December
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
7 members (Jamie H, JDH, Karl Graebner, R. Glenz, Steve Helsley, FlyChamps), 105 guests, and 6 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics36,366
Posts510,927
Members14,102
Most Online462
Aug 5th, 2016
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 42 of 47 1 2 40 41 42 43 44 46 47
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 461
Likes: 9
Hal Offline
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 461
Likes: 9
So it seems like the concept of a cartridge with a nipple that accepted a regular percussion cap post-dated the pinfire system where the primer was internal. One would think the opposite would have occurred during the transition from muzzle-loaders.

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,895
Likes: 17
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,895
Likes: 17
Hal, the pinfire in France was more than a decade ahead of England. I think the "cartridge with a nipple" was in answer to the more complicated reloading process of a pinfire in the field.

From AaronN's post.

This advertisement is from the August 15, 1842 issue of the Journal Des Débats. Here Jubé (guy who owned Lefaucheux's company from December 17, 1835 until January 1, 1845 ) advertises an improvement. He mentions to hunters that they no longer need to worry about running out of pinfire cartridges as he will provide a new invention of a reusable cartridge that can be loaded with percussion caps free with every gun purchase.

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
Likes: 3
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
Likes: 3
No I would say the concept pre-datated it.

The Pauly guns, after Henry Roux owned the patents and companies modified the design to take a cartridge with a nipple:
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
And then Picherau who bought the patents and company from Roux continued with some of those as well as another modification to make it more like a typical percussion gun with an external nipple.

Lefaucheux would later buy the company and continue with the external nipple percussion gun design before making his pinfire cartridge.

But still before these you have Clement:
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]


And Lepage:
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]


Then after Pinfire you still had people exploring this option:
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

[img]https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-SZgGZ4L/0/3572e26d/X3/i-SZgGZ4L-X3.jpg[/img]

[img]https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xzmsdjG/0/b68572bf/X3/i-xzmsdjG-X3.jpg[/img]

Last edited by AaronN; 06/22/21 11:17 AM.

Clock Guns, Pauly Guns, Pinfire Guns and Pinfire Cartridges
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,895
Likes: 17
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,895
Likes: 17
Aaron, great information. From looking at the Morse cartridges and similar, I wonder why the pinfire was even considered . The Morse seemed easier to load and did not have the Pin like the pinfire. My thought in the previous post was that , given you had a pinfire gun, the alternate cartridge was an assist the pinfire owner. It appears to be much easier to reload and possibly could have been loaded like a muzzleloader.

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
Likes: 3
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
Likes: 3
Well, cartridges like the Morse one didn't come until 20+ years later. A big reason why pinfire was able to take off is that the lock mechanism was so similar to what everyone had always used with percussion or even flintlocks.

Plus it was always a selling point for the water/moisture resistance that came with a self-contained cartridge. And cheaper to have 20 paper cartridges with you than 20 reloadable cartridges I am sure played a factor.

Additionally there was less steps for not having to load the cap and etc.


Clock Guns, Pauly Guns, Pinfire Guns and Pinfire Cartridges
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 57
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 57
Hi Steve, just stepoping aside from the ammunition debate for a moment.....24th June, Ryedale Auctioneers, here in UK have a small militaria auction. Lot 77 is one of my Blanch guns...with pictures.

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 375
Likes: 15
Sidelock
OP Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 375
Likes: 15
Ivanhoe, that Blanch is a lovely gun. The acanthus spray on the fences seems to be a Blanch style. Do you recall the serial number? I'm guessing it is a Lang-type single-bite action with the rising stud. The auction site does not provide much information. I hope it brings you a good price.

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

Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 461
Likes: 9
Hal Offline
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 461
Likes: 9
Thanks for all the information on early cartridges. Many people consider central ignition a great improvement on an older rimfire system. Not only are they off by decades, but your collection shows central fire led the charge to replace muzzle-loading firearms.

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 375
Likes: 15
Sidelock
OP Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 375
Likes: 15
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: Imperdix
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,165
Likes: 27
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,165
Likes: 27
Wonderful write up Stephen. I'd like to make a couple of comments:

Here is the earliest reference to a Beringer under-lever I can find in the UK press. "The Field" 20 Dec 1856:
[Linked Image from jpgbox.com]

In Dec 1857 Reilly wrote a letter to "The Field" in which he stated that "until very recently breech loaders were regarded as a novelty." (Reilly's full page letter is published earlier in this line):
"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."

In looking a Serial Numbers on Extant Reilly pin-fires the following observation was made:

Comment: First Extant Reilly pin-fire breech loader is 10054, made probably late summer 1856. There is an extant Reilly breech loader 10354 made in summer 1857. This indicates the E.M. made about 300 guns during this period (J.C. made another 100...see the chart). Probably at most 10% of the 300 made by EM were breech loaders = 30 guns - probably a lot less - 15 guns maybe? The Extant SN Reilly guns are pictured above.

Note: By December 1857
-- Lang had been producing breech loaders for nearly 4 years (estimate maybe 70 guns?)
-- Reilly for 1.5 years (estimate 15 guns?);
-- Blanch for a year (estimate 5 guns?)
-- Haris Holland for 9 or 10 months (5 guns?).
-- The technology was still 3 years away from infiltrating Birmingham.
-- There were a few other gunsmiths making them - Henry Tatham had made a couple per letters to the Field
etc.
In other words there were not that many UK made breech loaders being shot in the country at this time (Dec 1857) - maybe 100? if that many?

In other words, by summer 1857 I'd reckoned that Reilly had made under 30 breech loaders and that the others not that many more.

Well...Check out this advertisement for Reilly 20 June 1857 "The Field": Reilly flat out stated that purchasers could select from close to 100 guns then in the state of manufacture with finishing to order. 100 GUNS BEING MADE!! Talk about a turn-around in demand. No wonder JC retired in Sep 1857... Also no wonder Reilly could make a gun in a month when others took 6 months....he obviously planned ahead and put money into the planning.
[Linked Image from jpgbox.com]

Last edited by Argo44; 08/10/21 07:22 PM.

Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
Page 42 of 47 1 2 40 41 42 43 44 46 47

Link Copied to Clipboard

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 - 2021 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: 0.079s Queries: 36 (0.050s) Memory: 0.8984 MB (Peak: 1.8991 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2021-12-01 04:09:05 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS