I've been hanging around this board for some time, I can say that there are some very knowledgeable people here. I've seen several discussion on the British gun trade. My question is this, did many shotguns, even the "Best" begin in Birmingham and Belgium as "rough" castings/forgings and were finished in London or did the "Best" (H&H, Rigby, Richards) have their own "works", manufacturing a gun from scratch? It seems to me a London addy always brings a premium (a sales ploy in some cases) no matter where the gun was actually made especially if one is not familiar with the meaning of proof marks. Any comments would be appreciated, just how does/did it work? --- John Can.

I would think, the London gun, was known by the craftsmen who built them. A shooter who wanted the best, could get the best.
Rigby more for rifles, and Westley Richards, the king of the boxlock - rather than the builders of bests.

Originally, H&H did not make their guns, W&C Scott of Birmingham made them. I believe that Nigel Brown and Donald Dallas commented that London gun makers originated from around the Tower of London area where the royal armouries were. The concept of the London Best gun began with the Mantons where other makers like Purdey and Boss worked.

Certainly there was a tremendous rivalry between London and Birmingham in gun making. IMHO, London being the seat of power and the wealth that goes with power in a kingdom got most of the fame.

John the London fOgg has followed some to America.

Truth is if not for the Brummies there would be no London bridge.

There was no rivalry for the best gun.
London had that market cornered from the late 1800s on.
Vic Venters's SSM article on Greener's G-Guns should clear the fog for most.

There was a heavy trade of Belgian parts to England. These included barrels, actions, etc. This is documented at least during the very early 1900's, though the trade had been on going for decades.

So many assume that if a set of barrels was produced in Liege, it had to be proofed there before being shipped to England. More and more, I am of the opinion that they were most likely shipped unproofed and then proofed in England. Making their origin almost impossible to trace. How many times have you seen a set of Krupp barrels on a gun? How often did those barrels have German proof marks?

Pete

There are those who feel the need to prove that European parts were used to make-up the English gun.
Makes you wonder why?
So, you think the Brummie big mass-producers, like Westley, Greener and Scott brought-up rough Belgian actions?

I'd be very interested in what the true experts on this subject have to say on the matter, but my impression from reading and observations from collecting lead me to believe that Birmingham was the primary source of innovation and expertise, while London's success was largely based on the acquisition of Birmingham's techniques, craftsmen/artists and products, and then greatly enhanced by geography and their own brilliant marketing skills. (Note that many sharp Birmingham firms opened London shops to sell their wares.)

Most would agree that Birmingham could build "best" guns every bit as good as anything London built, but didn't make it their trademark the way London did. I generalize, of course, because both could boast the talent to create whatever their clients sought, but the Birmingham trade made its money supplying the guns (sporting and military) that built an empire, while the London trade made its money supplying guns to the elite who ran and lived off the empire.

It seems to me that the arguments in this ancient debate revolve around a difference of opinion as to the definition of the classic, quintessential British sporting gun ... regardless, it was a tool that 99 percent of the world couldn't afford, but was it a working man's Westley Richards or Greener boxlock, or a peer's exquisite and super-expensive Boss or Purdey sidelock? TT

Who is saying that there was a rivalry for the best gun? I only stated there was a rivalry between London gun makers and Birmingham gun makers.

Don't know if its true, but someone on this board once stated that Andrews made barrels (possibly actions also?) for some of the best names. Evidence was a tiny "A" stamp. This in response to my query about a complete gun by that maker in my collection. I would like to know more about Andrews.

I'd like to hear what light Crossed Chissles can shed on this.

What say ye David?

Perhaps you should obtain a copy of:
"No. 650 Miscellaneous Series.
Diplomatic and Consular Reports.
Belgium.
Report on the Arms Industry of Liege.
Foreign Office.
Presented to both Houses of Parliment by Command of His Majesty, May, 1906." Price Sevenpence Halfpenny.
By Consul-General Sir Cecil Hertslet (Recieved at the Foreign Office April 28, 1906.)

This was an age of protective tariffs. The author specifically mentions the American McKinley Act. It obviously hurt the British makers. While he includes figures for the number of barrels tested by the Liege proof house, he states that Belgian customs only records weights of exports and excludes that from his report. He is concerned with the perception of British guns. He feels that Belgian labor costs are cheaper, p25

"100 tons of damascus steel are exported for the use of makers in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, etc." "156,000 double barrels are produced annually." p.17 358,396 doubled barreled guns were proofed. p28 He mentions other parts but gives no figures.

I purchased it because it documents the Belgian proof marks in use for 1906.

Pete

It sounds to me like, somewhat akin to many custom built items of today-if something met your requirements and quality standards why build it yourself. I don't think this belittles the item in any way, nor does it bother me, it comes down to economics on both sellers & buyers part and it always will. Unless it is a high tier gun the London Addy may not mean much, something like British names on "jabc's" but altered slightly, just a sales ploy. Another example would be selling through an agent with a London address, this ruse might not work on one's home turf but guns that went overseas most buyers would not know the difference or care, I have a good example of this in my gun cabinet. Thank you all for your comments thus far. --- John Can.

I don't know how true this is:

"I'd be very interested in what the true experts on this subject have to say on the matter, but my impression from reading and observations from collecting lead me to believe that Birmingham was the primary source of innovation and expertise."

Sure, the A&D action came out of Birmingham along with the Scott spindle, Westley's toplever, Greener Facile Princeps, and the first ejectors (Needham's).

But the Purdey bolt, the Holland-style sidelock action, and the Southgate ejector system all came out of London.

So I don't know which town contributed more. I would have to go through The British Shotgun 1 & 2 to really see.

Regarding expertise, I would bet that the largest number of top gunmakers were in London. For a tradesman, I think that was where the big money was to be made. And in my experience, talent follows money.

Guys like John Robertson and Thomas Southgate could have worked for anyone and lived anywhere. They chose London for a reason. I bet this reason was money.

I don't think any of the makers in the British trade were using actions made in Belgium. BBls - perhaps, maybe damascus bbls on their lower-grade guns. But not on their good to best-grade guns. They had guys in England who could do it.

As for buying actions in Birmingham and finishing them in London, I'm sure it happened. I think Purdeys bar-in-woods actions started out in Birmingham

But that doesn't really bother me. A lot goes into a gun after you have the rough parts. It's all this time, skill, & expertise that separate a Best gun from a nice gun.

OWD

The Beesley self-opening action of 1880, may have been the line in the sand. Soon after this time, the best gun trade centered in London. Greener and Westley's guns were falling out of favor/fashion to the London pattern Sle.
Much is made about the fit and finish of the London made gun - that is until a post like this!
...and then everyone wants to dance around what makes up a London gun.
It's like jazz - just a jam session!

There is no doubt in my mind that the finest artisans of metal working in the guntrade were Birmingham based or trained.Richard Akehurst documents this in his book highlighting the fact that in tests carried out by the Birmingham Proof house 'Black Country' barrels were far superior to Belgiun.The first ever Iron bridge was made in Ironbridge in Shropshire 25 miles from Birmingham.Rapier steel from Toledo used Birmingham know how and currently Bohler of Austria have used Brummie input.Nice to know that in the '60's Britain supplied 36% of the World's Engineering technology now I believe it is down to 13%.
As regards London / Birmingham quality it is an easy explanation.London concentrated on marketing and sales techniques and Birmingham concentrated on manufacture.
H&H used Birmingham workshops and craftsmen,so did Churchill and Purdey.And surprise surprise they still do.But I bet they wouldn't like me to tell you who and where they are.
Suffice to say many 'Best' guns are made in Brum, proofed in London, finished in Brum, sold in London, used in the US.Everyone lived happily everafter.The End.

Thanks for your input. If and when the time comes, A Purdey in my price range comes-up, I'll offered-up Brummie kinda money for the gun. I'll try to save some big bucks, but no doubt be shown the door instead.
I didn't realize that marketing, and sales would cost the shooter some 50K difference. How stupid we are, bet your techy people are down to three percent.
We've all been had - a Purdey indeed!

lOw'e.....if you buy a Purdy try and get one with full length barrels.

I think this is a bit misleading:

"H&H used Birmingham workshops and craftsmen,so did Churchill and Purdey. And surprise surprise they still do. But I bet they wouldn't like me to tell you who and where they are."

Sure, the makers were having lower-grade guns sourced or made in Birmingham. But there best stuff? I don't know. Purdey made those guns in their London factory, as did H&H, Boss, Lang, etc. Some parts may have come from Birmingham, but the guns were being made in London.

After the trade started to die down, say post WW2, that's another story. But I still think a lot of the best stuff was being made in London.

Today, the guns are made wherever they can be made. The orders are so low and the really talented gunmakers so rare, that it doesn't matter where they live or work. It just matters that they're doing the best work possible.

BTW: where are all the pre-WW2 Birmingham sidelocks that compare to a Boss, Purdey, or H&H Royal? I've seen a few, but not many.

Greener's G guns and Facile Princeps are real nice, but better than a top Boss? I think that's pushing it.

Powell made some nice guns, but I don't think they're as nice as London guns. Scott made some decent Premiers, including a few gorgeous Imperial Premiers. But overall,I don't think their 20th-century guns were as nice as the stuff coming out of London at that time.

OWD

Gun handling properties, and then fit and finish gentlemen!
We seem to forget that this was first and foremost to the shooters who wanted the best. Barrels struck well, ejectors nicely timed and true of balance. Second was the gun's over-all quality.

The great Westley Richards, made 9 out of every 10 for export, and for the rough. Their Sle gun was made by AA Brown!
When lesser quality guns are your bread and butter, how can they be counted on for your "Best gun."
Same with the mass-producer, W&C Scott - in today's world, they'd have moved to China, or Turkey - already.

Could not find old postings on Andrews. I think Bodington was one of those who replied and I think he said the firm made barrels for Rigby.

The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that many 'Best' guns may have started life elsewhere before being proofed and finished in London.Certainly actions & barrels were made in and around Birmingham pre & post WW2.
Undoubtedly it is a matter of pride to own a Purdey,I used to own a Boss O/U but as many who have owned one will testify owning and shooting one is a very different set of circumstances.It was not very nice to shoot, very 'lively' in the hand and second shot required 'application'.

I agree.

Have you found that other O/Us perform better than the Boss?

I've never shot a Boss O/U, or, now that I think of it, any O/U.

Those stacked bbls bug me.


OWD

Prudey is to Patek Philippe what Peter Hofer is to Franck Muller. I hope this comperison helps you. I mean, isn't this perpetual drive through English countyside getting a bit long in the tooth by now? I'm out of scopolamine patches.

OWD: You and I are really saying the same thing ... that London's prestige and money drew the provincial talent that built many of the "best" guns to come from that city. You earlier said, "Guys like John Robertson and Thomas Southgate could have worked for anyone and lived anywhere. They chose London for a reason. I bet this reason was money." I agree, and Robertson is a perfect example. He began his professional exodus in or near Edinburgh, then went to work for Whitworth in Manchester, Richards in Birmingham, and finally, Purdey and Boss in London. He followed the money.

Despite what others may try to make of it, I'm not out to attack the London gun trade or the quality of their work. I'm not trying to argue that London isn't the source of the true "London best" gun, or that "best" guns are not the pinnacle of the gunmaker's art.

What I am trying to suggest, though, is that perhaps the lowly British boxlock (albeit a very nice one) has a stronger claim to the title of "quintessential" British shotgun ... that perhaps, based on utility and popularity, if we had to point to one and only one type of gun, the classic Brit boxlock (and not an elegant and fabulously expensive London sidelock) is the finest (dare I say "best"?) example of that nation's contribution to our favorite hobby. Sort of the same argument I suspect Lowell might make about American guns ... that the Fox Sterlingworth "gentleman farmer's gun" is a better universal representative of that nation's shotgun production than an AAHE Parker 28-gauge.

I can appreciate what a $250,000 sportscar represents without insisting that the pleasures of driving can't be achieved without one. A $60,000 sportscar will do me very well, thank you. TT

One needs to understand that maker's name is about brand value and that original quality grade is about how much time/money the maker put into the gun. Surely we all understand that the brand has an impact on retail price and that quality grade of the product has an impact. Maker's name, maker's location, and quality are not synonomus. The Brit trade was a trade indeed. Technology, material, and skill tended to be mobile. What any maker needed was available from another shop for a price. Note that most shops were owned or supervised by master makers; masters knew who did what work, how good they did it, and what prices they charged. It is entireley clear that most, if not all, shops (reguardless of location) were perfectly capable of delivering a gun of original quality grade equal to any comparison. The issue was not capability, rather, opportunity. Opportunity came in the form of a commission; basically nobody could afford to stock "off the peg" best quality guns. Since best quality guns were expensive, no matter who made them, commissions tended to come from society groups that were both more affluent and more inclined to shooting as entertainment. Some society groups were fairly specific as to which gunmakers should be patronized.

From the gunmaker's point of view, it was about making the best living possible. A machinist in Birmingham might very well make more money that a store front in London. A top worker might well profit most by lower cost living in Birmingham while accepting work from the London shops as available and from Birmingham and provencial shops as fill-in (rail connections were quick and sure by the time frame under discussion). Shops did as much work with in-house workers as possible. But, they used out-workers as needed for specific skills and for overflow. The gun trade had all the usual business problems and used all the usual techniques to solve those problems.

I do not believe that London had a lock on design, materials, skill, or handling. But, Boss, H&H, Purdey, and Woodward did succeed in elevating their brand value in the current market. The second level of brand value contains makers from many locations, as well as London and Birmingham.