doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Charles Lancaster "0" prefix in serial numbers

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.htm

Curl

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

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