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

Wonderful additions, Daryl and Argo44! Seeing a Sneider is a real treat.

I re-looked at the results of the 1858 Field trial, and the differences can be argued from either perspective, as they obviously were back then. The differences between muzzle-loaders and breech-loaders were not as clear-cut as either side predicted, or wanted, and this narrowed further in the 1859 trial. Each 'side' interpreted the results that suited their claims, and it is only if you stand far back from the minutiae that you can see both were good, pick which one you prefer!

As I write this I've just made myself an espresso coffee with a certain Swiss coffee machine, pop in a self-contained capsule, and presto, a perfect cup every time. Yes, I can fix myself an enjoyable cup of coffee in myriad ways, but why not use a system that is simple, reliable, without fuss, and equal to the best of any other process? Years ago I objected to the idea of being tied to using one source/brand of capsules. I eventually relented, and there's no going back for me. So I get how, when presented with two ignition/loading options, sportsmen gradually overcame their reluctance to the new system and a limited source of cartridges and tried the new breech-loader, and, having done so, never looked back.

The Old Guard was vociferous and influential, and the elder William Greener did his best to denigrate the breech-loader. That said, I've been shown a photograph of a pinfire game gun built by him, so while he might have disliked them, it did not stop him from filling customers' requests.

To those who don't have a copy of William Greener' book Gunnery in 1858, Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms (London 1858), here is the chapter concerning the new breech-loaders. Happy reading!

CHAPTER VIII. THE FRENCH "CRUTCH," OR BREECH-LOADING SHOT GUN.

Sporting in France has never been brought to the same state of perfection as in this country. Grouse-shooting on our wild romantic hills is a very different sport from quail, partridge, or rabbit shooting in the vales and on the hills of the Continent. Wild game requires great energy and perseverance on the part of the sportsman, courage and strength on the part of the dog, and last, though not least, great capacity on the part of the gun. For many years the superiority of the English manufactured gun, as well as of the English gunpowder, and the matchless skill of the English sportsman, have been acknowledged by all the world. All things, however, have their limits- the longest lane has a turning, and a very plausible and insidious innovation has been made to detract from the acquired reputation of the English sportsman, and render his shooting inferior to that of some of our friends on the other side of the Channel.

The French system of breech-loading fire-arms is a specious pretence, the supposed advantages of which have been loudly boasted of; but none of[330] these advantages have as yet been established by its most strenuous advocates. How it is that the British sportsman has become the dupe of certain men who set themselves up for reputable gunmakers I know not. It is certain, however, that by these acts they have forfeited all claim to the confidence of their too confiding customers, and that they never could have tested the shooting properties of their guns. With regard to the safety of these guns, they display an utter want of the most ordinary judgment; and this is abundant proof that they considered neither their safety, nor (what is also of importance) the economy of the whole arrangement, as regards their manufacture or their use.

Guns are perfect only so long as they possess the power of shooting strong and close, with the least available charges. The period has passed when barrels were bored by rule of thumb, without any well-defined intention; the workman being ignorant as to whether he would have the bore of the barrel cylindrical, or (as was frequently the case) in the form of two inverted cones, and thus he continued to bore at the barrel until it was utterly useless, or until by chance he hit upon a tidy shooting bore. Barrels are now constructed so nearly alike, that it is no stretch of truth to assert that ninety-six or ninety-eight barrels out of a hundred can be made so nearly alike in their shooting, as to render it very difficult to discover the real difference between them. Yet, in the face of this high state of perfection certain English gunmakers introduce, and recommend to their patrons as an improvement, a description of gun possessing the following negative qualities: -First, there is no possibility of a breech-loader ever shooting equal to a well-constructed muzzle loader; secondly, the gun is unsafe, and becomes more and more unsafe from the first time it is used; and, thirdly, it is a very costly affair, both as regards the gun and ammunition. Nor are these negative qualities at all compensated for by any of the advantages claimed for these guns by their advocates; this assertion I now proceed to establish.

In the first place recoil has been an important obstacle to contend with, ever since the invention of fire-arms, and the methods of lessening recoil have engaged the special attention of all inventors up to the present day; on this important point, indeed, very much depends. Gunnery is good only when recoil exists in a minimum degree. Force, whether it be that of the gentle "zephyr," or of the mammoth steam-boiler which is capable of moving thousands of tons, can always be measured, and the friction of steam against the tube through which it passes can be measured also.

The time was, when guns were so imperfectly constructed, that the recoil and friction of the charge against the barrel destroyed more than half the force generated by the explosion of the gunpowder; and this loss of force having been obviated, by finely polishing the interior of the barrel, as well as by improving the metal of the gun, has rendered English guns superior in their performance to those manufactured in any other country. Breeches of a conical form offer the greatest resistance to the action of aeriform bodies in a direct line; this is the principle of what is best known as "the patent breech:" to speak of which would be a waste of time, as nothing more is required to support its superiority than the fact, that in well constructed artillery of every country, the interior form of the breech or chamber is more or less conical. Thus we see that by adopting the crutch gun, we have to give up one of the oldest and most universally acknowledged principles in lessening recoil - namely, the conical form of the breech - and to adopt the very reverse of this: namely, the old right-angled, flat-faced breech, upon which recoil can exert its utmost force with the certainty of its reaching the shoulder of the unfortunate user.

Secondly, to enable the gun to be loaded with a cartridge which shall keep its place, a complicated arrangement is necessary. On inspection of the barrel, it will be perceived that a cavity has been formed larger than the bore of the barrel, and that this in some cases only tapers toward the further end. This cavity exactly receives the cartridge, and the gunpowder is inflamed in a space much larger than the barrel, which it has afterwards to pass through. The charge of shot is also started in a larger space than that which it afterwards has to traverse, and the column must of necessity become contracted and elongated before it can escape from the barrel. The first consideration is at what cost of force is all this effected? Thirty per cent. would certainly be a shrewd guess; and who is there conversant with the nature of gunpowder hardy enough to gainsay the fact?

I here present the reader with the measurement of a pair of barrels - bore 12, diameter of the cavity 10, or two sizes difference, -tried at the celebrated trial of Breech versus Muzzle-loading fire-arms, which took place in April last, in the court at Cremorne. The following are the results of the trial:

Class 1 comprised twelve bore double guns, not exceeding 71⁄2 lbs. in weight; the charge for the breech-loaders was three drachms of powder, and one ounce and a quarter of shot; that for the muzzle-loaders, two and three-quarter drachms of powder, and an ounce and a quarter of shot. The question will be asked why were both not charged alike? and the answer is, because the advocates for breech-loaders well knew the loss of power caused by the enlarged breech end would require a larger quantity of powder; yet, with this advantage, the result was a verdict in favour of the muzzle-loaders of nearly two to one. I quote from the Field. The aggregate number of pellets in the targets from breech-loaders was 170, the penetration 19. The aggregate number of pellets put in by the muzzle-loaders was 231, the penetration 48; and this was effected with a quarter of a drachm of powder less.

Few will doubt that this must be the inevitable result. Force cannot be expended and retained: we "cannot eat our cake and have it." If force is destroyed by friction, it is as useless as if it had never been generated. So much, then, for the shooting qualities of the breech-loader.

And now comes the question, of much more importance than the shooting qualities of these guns: namely, can all this force -30 per cent., in fact, of the whole charge be thrown away with no worse result than the mere wasting of the powder? Is there no change taking place in the barrel of the gun every time it is discharged? Iron and its combinations are as certainly limited in their duration as is human life itself. Every bar of iron is capable only of resisting a certain amount of pressure; every successive strain on its fibres deteriorating it more rapidly; and whether it be the mainspring of the lock, or a gun-barrel itself, a certain number of strains will destroy it. This being the case, how much more rapidly must a breech-loader be destroyed where 30 per cent. of the charge is always "absorbed" on the sides of the barrel in the cavity alone. This a lengthened experiment will prove; though the fact is so self-evident, that no experiment is required to demonstrate it.

Caution in gunnery is absolutely necessary under the most favourable circumstances, and disregard of perfection in the construction of a gun is quite unpardonable; then what shall be said of that member of society who, with all those facts before him, can say to his customers, I advise you to have a breech-loader: they are really good guns? In what estimation such a tradesman must be held I will not venture to say. Much more might fairly be said against these guns, but I sum up the whole in the following damnatory sentence: Breech-loaders do not shoot nearly so well, and are not half so safe, as muzzle-loading guns.

It is said, and truly, that a breech-loader can be charged more rapidly than a muzzle-loader; but I hold this to be no advantage, for this reason: all guns can be loaded more quickly than they are fired, and the tendency of all barrels to absorb heat, puts a limit to rapidity of firing; indeed, after ten rapid shots with each barrel, both guns would be about on an equality. Another question is, can breech-loaders be used longer than muzzle-loading guns, without cleaning? My opinion is, they cannot. At the trial already spoken of, after twenty-two shots had been fired from the breech-loaders, the cartridge-cases had to be extracted from the barrels with a hook, and in several cases it was necessary to cut them out with a knife; whilst a muzzle-loading gun without friction would have gone on to a hundred shots without being wiped out. There are few plans or presumed improvements which have not some redeeming points; but in the case of breech-loading fire-arms it is quite a task to find even a resemblance to one. All the advocates for breech-loaders whom I have ever met with yield, with this acknowledgment: I must admit that I never liked them; but so many gentlemen are asking for them that I was compelled to make them, to keep my customers. This is, no doubt, the truth; but it is calculated to lead to serious calamities: for it was apparent to hundreds, at the Cremorne trials, that even the best and newest breech-loading guns permitted an escape of gas at the breech to an extent that I never thought possible; and if this occurs in new guns, what will happen after a single season's shooting, should any one be found sufficiently reckless to use a breech-loader so long?

No fear need be entertained that the use of breech-loaders will become general; manufactures on false principles soon show themselves worthless, however pertinaciously they may be puffed off. The number of accidents arising from the use of breech-loading fire-arms has not been very great as yet; though I have already heard of several very serious cases, from the use of well-made guns: let us consider what would be result if the workmanship was inferior?

There is one other point to which I may briefly allude before dismissing the breech-loader to the "tomb of all the Capulets." The majority of guns on this principle merely abut against a false breech; and, from the fact of there being no connection either by hook or by cohesion, the explosion causes a separation between the barrel and the breech to an extent which would scarcely be credited. This may, however, be satisfactorily demonstrated by binding a small string of gutta percha round the joint, when after explosion the string will be found to have fallen in between the barrel and the breech; thus showing that the muzzle droops in the act of being discharged, which must must materially influence the correctness of fire.

The recoil of an ordinary 12-bore gun, loaded at the muzzle, varies from forty to forty-eight pounds, seldom exceeding the latter; that of a breech-loader varies from sixty-eight to seventy-six! And this quite independently of the enormous force which is exerted on the sides of these enlarged breech guns. The shoulder left in the barrel, too, is a formidable barrier for the charge to pass by; and, in doing this, the circle of shot in immediate contact with the barrel becomes disfigured and misshaped, so as to insure its flight only to a very short distance. In the muzzle-loader an average of 180 shots strike a target of two feet six inches diameter; but breech-loaders of the same calibre will rarely put in 120 shots; showing a clear loss of 60 pellets. This is due to the enormous jamming they have undergone in passing from the greater to the lesser area of the barrel. It is said that the paper of the cartridge fills up this enlargement; but any one who knows what the force of gunpowder is, must also know that paper intervening between the charge and the sides of the barrel would be condensed at the moment of explosion to one-fourth its original thickness.

Excellent post Stephen... William Greener (senior) had such a contempt for pin-fire breech-loaders that to think he would actually put his name on one of them, especially since he didn't speak to his son over the issue for 10 years, would be historically and sociologically and familially interesting.

Since you have obviously have a lot more up your sleeve, this will be an interesting look. I've always regarded William Greener as the curmudgeon of the old-guard...JC Reilly would be included in that crowd.

Sorry, no gun pictures today, just some random thoughts on a rainy day, prompted by William Greener's anti-pinfire opinions.

Of value in understanding the transition between the muzzle-loader and the breech-loader are the views of prominent sportsmen, and how these views changed over time. Thankfully several noted sportsmen put down their thoughts in print (nowadays we would call them "influencers," if my understanding of modern lingo is correct). One such person was Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Hawker (1786-1853), diarist, author, sportsman, and long-time friend of Joe Manton. Hawker served with the 14th Light Dragoons under the Duke of Wellington during the Peninsular War, resigning his commission after having been wounded at the Battle of Talavera in 1809. Hawker first published his influential "Instructions to young sportsmen in all that relates to guns and shooting" in 1814. In the 9th edition of the book (published in 1844) Hawker stated that breech-loaders were "a horrid ancient invention, revived by foreign makers, that is dangerous in the extreme." Presumably he was referring to the original Casimir Lefaucheux guns that first appeared in France in 1835, and his experiences with Napoleon's finest probably impacted his opinion of all things French!

In its 11th edition (published in 1859, six years after Joseph Lang's pinfire arrived on the shooting scene), Hawker was equivocal on the subject, noting "breech-loaders have come very considerably into fashion, and are still on their trial; for although their superiority over the muzzle-loader is asserted by some, it is denied by others equally competent to form an opinion; it is, therefore, not intended to advise sportsmen either to discard the old system or to adopt the new one too hastily." The fact that breech-loaders were being built by British gunmakers probably tempered his views.

Peter Hawker (engraving by H. Adlard of a sketch by Alfred Edward Chalon)

Peter Hawker (mounted) with Joe Manton (engraving by H. Adlard of a sketch by J. Childe)


The 11th edition, with its far more conciliatory tone, also provides us with an interesting perspective on the availability and desirability of breech-loading guns at that time. Hawker first described the three main breech-loading systems available at the time, namely the pinfire, the base-fire, and the needle-fire:

"It may be as well to state, that in addition to the principle of breech-loading, the various methods of applying it, merit particular attention, as they are very dissimilar; some being simple, easy in use, and effective in practice, others more complicated and therefore more liable to derangement. Lang, Lancaster, and Needham construct these breech-loaders: the first of the three, combines in its plan, simplicity with efficiency; the second evinces considerable ingenuity in contrivance, and although it seems to work well, in much use it may be subject to get out of order; the third is the most complicated of the three, and has an ugly appearance."

Concerning the pinfire, Hawker saw safety in loading as the main advantage of the breech-loader, writing that the gun:

"...is an adaptation of the principle introduced many years since in France; its appearance and simplicity are equally in its favour; no contrivance can be more easily worked or better answer its purpose, and efficiency is combined with security and the liability to accident consequent on ramming down the muzzle-loader is completely obviated; in fact, you obtain rapidity in loading and firing, without risk. There can be no difference of opinion as to the importance of getting rid of a cause by which many persons yearly suffer serious injury to the hand..."

The rate of fire possible with a breech-loader was of little value to Hawker, as he wrote: "...the advantages arising from firing an additional number of shots may be questioned, as the present system is quite fast enough relatively to the amount of game on many moors and other shooting grounds." The idea of driven shooting had only begun to be possible with the use of breech-loaders, so it is not surprising that the ability to fire several shots to each one from a muzzle-loader was not yet seen as an advantage.

Hawker described the Lang gun and its use in detail:

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

Little is said by Hawker on the Lancaster base-fire and the Needham needle-fire, though he noted the safety advantage of easily knowing when the pin-fire gun is loaded, by the exposed pins of the cartridges. In the space of 15 years, Hawker's opinion changed dramatically from denouncing breech-loaders as horrid, foreign and dangerous, to writing about the breech-loading gun in very favourable terms:

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

The main criticism of the pin-fire at the time was over shooting performance, with the belief that the muzzle-loader shot "harder" (see the earlier post on William Greener's assertions). For Hawker, the safety advantages outweighed these concerns, as he wrote:

"The principal objection to the breech-loader urged by its opponents is, that it does not shoot so strong, even when allowed a quarter of a drachm of powder extra. But even admitting the present inferiority of the breech-loader in this respect, it is one so trifling in degree, that it ought to have but little influence when so many weighty considerations preponderate in its favour."

The improvement that finally made the performance of the pin-fire equal or superior to any muzzle-loader was not in the gun design, but in the cartridge -- with the development of the turn-over or rolled-over closure. Again there is uncertainty over who came up with the idea first, or whether the solution was independently arrived at by several inventors. For example, the Parisian inventor Benjamin Houllier is said to have patented a turn-over for his cartridge in 1857, though it is usually the Norwich gunmaker George Jeffries who is credited for his invention in 1859 of a simple tool to roll over the edges of the cartridge's cardboard body over the top wad, which was later perfected in 1861 by James Purdey. The shot charge in a cartridge with a rolled-over top would remain in the cartridge a fraction of a second longer once the powder was ignited, letting the pressure build up to a higher level behind the shot charge, and allowing the full powder load to burn efficiently. This increase in internal pressures drove the charge harder and provided better patterns, finally overcoming the complaint of weak-shooting breech-loaders.

Cartridges are not my area of research, so perhaps AaronN and others can help us with more precise cartridge development timelines?

The cartridge and it's development, the timeline - I'm interested in seeing whatever our friends here can show.

I'd found this rifle, and I was surprised when I had cast the chambers. Very little clearance for case walls.



I'd contacted the maker to ask about some things, including the chambers and the Purdey mentality on cartridge case design from the time of the rifle's construction. Details from my learning venture are seen in this thread

I hope someone here has more to add to the story.

Tinker, that is an incredibly interesting line on your Purdey pin-fire rifle.

Argo, it's a honey.
I'm fortunate to have found it.

That's for sure. Beautiful rifle!

Tinker, aren't you glad you picked up that Purdey when you did? It is so easy to pass on a special gun, and wait for another to come along.

In my early collecting days I tried to only add guns that would add knowledge to the collection, either with actions and patents I hadn't seen before, or examples that marked milestones in the evolution of the breech-loader. It meant passing on guns that duplicated or were too similar to what I already had. While it kept me to spending only slightly more than what I could afford, I had not yet realized a Great Truth: every pinfire adds something, even if it isn't immediately obvious. That mistake cost me several guns I dearly would like to own now, as I realize I'll never see another.

Today's gun is an example of a 'typical' pinfire I might have passed up in the past, but is in reality quite a rare gun, while still being 'ordinary' in pinfire terms (i.e. a ubiquitous Jones-type double screw grip). I am much obliged to the very kind gentleman who recently decided to part with it!

In the mid 1860s there were over 500 gunmaking firms operating in the Gun Quarter of Birmingham (an area north of the city centre bounded by Steelhouse Lane, Shadwell Street and Loveday Street). Most are names unremembered today, yet their workshops built the guns the more famous firms got the credit for. When not filling orders for such firms, they could put up sporting guns under their own name, and increase the recognition of their work. But it is worth remembering the annual output of sporting guns from any maker would have been small, in the tens of guns, not hundreds or thousands as with the sought-after military contracts.

George B. Allen established his business in 1828 as a lock maker, furniture forger and filer, and from 1838 advertised himself as a gunmaker. In 1848 he was recorded as occupying 15 Weaman Row, St Mary's Square, in Birmingham. Thomas Birkett had a lock making business at 31 1/2 Whittall Street, having begun in 1855. In 1864 George Allen retired or died, and Henry Allen (presumably his son or a relative) went into partnership (as a junior partner) with Thomas Birkett, trading as Birkett & Allen, from 15 Weaman Row. In 1866 Thomas Birkett left the partnership to open up as a lock and action maker at 2 Whittall Street, and Henry Allen continued to run the business, but under his name alone. In 1880 Henry Allen appears to have closed shop, and Thomas Birkett continued his business until 1894.

Today's gun is marked Birkett & Allen, so this alone dates the gun between 1864 and 1866. It is a 12-bore double-bite screw grip rotary-underlever pinfire sporting gun, with no serial number. The top rib is signed "Birkett & Allen St. Mary's Square Birmingham", and the back-action locks are signed "Birkett & Allen". The 30 1/8" damascus barrels have London proofs. Both hammers have tips as stylized cap guards, and the sharp-eyed amongst you will have noticed that the right hammer is a replacement, possibly a period one. The gun has an elongated top strap, and bold foliate scroll engraving. While the owner had his initials added to the silver stock escutcheon, these are now too worn to be read, and the owner remains unknown. On the face of it, this is a standard quality mid-1860s pinfire game gun made by skilled -- but not famous -- hands. The actioning work and the locks may have been done by Thomas Birkett, no need to hire outworkers when this work is your speciality! The gun was probably never in royal company at any of the great shooting estates of the day, but it is nicely decorated and it was certainly someone's pride and joy.

As to how many sporting guns Thomas Birkett and Henry Allen may have built together in their two or so years of operation one can only guess, but it will have been a small number, hardly worth the effort of numbering. How likely is it to come across another Birkett & Allen pinfire? Not very.

Yes I am Steve.
I always have my eyes open for something similar, and as the years go by I see very few functional and available guns or rifles.

Let's see if any of our fellow enthusiasts can add some more fine detail to the timeline of the design and development of this cartridge type.

I'd still like to hear more from anyone on that cartridge percussion gun I showed earlier in this thread.

It's always great to learn more about these things.

Tinker, the pictures of you machine-milling and shaping those cartridges were worth the price of admission...(oh wait...it was free). Wish Miller were here to notice your use of tools...excellent post. The cartridge guys really need to take a look...and that's the next area that I really need to get up on in that incredibly fluid era of UK gunmaking 1856-1866. AaronN should be commenting soon.

And Steve, your collection and knowledge continues to astound.