial number could be compared. The 29 11/15” damascus barrels have a Liège provisional proof and bore size in mm (17.2), but no Perron mark. There is an unknown barrel maker’s mark, a crown over ‘HV.’ The barrels have London proof marks and bore size (15), and a London view mark on the action bar.

The fore-end is permanently attached, similar to a Belgian-made Gustave Masu gun illustrated early in this thread, and the wood is left unchequered. Sadly, like all early doubles with fixed fore-ends, the delicate edging to the sides has been damaged by attempts to pry off the fore-end by persons unfamiliar with the design. The Lefaucheux-style double-bite barrel locking mechanism is of typical form. The combined rearward under-lever and trigger guard bow is identical to Beringer guns, locking in place with a stud on the distal end of the grip finial. The back-action locks are of Belgian form, inset to the scalloped action back, and are signed “R. Marrison.” The rounded hammers have stylized cap guards, the action and fittings are decorated with simple border and open scroll engraving (similar in pattern to the Masu). The stock has a sling swivel attachment, though the matching barrel attachment is missing. The bores are moderately pitted, and the gun weighs 6lb 10oz.

Dating this gun is a challenge. It would have to be 1855 or after, but I can’t imagine the demand for such a gun would have been high once more typically British guns were available. The fact that so few of these guns appear to have survived supports the theory of their limited appeal. I can’t find any mention in the shooting press of British sportsmen using Beringer-action guns (though obviously, some did!).

Was it sold in the early experimental years before the Field trials? Was it sold off in Marrison’s first bankruptcy sale? Did it survive the blast? Did it linger, unsold, until the second bankruptcy? While these questions remain unresolved, at least the gun provides evidence that provincial British makers were importing continental guns for re-sale, and there were more action types available to the British market than previously supposed.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
1 member likes this
#634578 Aug 25th a 02:50 AM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
Jules, that is a wonderful Fuller, with the 280 Strand address no less -- what a find. Thank you for sharing your photos; I have never seen any reference to a Fuller pin-fire that wasn't a conversion. Glad to see it is still in the field! It would have been a very desirable gun in its day, from one of London's most admired makers (though the Fuller name is mostly forgotten now).

I don't think the "6 5 2" refers to a date; makers at the time did not date their guns, why would they? They weren't marking their guns for the benefit of future admirers of their work. Numbering systems were far from standardized or consistent, and they were mostly for the maker's benefit in efforts to keep parts together during the building process and keep track of orders. Many small-scale makers didn't bother with serial numbers at all. Fuller would have had a small but elite clientele, helped by his royal patron. As Prince Albert died in December 1861, your gun would date after this, from the rib inscription mention of "the late Prince Consort." One aspect of your gun intrigues me, and I can't tell from your photos: is the action a single-bite or double-bite design? If it is a double-bite and lacks a mention of Henry Jones's patent, it will likely date from after 1862. Beautiful!

Lagopus, I look forward to hearing more about a Henry Drew pin-fire.

As to this thread, I have a few more guns of interest to add over the next weeks, which fill a few gaps not yet covered here. I have been occupied these past months with a complete review of The Field for the period 1853 to 1870, or 914 weeks' worth of this interesting periodical. Nothing beats contemporary sources for piecing together the full story.
1 member likes this
#635895 Sep 28th a 12:58 AM
by Argo44
Argo44
Excellent Stephen and that is a classic slim-line beauty and a historic gun now in good hands. It's amazing how much of the center-break technology started out in France. It's my understanding that Daw's patent 203 from 1861 was a centerfire concept originated by Pottet in France. Pottet's patent for center-fire shells was broken by Eley in 1865 which began the downfall of the pinfire.

Purdey historian Nicholas Harlow was queried about the records of royalty payments for patent 1104 in connection with the Reilly line. The history and the books for Purdey from that time frame, are, according to him, literally "locked up." I don't quite know what that means but am wondering if there is a legal dispute of some sort.

As for the Purdey thumbhole snap release. . .the last extant Reilly so equipped in the database was SN 19951 ...1875.
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/13598/lot/12/
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

One assumes that as soon as a superior technology appears, everyone will adopt it. Not so. Choke boring popularized by Greener in 1875 wasn't ubiquitous until the 1880's; ejectors not till the 1890's (and to this day do you really need them?).
1 member likes this
#636775 Oct 25th a 02:23 AM
by Argo44
Argo44
The expertise of this board never ceases to amaze:

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
1 member likes this
#637484 Nov 12th a 01:01 AM
by Argo44
Argo44
Thanks Stephen. And what you said about Lang and advertising his pin fire is true - almost identical comments were made in the Reilly history, chapter *23 1852-56: Break Action, Pin-Fire Guns in UK., PART 1, Hodges & Lang.

I think that the article I'm looking for was published in "British Rural Sports" in 1854-55? entitled "Breech Loader" possibly written by "Stonehenge" (Walsh). This is the article which would be worth reposting:

This from January 02,1858, "The Field". One of the key points in the letter discussed barrels "actually made in this country" and seems to bear out contentions by prominent gun historians that virtually all early pin-fire barrels in Uk in the 1850's came from Liège. The Reilly history chapter above comments on this and speculates that Hodges got his barrels and lumps for his original gun constructed after Crystal Palace Exhibition from Belgium. Hodges, of course, sold the gun to Lang as a prototype for Lang's 1854 subsequent center-break pin-fire creation.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

And this letter from January 09, 1858, "The Field" written by Joseph Lang himself which I believe identifies the article in question:

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

This letter from November 1856 also is interesting:

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

I'll add that Reilly definitively began to advertise "Fusils a Bascules" in August 1856. I think he was the very first; Holland advertised something related to breech loaders at that time but it' not clear what he was marketing - possibly Dryse needle guns. Reilly's long letter published December 26, 1857 in "The Field" is educational. I'll post the text here transcribed to save eyes reading the old print - much of this was incorporated into the Reilly history.
...Note the last paragraph - Reilly's sarcasm directed at UK cartridge makers
...Note Reilly's claim that until "quite recently" (1857?) the pin-fire was a curiosity. Well - he gambled because he advertised in Jun 1857 that he had 100 pin fires in construction awaiting orders.

The Breech Loader

Sir, - Your correspondents writing against breech-loaders all show by their own letters how little they really understand the principles upon which these guns are made.

This system differs from other novelties inasmuch as it has been extant about a quarter of a century and it has been in operation in some sporting circles these twenty years. All the patents have long ago fallen in; anybody who does not object to the expense of the necessary tools and machinery, and who can teach his workmen, may set to work and make these guns. The great facts of safety and durability have been fully established by the wear and tear of a long period than a good fowling piece is generally supposed to continue serviceable in hard shooting; and the breech-loader, which requires less care in cleaning, etc., exhibits less appearance of deterioration than the capper cap-gun after the same length of time in hard wear.

The only objections worth of any notice that have been adduced are those imperfections known to exist in the very worst specimens – the cheap Belgian and French guns, many of which kill very well, and last a fair time, inferior as they may be. The objection upon which such stress is laid – the relative sizes of the bore of the barrels, the interior of the cartridge – has had ample consideration ere this; and it does not necessarily follow, if errors have been made in early attempts, that they are to be continued. The point at issue with the few experienced London makers is not simply whether the bore of the barrels should be the same size as the wadding used in loading the cartridges, but as to whether the bore should be a size smaller to fit the wadding still tighter. It is obvious, if the calibre of the barrels be larger, the charge passes through them too freely, and there will not be sufficient friction to give strength to the shooting; on the other hand, by making the gauge of barrels to small, recoil will be increased; and the shooting, though excessively strong, may not be regular and close. The happy medium has to be arrived at; and this may be most effectually done in the trials before finishing, which guns of every construction turned out by any careful maker should be submitted.

Very few of the barrels for breech-loaders actually made in this country have been chambered with an abrupt termination, or shoulder, to meet the inner end of the cartridge-case; almost every one has been eased off at a moderate angle. Cutting or reducing the length of cartridge-cases is a waste of time; it is better to fill up with waddings. When using light charges, a thick felt wad over the powder, and a thin wad over the shot (both ungreased), and the closing tool then used to turn over the edge, the charge will be held sufficiently tight without any gum or cement, if the cartridges are taken out in a proper kind of carrier; but if it is intended to knock them about in the pocket, or if it is likely one may walk about for an hour without getting a shot, the wadding must be fastened in more securely. Nr. 15 (16 and 14) cartridges will only contain 3 or 3 ½ drams if powder and 1 1/4 oz. of shot with thin wads (in fact barely so much; No. 12 loaded with the same quantities, fills up well with a thick felt wadding over the powder. Under any circumstances there is no necessity for cutting cartridges shorter than they are made.

Some of the arguments which the opponents of the breech-loading system bring forward against its soundness and stability might have been received ten or fifteen years ago, when the originality of the design and curious simplicity of the construction rather took us by surprise. It had not then been so undoubtedly proved, as by the long experience we have had since in extensive and constant use, that the solid flat false breech which the breech ends of the barrels close against is as sound, as durable, and for all purposes of resistance of the charge, as secure and perfect as a breech permanently screwed into the tubes themselves; and they undergo the same proof as muzzle-loaders.

The explosion of this charge in the breech does not cause such a severe strain upon the mechanism holding the barrels in position as may at first be supposed; the expansive force finds the point of the least resistance, upon which it unites all its efforts; therefore it is an ounce of shot and the air to be displaced from the barrel, opposed to the whole weight of the piece. No other gun can possibly concentrate so fully all the force of the powder up in its charge of shot, nor so completely in the rifle give the spiral motion to the bullet.

Doubtless the facility with which the barrels can be reloaded, the breech ends held up to view, and a clear sight obtained through the bore, exposing this entire action in a manner so much at variance with previously-conceived ideas, has been and must continue to be a cause of distrust until actual proof and frequent trials reconcile one to these peculiarities. It may require the attestation of intimate friends ocular demonstration in the field and something beyond the recommendations of the manufacturer to carry conviction to the minds of sportsmen, upon a matter without precedent to guide their judgement, and on which they have been left so thoroughly in the dark. Until quite recently purchases were made from sheer curiousity, in the most disbelieving spirit as to their utility, but admitting the ingenuity and apparent goodness of this workmanship. The desire was to possess something new, taking its merits upon trust; and it has often been, with no less surprise than gratification that all doubts were dispelled, and the new gun found to be more agreeable to use and possessed of greater power than those on the old plan.

Practical experience, beyond our most sanguine expectations, gives the palm to these breech-loaders for carrying their shot both close and strong. Estimating their powers by the French and Belgian guns that have passed through out hands many years ago, we thought they would be covert guns for short distances; but it soon became apparent with superior workmanship and finer qualities of metal for the barrels, that extraordinary shooting powers might be achieved with the breech-loader; so that they not only came up to, but surpassed the ordinary fowling-piece, and delivered their shot closer and stronger than any other gun we have ever made. Of testimony to this effect we have abundance, some of which is conveyed to us per letter may be referred to. It is to actual and continued experience we should give our confidence not to vague surmises and unfounded theoretical deductions.

Everything that disturbs existing interests is due to meet with opposition at its early introduction; the difficulties it has to encounter are some proof of its value, should it survive. There must be intrinsic merit and sterling worth in this particular system of breech-loader, otherwise it could never have made good its way under such adverse circumstances as it has had to contend against. There have been good grounds for prejudices for it has has been badly made, though richly ornamented and, in fact has not been properly understood by the manufacturers until of late years... Moreover, there has been until recently considerable difficulty about obtaining an ample supply of cartridge-cases, and no one knows better than myself the persuasion it required to induce our apathetic English to undertake their manufacture, although a model was put into their hands that they had only to follow a pattern without the least exercise of the inventive faculty.

. . New Oxford-street, Dec. 15 (1857) . . . . .E.M. Reilly
1 member likes this
#637561 Nov 14th a 02:35 AM
by Argo44
Argo44
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/new-released-book-on-confederate-use-of-shotguns.142133/

Not to hijack a great line because the War-Between-The-States (WBTS) acts like a magnet drowning out everything around it.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
1 member likes this
#604068 Oct 4th a 10:07 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
I have not written much lately, but this thread still seems to attract readers – though not much discussion of late. Here is a new post on a best-quality game gun from Thomas Horsley, with a story attached – you can glean a lot from a stock escutcheon! As to the sparsity of photos, the gun was incorrectly ‘restored’, with hot-blued barrels and furniture. I will cover this gun in greater detail once I’m able to address the incorrect finishing.

Henry Walker's Horsley

What are you to do if you are a Gentleman who is a distant sixth in line to the family title? A life in the military is a good prospect, and Papa can afford to buy a good commission. This appears to have been the case for Henry Stephen Walker, son of Sir James Walker of Sand Hutton, Ryedale District, North Yorkshire. Sir James held various posts as High Sheriff of Yorkshire, Deputy Lieutenant, and Justice of the Peace, and would later become 1st Baronet of Sand Hutton (the Baronetcy would be passed on to his first son, James). Henry would have to make his way in the world, albeit with a helping start.

Choosing a regiment would have been difficult, but Henry and Sir James chose the 13th Hussars, purchasing in November 1863 the rank of Cornet. Cornet was the lowest grade of commissioned officer in a British cavalry troop, the modern equivalent being a second lieutenant. As the 13th Light Dragoons, the regiment performed well in the Peninsular War and later at the Battle of Waterloo. In the Crimean War, the regiment was part of the light brigade under the command of Major General the Earl of Cardigan, first at the Battle of Alma. Then the regiment was the first line of cavalry on the right flank during the Charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava. Not entirely done with that, the regiment also took part in the Battle of Inkerman and the Siege of Sevastopol. In 1861 the regiment was renamed the 13th Hussars. After the Crimean War, Henry joined, and the regiment moved around Ireland, Scotland and England. In 1866 the regiment happened to be stationed in York, about 5 kilometres from the Sand Hutton estate.

This point is where the story becomes relevant to this thread, when in 1866, Henry purchased a best-quality 12-bore bar-in-wood pinfire game gun from Thomas Horsley, number 1507, from Horsley's shop at 10 Coney Street. The gun is signed "Thomas Horsley Maker York, Patent 2410" on the top rib, the 30 1/16" damascus barrels have London proofs, and the action bar has an unnumbered "Horsley's Patent No." cartouche. The non-rebounding bar locks are marked "Thos Horsley Patent," and the pull-top-lever snap-action is Thomas Horsley's patent No. 2410 of October 1863. There is fine foliate scroll engraving throughout, a well-figured walnut stock, and the silver stock escutcheon is marked "HSW XIII Husr" in Old English script. Take note of the very thin breech face.

Whether Henry had a chance to use his new gun on Yorkshire pheasants is unknown, as the regiment was ordered to embark for Canada to defend the country from a Fenian uprising, sailing from Liverpool on three steamships on the 11th and 12th of September 1866. Two troops were posted to Montreal, and the rest went to Toronto. The 13th Hussars' time in Canada was mainly spent establishing a cavalry school to instruct Canadian Mounted Volunteers. Moving up in rank, Henry purchased his Lieutenantcy on the 12th of October, 1867.

The regiment departed for England in June 1869, arriving in Liverpool on the 13th of July. However, before returning, Henry visited the studio of the famed Montreal photographer William Notman to have some portraits made, shown below. Back in England, Henry retired from the army and sold his Lieutenantcy in June 1870. He returned to Canada, settling down in the town of Cobourg along the shores of Lake Ontario, about halfway between Toronto and Kingston. He married Emma Mason in 1870 and raised two sons and a daughter. Whether Henry's prized Horsley returned to the UK and then back to Canada, or remained in Canada the whole time, is unknown.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
© McCord Museum
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
© McCord Museum

How great it is to be able to put a face and history together with an interesting gun.
1 member likes this
#604294 Oct 8th a 01:26 PM
by lagopus
lagopus
I've never seen one nitro proof but I do have two factory loaded cartridges; one with Shultz and one with Smokeless Diamond according to the top wad. Lagopus....
1 member likes this
#634558 Aug 24th a 09:23 PM
by Argo44
Argo44
Jules, No one should regret posting on this excellent line; it is a research tool and standard for pin-fires on our website and will be referred to and added to regularly one would hope. Gene
1 member likes this
#637527 Nov 13th a 03:38 PM
by ed good
ed good
lookie watt ah found...

https://historical.ha.com/itm/milit...otgun-with-the-cavalry-sli/a/663-72245.s
1 member likes this
#637967 Nov 24th a 12:13 PM
by Daryl Hallquist
Daryl Hallquist
What a fine post, Argo. Thank you.
1 member likes this
#637957 Nov 24th a 12:08 AM
by Argo44
Argo44
Stephen, these are the two short chapters in the Reilly history on the beginning in UK of pin-fire guns. They haven't changed much in two years but I'm wondering about the accuracy? (Finding that photo of 22 Cockpsur Street took some doing; it was misidentified on the internet but was extensively researched using period maps). These two chapters condense much of the above history into readable form. (The follow-on chapters deal with extant Reilly pin-fires).

From 1826 to 1858 Lang averaged making about 75 guns a year. Assuming a gradual yearly increase in production, if he made 100 guns a year in 1854-58, surely not more than 2 or 3 each year were pin-fires up until late 1857 when the concept took off. Lang like other London gunmakers except Reilly would take a year to build an order so whether any Lang pin-fires could have been ordered, delivered and shot in 1854 is arguable.

EM wrote that up until summer-fall 1857 these guns were regarded as "novelties" in UK. It is likely that by the time of the April 1858 "the Field" trial, there were no more than a hundred UK made pin-fires being shot in Britain if that (and since Reilly advertised that he was building 100 spec pin-fires in summer 1857, surely a goodly percentage of these guns were his).


. . . . . IV: BREAK-ACTION BREECH-LOADING GUNS IN UK: 1852 – 1860


*23 1852-56: Break Action, Pin-Fire Guns in UK., PART 1, Hodges & Lang

This is not a detailed recounting of how Lefaucheaux’s break-action pin-fire breech-loader conquered the UK and changed gun history. However, the facts must be reviewed in brief so that Reilly’s part in it can be understood.

Castor Lefaucheaux took out a patent for a break action gun in France in 1836. Several of these guns made their way to the UK over the years but were generally ignored or regarded as curiosities. However, at the 1851 Crystal Palace Exposition, Lefaucheaux showed a single barrel pin-fire center-break gun.*23a It created a lot of interest.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Lefaucheaux did not take out a patent on the design in UK so it was free for the taking. The gun was ridiculed by many of the UK gun establishment, in particular William Greener (senior), who called it a “French crutch gun.”

However, a young 18 year old apprentice gunsmith named Edward Charles Hodges*23b especially took notice. Following the closing of the fair, he embarked on a project to build a copy of the gun, which after some time was completed, probably one speculates in late 1852.

It Is not known how he did this; did he buy a Lefaucheux (unlikely) or did he handle the gun and carefully take measurements and sketches? He could not have made the barrels himself so did he buy the barrels and lumps from Liège? There is no information on when Hodges completed his trial gun; neither he nor his sons ever commented.

Over the following few months he worked to convince Joseph Lang to buy his gun and to make and sell versions of it. (Note: Hodges later made a good living making center-break pin-fire actions for all the major gun manufactures in London, This leads inevitably to speculation that he concentrated on perfecting the action and stock and indeed may have used barrels/lumps purchased in Liège, a simple and cheap way to forward the design).

Joseph Lang had started out as a silversmith and like Reilly later morphed into a gunsmith. In the 1820’s he was essentially selling guns Joseph Manton sent to him on consignment. When Manton went bankrupt in 1826, Lang bought his left-over stock, barrel borers etc. For the next 25 years he made guns at 7 Haymarket Street, London.*23c By 1826 he had created a 28 yard shooting gallery in a neighboring building, which became well known, and even advertised access to two billiards tables for his customers.*23d

27 October 1826, "Morning Herald"
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

In 1852 he moved his shop to 22 Cockspur Street; the shooting gallery closed. The company remained there until 1874.*23e Joseph Lang died in 1869 and his firm was subsequently run by his son.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Probably in 1853 after his move Lang finally succumbed to Hodges’ entreaties, bought Hodges' gun, and began working on the center-break concept.

By early 1854 he had a working gun ready for sale which followed pretty much the design of Lefaucheaux’s original gun although beefing up parts of it. He also tried to make it look as much like a percussion gun as possible, with wooden fore-end, etc., no doubt thinking that familiarity in looks would help its acceptance. His gun, however, though originally following the Lefaucheaux concept of using two bites on the lumps, ultimately wound up using only one.

Note: The original Lang guns apparently did not have forcing cones in front of the breech following Lefaucheaux's example; British gunmakers soon changed this.*23f

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

In this respect per comments in the UK press there was the distinct possibility that Lang was using Liège made barrels with lumps, which were later modified by English gunsmiths and that this continued into 1856-59. This is circumstantial evidence that Hodges had followed the same route. The question of actions also remains open since UK gunmakers, even Purdey, did over time use Belgian made actions for various guns. The prices in Liège at the time could not be beat.

In a pamphlet published in January 1857 to hawk the pin-fire, Lang wrote that he had been shooting break action pin-fires for three years.*23g

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

This would seem to indicate that he began shooting his own breech-loading guns (or at least breech-loading guns in general) in early 1854, which is as good a guess for the date of his first pin-fire gun as any. (The earliest extant datable Lang pin-fire is from 1858. One well-known British gunsmith has stated that he believes he may be able to locate two Lang pin-fire center-break guns with bills of sale dated to 1854. However, no documentation has been forthcoming.)

Lang continued privately to refine his gun and in summer 1855 he showed it at the Paris Exposition Universelle and won a gold medal for “excellence of construction.”*23h
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Interestingly, from 1854-1858 no Lang commercial advertisements for the pin-fire can be found. The gun early on was hardly mentioned in the UK sporting press and indeed as late as November, 1856 editors of "The Field" appear to have been confused about the details of the gun or its variants.*23i. Whether Lang sold even one of his guns before the Paris Fair is an open question.

In late 1855 or early 1856 John Henry Walsh (aka "Stonehenge") (shortly thereafter to become editor of "The Field") published a review of Lang's gun in his book Manuel of British Rural Sports. This was first real acknowledgement and public awareness of the new gun.

Gradually, as the concept became accepted over the next three years beginning in late 1856-early 1857, a storm of controversy, a print “flame war,” erupted in the British press with a very conservative group of gun owners adamantly maintaining that the “crutch gun” could not stand up to strong charges of British powder with a few equally strong willed upper-class users touting its convenience, safety and general viability.*23j

Note: Lang comes across as insufferably arrogant in his letters to the press; witness his 1) 1858 advertisements labeling others' center-break guns as "rubbish"*23k; and, his 2) border-line insulting exchange in June 1859 with the editor of "The Field" over whether he was going to submit guns for the July 1859 "The Field" breech-loaders vs muzzle loaders trial. "I told you that nothing should induce me to have my name mixed up in such a farce."*23l


*24 1852-56: Break Action, Pin-Fire Guns in UK., PART 2, Reilly & Blanch

Shortly after the end of the 1855 Paris Universelle, William Blanch, who had been gradually asserting more authority in the Blanch and Sons company from his father John, sent an employee to Paris to buy a pin-fire. The receipt for his purchase, a Beringer around-trigger-guard-lever, break-action pin-fire gun, exists and is dated December 1855.*24a

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

The Blanch’s and Reilly’s appear to have been friends and collaborators for many years. It seems that Blanch and Reilly both then began to develop their own break-action guns, reverse engineering the Beringer Lefaucheaux.

The difficulties they faced are enumerated in William Blanch’s obituary.*24b Quote: “But he had also the even more arduous task of teaching his men to make the new gun. The barrel men had to be instructed how to make the lump instead of a screw breech-plug. The percussioner had to be broken into the task of making actions on Lefaucheaux’s system. Everything was new and the only moral support in the task arose from the fact that Joseph Lang had some time previously entered the same field of research….” However, Blanch did not publicly advertise a pin-fire breech loader until 1858.

E.M. Reilly, writing in December 1857, 40 years before the Blanch obituary*24d, noted that his firm had been examining the Lefaucheaux concept for 10 or 15 years.*24c Given Reilly’s propensity for gambling on technology and his connections to France, almost surely he considered building one and some lines he wrote much later in 1885 seem to indicate he experimented with the gun after the Crystal Palace fair but found it commercially unviable. Certainly E.M. was not overly concerned with the difficulties of building such a gun or the cost of the machinery, the sole sticking point again being "instructing the workers." He definitely was building breech-loading pin-fire guns in early/mid-1856.

The three London gunmakers, Lang, Blanch and Reilly are universally credited as the London manufacturers who opened the doors to the center-break-action concept in the UK.

And this brings the story to summer of 1856 which sparked a sporting gun revolution in UK and the world.

Note: the pin-fire was not the only center-break gun inspired by LeFaucheaux. Lancaster built his own break-action center-fire “base-fire” gun which might have conquered the market had he not tried to control the sale of ammunition for the gun.*24f

Note: All UK pin-fires up until about 1859 used French ammunition, Eley and the British ammunition manufactures having refused to make the cartridges, the shells for Lancaster's gun excepted.
1 member likes this
#634599 Aug 25th a 05:01 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
Originally Posted by JulesW
Steve, thankyou for your appreciation. I an so glad to have contributed something of interest to this exceptional thread.
Here is an image of the action table:
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tq8r...rlkey=basx63akxtsboo3jrymqz5ksq&dl=0[/img]

Re. "6 5 2" an assembly mark, or similar, does seem more likely. I haven't seen it repeated elsewhere on the gun, but it may be: so far, I've considered it more prudent not to disassemble the lever or trigger work, though I've no doubt a full service is called for.

The barrels and locks are initialled, however. I'm told the "JS" on the locks is John Stanton, inventor of the rebounding lock, who was based in Wolverhampton and did work for some of the top-end London names (Purdey, H&H, Boss). I found this article on him when researching the gun:
Castles of Wolverhampton . The author was not named, but perhaps someone on here (knows who) wrote it!

As for the "JP" on the barrels (see below), a conversation with Donald Dallas a couple of years ago suggested that this was the mark of John Portlock, one of several generations of Birmingham barrel-makers. Dallas noted the similarity between the Fuller and a Boss pinfire in his possession, noting that Boss had sourced barrels from Portlock.
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/693w...rlkey=8h1bj2h6lfyadl1z9qca64bmz&dl=0[/img]

I agree the lock marks indicate John Stanton, one of the best lock makers at the time, which is not surprising considering the gunmaker. Also, John Portlock was a supplier of barrels to the best makers, and I have two Boss pin-fires that carry Portlock's mark. The simple two-initial JP mark seems to be a stylistic continuation of his father's mark, TP, for Thomas Portlock, whose barrel-making business closed in 1864. Thomas also supplied the best London makers.

I would go one step further and suggest your gun was actioned by Edwin C. Hodges, the first and best of the London breech-loading actioners. He supplied actions to the biggest names in the business, and the inlet cuts on the action bar appear to be one of the identifying features of his work. If the stock is ever removed from the action, you might find a Hodges mark on the rear part of the action, behind the standing breech.

Many thanks for providing the action bar photo, that answered my question! And the lack of a radius between the bar and action face, and rather thin fences, would suggest a build date around 1863 or not much later. Just a guess, of course, but some pin-fire features are consistent with dateable guns.

Fuller is a mystery maker nowadays, but sportsmen and makers in the 1850s and 1860s held him in the highest regard. He learned his trade under Joseph Manton, and supplying guns to Prince Albert was no small thing.

In The Field of January 27, 1853, there is a mention of Fuller in the following letter, about a muzzle-loading fowling piece:

RANGE OF GUNS. – A subscriber to your paper asks, At what distance ought a double-barrelled gun to kill? I have a gun 12 in the bore made by Fuller, which will kill game dead at seventy yards; snipes I constantly kill over eighty yards; and last year I killed one over a hundred yards, though, no doubt, it was by a stray shot. Fuller lives in the Strand, opposite Norfolk-street, and I believe him to be the best maker in London, perhaps in England. I have seen some extraordinary guns of his making. If your subscriber will call upon him, he will give him every information he may require. The price of a good London gun is 30£.
DEAD SHOT


This letter then provoked a discussion in subsequent weeks on the true range of shotguns on feathered game, one's ability to estimate distance, and supremacy (or not) of the London gun trade. No one, however, questioned George E. Fuller's ability to build a fine gun!
1 member likes this
#637491 Nov 12th a 04:41 AM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
My understanding is that John Henry Walsh (Stonehenge) wrote his Manual of British Rural Sports in 1855 (as recounted by him in a later preface), and the Wikipedia entry for Walsh states that "In November 1855, his comprehensive and illustrated Manual of British Rural Sports was published and was enthusiastically received. This was the first of many editions. In April 1856 the second edition was published which corrected minor errors. In the same year he joined the staff of The Field, and became its editor at the close of 1857."

I don't have a copy of the first edition, but the copies I have seen all have a publication date of 1856, the same year the second edition was published (which I do have). I do not know how different the two editions are, but I suspect the changes were minimal. The preface of the 2nd edition is dated October 1855. The book does illustrate Lang's gun, which interestingly enough appears to show the classic Lefaucheux-type double-bite action, and not the single-bite action (with rising stud) usually associated with Lang's guns of the 1850s. I cannot say how accurate the illustration is, whether Lang was building both types, or whether Lang was obtaining partially finished guns from the Continent. More room for research, I think.

The book does give a description of Lang's breech-loading gun (paragraph number 61, starting on page 20), and there is no mention of the Needham needle-fire or the Lancaster gun (as there is in Walsh's The Shotgun and Sporting Rifle, 1st edition in 1859).

Here is the illustration from the Manual of British Rural Sports (2nd ed.):


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Walsh was certainly familiar with the pin-fire when he wrote his book, though it does not appear that he had much influence over The Field and its thoughts about the pin-fire before he took on the mantle of shooting editor.

The 4th edition was published in 1859; the 5th in 1861; the 6th in 1865; the 7th in 1867; and the 14th in 1879.
1 member likes this
#637492 Nov 12th a 04:56 AM
by Argo44
Argo44
Here is Wikipedia on Walsh - an amazing man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Walsh

Lang per above might be referring to an article in "Manual of British Rural Sports" 1856 and reprinted about 18 times. And Stephen notes this article is really dated to 1855. If so, then the time span between the release of this article and the first Reilly ad for a pin-fire is basically one year. Technology race was on! Stephen as usual you are spot on in research.

What is clear - the casual gun histories that claim Hodges and Lang created the center break pin-fire guns in UK in 1852 after Crystal Palace are utter lazy balderdash.
1 member likes this
#637546 Nov 13th a 10:10 PM
by AaronN
AaronN
Originally Posted by ed good
is there any evidence of pin fire guns being used in the late war of yankee agression?
Originally Posted by Steve Nash
Originally Posted by ed good
is there any evidence of pin fire guns being used in the late war of yankee agression?

Ed, both sides used pin-fire revolvers, a subject well-researched and documented. With long guns, I suspect the answer is probably none. Pin-fire long guns were not developed for military use in breadth and numbers that would have interested either side in the conflict. I'm aware of a few rifle prototypes produced for evaluation by European militaries but with not much success. By the time British pin-fire sporting shotguns came down in price and increased in availability, they had been replaced by the central-fire, so North America saw few pin-fire shotguns being imported, and fewer still locally made, as discussed much earlier in this thread. While the revolver side of the pin-fire story is well known, it is the lack of information on sporting guns that led me to follow this subject.


I have excavated pinfire shotshell bases from over half a dozen civil war battle fields: https://aaronnewcomer.com/excavated-pinfire-guns-and-cartridges-from-the-american-civil-war/
1 member likes this
#638355 Dec 1st a 11:55 PM
by Steve Nash
Steve Nash
I'm afraid I veered off this thread as it went into Civil War territory. I see it is back on track.

On the subject of the earliest British pin-fire game guns and how they came about, I think I've come to a satisfactory conclusion, at least for myself. I think the idea that the Hodges-Lang gun was patterned after Casimir Lefaucheux's gun is only partly correct, in so far as it was based on Lefaucheux's pin-fire system, i.e. a breech-loader using the pin-fire cartridge. I think mechanically the Hodges-Lang gun is mostly based on Beatus Beringer's design, with the single bite, rising stud action, which might have been in circulation from at least 1841. There may be others in the mix, as a number of other French makers had guns on display at the Great Exhibition of 1851, for Hodges and others to see. The time between the end of the Exhibition and the appearance of first Hodges-Lang gun means there was time for Hodges and Lang to examine, and perhaps dissect, various French guns. I think that the Hodges-Lang gun duplicates the internals of the Beringer gun, which cannot be a coincidence. The original Lefaucheux was a double-bite design, which Lang did not copy. As to the small forward underlever and the wood fore-end of the Hodges-Lang gun, I had previously thought this was a British stylistic addition, to differentiate from the Lefaucheux under-lever. Not so; I've now seen a Prélat gun with that very same configuration, built under licence from Lefaucheux in 1836. There may be little of the Hodges-Lang gun that was not copied wholesale from French makers including Beringer, Lefaucheux, and possibly others. The original inspiration might have come from the Great Exhibition, but a number of French guns may have passed through Hodges and Lang's hands before Lang launched his seminal piece in 1854 (or possibly late 1853). This might go some ways to explain why Lang did not patent the design.

I felt confident enough of this conclusion to put it in my latest article in the Vintage Gun Journal: https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/lever-over-guard-origins

As always, new research and contrary opinions are always welcome.
1 member likes this

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 6.263s Queries: 36 (6.251s) Memory: 0.9332 MB (Peak: 1.4336 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 08:35:17 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS