Apart from the early Westley Richards sleeving jobs, when they emblazoned their name above the SLEEVED that the Proof House then insisted on stamping on the sides of the breeches, there is usually little indication as to who carried out a sleeving task.

This gun is a Cogswell and Harrison, circa 1882, sideock non ejector built on the top lever cocking Gibbs and Pitt action patent 284 of 1873.

The locks contain either Holland patent intercepting sears, or a very similar design.

The date stamp on nitro proof when sleeved is unclear but I suspect might be 1978.

Marked on each barrel near the SLEEVED mark is a tiny E COOKE and between those stamps is 77/25 which is probably his 25th sleeving job of 1977.

I can’t find an E. Cooke in Volumes 1 or 2 of Nigel Brown, but it may be that Toby Barclay, Salopian , Damascus or Small Bore will know the answer.

Nothing in Volume 3 either.
I have never heard of an 'E.Cooke' but I came late to the party and 1977 is a very long time ago! The joint isn't welded but then TIG welding by Bob Ladbrook hadn't been 'invented' in '77. The London trade were probably still very grumpy about the acceptance of sleeving by the Proof Houses (reluctantly!) at that time so my guess would be the Birmingham trade.

Growing up, I remember gunsmiths tagging their work.

That was only gunsmiths that actually did an apprenticeship somewhere.

I don’t know which schools told their students to tag their work.

Dear Toby and Clapper,

Thanks for your input, and Toby thanks for checking Volume 3. I did find on the Internet a shop in Wales advertising one at cover price. but when they checked their “warehouse” it was no longer in stock. I suspect that they don’t keep any stock but just order in from Coch-y-Bonddu in Machynlleth when they get a request.

Even if TIG welding was done then there would have been little point as the breeches are a nice Damascus pattern.

The elegant solution is a gold inlay in a groove at joint, black the steel tubes, and reverse the process at the muzzles. Unfortunately the cost of the gold alone would outweigh the present value of the gun.

Mr. Cooke no doubt worked for someone in the Birmingham trade, but it is nice to see from his neatly applied stamps across the joins the pride he took in his work,

Keep Well

Parabola

Mr. Cooke can sleeve my gun any time. Nice joint.

Here is a picture of the inside of the right hand lock of the Cogswell Gibbs and Pitt gun.

I think the number 1028 is a patent use number.

Note that the polish on the bottom of the mainspring suffices to act as a mirror after almost 140 years.

I thought at first that the intercepting safety sear was covered by Holland’s 1887 patent but as this gun dates from 1882 or thereabouts it must be part of an earlier patent.

the all but invisible sleeve joints are incredible...would love to know how he did that? must have involved use of a lathe?

Smoke fitting

He would certainly have needed to use a lathe to bore out the breech end to accept the turned down ends of the new tubes, and to turn the tubes themselves to the appropriate diameters and cut the step.

Unless the original breech ends were perfectly round and concentric at the join he probably left the outer diameter of the tubes at that end slightly oversized to allow for “ striking down” barrels so that breech ends flow smoothly into the new metal.

It is clear from the end result that there was a great deal of skill, and probably quite a bit of patience involved.

Whilst looking up something else in Stonehenge (J.H. Walsh) “The Modern Sportsman’s Gun and Rifle” 1882, I found that where he described this model he identifies the Intercepting safety sear as a Scott patent.

Which of Scott’s many patents he doesn’t say.

There are some pretty amazing examples, unfortunately this one was blued, but you can see the pattern under the blue. I would love to get these browned!

upload gif image

The 'Block Patent Safety' exhibited by your gun has been attributed to Scott and Holland but it is neither. Even Baker & Crudgington got it wrong, misled by H&H's advertising muscle!
It is fact a reworking of the Needham & Hinton interceptor sears patent no. 706 of 1879 where the 'block' is part of the trigger blade but operates in exactly the same way. H&H showed it in the patent specification for patent no. 5834 of 1887 (operating as a separate piece of metal) but, as with many pre-invented mechanisms, they were wise enough to not put too much emphasis on the safety, concentrating on the ejector the patent covered.

Thanks, Toby.

I knew the gun predated the Holland’s patent by a few years, but was struggling to find the answer. At least in getting it wrong I am in very good company!