doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The pinfire game gun

There are wonderful threads on this board that follow individual makers, and models. In keeping with the spirit of sharing, and to provide a different distraction in these trying times, I am starting a thread on the pinfire game gun.

When I started researching and collecting British pinfire game guns some 25 years ago, there were few suitable reference books, the Internet was a plaything for University academics, and knowledge was something painstakingly gathered. Now there are amazing print and on-line references on British gunmakers and gunmaking, and sharing and exchanging information on-line is commonplace. While the research part has gotten easier, the gaps in knowledge are still there.

I expect some followers of this board already know quite a bit about pinfires. Many of you will have one or several in your collections, and I hope you will contribute to this thread. To those who are very familiar with the story of the British pinfire, I ask for your patience -- something in these posts will surely be new to you. I will try to cover as many makers, types and features as I can to make this interesting. I will be adding to this thread every few days.

So, here's going right back to the beginning of British breech-loaders.

At the Great Exhibition in London in 1851 an example of Casimir Lefaucheux's pinfire was on display, and Eugene Lefaucheux was on hand to answer any queries about its features. The British shooting press didn't make any notable mention of Lefaucheux's gun prior to the Great Exhibition, despite the gun being in use in France since the 1830s. Perhaps it was believed the British sportsman would stick to the muzzle-loader, and leave the "crutch-gun" to foreigners. With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to differentiate a curiosity from a real developmental step, but it was clearly not obvious back then.

British gunmakers could have just copied Casimir Lefaucheux's pinfire, much as the earlier generation of makers copied the French flintlock. The pinfire gun was, after all, a design in working use and not just a prototype. A straightforward copy with recognisable names on the lock plates might have been reassuring enough for at least some sportsmen to try the new system, and to make this possibility easier Lefaucheux did not patent his invention in Britain. This left the door open to anyone copying the gun and the cartridge system. That this didn't happen is an indication of the tremendous reluctance that existed towards this invention, pre-dating the Great Exhibition. Trusted names spoke ill of the French breech-loader, which seems to have deterred even the slightly curious. Who would want to try a gun boldly proclaimed by the experts to be unsafe? The muzzle-loader was also at its highest level of refinement, with quick-firing locks, strong barrels and quality craftsmanship. There would have to be a change to the design to make it palatable to the shooting community.

Giving a British character to the Continental pinfire was indeed the first step towards its acceptance. Not just a respected name, but a design make-over was needed. This is what Joseph Lang accomplished, by having a wooden fore-end instead of an iron one, substituting a discrete lever to release the barrels instead of the long Lefaucheux lever, limiting decoration to tasteful acanthus-leaf engraving and fine chequering, and, most importantly, sticking to the lines, proportions and dimensions of the British double-barrelled muzzle-loader.

The version offered by Lang is believed to have been first built by Edwin Charles Hodges, who convinced Lang to market it. Hodges became the most sought-after actioner of early breech-loaders, and his work was used by the top makers (this is not surprising, few at the time knew how to accomplish this task well). The Lang gun has the lever engaging with a single notch or bite on the barrel lump, relatively close to the hinge pin. This proved adequate but less robust than the later double-bite fastening mechanisms. The original Lefaucheux patent of 28 January 1833 clearly shows a double-bite fastener, and the addendum of 13 March 1833 shows the typical double-bite fastening mechanism found on Lefaucheux sporting guns. The Lefaucheux gun illustrated in The London Illustrated News of July 1851 appears to have had this typical double-bite mechanism, so it is anyone's guess as to why this engineering feature was not copied by Hodges and Lang. Perhaps they surmised that a single bite was sufficient to the task. It was nevertheless a good working design, as guns with this mechanism have survived hard use, and single-bite guns were made by many noted makers well into the 1860s, even after the double-bite fastener (the Henry Jones double screw grip) came into widespread acceptance.

The following is a good example of the early design, a 16-bore forward-underlever pinfire sporting gun by John Blissett of London, number 3742, possibly made before 1860. This is an early Lang-type single-bite forward-underlever action with the assisted-opening stud, and the action is signed by Edwin Charles Hodges. When the lever is opened fully, a rising stud on the action bar lifts the barrels slightly and makes it easier to fully open the gun and load/remove the cartridges. Curiously, Hodges or Lang never patented this feature. The 29 7/8" damascus barrels, signed "John Blissett, 322 High Holborn, London," still have mirror bores, despite the gun showing signs of great use and period repairs. The gun has thin fences typical of pre-1860 gun, and the hammers have prominent stylized cap guards, a carry-over from percussion guns. The back-action locks are signed "John Blissett London" and have foliate scroll engraving, with dog and game scenes. The stock escutcheon is vacant, but it is in gold instead of the usual silver.








The IGC Database tells us that John Blissett was the son of Isaac Blissett, a gun maker and jeweller. John's father set him up in business as a gun maker and jeweller at 74 High Holborn, around 1834. In 1835 John Blissett moved to 321-322 High Holborn as a gun maker and repository for guns (selling second-hand guns), but his principal business address was 321 High Holborn. The 322 High Holborn business address started to be used in 1851. In the 1861 census John was recorded living at 322 High Holborn with his son William, also a gunmaker. In about 1866 the firm was re-named John Blissett & Son. John Blissett died in 1872, and William died in 1876. William James Tomes took over the business re-naming it Blissett Son & Tomes. In 1883 he moved the business to 98 High Holborn where he changed the name to Tomes & Co., and ceased trading in 1885.

Steve,
Very interesting, thank you.

An observation on the 'single bite.' Powell's patent action lifters (No.1163 of 1864)
were, for the most part, single bites (Some were fitted with a doll's head extension.).
The last pinfire lifter was sold in 1891 and the last centerfire in 1909.

Many of the centerfire version are still in active service with modern ammunition and seem to be holding-up quite well.

Looking forward to your posts, Steve. This could be very interesting.

I'll be looking in on this thread.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your notes on these guns.

It's always a lot of fun to hear what Mr. Nash has learned over the years on pinfires and other subjects. I look forward to more posts.

Here's another post before everyone gets busy with weekend festivities, to keep the momentum. Before delving into the various actions that blossomed in the 1860s, I'd like to stick with the first pattern a bit longer.

Finding any pinfire possibly made before 1860 is a real treat in my book. Various authors have proposed that before 1860 there were no more than a few hundred pinfire game guns in Britain, and that makes sense to me. In January 1857 Joseph Lang published a pamphlet in which he claimed to have been using his breech-loader for three years. This meshes well with the story that Edwin Charles Hodges built his breech-loader after the close of the Great Exhibition of 1851, and took it to Lang. By his own account, the first Lang breech-loader might have been produced in 1853, or early 1854. If so, that does not give much time to hand-build and sell a lot of guns. The earliest builders of breech-loaders, from contemporary accounts, were Lang, John Blanch, and Edward Michael Reilly. Blanch built his first pinfire in 1856. Exactly when Reilly might have started is unclear. A few provincial makers might well have started building breech-loaders around this time, but I can' confirm it. Purdey's first pinfire was built in 1858, and Boss & Co., under Stephen Grant, started producing pinfires in 1859, and sold 15 in that year. Before 1860, it was a small number of makers producing a small number of sporting guns, for a shooting public that already owned fine muzzle-loaders. It didn't help that sporting guns were built to last, as shown by the examples in still-usable condition surviving today.

The real business for a gunmaker was in fulfilling military contracts involving thousands of arms, and in cheap-but-serviceable guns as items of trade and barter in distant lands. A firm meeting these demands would have a large in-house capacity, afford water- or steam-powered machinery and factory space, as well as provide work for hundreds of outworkers supplying the trade. Of this type of business operating in the 1850s, I can't think of a better example than Barnett's. John Edward Barnett established his business in London in 1796, stocking pistols for the East India Company. In 1842 the firm was recorded as John Edward Barnett & Sons, in business at 134 Minories until 1859, and additionally at Brewhouse Lane, Wapping, from 1860 to 1874. Barnett's guns were usually simply marked "Barnett." Barnett supplied flint and percussion trade guns for the North American fur trade (notably to the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company), and Barnett was also the most prolific of English manufacturers associated with the American Confederacy, having made and sold to them thousands of Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle-Muskets and P-1856 cavalry carbines.

With such a profitable business in martial and trade arms, you wouldn't think Barnett would bother with the tiny sporting gun market -- but they did, though Barnett sporting guns are rarely recorded. Perhaps with the emergence of the pinfire breech-loader in the 1850s the firm saw an opportunity to expand its trade, though in practice it never did go in that direction. They nevertheless sold the gun shown below under their name, but whether they made the gun from a barrelled action, or bought a ready-made gun and added their name to it, is anyone's guess. As to who would have wanted a Barnett-signed pinfire, rather than a gun from a respected sporting gun maker, is even more of a head-scratcher.

The gun is a 12-bore, number 7076. It has the Lang-type single-bite forward under-lever with assisted-opening stud, and the action bar is signed "Joseph Brazier". The back-action locks are signed "Barnett", and the top rib is simply signed "Barnett London". The 28 7/8" barrels are marked with London proofs. The gun is decorated with bold foliate-scroll engraving, and I particularly like the detail on the classic "dolphin" hammers. It has seen hard use and a few screws look to have been replaced, but it is in generally good order for what may be an 1850s pinfire. The bores are moderately pitted, and the gun weighs 6 lb 11 oz.








While the Brazier name is welcome information, it does not clarify how much of the gun was provided, or made, by this firm. Joseph Brazier was recorded as a gunlock maker and gun and pistol maker at The Ashes, Brickkiln Street, Wolverhampton, since at least 1827, and in the 1861 census he was listed as a master gunmaker employing 70 men and 20 boys. His firm might have provided the barrelled action and the locks, or it might have made the entire gun to Barnett's wishes. Brazier locks have always been in particularly high regard, and the locks on the Barnett still speak beautifully.

I did consider whether it could have been made by another "Barnett," but there were no others in the 19th Century that I could find. I also considered whether it was a spurious naming, as simply having "London" on a rib without a street address usually sends up a red flag -- but such guns are usually of a lesser quality (they probably wouldn't have Joseph Brazier parts), the name might be misspelled (eg. "Barnet"), the proof marks might be suspect, and so on. Such guns tended to show up in the 1870s and 1880s, and not in the 1850s when so few craftsmen were able to action a breech-loading gun to begin with. And at the end of the day, why choose a maker such as Barnett to plagiarize, when many other names would be better used in a scam? Last year at Holt's auction a superb percussion double-barrelled sporting gun signed Barnett was sold, so the firm did indeed make a small number of sporting guns. I've not encountered any other, and I'd appreciate hearing if anyone out there has encountered Barnett sporting guns.

Barnett is a new one for me. I hope someone can add information on him.

I have a centerfire gun made about 1869 and is signed Joseph Brazier, Ashes all over, including �JB� on the extractor. Jones underlever. Signed �Thomas Johnson, Swaffham, Norfolk� on the rib. It is number three of a three gun set. I am convinced Brazier made either all of the gun or all the metal work. I have seen ads listing him as a gunmaker. IMO he did not continue with this venture long.

Powell used a Brazier action (as well as locks) on one or more of their earliest (1862)
breech loading pinfire guns. Brazier also has an action patent (No.259 of 1864).

Stephen Nash knows more about UK pin-fires than any living man. I recently sent him a message about a March 1858 Reilly pin-fire extant gun...and received the usual gentlemanly and erudite reply. Birmingham is unlikely to have been able to have built center-break breech loaders for the trade - and there are very few London gunmakers who could have done it in early 1858.

One supposes that It was hard to image what turmoil was going on in the London gun-making fraternity at this time. There were very few gunsmiths who could turn out barrels with lumps, or actions with under-levers at the time. Blanch's epitaph mentions this..."everything was new..."

The fact that Reilly did change from the Lefaucheux forward under-lever to the Berringer around the trigger guard under-lever for the 1859 "The Field" trials was mentioned...here is the evidence: (book published early 1860 - but note the use of "Reilly & Co." used from Jan - Oct 1859....The text was probably written in Summer 1859 shortly after the trials:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gVIBAA...lly&f=false



And Stephen Nash...all of us need your reference book. Thanks for your intellectual work and your unfailing optimism and courtesy.

I�ve come to the same conclusion, Gene. Steve has been keeping a few of us enthralled up here in Canada during the Covid lockdown. Glad to see him sharing down here.

That's a really great find, Gene, and new to me - a wonderful illustration. I wondered when Reilly's "ring" underlever first appeared. I'm sure this thread will prompt lots of new information, and I'm enjoying the anticipation..

Thanks to all for the input and kind words. I claim no special expertise, only a long-standing obsession to learn everything I can about these interesting guns. The book is slowly coming together, and it will tell a more coherent and complete account than I can cover here. In the meantime I will present as many different pinfires as you will have patience for. Some will be from very familiar makers, others obscure, some in fine condition, and some in a dismal state -- but all are part of the story.

And to my American friends, have a joyous 4th of July.

Yes - Steve is a wonderful resource.

There is another pinfire authority - James Stockham from Central, South Carolina. James has a huge pinfire collection. He displayed 40 of his guns at a Vintage Cup event in Millbrook, NY and then later had part of the collection on loan for two years to the NRA's National Firearms Museum. Unfortunately, he's not inclined to spend time on a computer.

Barnett is listed in Nigel Brown's British Gunmakers (London). I can copy out if required; there were numerous address changes. I have a Barnett 16 bore single muzzle loader. Fun to use pin-fires and I use a Thomas Newton of Manchester. Good fun! Lagopus.�.

Erskine's patent pinfire was patented in 1859 too.

Thanks to all who are contributing to the thread. There are indeed very knowledgeable collectors out there, and I would dearly love to see Mr Stockham's fantastic collection. Gene Smith and Chris Curtis's book, "The Pinfire System," is required reading for anyone looking into this period of gunmaking. They, and others, are experts on pinfire pistols and revolvers, a subject on which I know little, and on the matter of pinfire cartridges I again defer to the experts.

I am going to stick to pinfire game guns. To the members that have contributed so far, I will get around to Powell, Reilly and Erskine examples, I promise.

It is near impossible to follow a precise timeline in describing pinfires, but I am going to try starting with early designs, and guns that can attributed to an early date. Some guns can be precisely dated from records, while others fall into more general groupings, like post-1862 (from unmarked Jones underlever actions). The start in Britain was in the mid to late 1850s, and then the bulk of new designs and manufacture happened in the 1860s. A few makers built pinfires into the 1870s, I imagine to please conservative clients, but by 1870 few were being made, having been replaced by the centre-fire. Dual-fire guns able to use both pinfire and centre-fire cartridges appeared in the mid-1860s, but did not last long. And muzzle-loaders converted to breech-loading might have been done anytime during the brief heyday of the pinfire in Britain, a cheaper (though risky) alternative to buying a new gun. Guns carrying patent designs or features are a bit easier to place within a timeline, but guns built for the trade can be impossible to narrow down. As AaronN points out, some makers were coming up with inventive designs in the late 1850s.

I will get to all of these types in due course, but one generalization that can be made is that the Lang-type single-bite, forward-underlever fell from favour by the 1860s in light of better alternatives. Before leaving this type altogether, here is one signed Hugh Snowie. It is a good example of the lengths one might go to keep a gun in the field. A gun was a sizeable investment back then, as it is still.

From the IGC database, Hugh Lumsden Snowie was born in 1806 in Aberdeen, Scotland. He was apprenticed to Charles Playfair from 1821 to 1827. He might have been Playfair's first apprentice, as that was the year Playfair first started his own gun making business. After his apprenticeship Snowie worked in London as a journeyman gun maker for about two years before moving in 1829 to Inverness to establish his own business. By 1851 he was recorded living at 89 Church Street, with his wife, daughter, and two sons (Thomas and William, who eventually apprenticed under their father). Hugh Snowie died in London in June 1879, and his sons continued the family firm.

This gun has been heavily used, and it has undergone significant repair and maintenance work. It might even be a converted muzzle-loader, but I can't be entirely sure. What is certain is that someone went to great lengths to keep it in working order. It is a 14-bore, serial number 3277. My best guess is that it was probably made around 1860, or soon after. The 29" damascus barrels have London proofs, and an unsigned top rib. The back-action locks are signed "H. Snowie."

The gun is a single-bite screw grip action with forward-facing under-lever and assisted-opening stud, of the type Joseph Lang started making in 1853-54. The actioner's initials are "S.B", who I've not been able to trace. It could be the mark of Samuel Brown of 12 Lench St., or that of Samuel Breedon of Washwood Heath, both Birmingham gun makers at the time who could have supplied a barrelled action or partly finished gun to Snowie. Early in the development of breech-loaders there were not many who were experienced at duplicating Lang's action -- so it might remain a mystery. The under-lever swings out to the left, marking this a gun for a left-handed shooter. The gun has early features, such as a mechanical safety grip and a long butt plate upper tang, styles that soon disappeared in the breech-loading era (the reason behind wondering if this was a conversion). The gun has fences with raised collars, an attractive flourish. The hammers have extended flanges, and overall the gun has well proportioned lines, weighing a light 6 lb 10 oz. It is a real shame the 14-bore fell from fashion.

The story I want to know is why it underwent so many repairs. Several action screws have been replaced, the assisted-opening stud is missing, the under-lever looks like a replacement, and the right-hand lock plate has an extra drilled hole. Removing the lock plate shows that a new, shorter mainspring was fitted, which required a new hole for the spring's attachment pin. The gunsmith might have simply used a spring salvaged from another gun, but fitted it in a way whereby both hammers pulled with equal force, and at half- and full-cock the hammers still align perfectly. The gun has seen heavy use, the engraving is quite worn, and the bores are pitted. It was kept going long after someone else might have retired it from the shooting field, or returned it to the gunmaker to be scrapped for spare parts and iron. I wonder how many red grouse fell to this gun?

Barnett and Brazier:

Maybe a generation before J.E. Barnett, was Thos. Barnett and he thought people were using his "Barnett" marking on guns he did not make!

(Aris's Birmingham Gazette - Monday 08 November 1830)

But as for J.E. Barnett & Sons, Here are a couple ads:

(Birmingham Daily Gazette - Friday 27 September 1867)


(Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser - Friday 13 February 1874)

And the Brazier Locks:

(Field - Saturday 15 January 1870)


(Field - Saturday 22 May 1869)

Howard A Blackmore in his book Gunmakers of London, lists The Barnett family tree,17 names in all ranging from 1700's t0 1875. F. Barnett is listed as a maker of Fowling pieces of superior manufacture and finish.
He is listed at 20 Oxford street in 1843.No closing date for the business is given.
I think there is a possibility that the gun is spurious because Barnett name was well known in the early 1800's.For example Blanch, in his book,:" A Century of Guns." notes that in 1812 the London post office directory listed only three gunmakers, Barnett, Blanch & Wilkinson. Familiar names such as Purdey Were at that time still in their infancy.

The pinfire era developed a new industry creating pinfire loading tools. Literally dozens or hundreds were developed as "better mousetraps" by Dixon, Hawksley, Bartram, and others. Prior to the pinfire cartridge, the muzzle loaders needed limited tool types. With the breechloader development, the uniformity of gauge became more important, too , so cartridges could be made to fit.

Interesting comments on the Barnett name. If it is spurious, it is the best quality one I've seen, from a time when there weren't that many pinfire game guns around. I shall digress from the timeline for a moment as I do have another, later, pinfire sporting gun from a maker that specialized as a maker of martial arms on contract to the War Department but who also dabbled in sporting guns, Benjamin Woodward.

Benjamin Woodward starting out as a gunmaker in 1838, and in 1840 he moved his business to 10 Whittall St. in Birmingham's Gun Quarter, an address he maintained until 1883. In the 1841 census, Benjamin was described as a gunmaker, and two of his sons, Frederick and Benjamin, then both 15, were listed as gunmaker's apprentices. The younger Benjamin quit his apprenticeship and another son, Henry, was taken into the business, and in 1842 the name was changed to Benjamin Woodward & Sons. The firm is best known for producing military arms, notably the .577 three-band 1853 Enfield rifle-musket. Benjamin Woodward was also one of the founders of the Birmingham Small Arms Co. (BSA) in 1861, "a company to make guns by machinery," an effort to compete with Enfield on the production of military arms. In addition to the main business of government contracts, Benjamin Woodward & Sons continued to make a small number of sporting guns. I should point out that there is no family connection to the more famous James Woodward of the London gun trade.

The gun shown here is a 12-bore double-bite screw grip rotary-underlever pinfire sporting gun, serial number 134, made some time after 1863. The 29 13/16" damascus barrels have Birmingham proofs and barrel maker's marks "C.H.," which I believe might be for the Birmingham barrel maker Charles Hawkesford of Court, 2 Summer Lane (in operation 1859-1869). Other marks include "B.W." (Benjamin Woodward?) and "J.F." (which I've as yet been unable to trace). The upper rib is signed "B. Woodward & Sons Makers to the War Department No. 134", reflecting the firm's main area of business. The back-action locks are signed "B. Woodward & Sons" and have game scenes on both lock plates. The foliate scroll engraving on the action body is quite pleasant, nice starburst patterns around the pin holes, and the game scenes on the lock plates are particularly well executed. The low serial number is possibly an indication of the small number of sporting guns made by the firm. The gun still has mirror bores, and weighs 6 lb 12 oz.

I am curious about John Blissett. There was an Issac Blissett in London who also made guns at the time.

Here is the 1851 census record for John Blissett. Note he called himself a "Whitesmith." A lot of records have him at 321 High Holborn.


However, in late March 1847 a Blissett took over Reilly's workshop at 316 High Holborn. He seemed to specialize in air-canes, etc. Who might he have been? he was 5 numbers down from John Blissett at 321 High Holborn.

Argo, I have a T. Blissett, Liverpool, 8 gauge pinfire double. Interesting mechanism. I am not sure of his relationship with your Blissett.

Steve,
The Mark plate of the gunmakers Company of London, shows two marks
for Barnett.
1/ A star over RB
2 /As mark 1; but encircled with a stamped border.
Do either of these marks appear on your gun?

Roy, the Barnett pinfire I have does not have either of these marks, only London proofs and bore stamps.

It's hard to imagine that the guns we're talking about here can be 20 years later than the fabulous gun AaronN posted in another thread, the original Casimir Lefaucheux. It is good to remember the pinfire system was current and accepted in France well before any British-made pinfire first appeared.

Mixed in with the first Lang-type forward underlever guns in Britain would have been some Continental guns, such as the Lefaucheux breech-loader, a subject I'll get to in time. Makers were often using Belgian-sourced barrel tubes, and anyone using a pinfire in Britain in the 1850s would have been using imported French cartridges, so cross-Channel trade in sporting goods and gunmaking materials was evident. According to John Walsh, editor of The Field and sponsor of the public trials of 1858 and 1859, pinfire guns entered in the trials were of the Lang type with one exception, a Bastin System gun built by Auguste Francotte of Liège, Belgium, with a fixed breech and sliding barrels.

When Casimir Lefaucheux patented his hinge-action, breech-loading gun in January of 1833 and his pinfire cartridge design in 1836, his was not the only breech-loading system that gunmakers had been tinkering with. Parisian makers were experimenting with fixed barrels and lifting breeches (such as the Pauly and Robert systems), and many a follower of this board has tried, or at least held, a Darne with the rearward sliding breech. French gunmakers can certainly think outside the box.

In 1855 the Bastin Brothers of Hermalle-sous-Argenteau, Liège, went by another route when they patented an action whereby the breech remained stationary and the barrels slid forward (Liège provincial government patent 2149 of 1855, and patent 2395 of 1856). An added feature of the gun was having a recess under the hammer noses which "grabbed" the pin after firing. When opening the action the fired hammer would keep the fired cartridge from moving with the barrels, thereby extracting it -- a flick of the wrist then ejects the spent case. If one or both barrels were unfired, the cartridges would stay in the chambers. The cleverness of this selective extraction is that no additional mechanism or modification was required.

The Bastin underlever action has a forward-pivoted, pull-down underlever with a hinged catch on the distal end. While it looks ungainly, it is remarkably smooth and easy to use, and while not as time-efficient and ergonomic as the later snap-actions, it has a certain elegance. The Bastin Brothers were inventors and they made actions for other gunmakers -- I am unaware of any complete guns made and sold by them, perhaps they simply made a good living off of royalties and partial builds. While the Lang-type underlever fell from favour pretty quickly in the face of better alternatives, the Bastin system remained popular in Britain well into the 1860s, including on guns built by James Purdey and others.

This gun is a 14-bore, serial number 2309, by the Masu Brothers of London, made sometime between 1865 and 1869. It has 30 5/16" damascus barrels signed "Masu Brothers 3a Wigmore Street London & Liege" and, uncommon for a London-retailed gun sold to the British market, it has Liège proof marks. The action is stamped "Bastin Frères Brevetée 598," so it is the 598th gun built on the Bastin system -- probably towards the end of its popularity. The gun has very thin fences, which can be considered a decided weakness. The back-action locks are unsigned, metal parts have simple border and open scroll engraving, and the trigger guard has a chequered spur grip extension. The figured maple stock might be a contemporary re-stocking job, and the gun weighs 6 lb 13 oz. The stock has heel and toe plates, marking the departure from the iron butt plates commonly found on most pinfires. (A discussion on heel and toe plates and variations in butt plate materials will be for another day; so many features on late-Victorian, Edwardian, and later guns started on pinfires.)










The Belgian gunmaker Gustave Masu was established in London in 1864 at 3a Wigmore Street, and the firm became Masu Brothers in 1865. Wigmore Street is in London's fashionable West-End Marylebone district, and a stone's throw from Cavendish Square, so his customers would have been well-to-do. In 1869 the firm was renamed Gustavus Masu and moved to 10 Wigmore Street. In 1882 it returned to the name Masu Brothers, and ceased trading around 1892. It would appear that Masu guns were built in Liege (by the other brother, whose name I have not been able to find) and retailed in London by Gustave. I should add that every Masu Brothers gun I've handled has been of very high quality. I've another, different Masu pinfire to post here, but that's for another day.

Amazing gun Stephen. What a different look and feel. And the Li�ge is there (to which which Raimey will be nodding his head).

Masu got in a bit of trouble selling these guns too:



Birmingham Daily Post - Thursday 21 June 1866

Wonderful find, AaronN, I had wondered how a gun with a British address could have wholly foreign proofs -- now I know. Assuming Gustave Masu learned his lesson and didn't repeat the offence, the Bastin action gun would have likely been sold before March 1866. As the name of the firm changed to Masu Brothers in 1865, this narrows down the dating of the gun. Every piece of information helps.

Here's another example of piecing together the puzzle of the pinfire timeline. Probably the more famous configuration for early British breech-loaders is the "lever over guard," whereby the lever to disengage the barrels is rear-facing and follows the contour of the trigger guard bow. It is probably the first picture that comes to mind when you think of a pinfire game gun, as this configuration was the most commonly produced. While lever-over-guard guns are typically referred to as "Jones type actions," not all of them are based on his design. Henry Jones patented his double-bite screw grip action in 1859 (patent no. 2040), but he famously let the patent lapse in late 1862 thereby allowing almost all makers to copy it freely from that date onwards. But Jones was not the first to use the lever-over-guard, and single-bite actions with this feature pre-date the Jones patent, and many single-bite actions were built well into the 1870s and later, as has already been commented on.

The truth is, this quintessential British design is not British at all, but French. And furthermore, it may have been around since at least the 1840s, if not a bit earlier. Beatus Beringer, a gunmaker of Paris and St. Etienne, obtained 29 patents in the 1830s and 1840s, almost all dealing with breech-loading. The "Système Beringer" allowed his guns to fire either pinfire cartridges or percussion caps and loose powder (with special removable breech chambers). Furthermore, his guns functioned on the basis of a rearward-facing under-lever, whose shape formed the trigger guard bow. His rearward under-lever may also have been built to align with a fixed trigger guard, as to this day the lever-over-guard in France is known as the Beringer action.

I believe John Blanch may have been the first to offer a lever-over-guard gun to the British shooting community. While I have no certain evidence of this, my belief is led by the fact Blanch went to the trouble of purchasing directly or indirectly a Beringer gun (no. 2359), in 1855. The proof is a photograph copy of the receipt, dug up by Argo44 in his Reilly research, and kindly passed on to me. The pinfire was a French invention, so why not look to the French for ideas on how to build them? It would make sense that British makers would get their hands on competitors' guns, and take them apart to analyse them in detail. Blanch was one of the very first promoters of the pinfire system in Britain, with Reilly and Lang. He, as others, were building Lang-type guns with the forward under-lever (Blanch's offered his first pinfire in 1856, a Lang-type forward-under-lever). Perhaps he wanted to improve upon the design and offer his clientele something different. He must have been aware of the different design -- why else would he choose a Beringer for study, rather than an original Lefaucheux? I admit this is conjecture, but the 1855 Beringer receipt is, I believe, a significant part of the story of the pinfire in Britain. How soon after 1856 Blanch may have built a lever-over-guard gun is an open question, but he would have known how to make one.

In trying to determine when the first lever-over-guard guns appeared, it would seem logical that they would be based on the first design, the Lang single-bite, assisted stud opener. It would be the same action, but with the direction and rotation of the lever reversed (on a right-handed forward-under-lever, the locking lug rotates clockwise; on the rearward lever-over-guard, the locking lug rotates counter-clockwise). Here is one that fits this description, a single-bite, assisted stud opener action with the lever-over-guard, by William Moore & Co., number 1159A. William Moore was one of the most highly regarded makers in London and Birmingham. I have no means to verify its date, but I would not be surprised to learn it is an early gun, around 1860. It is a relatively standard gun for its time, not of "Best" quality but certainly not an inexpensive gun. It does have a few flourishes, such as the under-lever that is shaped to fill the space in front of the trigger guard bow, fences with prominent raised edges around the pin holes, and a raised button on the trigger guard bow to centre the under-lever when closed. Most importantly, it is a perfect copy of Lang's design, but with the reversed underlever. The barrel rib is signed "W. M. & Co.," as are the lock plates. Though cryptic today, at the time everyone knew the Moore name.







Originally a stocker for Joseph Manton, in 1829 William Moore set up his own stock making business in Birmingham, and became a gunmaker shortly after that. In 1836 the name of the firm changed to William Moore & Co. Moore also entered into a number of partnerships in addition to operating his own business. In 1838 he entered into partnership with William Harris, creating the firm of Moore & Harris at 35 Loveday Street. In 1847 Moore and William Patrick Grey entered into a partnership and operated as Wm Moore & Grey. Grey's son, Frederick Hargrave Grey, apprenticed to Moore. In 1854 William Moore & Co moved to 43 Old Bond Street, London, and Moore and Grey started to trade from this address as well, as William Moore & Grey. It appears that guns marked Wm Moore & Co were mainly export guns with a different serial number range (which might be one explanation for the "A" in the serial number). In 1861 Frederick Beesley, a name that would become famous later, was apprenticed to William Moore & Co.

William Moore may have died in 1864. The fame of the William Moore name was such that it frequently appeared in the 1860s onwards on low-quality Belgian guns, with exporters hoping to dupe buyers into believing they were purchasing a recognised name. What is confusing is that real Moore guns might be signed William Moore, Wm Moore & Co, W. M. & Co, Moore & Harris, William Moore & Grey, or William Moore, Grey & Co.

Here's one more for comparison. A Boss built in 1860 as a pinfire gun and converted to centerfire. It seems facially similar to the ones posted above, but this one has an underlever single bite lockup...Geo



Copy of original 1860 build sheet:


The original buyer was a son of the 4th Earl of Harewood and was an official of the Ripon Cathedral.

This is an amazing instructional line....can't wait to read more. Thanks.

Well, that is a very early Boss & Co, Geo, as they only started making pinfires in 1858, and the firm used the Henry Jones double screw grip once the patent expired in 1862. I'm always awed by the amount of use required to wear chequering down to smoothness.

Not every single-bite lever-over-guard is of the Lang design like the William Moore. Here is a 16-bore by Charles Frederick Niebour of High Street, Uxbridge (at the time Uxbridge was a town just outside of London, now it is within west London). It has no serial number, as was not uncommon for builders of few breech-loading guns. It is a single-bite action, but it lacks the assisted-opening stud. This is not because the actioner didn't know how to make one, as the gun was actioned by Edwin Charles Hodges himself, the best actioner of the period and the likely person behind the original Lang gun. The 29 7/8" damascus barrels have London proofs, and the top rib is signed ". F. Niebour Uxbridge." The single-bite screw grip action is signed "E. Hodges," and the back-action locks are signed "C. F. Niebour Uxbridge". It is beautifully made, and it has some unusual features. The hammer noses have protruding "lips" of a style I've not frequently encountered, the finial of the under-lever is left smooth, and the fore-end is unusually long, possibly a special request. The gun also has a very brief action bar, and the resulting short distance between the hinge and the bite is enough to make an engineer wince. Still, Hodges must have judged it sufficient, and the gun is still on face. The bores are pitted at the breech, and overall it still shows vestiges of bluing and case colours. The gun with its light frame weighs 6 lb 11 oz.







Charles Niebour was in business from 1831 to 1859, at which point his son Charles Frederick took over the business, so I'm guessing an un-numbered gun dates from around that time or early 1860s.

Keep them coming please Stephen. This is an amazing historical resource.

Looks like after Charles Frederick died, his window decided to sell off everything at the shop.



Uxbridge & W. Drayton Gazette - Saturday 01 June 1889


She must've sold the business to Sydney T. Hackett

Uxbridge & W. Drayton Gazette - Saturday 14 June 1890

Totally cool AaronN. History being reconstituted.

After reading the wonderful article about the Pauly shop in the last DGJ, I realized I had read nothing about any shot and wad units with combustible powder sections. I'm thinking about how the old Colt skin revolver cartridges worked where seating the bullet crushed and opened the powder section. Was anything similar ever tried for shotguns during the muzzleloading or early breechloading period? It is likely shot cartridges of this type would be too delicate to be of practical use.

Hal, I hope that it's not too far off of Mr. Nash's topic, but this may relate to your question a bit. The needlefire shotgun I have used a rolled paper cartridge . No extractor as the cartridge was supposed to be almost totally consumed when fired.

It isn't possible to understand the history of the pinfire system without looking at at the contemporary breech-loading alternatives at the time, with the Needham needlefire being first and foremost - so not off-topic at all, Daryl.

In the late 1850s a sportsman could purchase a new muzzleloader, a gun at its pinnacle of perfection. Or the choice could be made for a new-fangled breech-loader, but which one? A pinfire, a needle-fire from William and Joseph Needham, or a Charles Lancaster breech-loader? Each had their advantages and disadvantages, their followers and their detractors. Some considered the Needham needlefire just plain ugly, in large part because it lacked proper hammers! The Lancaster is rock-solid when closed, but the slide-and-tilt action feels decidedly loose when open, which some found off-putting - and then there was the cost of Lancaster cartridges to consider. The pinfire was of French origin, and required French cartridges. Altogether it took brave souls, not afraid of extra expense and disparaging comments from their peers, to go the breech-loader route.

The Needham needlefire was only available as a 'best' gun, so it was expensive and exclusive. So was Lancaster's breech-loader using base-fire cartridges or Pottet / Schneider centre-fire cartridges, which at 60 guineas or more for a cased gun, was the most expensive sporting gun around.

Thanks to Daryl for sharing pictures of the needlefire, and here is Lancaster's breech-loader. Then I'm back to pinfires.



This particular gun is a 14-bore, number 3092, made in 1858 for Captain Henry John Bower of the 4th (The King's Own Royal) Regiment of Foot. The action is Lancaster's 'slide-and-tilt' type, where the lateral underlever moves the barrels forward before they can swing on the hinge. Note that the action face is not at the normal 90 degree angle to the flats. Instead it is at an acute angle, making for a very strong closure once the barrels have slid back into place. Lancaster favoured nose-less hammers, and the locks are non-rebounding.

As to the action design, there is much history behind it. Albert Henry Marie Renette of Paris obtained two French patents in 1820 for exterior-primed (capping breechloader) guns with slide-and-tilt actions, some seven years before Casimir Lefaucheux patented his hinge-action capping breechloading gun, which led the way to his pinfire invention in 1834. In 1853 Renette's son-in-law and partner, Louis Julien Gastinne, obtained French patent No. 9058 for this breech action on a hammer gun, intended to use the new internally-primed centerfire cartridges. The prolific patent agent Auguste Edouard Loradoux Bellford patented the design in Great Britain, receiving patent No. 2778 of 1853. This is the patent that was later assigned to Lancaster and first used for his base-fire cartridge, and the story behind "Charles Lancaster's Patent" marked on his guns -- though the patent was never taken out in his name.

Another key feature of the Gastinne patent was the cartridge extractor I believe.


Full Size

And for a segue back to pinfire:

Also, brought in from Gastinne and patented in England was Brooman's Improvements in Breech-loading Fire-arms.



He also references the Bellford -> Lancaster gun and then used on a gun which used a Horizontal Pinfire cartridge!




Full Size

What an excellent historical line. Re Reilly, for the record here is the earliest newspaper advertisement so far found for a Reilly center-break "Fusil a Bascule"

04 October 1856, Illustrated London News:

Some really good guns in this thread,I always think that it`s a miracle that so many early breech loaders have survived in good condition given their long obsolescence ! They are a lasting tribute to the skills of their makers thankfully.

Great information is turning up, thanks to all the posters. The time of the early breech-loaders is surprisingly complex, considering it is mostly brushed over in so many gun history books. The conventional wisdom has been that you had in neat chronological order flint, then percussion, then the pinfire (if mentioned at all), then everyone happily jumped on the centre-fire bandwagon. The truth was quite messy, with many competing cartridge systems and gun designs happening concurrently, in Britain and mainland Europe. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the pinfire system rose to the pinnacle of fashion in Britain, and for the briefest time these were the best sporting guns in the world, desired over all others by the wealthy and powerful.

So, for today, let's look at some top offerings, a Holland, and a Holland.

Even a big London name had to have started somewhere. Typically, a firm started small around the output of one gunmaker, a few workers, and perhaps an apprentice or two, gradually building a reputation for putting up fine guns. Of course, the barrels, locks and assorted furniture would come from elsewhere, usually Birmingham and the "black country" ironworks, and the actioning, fitting and finishing done in the London premises or by skilled outworkers.

Towards the end of the 19th century many Holland & Holland guns were made by other makers, such as Webley & Scott, with the H&H name added. But that's much later than the period I'm interested in. I'm concerned with the period when Harris Holland made pinfires.

Harris John Holland set up in business as a tobacconist in 1835 at 9 King Street, Holborn, London. He was also a keen rifle shot and an enthusiast of live-pigeon shooting. During the 1840s he became involved in dealing in guns as well, and by 1850 he was a full-time gunmaker. The business moved to 98 New Bond Street in 1858, and his nephew, Henry William Holland, was taken on as an apprentice in 1860 for the usual seven-year term. Henry William became a partner in the business at the end of his apprenticeship in 1867. Harris John Holland retired in 1875, and in 1876 the name of the firm was changed to Holland & Holland, and much has been written about the firm and the wonderful H&H guns since then.

Harris Holland started making breech-loaders in 1857, when he made six of them. In 1858 he made 14, and in 1859 he doubled his output to 28 breech-loading guns. Production increased very gradually after that, averaging some 30-40 breech-loading sporting guns a year. In 1865 he built 66 breech-loaders, and by comparison only 19 percussion-cap guns. All of the breech-loaders up to this point were pinfires, as Harris Holland made his first centre-fire gun in 1866.

If these numbers seem low, they were actually comparable to the other top makers of the day, such as Boss & Co., Purdey, etc., and smaller firms could be making far fewer. This is why finding any early breech-loader in its original configuration is exciting, and if by one of the top makers, even more so. The total numbers produced were very low compared with later true "factory" output in the 1880s and later (and sporting arms production was always dwarfed by military contracts). So, any Harris Holland pinfire is a rare find. Holland pinfires are rare enough that no 1850s-1860s pinfires are illustrated in "The Shooting Field", H&H's own book on the firm by Peter King published in 1990, or in Donald Dallas's fine history, "Holland & Holland, The Royal Gunmaker", published in 2003.

Gun number 824 is a 12-bore single-bite rotary-underlever sporting gun with back-action locks, made in 1861 for Alan James Gulston of Dirleton and Derwydd, Wales, one of the largest landowners at the time. In the 1861 census A. J. Gulston was listed as 43 years of age. As is typical for early breech-loaders the fences are quite thin. The 30 1/8" damascus barrels, signed "H. Holland 98 New Bond St London" on the top rib and stamped "H.H" on the under rib, still have mirror bores. Interestingly the gun has a mechanical grip safety, a hold-over from percussion guns that I've only encountered on the earliest British pinfires. Also interesting is the concave "pinched" underlever finial. The gun weighs 7 lb 1 oz.







Gun number 963-A (possibly one of a pair?) is a 12-bore double-bite rotary-underlever pinfire sporting gun with back-action locks, made in 1863. The 29 3/4" damascus barrels, also signed "H. Holland 98 New Bond St London" on the top rib and stamped "H.H" on the under rib, have bores that are slightly pitted. Unfortunately Holland's records for the years 1860-64 are missing and the original owner cannot be traced, even with a clear family crest on the stock escutcheon (out of a ducal coronet, a wolf's head proper, which was used by several families such as Freeman, Seale, Ward, West and Wolseley). There is still much original colour on the trigger guard bow, heel-plate and fore-end iron, though the colour has faded elsewhere. On this gun the underlever finial is left smooth, like the Niebour. The gun weighs 6 lb 15 oz.







I've only ever seen one other Holland pinfire illustrated, in Geoffrey Boothroyd's Sidelocks & Boxlocks, published in 1991. I can't be certain, but that illustration might be of gun number 963-A, before it fell into my hands.

Beautiful guns. Do we see an early rendition of the Holland style of engraving in #824 ? Engraving with the background taken out was not the norm.
A friend had an H. Holland breechloader, centerfire. As I recall the gun was in the 500 serial range , and at the time it was one of the earliest serial numbers found. It was a conversion , and a fun shooter in our local Nimrod Classic vintage gun shoot. I believe the serial number was one of the missing from the H. Holland books.

I should also add that the guns being in their cases is really important. Notice the loading tools and accessories. It was a wonderful period for "new" tools, unrelated to muzzleloaders.

That`ll be a double wow ! for the Hollands .....

Be still my heart! Those Holland�s could easily entice me to have a go with oinfires!

What a pair of guns!!! What history! Stephen, you are truly a collector and preserver. Can't wait to see more. Assume the double-bite 963-A uses a Jones under-lever. If Harris John Holland did not build those actions or create barrels with a lump, wondering who in London did.

Browsing through"The Field" for 1856, I came upon this H. Holland advertisement for 20 September 1856. It appeared regularly in "The Field" for the rest of the year. It's within two weeks of Reilly's first ad for breech loading shotguns. I would assume that if Haris Holland advertised such a gun in Sep 1856, he could have made it.

I'm wondering if one or two of those six 1857 H.Holland made breech-loaders came about from this advertisement? Were the 1857 breech-loaders counted per SN - i.e. recorded when ordered? Or when delivered?

20 September 1856, "The Field."


The Kufahl breech-loader mentioned by H. Holland in the ad is really a version of the Prussian Army Dreyse Needle gun adopted by Prussia in 1848. Later, Sears patented it in England in 1859 with permission from Kufahl. Interesting that M. Holland was making rifles under license in 1856. Apparently Reilly wasn't the only London maker pushing advanced breech-loaders at this time. But Reilly favored the Prince and Terry Patent guns.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_S0xAQ...der&f=false

That Field advertisement is a great find, Gene. Contemporary advertisements are such a great window on the times, and advertising really blossomed in the Victorian period. I would like to know what a £10 Holland gun looked like!

In case anyone was keeping track, all the pinfires I've shown so far have back-action locks. These predominate amongst pinfires, but bar locks were used as well. And so far I've mostly shown single-bite underlever guns (and a few double-bite actions), all inert. The rising stud on the action bar found in the early Lang-type actions did assist in partly opening the barrels and in partly closing the lever on the return journey, without the use of springs. Lefaucheux guns accomplished the same opening/closing assistance with a small angled stud on the barrels, a simpler solution. Snap-actions and spring-assisted actions are coming up next, but before I do so, I'd like to cover one last single-bite underlever gun, to show that they were still in use while other actions became prevalent. It is a bar-lock gun by Joseph Lang.

The IGC Database tells us that Joseph Lang started his apprenticeship in 1812 when he was 14 years old, to William Henry Wilson or Alexander Wilson, at Wilson's Gun and Pistol Warehouse at 1 Vigo Lane, London. Lang became manager of William Henry Wilson's gun dealing business at some time, probably in about 1820, when he would have been 21 years old. By 1823 Lang started to trade as "Joseph Lang, Gun and Pistol Repository" at 7 Haymarket. In May 1826 Lang bought the bankrupt stock of Joseph Manton, and in September 1826 he again advertised the fact that he was the only gun dealer in London who did not deal in "Birmingham and other Country-made guns", an interesting insight into the London trade at the time. In 1828 Joseph Lang married James Purdey's daughter Eliza, further cementing his links with the family. At that time Lang described himself as a gun maker, and in 1852 the firm moved to 22 Cockspur Street, Charing Cross, the year before he started making/marketing his pinfire gun.

Lang's pinfire guns might have been slow to attract attention in Britain, but he achieved acclaim and popularity in France, and Lang was given a First Class Medal at the 1855 Paris Exhibition for the quality of the workmanship of his pinfire guns. He was also given a medal at the 1862 International Exhibition in London, again for his pinfire guns. While Lang was appointed gun maker to His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia (grandson of Tsar Nicholas I of Russia), he never received a royal appointment in his home country. On 21 December 1868 Joseph Lang died, aged 71. The name of the business did not change until 1874, when it became Joseph Lang & Son, rather a long time after the fact. There were a number of subsequent changes in ownership and name, too many to include here, and the firm continues today under the name Atkin Grant & Lang.

When Henry Jones's patent for the double-bite screw grip action lapsed in September 1862, any maker could build it royalty-free, and they did so in ever increasing numbers. The double-bite action was definitely stronger than the earlier single-bite design, but the single-bite action was certainly strong enough for the black powder cartridges of the period, and some makers continued to make effective use of single-bite designs. Today's gun is a good example of this, a 12-bore single-bite rotary underlever sporting gun, serial number 3245, made in 1867 for J. M. Hasel Esq. (delivered on 7 August). The 29 7/8" damascus barrels have London proofs, the top rib is signed "J. Lang 22 Cockspur Street London," and the bar-action locks are signed "J. Lang." Perhaps Lang continued to make single-bite guns on the premise they were sufficiently strong. Being a gun with bar locks from a renowned maker, this was hardly a cheap gun, but without seeing more examples of Lang pinfires it is impossible to know if this is a typical Lang gun for 1867 or not. This particular gun has seen a lot of use, it has a broken hammer screw and a broken cross-key, and the bores are pitted. A later owner ("Gammon") stamped their name on the stock. It weighs 6 lb 12 oz.

Beautiful and elegant gun Stephen, as usual.

I thought to go through "The Field" from about 1853 to 1860 to see when each manufacturer began to actually advertise Breech Loaders (which will be a work in progress). Purdey never bothered to advertise that I can see.

Reilly - 04 October 1856:
H.Holland - 20 September 1856 (per above)

Lang -15 May 1858:
Lang did not appear deign actually to advertise a breech-loader until 1858 when he allegedly became so fed up with breech-loader "rubbish" being marketed that he decided to make a cheaper work-man's gun rather than the best-quality noble-man's guns he had previously been making.
15 May 1858, "The Field" (adverts for Reilly and Lang)

The sarcastic phrase "instead of being fed-away by interested writers" makes it seem as if the press was as much despised in 1858 as now.

(There were Lang advertisements in summer of 1856 which discussed breech loading guns and rifles; however, it's not clear that he was advertising center-break guns. At the time, breech loading rifles (the Prussian needle gun, Prince-Patent, Terry-Patent, etc., were are the rage to talk about).
09 Aug 1856, "The Field"


J.Blanch - 06 November 1858


Will add more.....

The rotary underlever is a strong action, no error, but imagine if gunmakers/inventors hadn't had the urge to come up with something better... Thankfully that was far from the case. Snap-actions allowed the gun to be closed and bolted in one motion, with that satisfying "clunk." Not surprisingly, many shooters of the day opposed this development quite vociferously, fearful that springs would fail at inopportune moments, or that such designs would not be strong enough to withstand the jolt of firing, or be unnecessary complications -- simpler was better, and the interrupted-screw underlever was certainly simple. There is a certain truth to this, and some of the early snap-actions were hardly robust or all that easy to use. We know the Purdey sliding underbolt with the Scott spindle eventually "won" in the end and became the standard form, but there were quite a few inventions along the way, including some that could be argued were better or easier to use than the Purdey-Scott arrangement.

The advantage of a snap-action is speed, and in the 1850s and early 1860s speed was something no one needed, beyond the tremendous advantage conveyed by the breech-loader over the muzzle-loader. Two shots at a covey was the most anyone expected, hence the double gun. To be able to un-load with a pull of the cartridge pin and re-load with ready-made cartridges was what the breech-loader offered, and to do so safely and neatly was wondrous enough. The fact of having to use one's hand to open or close the underlever was not overly awkward, and for walked-up shooting, the opportunities on game were few, as they are today. (To this day I don't see the need for an ejector gun outside of driven-bird shoots and maybe clay sports, but that might just be me.)

As with almost all important gun inventions, the French were there first. François Eugène Schneider came up with the first snap underlever, patented in October 1860, and acquired by G. H. Daw in 1861 and immediately improved, for the Daw centre-fire breech-loader that first appeared in late 1861. Thomas Horsley was next with a spring-tensioned trigger-guard lever in February 1862. Joseph Needham patented his snap sidelever in May 1862, and the first toplever snap action was Westley Richards' pull-lever of September 1862. Then came J.W.P. Field's snap underlever patented in December 1862, followed by James Purdey who patented his famous double-bite snap action in May 1863, with a sliding underbolt linked to a peculiar thumb-operated lever in the trigger guard. Inventions still flourished, with Thomas Horsley coming up with his sliding toplever patented in October 1863, Edward Harrison (of Cogswell & Harrison) with a forward underlever snap action in February 1864, William Powell patented his toplever snap action in May 1864, and Stephen & Joseph Law patented their side-lever snap action in May 1865. Then, Purdey married his double-bite action with W. M. Scott's toplever (which Scott patented in October 1865), narrowly edging out John Croft's snap toplever patented in April 1866. While the best of these actions stayed in use into modern times (the Powell and Westley Richards in particular), most disappeared over time and the strong and efficient Purdey sliding underbolt and Scott toplever spindle became the standard.

Sadly I don't have a Daw action to show, and I've never seen a Horsley trigger-guard lever action. But I'll be posting the other actions, in roughly chronological order, starting with the Joseph Needham Patent No 1544 of May 1862, on a Blissett gun.

John Blissett was a London gunmaker and retailer on London's High Holborn street. He started his business in 1833, and he obtained a few patents for minor inventions. His son William was recorded as a gunmaker in the 1861 census, and I presume he apprenticed under his father. In 1866 the name of the firm was changed to John Blissett and Son. John Blissett died in 1872, and the business ceased altogether in 1883. Blissett built guns, but the firm was also a repository -- selling second-hand guns of other makers. Not everyone had the money for a bespoke gun.

The gun is a 12-bore, number 4097, and the action is a Joseph Needham patent rotating bolt single-bite snap action, with self-half-cocking. The elegant side-lever releases the barrels and raises the hammers to half-cock. With the typical Jones underlever the hammers have to be pulled back manually before the lever can be swung and the gun opened. With the Needham action the same can be done in one natural motion, and the gun can be snapped shut. With the new and growing sport of driven bird shoots, a fast-acting gun was a decided advantage. The Needham action was very popular, and appeared on the guns of many makers. The barrels are 29 3/4", and have been re-browned.

The Blissett gun is a bar-in-wood design, to my eyes the most elegant pattern for a breech-loading gun. Wood predominates which makes for a beautiful gun, but the lack of metal is a nightmare for strength and lasting wear, successful bar-in-wood guns are engineering feats that demand admiration. The Needham action is further peculiar in that the hinge pin is part of the mechanism for disassembling the gun. The hinge pin is pushed out with a fingertip, and it remains captive. The barrels and still-attached fore-end can be then removed. While it seems counter-intuitive to have a slender hinge pin, the action must have been strong, judging from its popularity. The downward-turning lever is on the right side, and on the left can be seen a small cam which lifts the hammers when the lever is depressed. The gun, now well worn, is beautifully engraved with foliate scroll, and retrievers on the lock plates and trigger guard bow. The bar locks are signed "John Blissett London" and the top rib signed "John Blissett, 322 High Holborn, London."

Blissett stressed price in his advertising, and Blissett guns I've seen are well-made and of moderate quality -- not high-end, but not lowest-quality either. His clientele must have been varied, because the Needham gun would likely have been one of his most expensive offerings. The action bears a Needham silver poinçon and patent use number 171, which indicates it is the 171st action Needham built or authorized. Considering its popularity, this helps date the gun to around 1863, fairly early in terms of Needham actions. The gun weighs a svelte 6 lb 11 oz, and the barrels still have mirror bores.

Interesting locking developments. Below are pics of a Joseph Smith [I think it may be his patent] that is quite similar to the Needham mentioned in Mr. Nash's post above.

Well, that Smith gun prompted me to pull out my copy of The British Shotgun Volume One. The action was patented in December 1863 so it fits in nicely with the other snap-action inventions being covered here. It looks near-identical to Needham's action, but the locking mechanism is different. It even has the captive hinge-pin barrel removal mechanism. The gun is in centre-fire and apparently not a conversion, so it must be an early centre-fire. Remarkable gun.

Please forgive my long-windedness today, but sometimes a single gun can demonstrate several advances and carry a lot of history. Today's bar-in-wood gun exemplifies the start of the Westley Richards "doll's head" and the "crab joint," and it is an uncommon variation.

Many double guns have a top rib/barrel extension such as a "doll's head" or a tab through which a Greener-type crossbolt extends. The idea of fastening the barrels to the action at that point, at the highest part of the breech face, was started by Westley Richards, and it was done to address a weakness inherent in all hinge-action guns. Ultimately the top extension provided many makers with a second or third point of attachment, but Westley Richards considered the single rib/barrel extension sufficient, and made many guns on that principle alone.

Some names become synonymous with their inventions. In the case of Westley Richards, one of the great names in Birmingham gunmaking, both terms "doll's head" and "crab joint" come to mind. The peculiar rounded tab extending from the barrels into the top of the breech has been copied by many makers, including several American ones. The elaborate wood-covered jointing indeed bring to mind a crustacean appendage -- well, I can't think of anyone else who went to such trouble. The amount of skill required to shape metal and wood to these respective designs is beyond my understanding -- it is uncommonly fine work. The best-known and most commonly encountered bar-in-wood guns carry the name Westley Richards, as the firm started the making of bar-in-wood guns and made these a mainstay of their offerings for a long time. The pivoting top lever, the one our thumbs know how to use seemingly without thinking, appeared on Westley Richards snap-action guns in 1864, one year before the more famous W. M. Scott top-lever. Like many gun inventions, the side-swinging top-lever was an improvement on an earlier system that is rarely seen today, the pull-lever.

One of the reasons that I've studied the pinfire is that so many of the inventions, designs and ideas found on the fantastic hammerless Edwardian guns of the Golden Age of shotgunning started there. Breech-loading was new, exciting, and radical. Clever inventions abounded, and makers fought for custom through innovation and meticulous attention to detail. What makes collecting the earliest breech-loaders a challenge is that there were relatively so few of them. A gun mechanism might have been patented in, say, 1862, but only a handful would have been made in that year. Popularity would be gradual and in the meantime the maker might have come up with a better idea, and then even fewer guns might be made with the earlier design. This makes the early designs hard to come by, especially when a maker supplants his own ideas with better ones.

The first Westley Richards doll's head and crab-joint gun did have a top lever, but it did not pivot -- it was pulled straight back with the thumb. While this was great news for left-handers, there is only so much leverage that can be applied in this way against a strong spring, and it is no surprise that Westley Richards decided that a laterally pivoting lever did the same job with less effort. The pull-lever was given the patent number 2506 in September 1862, and the lateral lever was given patent number 2623 in October 1864. There could not have been many pull-lever guns made in this short time, and famously one was built in 1863 for HRH Prince Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, for his 22nd birthday.

The Prince of Wales enjoyed his shooting. The year before in 1862 Sandringham and close to 8,000 acres of land were purchased for him and his fiançee, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, by his mother and father, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. With his new Westley Richards pull-lever pinfire, he could shoot to his heart's content and he developed the Sandringham Estate as one of the finest shooting grounds in Britain. Later, and as Edward VII, he no doubt had many fine guns to choose from, but I'm sure he remained fond of his birthday gun. If you do have a copy of The British Shotgun Volume One, there is a photo of the Prince with his WR (page 135 in my copy).

The doll's head fastener was actually a clever solution to a problem. One of the weaknesses of the hinge action is made worse by the distance between the hinge and the attachment point. When a gun is fired the barrels try to flex downward, acting as a first-class lever against the action bar. The closer the attachment point to the hinge, the stronger the forces working against the action bar. With enough shooting, the junction between the action bar and breech face is apt to crack or fail. Two solutions eventually reduced this problem. The first was to increase the distance as much as possible between the attachment point and the hinge -- and the doll's head did just that. The second, appearing in most guns some time later, required leaving a slight curve or radius where the action bar meets the breech face, as a curved surface, even a very small one, is stronger than a right-angle joint at withstanding opposing forces (this is a good time to take out a magnifying glass and look at your guns). While the doll's head provides the only point of attachment in the early Westley Richards guns, other makers often combined the doll's head with an under-bolt or other attachment for extra strength. Considering we're talking about guns made with hand tools, the craftsmanship required to shape and fit a Westley Richards doll's head is astounding.

The crab joint must push the limits of the stock-maker. Both the action portion and the fore-end have to be shaped to fit together in the least ungainly way. I admit the Westley Richards style is not my favourite bar-in-wood jointing, aesthetically speaking, but I still marvel at the design and the skill required.

As to the story of the business, William Westley Richards was born in 1788, son of Theophilus Richards, another gun maker. He started his business in Birmingham in 1812, and from 1826 or so he operated from a second address, 170 Bond St. in London (more on that in a future post). William Westley's son, Westley Richards, took over the business in 1840 at the age of 26. He was a great inventor, obtaining a number of varied patents (such as the hinged breech block "monkey tail" carbine). In 1859 the business was re-named Westley Richards & Co.. Westley Richards retired from the business in 1872 due to ill health, and died in 1897 at the age of 83. Westley Richards & Co. is still in business today.

Gun number 10652 is a 12-bore, made in 1865. Unlike so many Westley Richards pinfires, it is still in its original form and was never converted to centre-fire. It has 30" Birmingham-proofed damascus barrels signed by Westley Richards, and carry the London address on the rib. It has the pull-top-lever snap-action with doll's head fastening system (patent No. 2506 of 1862). The breech face is stamped "WESTLEY RICHARDS PATENT 564," indicating it is the 564th gun built on this patent, perhaps amongst the last of this type. As Westley Richards had already started building lateral top-lever guns by this point, the client must have preferred the pull-lever instead. The bar-action locks are signed "Westley Richards," fitted to a bar-in-wood stock with the "crab joint." The hammers are flat-sided, with dolphin-shaped noses. The silver stock escutcheon has a distinctive family crest (unicorn's head erased, horned and crined) and initials "CGS", but I have yet to trace it back to the owner. The gun weighs a tidy 6 lb 12 oz, and the bores are still mirror clean. It is still in its original leather-covered case with label, cleaning rod, and original key.

Thanks Stephen - the above is still more outstanding history and excellent commentary. Returning to the previous gun, Needham Patent snap lever made by John Blissett, I am curious about this Needham ad - I wonder what sort of patent breechloader Needham was offering at the time January 1857.

19 Jan 1857, "The Homward Mail from India, China, and The East"


Also from about 1855-1857 John Blissett published the same ad in "The Field" - He didn't start finishing Breech loaders till later it seems.

I think the breech-loader referred to in the Needham advert is his needle-fire, shown on the 4th page of this thread. Needle-fires were apparently around from the 1840s onwards.

I've just been reading that military interest in the needle-fire by the Prussians, Austrians and Danes did not go unnoticed in British military circles (and to those interested in foreign affairs), something which might have facilitated the later acceptance of breech-loading sporting arms to some extent.

I've examined a needle-fire rook rifle, but I've never held a needle-fire game gun.

I'm also still pondering the horizontal pinfire that AaronN mentioned. I've never seen one of those either.

I'm starting to realize that one lifetime is not long enough to study sporting arms.

Thank you, Mr. Nash, for taking the time to share your knowledge with us. Threads like this make this board worth reading.

Steve, You are right about Needham:

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=319028
"On 2 October 1852 Joseph Needham of Ashtead Row, Birmingham registered patent No. 184 for a gun lock and the first successful hammerless needle-fire gun. He is known to have made needle-fire guns on the Rissack design. In 1850 Jean Jacques Rissack of Liege, Belgium patented a needle-fire gun in which the primer was in the base behind the powder as opposed to backing onto the over-powder wad, and the pin was either in the breech plug or on the hammer. Rissack's pistols and gallery rifles were very popular, the cartridges were made by Eley."

Prussia actually adopted the Dreyse Needle Gun in 1848. This fact was raised regularly in "The Field" and in Parliament, especially by proponents of the Prince Patent (1855) to try to get Arsenal to get their heads out of the Enfield sand.

That's the problem with trying to interpret advertisements for center break guns from this period. There was a lot of different breech-loading rifles coming out in the 1850's. So unless an advertisement actually refers to "Lefaucheaux" or "Fusils a Bascule" or "break-action" or some such, it's very difficult to know whether the ad is actually talking about center-break pin-fires.

For instance the Fall 1856 H.Holland ad for breech-loader shotguns...."perfect for Battue Shooting" - was this a center break gun or a version of the needle fire breech loader rifle he advertised just below it?


Battue Shooting (Battue is beaten in French...driven, beaten game)


So far it looks like Reilly is the very earliest to specifically be advertising center-break breech-loading guns in the UK Press.

As best as I can determine from our ledger books - Rigby sold 102 guns and rifles using Needham's 1852 needle-fire patent between 1858 and 1865. I have no idea when Needham began producing such guns under his name. What makes identifying just how many guns were made using that patent is that Rigby and Needham had different patent use numbering schemes.

Next in line in the chronology of snap-actions is the JWP Field Patent of December 1862.

Two of the most highly valued points of reference in British gunmaking are name and address. While it is very true that an obscure maker operating in a distant town could, and did, produce guns of the highest order when commissioned to, most of the top-tier makers in mid-Victorian Britain, with names known by all the keen sportsmen of the day, had London addresses. While the name Purdey is synonymous with the finest guns today, in the 1860s James Purdey was just one of several London makers with equally well-earned reputations, along with James Woodward, Thomas Boss, Harris Holland, John Blanch, Edward Reilly, Joseph Lang and others, names that are still recognized today.

At the very beginning of the pinfire era in the 1850s, simply offering high-quality breech-loading guns placed gunmakers in the fore-front of their field. After some time this distinction would have lost its novelty, and other means were needed to remain competitive. Inventing and building proprietary patents attracted the attention of sportsmen and raised the estimation of the maker's wares above others, at least until something better came along. A long and storied history would also be helpful in terms of reputation, and a prestigious London address would provide access to well-heeled patrons. Being able to claim the custom of important persons was one of the most powerful tools in advertising, better still if there was a royal connection.

One would think that a firm encompassing all of these traits would be amongst the best known today, yet it is surprising how little is known, or has been written, about Parker, Field & Sons, and even less on their sporting guns. Surviving pieces show off the high quality of their flint and percussion pistols and sporting guns, but of their pinfire game guns very little is known.

The origins of the business started with John Field, who had been a goldsmith, sword cutler and gun maker at 233 High Holborn from 1783 to 1791. He traded under his own name and also as Field & Co and Field & Clarke. When John Field died in 1791, William Parker went into partnership with his widow, and they traded as Field & Parker. John Field Junior worked for the firm, but not as a partner. In 1793, William Parker bought John Field's widow's share of the partnership. William Parker became gun maker to Prince Edward, then to King William IV, and the Duke of Kent. In 1841 William Parker died, and John Field Junior and his sons started trading as Parker, Field & Sons. In 1850 John Field Junior died and the sons, John William Parker Field and William Shakespeare Field took over the business. JWP Field was was an accomplished rifle shooter, and he was Instructor to the Honourable Artillery Company from 1866 to 1879 and Captain of the English Twenty shooting team (Britain's top shooting club, still in operation). At some point Parker, Field & Sons received the greatest accolade, becoming gunmaker to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, a recognition the firm made good use of in their labels and advertisements. William Shakespeare Field died on 17 August 1875, and John William Parker Field continued running the firm until his death in 1879. The firm ceased business in 1886, after just over 100 years in the trade. As to the address, High Holborn street was central and very well located; Charles Dickens lived on High Holborn for a while, as did William Morris, the influential designer and promoter of the Arts and Crafts movement.

Parker, Field & Sons is probably best known for its contracts to supply arms to the Honourable East India Company, for "North West" trade guns supplied to the Hudson's Bay and North West Companies and used by native hunters in the North American fur trade, and for military Enfield muskets supplied to both sides in the American Civil War. The firm also provided police forces with pistols, truncheons, tipstaffs, cutlasses, handcuffs, wrist shackles and leg irons, and "all articles used by police." Parker, Field & Sons exhibited their guns and assorted wares at the Great Exhibition in London in 1851, where Casimir Lefaucheux first demonstrated his pinfire invention to the British public -- perhaps they admired each others' work.

At least three types of pinfire game guns are known to have been made by Parker, Field & Sons: the Lang-type forward-underlever with a single bite and a rising stud for assisted opening; a similar single-bite action but with a rear-facing underlever (like the Moore covered earlier); and an elegant bar-in-wood design incorporating JWP Field's patent No. 3485 of December 1862 for a partial snap-action fastener.

It is the latter I'd like to focus on, because it is an unusually beautiful gun, amongst the first to exhibit the bar-in-wood construction in an attempt to hide the hinge, or at least minimize the visual differences between muzzle-loaders and the early breech-loaders. It is a 12-bore, and gun number 10567 was probably made some time around 1865. The top rib is signed "Parker Field & Sons Makers to her Majesty 233 Holborn London" in script and "Field's Patent" within a decorative scroll. The same "Field's Patent" marking is present on the sculpted underlever. The 30" damascus barrels have London proofs and bear the Field stamp and the barrel maker's mark R.W., possibly Robert Wall of 9 Little Compton St., Soho (1864-65). The single-bite partial snap-action rotary underlever action is John William Parker Field's patent No. 3485 of December 1862. It is only a partial snap-action, as the underlever is only partially under spring tension, it has to be completely closed by hand.

The slender bar action locks are signed "Parker Field & Sons." The rounded hammers have dolphin-headed noses, and the thin percussion fences are decorated with with acanthus spray engraving. The figured stock has drop points, a feature not commonly found at the time. The foliate scroll engraving is typical, and the vacant monogram escutcheon on the top wrist is gold, and not the usual silver. The guns weighs a tidy 6 lb 15 oz., and the bores are still mirror-bright. While the gun still has its original leather-covered case, it is in rather poor condition and the label is darkly stained.

No Parker, Field & Sons records survive, so it is impossible to accurately date the gun or know who the gun was made for. Still, from known serial numbers, the patent date, and the barrel maker's mark, a pretty good guess can be made. From surviving guns, it seems that Parker, Field & Sons were still making percussion guns and even flint locks around this time, confirming that a maker will make anything the client is willing to pay for!

Just came across this article which is very relevant to the conversions here:


Full Size

Steve, your photos are amazing. The history and writing just as good. Look forward to next installment. It is a privilege to be able to read in advance what will be an excellent book.

Great article, AaronN. And a good excuse for a temporary diversion from snap-actions. Ask most aficionados of British SxS guns which are the Big Three, and you would almost always get the response "Purdey, Boss, and Holland & Holland," with apologies to Woodward, who somehow gets squeezed out of such lists for no good reason. But for me, the Big Three names are Lang, Blanch, and Reilly, for the reasons pointed out in that article. Joseph Lang, John and William Blanch, and Joseph and Edward Michael Reilly were the first real proponents of the pinfire system. Lang began in 1853, Blanch in 1856, and the Reillys probably around the same time. All of the early guns were of the single-bite, forward-underlever type, with the gradual appearance of Mr. Beringer's lever-over-guard design towards the end of the decade (possibly started by Blanch). While many others eventually joined the party, these three businesses put their reputations on the line for the pinfire system, and should be recognized for their forethought.

The weekly sportsman's newspaper The Field of 2 May 1857 carried the following advertisement: "BREECH-LOADERS. -JOHN BLANCH and SON, Gunmakers, 29 Gracechurch-street, London, beg respectfully to call the attention of their friends and the sporting world generally to the above guns, which are much admired for their rapidity of loading, and the numerous safe-guards against accident which they possess. They would earnestly request those gentlemen who intend favouring them with orders for these guns for the ensuing season to do so as early as possible, that no delay or disappointment may be experienced. A large stock Single and Double guns and rifles and revolving pistols always on hand."

The 1861 census lists William Blanch as a gun maker employing 4 men and 1 boy, and living at 29 Gracechurch Street with his wife and three children. It is easy to forget that in most instances, a gunmaker's address appearing on the top rib of a gun was usually their home, as well as their workshop! At the time his father was living at 25 Hanover St. in the fashionable Mayfair district, but though 77 he had not retired from the business. John Blanch died on 5 December 1868 aged 84, and William continued the business - though he had probably been running it himself for some time. William died on 8 October 1899 and the business continued at the same address until 1914, when the lack of materials, demand and workers meant the firm had to move to a less expensive location. Over the years the firm moved and was sold several times, most recently in 2010, and now operated out of 16 High Street, Cheddington, Bedfordshire.

A good example of a Blanch gun is this 12-bore rotary-underlever sporting gun by John Blanch & Son of London, number 4696, made around 1864, after the Henry Jones patent for the double-bite screw grip action had expired. Gunmakers knew a good thing when it happened, and they were not going to pass up a royalty-free, simple, and strong action design. The 30" damascus barrels carry London proofs and are signed "J. Blanch & Son, 29 Gracechurch Street, London" on the top rib. The barrels also have the barrel maker's initials "TP," which I believe to be for Thomas Portlock, who was in business from 1860 to 1864 at Riley St., Bermondsey. Thomas was the father or brother of John Portlock (there is little information on their origins), and both of these London barrel makers provided barrels to the top London makers. The gun has back-action locks signed "J. Blanch & Son," the dolphin-style hammers have stylized cap-guards, a hold-over from the percussion days, now purely ornamental. Features which seem to be part of a Blanch house style are the fences carved with acanthus-leaf sprays, and the under-lever with a concave finial. The stock has heel and toe caps, a nice touch, and the barrels still have mirror bores. The gun weighs 6 lb 13 oz.

Gene, thanks for the vote of confidence. There will be much, much more in the book, this is meant as a taste.

As to photographs, these are salvaged from my learning attempts, with morning sunlight and cardboard backdrops. I am investing in proper lighting and better backdrops, and I'm building a better support system to hold the guns. Many use a black or dark background, but I want to experiment with white and other colours, and with better controlled lighting. What I've grasped from taking pictures so far is that it is a lot harder than I thought it would be! Since so much can be learned from detail, I want pictures in the book to be crisp and clear. I've also come to realize why so many pictures of antique guns are in black-and-white - it hides all the blemishes of age.

I did a little research on who was buying these guns; shooting was a well-to-do sport (commented on previously on this board).

(UK currency up to 1971:
-- 4 farthing = 1 penny (d);
-- 12d = 1 shilling (s)
-- 20s = 1 pound (�)
-- �1/1s = 1 guinea (g)

1885:
-- Average annual wage for workers in England - �42/12s a year
-- Average annual wage overall for England - �56
-- Average annual wage for workers in UK total - �42/14s

From Reilly advertisements:
1834 - Double gun fowler with case - 10-20g
1855 - Double gun fowler with case - 10-25g
1885 - Double gun fowler with case - 20-50g

This does not count the cost of ammunition, or the annual hunting license. This might explain why young officers going abroad bought .577 caliber rifles (in order to use issue ammunition). The cost of trying to seem "respectable" or a "gentleman" at the time, with boot blacking, tea, hats, suits, horses, dogs, etc., and the required hobbies gambling and guns, was enormous. Small wonder that UK was run by a very small group of people (who all knew each other it seems). Whatever, a gun was a major outlay of cash for even well regarded "gentlemen."

Good info. Here's a page from John Henry Walsh's book Manual of British Rural Sports, 5th Ed. in 1861.Good guns were very expensive!

An interesting footnote in the history of breechloading guns is in the Blanch article above, courtesy of Mr. Newcomer. In the mid 1850s the breechloading ammunition industry in England had not yet evolved.

Thanks Daryl, "Stonehenge," editor of "The Field," in 1859 discussed the availability of ammunition for pin-fires in UK.



His conclusion was, unless you wanted to pay Lancaster an extortionist amount for his center-fire center-break gun ammo, a monopoly which he refused to let go of, you'd go with the pin-fire....and at that time, all the ammo was coming from France and was readily available in England. By 1862, Reilly, Eley and others were making it in Britain.



(That book is available on line and is a store house of historical information on the state of the trade at the time).

Does anyone know when Eley might have started making pinfire cartridges?

From the IGC Database, Eley Brothers started selling pinfire cases, probably French manufacture, in 1860, and patented their own version in 1861. Is it known if they started making Eley pinfire cartridges in 1861?

I'll look...So far here are comments "The Field":

21 Jun 1860 "The Field" - Eley selling breech loader cartridge accessory reloader:


17 Oct 1860 "The Field" - Discontent with Eley Red cartridges reloaded for pin-fires.


from 03 Nov 1860 "The Field" about reloading "Lefaucheux" pin-fire cartridges. At that time Boss was making them (or at least marketing them), Eley as well - his "Red Cartridges" - though it looks like there were problems depending on the gun and it is not clear from the comment whether Eley was selling French cartridges or his own..

03 Nov 1860 "The Field"

05 Jan 1861, "The Field" - first Eley advertisement for pin-fire cartridges:




23 Feb 1862, "The Field" - looks like the major retailers continued to stock French cartridges:

Eley 1861:


Full Size

And my article on it:

Full Size


Full Size

Thanks Aaron, Looking at those "Field" articles, I have to agree with you, the author of the "Pinfire Page" article ...
-- "I think the cartridges Eley listed in 1860 could easily be the same design he patented in 1861,"
But I think even more likely is your second conclusion:
-- "It's completely possible that there was a completely different design that existed that first year."
The commentary in the Fall 1860 in "The Field" about the problems shooters were having with "Eley Red Cartridges" seems to indicate Eley was selling his own shells at the time and that changes had to be made because of feedback from the customers.

Also, what are these breechloading shotgun cartridges:


Full Size
Field - Saturday 06 February 1858


Full Size
Field - Saturday 08 September 1860

Still watching and enjoying this thread.

I need to dig up my percussion breech loading cartridge gun with trigger guard underlever, with assisted opening pin on the action flats.

I think it would be a good one to show in this thread.

Good find Aaron..The Wire cartridges were well advertised for several years - used in percussion guns. But, darned if I know of those early Eley breech loading cartridges....were they the "Eley Red Cartridges?" Whatever, that 1858 ad is really early - just in time for "The Field" first test shooting.

Eley had enormous military contracts but still found time to pay attention to maybe 500 breech-loading shotguns operating in UK at the time (but admittedly used by the aristocracy). They couldn't have played that important a part since Stonehenge didn't mentioned them at all in his 1859 book. However, all of us would be interested in what you turn up...this is new history in the making.

Here's a George Jeffries of Norwich loading machine used for pinfire cartridges as shown in Argo's ad above. It is in a case with a Richard Jeffery [not Jeffries] of Guildford pinfire using the Dougall Lockfast patent.

Ok Let's take it back even further.


Field - Saturday 15 November 1856

Next week


Field - Saturday 22 November 1856

This seems to be the first ad mentioning cartridges for breech-loading guns.

Tinker, by all means join in. If you have a pinfire, I'd certainly like to know more about it.

Gents, wonderful information on the availability of cartridges, the timeline for that is becoming clearer. The requirement of French cartridges might have slowed down the acceptance of pinfires in the 1850s, that and the cost of a new gun -- it's not like muzzle-loaders were wearing out quickly -- so purchases of British-made pinfires were likely restricted to the wealthy.

If French and Belgian pinfires were available at a lower cost, might these have been popular in Britain, once the pinfire system became acceptable? Other than the reference to a Francotte Bastin gun at the Trials, I'm not finding much about contemporary use of European breech-loaders in Britain at this time. The fact that Gustave Masu ran afoul of the proof house laws suggests European-made guns were being sold. Advertisements mentioning French or Belgian breech-loaders might shed some light.

Back to snap-actions. The Purdey action of May 1863 fits in here, but I have neither a Purdey thumb-hole action, nor a Purdey pinfire, to show. Call it bad luck or an insufficiently deep wallet, but a Purdey pinfire has escaped me. I've recently seen a completely clapped-out Purdey hammergun, badly converted, that started out as a pinfire, but at an eye-watering asking price.

I do, however, have an example of the Thomas Horsley Patent No 2410 of October 1863, and its owner had the gun converted to centre-fire at some point. The high cost of good guns goes a long way towards explaining why so many pinfire game guns were converted to centre-fire.

One of the most famous provincial makers was Thomas Horsley of York. His guns rivalled those from the best London and Birmingham makers, and while most provincial makers used Birmingham-made parts, it appears that Horsley only bought barrel tubes from the forgers, and his firm employed its own barrel borers, action makers, stockers and finishers. The guns were of high quality, made with quality materials, and finished to a very high degree. For over 25 years I have sought a Horsley pinfire, and the best I could manage, and only fairly recently, was to acquire an incomplete, converted specimen. The better the original quality, the more likely the conversion to centre-fire will be both successful and aesthetically pleasing, and Horsley guns are an example of guns that do not lose their looks in the conversion process. Finding a Horsley in its original pinfire configuration is a big order to fill, and I'm still searching.

The IGC Database tells us that Thomas Horsley was born on 17 July 1810, in Doncaster. Horsley reportedly worked for Richard Brunton, a local gunmaker, from about 1825 to 1830. In 1830 Horsley bought the Brunton business, and in 1834 moved his home and business to 48 Coney Street, York, while retaining part of the business in Doncaster. In 1851 Thomas was recorded living at the address with his wife, six daughters, his son Thomas, and an apprentice, Richard Dawson. At the time Thomas Horsley was employing four men. In 1856 the firm moved to 10 Coney Street, and in 1861 he was recorded as employing eight men and three boys (his son Thomas was an apprentice).

On 12 February 1862 Thomas obtained patent No. 374 for a sliding-bolt single-bite snap-action, with a push-forward lever acting on a sprung bolt. On 1 October 1863 he obtained another patent, No. 2410, for a pull-back top-lever or slide. The operating lever was located on the top strap instead of the trigger guard, operated in reverse on the same locking bolt. Patent No. 2410 is the one for which Thomas Horsley rightfully developed his fame. While superficially similar in operation to Westley Richards's patent No. 2506 of 1862, already covered in this thread, the locking mechanism is quite different.

While Horsley built snap-action pinfires starting in 1862, and his pull-lever actions from late 1863, he may have stopped building them by 1867, unless a client specifically wanted one. In any case, the time period in which Thomas Horsley built pinfire sporting guns was probably short, making my chances of finding an intact one that much harder.

By 1871 Thomas was employing 22 men and four boys, making him one of the largest provincial gun makers in the country. In about 1874 the firm became known as T Horsley & Son. Thomas Horsley died in 1882, but the family firm continued at various addresses until 1959, when it closed its doors for good.

Gun number 1450 was made in 1866. It is a bar-in-wood 12-bore sporting gun with the patent pull-top-lever, and it started out as a pinfire. At some point it was converted to centre-fire and fitted with an extractor for rimmed cartridges (something that is not necessary in a pinfire gun), and the pinfire hammers replaced with centre-fire hammers. The 29 15/16" damascus barrels have London proofs, and the top rib is signed "Thomas Horsley Maker York, Patent 2410." The action bar has an unnumbered "Horsley's Patent No." cartouche, meaning the patent use number was not recorded on the gun itself. If a Horsley action was sold to another gun maker the patent use number would be added, essentially a licencing mark. Horsley might not have numbered the actions he used for his own guns, though some makers did. Without seeing more Horsley pinfires, I have no way of telling which practice he chose. If he only marked licenced actions, there is no way of knowing exactly how many pull-top-lever guns Horsley built in total.

The gun is a bar-in-wood construction with non-rebounding bar locks, signed "Thos Horsley Patent." The pull-top-lever is signed "Patent" within a banner, and fine scroll engraving decorates the gun. The conversion is a serious affair, the pin holes have been filled and hidden, and it looks like the standing breech has been strengthened with a slab of steel and re-engraved, and fitted with centre-fire strikers. Look closely at the pictures, remarkable work. The thin fences of the pinfire needed reinforcing, something obviously desirable, but I've never seen this level of work in any other conversion. As the gun still has non-rebounding locks I'm guessing the conversion was done around 1870 or earlier, and from the standing breech work I would also guess the conversion could have been done by Horsley (the mismatched hammers with incorrect engraving might have been a later repair). Sadly this example has lost its fore-end and the barrel fore-end loop. Complete, it would be a stunning, stunning gun -- even as a conversion. The bores are pitted, and the gun weighs 6 lb 14 oz. (minus the fore-end).










10 Coney Street, York, where this gun was made, as it is today, now The Phone Store (image capture: Aug 2019 - 2020 Google) (correction thanks to Imperdix)

Fantastic. Finding a British pinfire game gun is reason enough for celebration, finding one in its original case much harder, and the gun, in its case, with the loading tools is rarest of all.

I was once sold a Jeffery pinfire, but what arrived was a Jeffrey - that story is for another day... And I will soon post a Dougall Lockfast, a truly remarkable action.

The starburst detailing on your Jeffery barrels is wonderful. The Guildford Jefferys made superb guns, and like many Provincial makers, could put up work equal to the best London names.

Down the rabbit hole if anyone is up for a long read..

I tried to follow the whole thread of conversation about the breech loading cartridges in The Field. It gives a pretty clear understanding of people's thoughts, what guns they were using, whose cartridges they were using, etc. It culminates with that Eley ad on how to use the cartridges. From this too, you clearly see that people were using Eley made pinfire cartridges for a couple years as of 1860.

It begins with someone trying to put wire cartridges into a new cartridge for Needham's pinfire gun. This sparks a months-long conversation about pinfire cartridges and their pros and cons with many anecdata about people's experiences with the cartridges across many guns.


Field - Saturday 06 October 1860


Field - Saturday 27 October 1860


Field - Saturday 03 November 1860


Field - Saturday 17 November 1860


Field - Saturday 01 December 1860


Field - Saturday 08 December 1860


Field - Saturday 15 December 1860


Field - Saturday 29 December 1860


Field - Saturday 05 January 1861


Field - Saturday 02 February 1861

Very interesting reading on the subject of cartridges. High percentages of mis-fires would certainly be off-putting. I have a G & J.W. Hawksley pinfire cartridge extractor, with holes to secure the pin, and a hook to pull out the paper case from a separated base.

If someone went to the trouble of making a tool for it, it was a real problem.

I own a n early Horsley pinfire conversion No1547 built 1866,it has the patent use stamp on the bar but no number .Can`t figure how to add a picture atm.

Imperdix kindly provided photos and of his converted Horsley no. 1547 and information on the conversion. He observes it is probably a later conversion, noting that the top front edge of the lockplates have been filed away to accommodate deeper fences, and that instead of adding a faceplate, Horsley installed a different action frame, something that David Baker believed Horsley did a good trade in, judging from the number of conversions.

It takes a sharp eye to spot some conversions.

Stephen Helsley kindly provided two William Powell records, the earliest surviving records of pinfires made by William Powell & Son of Birmingham. This provides great information on the costs of the guns and accessories (note £1/5 for the cost of a Jeffries loading machine).

The first is dated 9 August 1859 and is the earliest recorded Powell pinfire. Earlier day books were lost or destroyed. Owen Powell (no relation) was a long-time client of William Powell. He was also a gunmaker - so Stephen assumes the £11 price reflects the normal 15-20 percent discount.



The second record is dated 7 August 1860, for numbers 3004 and 3005:

2 best Breech Loading shot guns 30 inches for No16 cartridges Brazier's Locks, stub damascus barrels, stocks buffed & lever over guard £18.10 ea.
1m No.16 French cartridge cases £2/10