doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com To SDH-MT.Britte Guns.Toledo Steel Works on bbls

Somehow I thought all of you were aware of this post on Double Gun FAQ.
Luc Vanderborght is the fellow in Belgium I bought my Britte metal from. I met him at the SCI show in Reno many years ago.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6342&page=1#Post6342

This should clarify things a bit,
Steve

Steven, thanks. It sure does help. I was not aware of this posting.

So Daryl,.. I'm I to assume that Lajot and Lasot were one and the same?
and my 20 is built on a britte action?

Thanks,

CJ

CJ, I think it is Lajot for your gun. I don't see anything we have uncovered to say it is a Britte action gun. I would think your gun was made in the 1920s. Is there any stamping on the ejectors ? I am thinking that you did post pictures of a Lajot 20 ga. some time ago. That gun was marked N.Lajot Liege on the receiver flats. Are you sure this one is not marked that way ?

Daryl,...it's the same gun but Geno had told me it was N. Lasot! most of the stamps are on the bbl flats that's how I know it was made in 1927,..doesn't even have a ser#
I have taken the whole thing apart and the only reference to a maker is under the trigger guard

CJ

CJ, you are right that I was remembering incorrectly. I was thinking of my gun purchased at a British auction , but I have yet to see it. It may be in town soon, though. Those auctions demand patience. It would be fun to know why your gun was made that way.

Daryl, one theory I heard was that it could have been made as a "Meisters" gun that some apprentice made to get his Master gunmaker's papers,...that would explain the near perfect fit and finish for an unknown gun

Here is a picture of the flats and action

CJ

I could easily be mistaken, but I don't subscribe to the school of thought of there being apprentice or school project guns. Some mastercraftsman made the piece for the market. The following may be a rehash of SDH's post, but here is some G&H info: http://www.[censored].com/Art-of-the-Gun/the-fine-firearms-find-of-the-century.html (apparently Dave has a censor function and in this case "censored" = "shot gun life" without the spaces). Any thoughts on the Nowtony-Britte connection?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Post deleted by revdocdrew

Personally, I don't like any conjecture or inferences from incomplete factual data when it comes to gun research. Unfortunately, even Burrard has way too much of this sort of misinformation.

"They probably did this because I think that is the way they should have done it."

Most gunmaking decisions were made for very simple reasons like: It was the most efficient way to do it, the method fit the tools at hand, or we call it that because that is what it looks like. Because so few of us have any clue what was efficient, what the real tools were, or where the names originated means we should be all the more wary of misrepresentation, or attaching our own notions or emotions to historic artifacts.
When it comes to so called journeyman/apprentice guns, I don't have a clue where or when this notion surfaced, but until I see some definitive evidence (and there is some from the current practices of the Liege gunsmithing school) the jury is still out.
The fact that companies like Britte, Sauer - and becoming more evident - Lindner made metalwork, or assembled guns for the trade is only the beginning of the story, not the end.
PeteM's note of the "falla" is a good example of factual info followed by a cited reference. The statement that Bury bought Britte is obviously erroneous as per info already posted on this site.
The point is, we need to be very careful to truly advance factual info, and not create more "gun lore". With that, I'd invite anyone to point out my misrepresentations.