doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers

Hammers on extant Reilly pinfires all resemble each other over the 13 years in my files:


10655 (1858). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No Sn (1862?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12920 (1862)(muzzle loader)


No SN (note the early S-L). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14469 (1867). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15129 (1868)


15255 (1868). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16810 (1871) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17204 (1871)


But during the 1860's Reilly's centerfire hammers were also ornate:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15287 (1868). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16765 (1871)

Neat comparison. Many thanks for the effort.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Similarities...yet beautiful differences and stylistic flourishes.

The feel, and sound, of pulling back a hammer is really missing on a hammerless gun.

About Reilly ,

From the book, The Cape Gunsmith, by Barry M. Berkovitch, there is a section listing various makers/sellers. This one talks of a gun by Reilly.

Thanks Daryl, that fits with what others said about Reilly in this era: Here is a gun (previously posted) he made for Oaks & Co., Madras, no serial number, probably late 1880's.



Note: the top of the frame is marked �Ellis & Scots Patent� by the release lever. If Scot built the gun, why have a patent number on it? That was paid for.

I highly doubt Reilly made that gun. I highly doubt anyone at Reilly laid a hand on that gun during its manufacture.

Few people seem to bother with what exactly Holland made, finished, or sold

Holland ensured quality in what they put their name on. Later they of course went in house, which is the opposite of many labels.

It appears Reilly did likewise within the parameters of the grade in question.

The long going argument between some on what Reilly �made� �finished� or just sold is tiresome.

Cherry picking from the documentary evidence can make whichever answer you want.

Unfortunately, the lack of witnesses and or more specific documentation will likely leave us without a prefect answer indefinitely

PS I own a late Reilly which may or may not have been made by Reilly, but either way it is a nice gun.

Dustin, what you said is possibly true; it's also possible Reilly built major components of the gun and certainly finished it. I'm working on it...building a case...more to come. Your objections are well known - I've answered some of them but give me a chance to finish this. Thanks.

I�m not cherry picking anything, dude. Difference here is that while H&H certainly brought in complete guns, finished barreled actions etc, they freely admit to it and they can name who was running the shop, who was lead actioner, stocker, barrel maker, and engravers for guns they completely built in house. NOTHING seems to exist that can even come close to backing up the claims of Reilly�s advertising from the period. Do you find it odd that while Reilly�s shop was only a few doors down from Purdeys at one point......not one soul from that legendary firm knows another gunmaker, jobber or iron monger from Reilly? What�s that tell you?? You don�t have to be the Hardy Boys to figure it out.
Not one person has said that the guns Reilly sold weren�t of good quality, or �nice� guns. That�s besides the point, OC.

Dustin, I'll answer that like I did the "where are their ranges" or "did they produce military guns" or "Did Brown and Boothroyd err in their comments on Reilly" questions relying on 19th century sources not 20th century opinion. By the way, you haven't answered one of the questions I've asked of you. I've taken note of your objections and opinions, now please give it a rest and give me liberty to continue the research.