September
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
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
Who's Online
8 registered (montenegrin, Remington40x, Joe Wood, Jtplumb, bill schodlatz, 2 invisible), 4 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
13885 Members
10 Forums
34798 Topics
488064 Posts

Max Online: 462 @ 08/05/16 09:13 PM
Page 36 of 52 < 1 2 ... 34 35 36 37 38 ... 51 52 >
Topic Options
#556853 - 10/15/19 09:36 AM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
HomelessjOe Offline
Sidelock
*

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 14454
Loc: The Great State of Tennessee
Dr. Drew lost his mind over Damascus steel...another feller you know over Randal knives.

Now you over a Reilly shootgun.

I hope this is not the most productive thing you've ever done in your life....for Gods sake man buy yourself a nicer gun and move on.


Top
#557308 - 10/23/19 10:42 PM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
Argo44 Offline
Sidelock
***

Registered: 02/21/16
Posts: 1634
Loc: McLean, Virginia
==========================================================================
10655.
....game changer!

After Diggory's articles, I was contacted by this New Zealand Gentleman with information about a beautiful Reilly pin-fire in extraordinary condition, a very significant gun, as follows:

I have been collecting antique guns since I was 16, starting with a flintlock which I still have. What attracted me to the Reilly was its beautiful engraving , it is in an old case which may be the same age as the gun.
I was interested to read in your article how the first extant sn for a Reilly with the name on the top rib was 11227 , this one being 10655, which I assumed might be around 1859, but may well be 1858 having looked at your research.
It is a 12 Gauge pinfire with 30" damascus barrels with much original brown still remaining. 46 1/2" overall.
Both locks have matching hammers and are in excellent working condition.
The top rib bears the inscription 'E.M.Reilly 502 New Oxford st. Londo The serial number also appears on the inside of the lock plates.


Some immediate thoughts:
1) the gun is the earliest SN'd Reilly with EM on the rib...but note..it is "E.M. Reilly" and not "E.M. Reilly & Co."
2) It is now the earliest extant Reilly center-break gun. Note the way the forearm is attached on this gun - pure Casimir Lefaucheux.
3) it has the SN on the inside of the lock-plates - never seen this before on a Reilly but no-one has ever looked.
4) with the SN on the lock-plates, no chance it was rebarrelled.
5) It is an under-lever and is clearly a copy of the Casimir Lefaucheux system!

10655 would date by my chart to Spring 1858, 18 months before "EM Reilly & Co." appeared in London newspaper ads (and the gun does not have "& Co." on the rib. There are several guns with only "Reilly" as a name on the rib with later serial numbers (see chart). But EM was clearly struggling to find a new name for the company after J.C. retired in September 1857 (see the previous posts). He did exhibit at Crystal Palace (1851) and Paris Universelle (1855) as "E.M. Reilly."

My impression was that early London breech loaders made by Lang, Reilly and Blanch followed the Lefaucheux design. And sure enough 10655 is almost a carbon copy of Lefaucheux's system.













Casimir Lefaucheux's center-break pin-fire. Lang in 1853 out and out stole the patent and changed it enough to get the British courts to toss out a lawsuit....Blanch at least was honest - he wrote that after the 1855 Paris Universelle Exposition, he sent a man to Paris to buy a Lefaucheux gun, brought it back and reverse engineered it. Looks like Reilly did too. 10655 is an important find...you just don't see many of these early English breech loaders...this goes back almost to the dawn of UK break-action guns - and French is spoken there.




Edited by Argo44 (10/24/19 11:10 PM)
_________________________
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch

Top
#557407 - 10/25/19 07:46 PM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
Argo44 Offline
Sidelock
***

Registered: 02/21/16
Posts: 1634
Loc: McLean, Virginia
=============================================================================
Evolution of early Reilly 1850's break-action, pin-fire guns


I've always been curious about the early evolution of British breech-loaders/break-action guns and of Reilly center-break guns specifically. Steve Nash wrote a very succinct history here:
https://www.internetgunclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97

Basically, Casimir Lefaucheux exhibited at the 1851 Crystal Palace Exhibition. Lang, Reilly, Blanch paid attention. Lang went to work and created a variant in 1853 (actually made by E.C. Hodges and sold to Lang) that could escape patent infringement suits somehow (with help from British courts). But his variant languished.

After the 1855 Paris Universelle, Reilly changed his labels to promote "fusills a bascule" (French for break-action guns) and for "Improved Breech Loaders." (Prince patented his military breech loader in 1855....Reilly immediately obtained manufacturing rights). Speculation: Lang may have shown his Lefaucheux copy at Paris, which might have spurred the businessman Reilly into action.



Based on the label, one assumes Reilly was making break-action breech loaders by late 1855. But what type? 10655, which dates to early 1858, gives the answer....copies of the Lefaucheux patent - appropriately beefed up in places - with a different forearm.

10655


Sketch of one of the 4 Reilly shotguns used in the July 1859 trial from "Stonehenge"'s book:


Blanch, who worked closely with Reilly, gives more substance to this evolution:



The print is small so here is the above transcription (from William Blanch's obiturary)

"The Lefaucheux system of breech-loader was brought prominently forward in the 1851 Exhibition. The invention was not received with open arms, and it practically rested on three enterprising gun-makers to fight the battle of breech-loaders against the inert resistance of conservative influences, and also against the active opposition of those who have eyes only for the objections to the system.

At this time of day it is difficult to realize how great these objections really were. The gas-tight cartridge had not yet been evolved, and the difficulties of constructions were increased many times. A little thought will, therefore, manifest the wide sympathies of the gunmaker who pledged his reputation on the soundness of the breech-loading system. This honor is divided among the firms Lang, Reilly and Blanch, though, of course, others joined in as time went on.

It was the year 1855 that the late William Blanch went to Paris and purchased of Benniger, for £27 odd, one of the new fashioned guns. This he set to work to copy and improve. But he had also the more arduous task of teaching his men to make the new gun. The barrel maker had to be instructed how to make the lump instead of the screw breech-plug. The percussioner had to be broken-in to the task of making actions on the Lefaucheux system. Everything was new and the only moral support to the task came from the fact that Joseph Lang had some time previously entered the same field of research. The cartridges of Chaudun and Gevelot were imported from the Continent, English cartridge makers not being then existence. The following extract from "The Field" of October 1858 show the stage to which matters had arrived some three years later. "Lang, Reilly and Blanch have been overdone with orders, and more than one gentleman we know has had great difficulty in meeting with what he wanted. It is therefore simply absurd to attempt to pooh-pooh the invention.".........


Per above change in labels, a plausible assumption can be made that Reilly was making center-break breech loaders from at least late 1855 on - Purdey did not sell a center-break gun built on the Lefaucheux system in until 1858, 3 years later.
https://books.google.com/books?id=89JaDw...859&f=false

It's hard to overemphasize the flame wars which enveloped the British press over the issue. In UK at the time, advocating for an effeminate French piece of effrontery could get your man-hood questioned, your sanity challenged and your reputation threatened. William Greener (the elder) was prominent in despising the new invention and Diggory reports that son W.W., who favored center-break guns, and father fell out over the issue and didn't speak for years. One strongly suspects the same situation applied between Joseph Charles and Edward Michael Reilly at the same time and may have led to JC's early and abrupt retirement in Sep 57.

Reilly's first ads mentioning break-action guns (not counting his label change in late 1855) so far found were these two: first from an early 1857 "Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of GB and Ireland,"
https://books.google.com/books?id=oN1kAA...lly&f=false
and the second from an early 1857 Bradshaw travel book (A June 1857 ad in "The Field" is similar to the second ad below):


The fact that by Fall 1858 Reilly, now managed by E.M., was "overdone with orders" for breech-loaders (per "The Field" above) probably explains why he opened 315 Oxford Street in January 1859. (And it was obviously not because he needed more retail sales space -the building was huge dwarfing Purdey next door).


When did Reilly change from primarily using the Lefaucheux system? It's pretty obvious that it was right after the Jones (a Birmingham gunsmith) under-lever "double-bite" system was patented in September 1859. The above book published in early 1860 shows a sketch of a Reilly using the Jones under-lever system. SN 11469 dated to April 1860 is another example. Reilly the businessman always jumped on the most sale-able system.

. Feb 1860 "Reilly & Co. (from pre-Oct 1859 . . . . .Note the forearm attachment different from Lefaucheux .11469 - April 1860


Therefore, 10655 answers a lot of questions on the evolution of Reilly breech-loader, break-action design. Notice in all this there is not a mention of Birmingham...the promotion of the breech loader in UK for the first 5 years after Crystal Palace looked to be at the instance of three London gunmakers.

For skeptics who say that Reilly did not make these guns:
-- Who in Birmingham at this time was making breech-loaders - 1855-1858?
-- Who do you think made these guns for Reilly if he didn't do it? (And I'm thinking Reilly made the guns for Blanch. Reilly had his guns at the 1858 and 1859 highly publicized trials run by "The Field" - Blanch wasn't there).
-- And no one said during these trials that the guns he presented weren't his.
One prominent poster here who knows a lot about guns has said flat-out that he knows 100% that Reilly was making muzzle loaders - well if he could make a breech-plug, why couldn't he make a lump? Welcome comments and am willing to discuss the issue - it's important UK gun history.


Edit: I have been been told by PM that lots of gunmakers in Birmingham could make guns for Reilly. We've discussed this many times - WC Scott, etc. - but please note that this is not the point.
-- The question asked above is,
"Who, if anyone, in Birmingham could make a center-break breech-loader for Reilly in 1855?" The question is a serious one; Stonehenge mentions one Birmingham gunmaker making center-break guns in 1859 (Elliot who participated in the July 1859 trials).
-- The corollary question is,
"Who might have made 10655, the center-break gun above), for Reilly in Spring 1858, if Reilly did not do it."
-- And, when did center-break breech-loaders actually start to be made in quantity in Birmingham and by whom?
The literature on the early-mid 1850's is pretty clear that it was Lang, Reilly and Blanch who put their reputations on the line to promote the new guns. So the question is historical and important - and I'm not being "snarky." (I suspect Steve Nash can answer this question - and by the way, he owns a Reilly)


Whatever, It is clear that British break-action guns spoke French originally...shades of William the Conquerer...full circle to 1890 when all Damascus in Uk was apparently speaking French....Belgian Walloon dialect.

Of course information on the type of center-break guns Reilly was making in the mid-1850's was right there all along, just unnoticed. Here are the results of the July 1859 trials shoot-off conducted by "The Field" comparing muzzleloaders and breech-loaders (a previous trial was held in April 1858 in which Reilly participated)...."Reilly, London" is listed as using the "Lefaucheux" system of breech-loader, entering 4 guns in each bore from 12 to 16; "The Field" editor particularly praised the 16 bore.



https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAA...858&f=false

(Note that Prince bolt action breech loaders were in the trial. I didn't realize that Prince made guns in a shotgun gauge. At least two Reilly Serial Numbered Princes are pictured in this line. Prince was in partnership with Green until late 1859...Green then went his own way and created his own breech-loader to which Reilly obtained manufacturing rights in 1864 per a long post above.). A description of these guns including Needham's patent bolt action breech loader, Bastin's patent, etc. can be read here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6ftIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=needham%27s+breech+loading+pattern&source=bl&ots=abzRRlyFTN&sig=ACfU3U2h2urMWEr7l9K2j-1jUV9y0p-5Bw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU9rL2mrvlAhXDwFkKHbEJAlAQ6AEwFHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=needham's%20breech%20loading%20pattern&f=false



Edited by Argo44 (11/17/19 07:40 PM)
_________________________
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch

Top
#557871 - 11/06/19 12:33 PM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
Argo44 Offline
Sidelock
***

Registered: 02/21/16
Posts: 1634
Loc: McLean, Virginia
==========================================================================
New early Reilly label for 315 Oxford Street


This nice Beaumont-Adams percussion revolver has a unique label for 315 Oxford Street. The label must have been used after the company name changed to E.M. Reilly & Co. in late October 1859 up to August 1860 when "Gun Manufacturers" appeared and the sketch of the building disappeared from the 502 New Oxford St. labels. It's the first of its kind I've seen:
http://www.shilohrelics.com/cgi-bin/display_item.asp?121853



The interesting thing is, the label is for E.M. Reilly & Co., Armoury House, 315 Oxford Street; yet the name on the rib is E.M. Reilly & Co., 502 New Oxford Street. The label still has the medals from 1851 Crystal Palace Exposition and 1855 Paris Exposition Universelle. Note "Gun Manufactory" used to describe Armoury House.

This was the label for 315 Oxford street used apparently used from January 1859 when Armoury House was opened up to October 1859 when the above label took over. (The word "apparently" is used because the below label is a reproduction; it still has "fusils a bascule" on it):



Edited by Argo44 (11/06/19 07:55 PM)
_________________________
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch

Top
#557872 - 11/06/19 12:55 PM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
Argo44 Offline
Sidelock
***

Registered: 02/21/16
Posts: 1634
Loc: McLean, Virginia
Also, believe this is the Joseph Charles Reilly silversmith mark registered in 1818. It is mis-named in the UK catalog as "John Charles Reilly." (You don't just walk in and "get" a silver makers mark....there is a step by step process and your expertise has to be proven; Nobody was making that silver for him. Why does this matter? What came afterwards).
http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Makers/London-JC-JF.html#JC



Edited by Argo44 (11/06/19 07:59 PM)
_________________________
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch

Top
#558154 - 11/11/19 10:33 PM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
Argo44 Offline
Sidelock
***

Registered: 02/21/16
Posts: 1634
Loc: McLean, Virginia
==============================================================================
1825 Start point for Reilly number - Proof of method.:

The numbering chart of Reilly serial numbers begins hypothetically in 1825 because one publication said he joined the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers that year (not confirmed). The first Reilly advertisement for his own guns in the London press appeared in 1827. Here is an 1825 list of London gunmakers. Reilly is NOT there. It's a negative but that can be a positive.



Edited by Argo44 (11/11/19 10:45 PM)
_________________________
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch

Top
#558258 - 11/13/19 03:37 PM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
Steve Nash Online   content
Sidelock

Registered: 07/02/14
Posts: 275
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Oh, to have been around London in the 1850s and experience first-hand the technological advances and geopolitics of that time...

Fortunately we do have limited contemporary information sources to chronicle these events, and the guns themselves add to the ever-building narrative. Argo44, you've recently added really good information on this early period, and the published adverts and case labels are very informative.

Reilly was definitely prominent in the very early adoption of the French breech-loader, with Joseph Lang and John Blanch. Reilly was one of the very few London makers to enter their pinfire guns in the Field trials of 1858 and 1859, but all three were building pinfires before that. The earliest British pinfires (pre-1860) all appear to follow the design of Lang's first offering (1852-53?), with a single-bite attachment and forward-facing underlever, and often fairly thin fences and short action bars. Lang's pattern also included a assisted-opening stud rising from the action bar, though this feature was never patented. Not the mechanically strongest of designs, but good enough for the times. The New Zealand example of a Reilly of this type is a joy to look at. While not clear from the photos, I would bet it has a single-bite attachment, and from its characteristics I would certainly date it from the 1850s. I can just about make out the Lang assisted-opening stud on the top edge of the picture showing the serial number on the action bar.

I am fortunate to have obtained three single-bite, forward-underlever pinfire guns, very much like the New Zealand Reilly: a Barnett of London, a John Blissett of London, and a Hugh Snowie of Inverness. For the sake of keeping this thread focussed on Reilly guns, I won't post pictures here.

Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Hawker, esteemed author of Instructions to young sportsmen in all that relates to guns and shooting, stated in its 9th edition (1844) that breech-loaders were "a horrid ancient invention, revived by foreign makers, that is dangerous in the extreme”. By the publication of the 11th edition fifteen years later (1859), Hawker’s opinion changed dramatically from denouncing breech-loaders to writing about the breech-loading gun in very favourable terms:

“In the first place, it is more safely, more easily, and more expeditiously loaded: more safely, because the peril consequent on a discharge, whilst ramming down an ordinary muzzle-loader, is entirely obviated: more easily and more expeditiously, because it requires only a moment to insert a cartridge. It is also more convenient; because cartridges can be removed, for the purposes of safety, or changed, when a different size of shot is required. The barrels are not so quickly fouled, and, when fouled, are more easily cleaned than those of the muzzle-loader. Overloading, and the liabilities arising therefrom, are obviated. The trouble, and occasional risk, consequent on drawing a charge, are removed: and accidents prevented from tow, or any other material capable of ignition, being left in the breech. A further advantage, arising from the insertion of the cartridge at the breech, consists in the certainty as to the amount and quality of the powder, which cannot be the case on a damp and foggy day with the muzzle-loader; when the powder falling from the powder-horn must be deteriorated, not only in its passage down the barrel, but also by the additional amount of moisture which is forced upon it by the wad, which, of course, carries all the moisture within the barrel down upon the powder. Guns on this principle, can be loaded with ease by sportsmen or soldiers lying on the ground.”

Hawker had nice things to say about Lang’s design:

“On Lang's method, the whole gun is not so heavy as an ordinary muzzle loader; for although the barrels may be somewhat more solid, there is neither ramrod nor heel-plate; the barrels are united to and partially liberated from the stock, by an easy movement of a lever working on a pivot immediately underneath the stock, which, when in a state of repose, from its neat adaptation to the stock, appears as if it were a fixture, and produces no inconvenience or unpleasantness in the handling. A slight effort moves and at the same time securely replaces it. When the lever is moved, for the purpose of loading, the barrels decline by their own weight, and conveniently expose the breech end for the easy insertion of the cartridges. To perform this operation and replace the barrels, is the affair of two or three seconds; and, as the striker or cock would not reach the pin which explodes the cap unless the barrels were properly, i. e. securely placed, no risk is incurred by haste or carelessness.”

The first British pinfire guns were also being admired in France. The Exposition Universelle des produits de l'Agriculture, de l'Industrie et des Beaux-Arts de Paris 1855 was an international exhibition held on the Champs-Élysées in Paris from 15 May to 15 November 1855, to rival the Great Exhibition of 1851. Over five million visitors examined the objects on display. The “military arts” portion included exhibits of guns from French and foreign makers. Joseph Lang earned a First Class medal for his exhibit (No. 851), which included his pinfire gun, which was noted for the quality of its workmanship. It was also remarked, in 1856, that all French gunmakers were building Lefaucheux-type pinfire guns at this time. (Reference: Anon., 1856. Exposition Universelle de 1855, Rapports du jury mixte international, Tome II. Imprimerie Impériale, Paris.)

At some point in the 1850s an improvement to the Lefaucheux design was made by the Parisian gunmaker Beatus Béringer, who reversed the placement of the breech-fastening lever to over the trigger guard loop (to what we call the lever-over-guard). Whether London gunmakers copied this or came up with it themselves, is a matter of speculation. What is clear is that rearward-lever, single-bite guns were being made, which didn't infringe Henry Jones' 1859 patent for an interrupted-screw, double-bite attachment, with the lever over the trigger guard.

Of this type of action I have a Charles F. Niebour of Uxbridge, a Harris Holland of London, a William Moore & Co. of London, and the Joseph Lang. The Niebour was actioned by E.C. Hodges, and with Uxbridge at the time being on the outskirts, it might be considered a London gun.

So, mid- to late- 1850s perhaps all British pinfires have the forward-facing underlever and single-bite actions. At some point in the 1850s single-bite rearward-facing underlevers started to appear in British guns, continuing to be made using this pattern into the early 1860s. I used to think that the single-bite underlever design stopped being made when the better Jones design was available, but I have a Lang pinfire on this pattern that, according to the order book, was made in 1867.

When the Jones patent lapsed in 1862, a strong and simplified design was within every maker's reach, and the majority of pinfire guns I've come across use this fastening method (and date from after 1862). This might mark the point that Birmingham really got involved in a big way making pin-fire guns and actions. Guns not using the Jones design tended to be by makers pushing proprietary inert designs, such as J.D. Dougall's Lockfast, and later in the 1860s the proprietary snap-actions by the likes of William Powell, Cogswell & Harrison, Westley Richards, Thomas Horsley, J.V. Needham, Parker Field & Sons etc. Whether they made their actions entirely in-house or had them made in the Birmingham gun quarter is another subject for speculation.

When did Birmingham start making patent-free Jones-type guns? That's easy to answer. But when did Birmingham start making pinfire guns? That is much harder to nail down. There was likely not very much demand prior to 1860, though two Birmingham makers entered pin-fire guns in the Field trial of 1858 (Moore & Harris, Christopher Penrhyn Aston) and one in the Trial of 1859 (Eliot). As to provincial pinfire makers entered in the trials (Edwin Ladmore of Hereford, William Egan of Bradford, Philip Hast of Colchester), I have not been able to find out anything about the guns they entered. I am guessing that all of the British-made pinfires entered in the trials (except one) were single-bite guns with forward-facing underlevers, as nothing was remarked about there being differences between them. The Reilly gun pictured in Walsh's ('Stonehenge') book confirms it was the single-bite kind.

Argo44, in your post of 25 October, you wrote: "When did Reilly change from primarily using the Lefaucheux system? It's pretty obvious that it was right after the Jones (a Birmingham gunsmith) under-lever "double-bite" system was patented in September 1859. The above book published in early 1860 shows a sketch of a Reilly using the Jones under-lever system. SN 11469 dated to April 1860 is another example. Reilly the businessman always jumped on the most sale-able system." I would just point out that the Reilly gun in the advertisement appears to be a single-bite gun, so not of the Jones type. Do you know if Reilly gun No. 11469 has a single-bite action? It could well be that Reilly made rearward-lever single-bite guns (as other London makers were doing) in the late 1850s before switching to Jones-type double-bite actions post-1862.

I can't help but finish my ramblings by commenting on the original Lefaucheux gun exhibited in London in 1851. It had a double-bite, interrupted-screw action, a stronger design than the first British copy. The Jones patent of 1859 basically reverted to the original configuration.

Many years ago I passed on a Reilly pinfire with the ring-tipped underlever, because the condition was poor. This was before I realized that all pinfire guns have value in telling some aspect of the story. Stupid me.

Keep up the research!

Top
#558260 - 11/13/19 03:51 PM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
Daryl Hallquist Offline
Sidelock
***

Registered: 12/31/01
Posts: 5725
Loc: Bozeman, Mt.
Steve Nash and Argo, thanks so much for your thoughts. I love the art and mechanisms of the old pinfires and actually enjoy shooting them. I am learning that the pinfires went somewhat before 1860, which is the , I thought, the starting date.
_________________________
http://www.bakercollectors.com/

Top
#558268 - 11/13/19 08:21 PM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
Argo44 Offline
Sidelock
***

Registered: 02/21/16
Posts: 1634
Loc: McLean, Virginia
Steve, many thanks for that erudite and extremely well-written and informative history...I learned a lot...not the least about the original Lefaucheux at the 1851 Crystal Palace Exposition and the presence of Lang's pin-fire at the 1855 Paris Universelle...I had looked in vain for this information. I would love to find out what Reilly exhibited...It was a triumph for him..all his exhibits were sold and numerous orders were booked. Did he have a center-break gun there?

I'll assume that the April 1860 Reilly pin-fire SN 11469 and possibly the over-trigger-guard levered Reilly pictured in the early 1860 book might not have been Jones under-levers after all but rather copies of Béringer's improvement? Need additional info on 11469 which might answer the question. I have written to Holt's re the question "single bite" or double. Holts may retain information on the gun. Also, It was a little amazing that 11469 didn't sell. It was estimated at between £500-700
https://auctions.holtsauctioneers.com/as...3&saletype=

I will say that Reilly business model was - sell cheap, fill orders rapidly, but make quality. If he could avoid patent payments, he would. It was the "margins" which were important (interesting and very modern business model; An address engraving mistake? Purdey would blanch - Reilly? "Push it out the door - it shoots fine"). He made Jones under levers up into the 1880's..no patent problem. So I suspect he didn't make a Jones under-lever (unless specifically ordered) until after the lapse of the patent (by accident) in 1862. But..11469 is interesting...we'll see what Holt's has to say.

I've told Dean Fletcher, the New Zealand gentleman who owns 10655, that his gun has excited interest here. I can ask him for more photos if it would help.

Stonehenge's 1859 book: https://archive.org/details/shot-gunsporting00walsrich/page/n1


Edited by Argo44 (11/13/19 11:30 PM)
_________________________
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch

Top
#558281 - 11/14/19 07:28 AM Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers [Re: Argo44]
HomelessjOe Offline
Sidelock
*

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 14454
Loc: The Great State of Tennessee
Personally I think you've lost your mind.
_________________________
NEVER ANOTHER DIME TO DAVE as long as he locks threads and removes posts.

Top
Page 36 of 52 < 1 2 ... 34 35 36 37 38 ... 51 52 >



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 - 2019 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.