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

As a point of reference, from my Reilly database- SN 10655, under-lever Lefaucheux style break-action shot gun with detachable fore-arm. SN would date it to March 1858. (See the Reilly line - sorry, it's the only database I have):
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=436538&page=36

Lovely gun, I always enjoy seeing a forward-underlever. March 1858 is very early! Fantastic.

Hmmm. I'm now wondering if I've misunderstood the subject of royal warrants all along. Argo44's latest addition to his Reilly thread (https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=436538&page=50) brings up the matter of whether a maker who sold their wares to a member of the/a royal family could correctly describe themselves as "Maker to His Highness Etc Etc Etc", as one sees printed on gun case labels or inscribed on gun ribs. I'm now wondering if this is a separate matter than that of royal warrants of appointment, which gives the holder the official right to state "By appointment to HRH Etc Etc Etc" in their advertising and literature. I've long assumed this was one and the same, but now I question this assumption, as this latter phrase was, to my knowledge, not used by any British gunmakers in the 1850s and 1860s, yet it was in use in British commerce well before then. And what justifies the use of the term "Maker to..."? One gun? Several? It is not like these are perishable items, or goods that are constantly replenished!

I've not been able to track down a list of royal warrants officially issued in the mid-Victorian period against which a list of gunmakers associated with royal patronage could be compared. About 2,000 royal warrants were granted to a wide variety of tradesmen during the long reign of Queen Victoria. Such a list could help determine whether gunmakers had to have official recognition from the Lord Chamberlain in order to claim royal patronage, or if simply selling a gun to a member of the royal household was enough to claim "Maker to..." without the grant of a formal Warrant of Royal Appointment.

Gunmakers with royal connections I know about include:

- Joseph Lang, gunmaker to His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia
- Parker, Field & Sons, gunmaker to Her Majesty Queen Victoria
- George Fuller, gunmaker to HRH The Prince Consort (Albert)
- James Dalziel Dougall, Gun and Rifle Manufacturer to the Prince of Wales (1872)
- William Greener, gunmaker to HRH The Prince Consort (Albert) (1848)
- James Erskine, gunmaker to Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (elder brother of Albert)
- Edward Paton, gunmaker to HRH The Prince Consort (Albert)
- Charles Moore, gunmaker to King William IV (1836)
- Samuel & Charles Smith, gunmakers to King William IV (1835-1837)
- Edward Charles Reilly, "gun-maker to the Royal Family," as per newspaper advertisements (1863), found by Argo44




It would appear that Albert fancied the guns of several makers, and from photographs the Prince of Wales enjoyed guns by Westley Richards. Some of the names mentioned above earned their accolade prior to the pinfire period, or shortly afterwards. If anyone has additional information as to royal patronage in the 1850s-1860s, official or otherwise, I would like to hear about it, please post what you know.

There`s a little bit of info on Wikipedia about the history of UK warrant appointments.Hth.

Stephen - a suggestion: Don't go into this "royal warrant" thing on this line. It's a rabbit warren and will dilute the excellence and concentration on the history of pin-fires, which you have so ably been documenting. - let's make a separate line.

Example:
Reilly 1884 label.
--By special appointment to his majesty the king of Portugal;
--By letters patent to the King of The Netherlands;
--Special Appointment to the King of Spain:


And you could add the dozens of advertisements for Reilly highlighting from 1868 - 1870 - by "Gunmaker to Napoleon III" such as this 1869 ad (Fournisseurs Brevets):


These gun makers were "carpet-merchants" - businessmen. In the modern world they'd have the logo "organic" all over their merchandise. For instance, what's the difference between "Special Appointment to" and "by Letters Patent" (Fournisseurs Brevets)?

That said, the question of how a UK Royal Warrant was issued is interesting. Why was Reilly excluded? I'm wondering about religion. But we'll leave that to the Reilly research. You have done a fantastic job here on pin-fires - and all of us want to see more.

Trying to pin down details of royal warrants and patronage is exhausting, and I suppose in the end it was an element of marketing. To me, that a royal patron would choose a provincial maker as opposed to an established London name, is by far the more interesting point. Would price be a consideration? Though the pinfire game gun was a plaything of the rich and well-to-do to start with, a 10- or 20-guinea or more savings made by choosing a provincial maker versus a London name, for a "best" quality gun, might be significant to a large proportion of one's potential clientele, considering how frequently competitive prices were trumpeted in the advertising of even the most prestigious firms. However it is hard to imagine the higher echelons of royalty worrying about such things -- but perhaps human nature is human nature.

The subject of small-town gunmakers is part of the pinfire story. Most of these probably sold Birmingham-made guns brought in in-the-white or as finished pieces, though some might have built significant parts, according to their skills and apprenticeship experiences. A small-town maker could be creative, inventive, and a builder of high-quality guns, should the right commission come along. As covered with the Edward Paton gun, a local maker could obtain royal partronage and develop a reputation amongst the nobility, British and foreign. Today's gun is from another Scottish maker that fits this description, James Erskine.

James Erskine was born in 1812 near Newton Stewart, in Scotland. He may have apprenticed with Edward or Jeremiah Patrick, before working for a while as a gun finisher for Williams & Powell of Liverpool. James returned to Newton Stewart and opened his business at 61 Victoria Street, though the exact date is not known. James was an exhibitor at the Great Exhibition in 1851, and was awarded a Bronze Medal for a muzzle-loading shotgun with recessed hammers. In 1859 he obtained a patent (No. 1703) for a slide-and-drop breech loading action. He entered at least one gun in the Field Gun Trials of 1866, and received "the highest award" for superior construction. In 1866 he obtained another patent (No. 1585) for a drop-down barrel action. Soon after 1866 James Erskine was appointed Gun Maker to Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (the elder brother of Albert, Queen Victoria's consort), and to an Austrian prince. So, not exactly your typical small-town gunsmith. James Erskine died in 1891.

The gun is not one of James Erskine's patent actions, but a standard 12-bore rotary-underlever double-bite screw grip pinfire sporting gun, no serial number, made sometime in the mid-1860s. The top rib is signed "J. Erskine Newton Stewart," and the bar locks are signed "J. Erskine." The 29 1/16" damascus barrels have a London provisional proof mark only, with no definitive proofs, and no bore stamp. The barrel maker's initials "T.B." could be those of Thomas Barnsley or Thomas Bowen. The action bar is also lacking the usual proofs. However, it is a good quality gun made with attention to detail and styling, with a sculptured action body, flat-sided sculptured hammers, fluted fences, and a well-figured stock with heel and toe plates. As is often the case with guns of this period, it is all about the unnecessary details -- I really like the dimple in the action to accept the raised edge of the fore-end iron when the gun is opened. While most makers leave the trigger guard plain, or with a raised edge or clip to locate the under-lever, Erskine raised both sides to create a channel to center the under-lever, a style I had not encountered before. Also, the trigger plate screw and surrounding is nicely engraved, even though it would be hidden by the closed lever. Detail.

I wish I knew more about the history of this gun, and the reasons why it escaped normal proofing. This is a gun that has seen hard use and the bores are pitted, and it weighs 7 lb 4 oz.

To follow up on the Erskine gun, there is a reason that Newton Stewart is not widely known -- it was, and still is, a very small town. The population in 1861 was 2535, the year the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway opened a railway station at Newton Stewart (in 2011 the population was 4092, and the railway station was closed in 1965). Despite its size and remoteness, its gunmaker, James Erskine, established a good reputation, and the quality of the gun pictured previously is the equal of anything that came out of London. The lack of proofs suggests the gun was built in Newton Stewart, and not Birmingham or elsewhere. I don't know how widespread the practice of selling guns with partial proofs was, I've not encountered any other. Here is 61 Victoria street in a recent Google Street View capture:


(image capture: 2016 - 2020 Google)

Another reason Newton Stewart was on the map was again due to Erskine, with his patent cartridge loading machine. of 1887 (Patent no. 4294), which arrived too late for the pinfire (photo from the Internet). CORRECTION: Erskine did produce a cartridge loading machine for pinfire cartridges.



In the period during which a British maker might have built a pinfire breech-loader, @1853-1870, I've compiled a list of 922 gunmakers who were in business at some point during this period, excluding those who advertised themselves as "rifle and pistol makers only." I don't expect all of them built or sold pinfires, some might have kept on making muzzle-loaders through the 1850s and closed shop when demand for them disappeared. Also, many gunmaking businesses did not last very long, and few guns would have been sold. Of the names on the list, 400 are from Birmingham and London, and 522 provincial makers. Of the provincial makers, 353 names are from towns that had two or more gunmakers, and there were 162 towns that had but a single gunmaker during any or all of the pinfire period. It is not surprising that most on the latter list are obscure names today, but a few, such as James Erskine, Edward Paton, and John Perrins of Worcester, are remembered for the fine quality of their guns.

I was wondering when you would get to Erskine!

Erskine definitely made his loading machines for pinfire. I have one and know of others. His patent on them only shows the pinfire variation in fact.

His multiple patents on the guns were for pinfire too.


I recently bought the Erskine patents and will scan them in and post them to my website in the next day or two.


Full Size

Edit: The 1887 Erskine patent was for a different type of machine, not the one you pictured. I didn't buy that patent as it did not have to do with pinfire. Here is the "Abridgments of Specifications" for it.

Wonderful, AaronN, especially the 1866 patent for the earlier pinfire loading machine. Thanks for the clarification regarding the pictured machine. I've never actually seen one up close.

I would have liked to have found one of Erskine's patent guns, but the Erskine I acquired is the only one I've ever come across. A handsome gun from a great maker.

One detail I forgot to point out is the "swelling" at the tail end of the trigger guard bow, which is not commonly encountered, and which appears to exist only to balance the visual profile of the gun, matching the thickness of the underlever. If it has any other purpose, I'm not aware of it...

More provincial makers to follow soon.

Great stuff you guys. What an educational and entertaining line. Can't wait for more.