I was under the impression that Chas. Lancaster guns with a "0" in the prefix were not actually made in the Lancaster factory at 151 New Bond St. Most of these types of guns being "body action" type guns or mid-grade sidelocks. Does anyone here have a good idea of who was contracted or sourced to build these "O" prefix guns for Lancasters? I've noticed that still all of the guns that I've looked at with "0" prefix still bear London proof marks, I've never seen one with Birmingham proofs. Any help, thoughts or good info is of course, greatly appreciated.
Dustin
My understanding is that it was the Birmingham trade, as most were, I've seen top best Lancasters with prefix zero too so not just mid grade.
T
T,
I was hoping to find out exactly "who" made the guns for Lancaster. AA Brown, Leonard, etc. More specifically, the self-openers, I've never seen another Lancaster (Beesley) type self-opener with another makers name on it, have you?
I did read a short article noting that F. Beesley did produce a few guns utilizing his patent No.425 of 1884 though, never seen one, but they do exist.
When you mention seeing "best" Lancasters with prefix zero, are you saying you've seen Lancaster Model A's and 12/20's with the 0 prefix? I have not, but I'll admit, I've only seen a few 12/20's and a few Model A's. Interesting.
Dustin
Fredrick Beesley built some (maybe all) the 0 prefix Lancasters. I'll look up the supporting reference when I get home.
I have Charles Lancaster SN 07408. It is a Beesley built self opener BLE. It is the wrist breaker action.
You can see it on the Heritage Guns website Back Catalog listing (below the current stock list).
http://heritageguns.co.uk/hgframset.htmJoe
Webley & Scott made guns for Lancaster. Lets face it they made guns for every body.
hello,
i have two circa 1902 lancasters.neither of them have
O prefix numbers,however both are built using webley
a&w 51 actions with webley fences,top lever and screw grip.
purchased from webley and completed by lancaster?
both have london proof and bond st address.
cheers
ps both guns look identical to guns in 1914 webley catalogue and
i would have said lancaster only added name and address,but
no O prefix?
According to Diggory Hadoke's book, William Baker made some guns for C. Lancaster. It does not state which models.
It is my understanding that the '0' series guns were all made by Beesley using his patents including his interceptor sear, 'self opening' action (often known at the 'wrist breaker') etc and can be found in both boxlock (see Joe's post above) and backaction sidelock forms. David Baker mentions this and says that he assumes that 'a deal was struck between HAA Thorn ('Charles Lancaster') and Beesley'. I had this information from a couple of other sources but am damned if I can remember where! Nigel Brown mentions the '0' prefix but does not comment on its significance other than that the guns were outsourced.
Thank you guys. Toby, dont feel all that bad, I can't remember where I read that information either, but I know I read it somewhere! I just perused through some books and articles and none of them mention the "who", they just seem to mention that the "0" guns were indeed made by somebody other than Lancasters.
The notion that the "body" action guns were made by F. Beesely suits me just fine, that's quite a pedigree.
I just acquired gun #07825, #1 of a pair, "body action".
Dustin
Dustin,more research may be needed here. Beesley's shop was very small and capable of producing only small numbers of guns each year. Looking at the records in Brown's book show years where sales were below 50 and even 30 guns. But he was known for licensing his patents to others. Judging from the number of wrist breakers we see on the market today there must of been a considerable amount made and sold back then.So I can't see Beesley being the source for Lancaster's O grade guns. There must be other clues.
Justin, as you most likely know, 'Made' in describing the output of an English gunmaker at the turn of the century covers a multitude of sins!
What I meant by the expression was that Beesley was reputed to have taken on the organisation of the manufacture of the Beesley patent guns for Lancaster. No doubt they were not made in their entirety, if at all, in his own workshop but farmed out throughout the London, and possible Birmingham, trade.
He would have been in charge of the patent use and quality control, where he was not actually hands-on, and would have answered to Thorn as his customer.
The concept that the British guntrade has ever produced the majority of their wares in-house is mistaken. Only very few 'makers ever had the capacity to do so and even they would farm work out at times of high demand or workforce issues. This is as true today as it ever was.
True that. My take is different. This gun of Lancaster's is made on Beesley's patent. License paid and that is that. Thorn was quite capable of monitoring all the out work without having to give up a share to someone else supervising for him. It's the Money. It still leaves the question:Who had their hands in making this gun? The fun is in tracking these guys down.
I once owned a Charles Lancaster double rifle with "0" prefix. The action was clearly a much-modified Webley PHV-1. The barrels were Lancaster's oval bore and were signed "CL". The rifle wore London proofs. Here is a link to my chronicle of this rifle:
http://www.rbsiii.com/collection/rifles/C_Lancaster_280/C_Lancaster_280.htmCurl
True that. My take is different. This gun of Lancaster's is made on Beesley's patent. License paid and that is that. Thorn was quite capable of monitoring all the out work without having to give up a share to someone else supervising for him. It's the Money. It still leaves the question:Who had their hands in making this gun? The fun is in tracking these guys down.
You are aware that Lancaster (Thorn) had an actual factory unlike some other makers who merely had a storefront? Lancaster bought the patents from Beesley outright, just like Purdey did. You say "License paid and that is that". What do you mean? A License to me means (now this is in laymans terms) that the owner of the patents is giving their permission to someone else to manufacture that gun as theirs, usually because the owner of the patents is getting compensated for the patents use. I dont think this is the case of the body action self opener, I've never seen a Lancaster body action gun sporting another makers name. Again, I've never seen or heard of a Lancaster back action sidelock "wrist breaker" bearing any other makers name either, I'm sure all of the model A's were built on premise at 151 New Bond St. I dont think we'll ever know for sure who produced the "o" prefixed Body Action Wrist Breaker gun.
I tend to agree with Toby on what he said a couple post ago regarding the agreement between Thorn and Beesely, and the possibility that Beesely was indeed involved in the making of the "O" prefixed body action wrist breakers, how he did it is really anybodys guess but Toby again seems to have the most logical explanation.
Dustin
Justin, as you most likely know, 'Made' in describing the output of an English gunmaker at the turn of the century covers a multitude of sins!
What I meant by the expression was that Beesley was reputed to have taken on the organisation of the manufacture of the Beesley patent guns for Lancaster. No doubt they were not made in their entirety, if at all, in his own workshop but farmed out throughout the London, and possible Birmingham, trade.
He would have been in charge of the patent use and quality control, where he was not actually hands-on, and would have answered to Thorn as his customer.
The concept that the British guntrade has ever produced the majority of their wares in-house is mistaken. Only very few 'makers ever had the capacity to do so and even they would farm work out at times of high demand or workforce issues. This is as true today as it ever was.
Agree. Well said Toby.
The Lancaster body action gun is built on Beesley's patent,Right?
I own a Beesley 12b built on this action. It bears Beesley's name and address.
The license I referred to was for the action not the whole gun.Even if Lancaster made these guns in his London factory he still would have licensed the patent from Beesley.
My difference with Toby is I can't see why Thorn would give up any more profit margin other than the use fee to Beesley. Purdey didn't have Beesley supervising or monitoring the action he licensed from him.
I can't find production records for the 0 prefix guns,just a print of an old add for the 0 grade. If you want I'll e-mail it to you.
I'ld have to do some more digging but I beleive Lancaster sold other box lock guns. A colonial I think.
Yes, the body action "wrist breaker" is indeed a Beesley patent, as is the patent block safety used on the gun. Thorn bought the design outright from F. Beesley and owned ALL the rights to manufacture the gun. After that, if Beesely or anybody else wanted to make a gun using the wrist-breaker design whether it be a body action or sidelock, they would have to get permission from Thorn. As you can see, Thorn NEVER had to acquire a "License" from Beesely....he bought the design in its entirety and he became sole owner of the design. I believe the case is very similar to the deal struck with Purdey. The gun you have, is a rare bird indeed. Beesely did manufacture a few of his own guns using this patent before he sold the rights to Thorn.
Dustin
Thanks,Dustin,my reading of the situation was from Dallas's big book on British Sporting Guns and Rifles where he states that Beesley "licensed it to Charles Lancaster who used it..."
Sometimes it's hard to know what's what.
Most of my information concerning Chas. Lancaster and Thorn comes from the writing of David J. Baker. I'll take a look thru the Dallas book too. It seems to me that Mr. Baker is more of a fan of H.A.A Thorn than anything else and seems to have spent a great deal of time and effort researching the firm. He and David Perkins had alot to talk about.
Charles Lancaster "Wrist Breakers" sure are lovely guns, whether they be side locks or body actions, and they certainly have a panache about them that's all their own.
Dustin, I don't think these guns share the same Beesley patent.
I did find reference to a patent taken out by Thorn in 1881,#499 that pertains to the "wrist-breaker",I can't find a picture of it so I'm not too sure about it.It uses the rear lug to cock the tumbler,and is probably a bear to close.
And by the way that is a a beautiful gun you have, Justin
Justin,
Nice gun. First "Beesley" marked "wrist breaker" I've ever seen. I believe it to be a rare and special gun, not too many people can claim to have ever seen one, thanks a million for posting pics of it!
The "wrist breaker" design was patented in 1884, patent number 425. The patent block safety used on the gun was also patented in 1884, #14488.
With these dates, it's hard to imagine that Thorn took out a patent in 1881 for something that pertained to Beesleys gun of 1884.
Thorn was granted a patent for an improvement to the Beesley design...this was #7242 of 1894. It is my understanding that Lancasters made after this date are in fact different from earlier "wrist breakers", this goes for both the sidelocks and body action guns.
Going back to how Companies bought designs outright, the cycle seems to have been repeated when Lancasters bought the 12/20 design from W. Baker later on down the line.
I would like to read about patent #499 of 1881.
Dustin
Thanks Dustin, There is scant mention of the 499 patent Baker refers to it on pg19 of vol.2 of the British Shotgun and Masters mentions it in the Lancaster chapter of the AGL opus. It was a provincial patent only so may not bear on this discussion at all.
I don't understand the "wrist-breaker" nickname for this patent. The Beesely closes as easily as can be with that distinctive"clink" of the flat spring.
Maybe when Joe from Charlette gets home he'll tell us more about his gun. I think there is more to this story.
Justin,
I don't think your gun shares the internals with the 'wristbreakers' that I have known, eg. Joe from Charlotte's gun. These guns are very stiff to close as you are tensioning the main spring while doing so. They also are self openers as the only thing that is keeping the springs tensioned are the barrel flats pushing down on the rocking 'spring tensioners' pivoting in the bar of the action.
One result of this feature is that you can not fire off the locks without the barrels fitted and closed.
As I remember, the main spring acts as a cocking lever by being pressed rearwards by the forend iron as the gun is opened but I may be mistaken.
Toby,my gun has two dogs protruding from the front of the bar,which are the ends of the mainsprings. They insert into channels in the forend. There are two "rocking spring tensioners" and you can see in my picture the small lug,attached to the barrels flats,coming down on the tensioners. The gun pops open when the top lever is pushed,and,it seems to me, That the springs,while bent under the pressure of the open barrels act as an assist in closing the gun up. What's not to love.
Judging from the picture of patent #425,I've seen this is what the gun ius built on.
So,what's up with that?
Sounds like a "Wrist-Breaker" action to me, the "dogs" protruding that far into the forend, the cam pin is in the right place on the action, the compressor bar on the barrels.. sounds like the first series of guns built using patent #425. If you are comfy with the idea of pulling the stock, please take some pics of the internals, and take a pic of the action flats if you can too. When I get my body action gun back from the gunsmith, I'll do the same. I do not understand why your gun is so easy to close though? And you say it feels or acts like a "assist in closing the gun"? That one baffles me!! A pic of the guts would explain alot. I will say, for some reason my 1896 body action gun closes much easier than the 1890 side lock, its still stiff, but its not as stiff as the sidelock to close and in no way does it act as an "assist" in closing! You're still fighting that mainspring tension when closing the gun.
Justin, your gun is extremely interesting to say the least!
Dustin
I can only echo Dustin, I can't understand how it can be a 'wristbreaker' but be 'assisted' in closing. A 'normal' wristbreaker is powered open by the main springs and as soon as one starts to close it one feels the, usually, heavy resistance of those same main springs. In fact if one isn't quite vigorously with one's closing effort, the gun bounces right open again. I wonder if your gun has an interesting variation of the 'normal' mechanism. It may be a lot rarer than you think!
I'll post a few pictures of the internals of Joe's gun that I took when restoring it for him sometime soon.
Here are the action components:
[img:left]
http://www.heritageguns.co.uk/Lancaster%20BLE/Lancaster%20BLE%20Action%20600[/img]
Here is the Block Safety:
[img:left]
http://www.heritageguns.co.uk/Lancaster%20BLE/Lancaster%20BLE%20Block%20Safety%20600[/img]
Here is the ejector work (a nightmare designed to get round the Southgate patent, the spring was once described as a 'snail of acid')
[img:left]
http://www.heritageguns.co.uk/Lancaster%20BLE/Lancaster%20BLE%20Ejector%20600[/img]
Yikes, I'll never go exploring inside my Lancaster. What a bunch of cool little bits for me to foul up.
The gun has functioned perfectly since Toby's restoration. It is tough to close. I find by holding further out on the barrels when closing gives enough extra leverage to close-n-cock without too much effort.
I have noticed after a round with the Lancaster, my standard pattern guns "fly" shut. It does take a few stations to readjust to the norm of cock on open.
I couldn't find anymore data other than what has been posted. (Still loooking)
Joe
Joe,
Your Lancaster DOES cock on opening, not on closing like a Purdey. When a fired Wrist-Breaker is opened the front end of the spring/lever is depressed and the rear end rotates the tumbler/hammer back to the cocked position. When the gun is being closed, the cocking dog is raised and since the rear end of the spring/lever is now being held up by the tumbler, which in turn raises up the front of the spring/lever causing the middle portion of the spring to bow down. The cams machined into the action flats are there to increase the bend of the mainspring. In a nutshell, thats how the system works.
Dustin
Toby,all the parts seem the same. I thought that with the barrels down the tension on the spring helped lift the barrels up,when the barrels lifted high enough the springs were no longer under pressure so the little lugs bearing down on the cams needed less muscle to bend the springs. Not knowing this was the "wrist-breaker" patent I beleived what I was told when I bought the gun,some years ago.
So,if this is the same lock work as the sidelock Lancaster with the "lamb chop" lockplates,what is behind those plates? Would you have a picture of that to post?
Dustin,my gun dates to 1886 with no other info available. I don't know how to pull the stock,but it sure looks like Toby's pict.
Lancaster sidelocks:
Thanks for the photos,Dustin.