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

I would like to post the text of Reilly's letter to "The Field" published 26 Dec 1857 here because it has a lot to do with the history of pin-fires in UK. The text was sent by "The Field" to Vic Venters...who forwarded it to me. My comments on it can be read on the Reilly line. I'll post the original and then a typewritten version for easier understanding (If "The Field" objects, and I don't anticipate this), I'll delete.




The Breech Loader

Sir, - Your correspondents writing against breech-loaders all show by their own letters how little they really understand the principles upon which these guns are made.

This system differs from other novelties inasmuch as it has been extant about a quarter of a century and it has been in operation in some sporting circles these twenty years. All the patents have long ago fallen in; anybody who does not object to the expense of the necessary tools and machinery, and who can teach his workmen, may set to work and make these guns. The great facts of safety and durability have been fully established by the wear and tear of a long period than a good fowling piece is generally supposed to continue serviceable in hard shooting; and the breech-loader, which requires less care in cleaning, etc., exhibits less appearance of deterioration than the capper cap-gun after the same length of time in hard wear.

The only objections worth of any notice that have been adduced are those imperfections known to exist in the very worst specimens – the cheap Belgian and French guns, many of which kill very well, and last a fair time, inferior as they may be. The objection upon which such stress is laid – the relative sizes of the bore of the barrels, the interior of the cartridge – has had ample consideration ere this; and it does not necessarily follow, if errors have been made in early attempts, that they are to be continued. The point at issue with the few experienced London makers is not simply whether the bore of the barrels should be the same size as the wadding used in loading the cartridges, but as to whether the bore should be a size smaller to fit the wadding still tighter. It is obvious, if the calibre of the barrels be larger, the charge passes through them too freely, and there will not be sufficient friction to give strength to the shooting; on the other hand, by making the gauge of barrels to small, recoil will be increased; and the shooting, though excessively strong, may not be regular and close. The happy medium has to be arrived at; and this may be most effectually done in the trials before finishing, which guns of every construction turned out by any careful maker should be submitted.

Very few of the barrels for breech-loaders actually made in this country have been chambered with an abrupt termination, or shoulder, to meet the inner end of the cartridge-case; almost every one has been eased off at a moderate angle. Cutting or reducing the length of cartridge-cases is a waste of time; it is better to fill up with waddings. When using light charges, a thick felt wad over the powder, and a thin wad over the shot (both ungreased), and the closing tool then used to turn over the edge, the charge will be held sufficiently tight without any gum or cement, if the cartridges are taken out in a proper kind of carrier; but if it is intended to knock them about in the pocket, or if it is likely one may walk about for an hour without getting a shot, the wadding must be fastened in more securely. Nr. 15 (16 and 14) cartridges will only contain 3 or 3 ½ drams if powder and 1 1/4 oz. of shot with thin wads (in fact barely so much; No. 12 loaded with the same quantities, fills up well with a thick felt wadding over the powder. Under any circumstances there is no necessity for cutting cartridges shorter than they are made.

Some of the arguments which the opponents of the breech-loading system bring forward against its soundness and stability might have been received ten or fifteen years ago, when the originality of the design and curious simplicity of the construction rather took us by surprise. It had not then been so undoubtedly proved, as by the long experience we have had since in extensive and constant use, that the solid flat false breech which the breech ends of the barrels close against is as sound, as durable, and for all purposes of resistance of the charge, as secure and perfect as a breech permanently screwed into the tubes themselves; and they undergo the same proof as muzzle-loaders.

The explosion of this charge in the breech does not cause such a severe strain upon the mechanism holding the barrels in position as may at first be supposed; the expansive force finds the point of the least resistance, upon which it unites all its efforts; therefore it is an ounce of shot and the air to be displaced from the barrel, opposed to the whole weight of the piece. No other gun can possibly concentrate so fully all the force of the powder up in its charge of shot, nor so completely in the rifle give the spiral motion to the bullet.

Doubtless the facility with which the barrels can be reloaded, the breech ends held up to view, and a clear sight obtained through the bore, exposing this entire action in a manner so much at variance with previously-conceived ideas, has been and must continue to be a cause of distrust until actual proof and frequent trials reconcile one to these peculiarities. It may require the attestation of intimate friends ocular demonstration in the field and something beyond the recommendations of the manufacturer to carry conviction to the minds of sportsmen, upon a matter without precedent to guide their judgement, and on which they have been left so thoroughly in the dark. Until quite recently purchases were made from sheer curiousity, in the most disbelieving spirit as to their utility, but admitting the ingenuity and apparent goodness of this workmanship. The desire was to possess something new, taking its merits upon trust; and it has often been, with no less surprise than gratification that all doubts were dispelled, and the new gun found to be more agreeable to use and possessed of greater power than those on the old plan.

Practical experience, beyond our most sanguine expectations, gives the palm to these breech-loaders for carrying their shot both close and strong. Estimating their powers by the French and Belgian guns that have passed through out hands many years ago, we thought they would be covert guns for short distances; but it soon became apparent with superior workmanship and finer qualities of metal for the barrels, that extraordinary shooting powers might be achieved with the breech-loader; so that they not only came up to, but surpassed the ordinary fowling-piece, and delivered their shot closer and stronger than any other gun we have ever made. Of testimony to this effect we have abundance, some of which is conveyed to us per letter may be referred to. It is to actual and continued experience we should give our confidence not to vague surmises and unfounded theoretical deductions.

Everything that disturbs existing interests is due to meet with opposition at its early introduction; the difficulties it has to encounter are some proof of its value, should it survive. There must be intrinsic merit and sterling worth in this particular system of breech-loader, otherwise it could never have made good its way under such adverse circumstances as it has had to contend against. There have been good grounds for prejudices for it has has been badly made, though richly ornamented and, in fact has not been properly understood by the manufacturers until of late years... Moreover, there has been until recently considerable difficulty about obtaining an ample supply of cartridge-cases, and no one knows better than myself the persuasion it required to induce our apathetic English to undertake their manufacture, although a model was put into their hands that they had only to follow a pattern without the least exercise of the inventive faculty.

. . New Oxford-street, Dec. 15 . . . . .E.M. Reilly

I'll add my observations on the Reilly letter because I think they are apt....note how early UK gunmakers were looking at pin-fires, how up until about 1857 they were regarded as novelties. how barrels were being imported from Belgium early on, etc.

==============================================================================
E.M. Reilly letter to "the Field" 26 Dec 1857 on Breech Loaders

Vic Venters managed to obtain the E.M Reilly letter to "The Field" on breech loaders published in the 26 December 1857 edition. He obtained this through his contacts at the magazine - but because there may be copyright issues, the entire letter will not be literally posted as yet. However, here are a few comments on the points made in the letter:

. . .1) Reilly began looking at French and Belgian breech loaders as early as 1847 possibly earlier:
"This system differs from other novelties inasmuch as it has been extant about a quarter of a century and it has been in operation in some sporting circles these twenty years."

"Some of the arguments which the opponents of the breech-loading system bring forward against its soundness and stability might have been received ten or fifteen years ago, when the originality of the design and curious simplicity of the construction rather took us by surprise. It had not then been so undoubtedly proved, as by the long experience we have had since in extensive and constant use, that the solid flat false breech which the breech ends of the barrels close against is as sound, as durable, and for all purposes of resistance of the charge, as secure and perfect as a breech permanently screwed into the tubes themselves; and they undergo the same proof as muzzle-loaders."

"Estimating their powers by the French and Belgian guns that have passed through our hands many years ago, we thought they would be covert guns for short distances; but it soon became apparent with superior workmanship and finer qualities of metal for the barrels, that extraordinary shooting powers might be achieved with the breech-loader;"

. . .2) Reilly apparently invested in machinery to manufacture the guns and he seemed to have an intimate familiarity with the manufacturing process (though the article was basically couched as a counter-point to anti-breech-loader diatribes - in particular safety, durability, power).
"All the patents have long ago fallen in; anybody who does not object to the expense of the necessary tools and machinery, and who can teach his workmen, may set to work and make these guns. The great facts of safety and durability have been fully established by the wear and tear of a longer period than a good fowling piece is generally supposed to continue serviceable in hard shooting; and the breech-loader, which requires less care in cleaning, etc., exhibits less appearance of deterioration than the capper cap-gun after the same length of time in hard wear."

. . .3) The breech-loaders were originally bought by UK shooters as something of a novelty; It subsequently came as a surprise how easy they were to shoot, clean and how reliable they were:
"Until quite recently purchases were made from sheer curiousity, in the most disbelieving spirit as to their utility, but admitting the ingenuity and apparent goodness of this workmanship. The desire was to possess something new, taking its merits upon trust; and it has often been, with no less surprise than gratification that all doubts were dispelled, and the new gun found to be more agreeable to use and possessed of greater power than those on the old plan."

Comment: First Extant Reilly pin-fire breech loader is 10054, made probably late summer 1856. There is an extant Reilly breech loader 10354 made in summer 1857. This indicates the E.M. made about 300 guns during this period (J.C. made another 100...see the chart). Probably at most 10% of the 300 made by EM were breech loaders = 30 guns - probably a lot less - 15 guns maybe? The Extant SN Reilly guns are pictured above.

Note: By December 1857
-- Lang had been producing breech loaders for nearly 4 years (estimate maybe 70 guns?)
-- Reilly for 1.5 years (estimate 15 guns?);
-- Blanch for a year (estimate 5 guns?)
-- Haris Holland for 9 or 10 months (5 guns?).
-- The technology was still 3 years away from infiltrating Birmingham.
-- There were a few other gunsmiths making them - Henry Tatham had made a couple per letters to the Field
etc.
In other words there were not that many UK made breech loaders being shot in the country at this time (Dec 1857) - maybe 100? if that many?

. . .4) Reilly did not have a high opinion of some of the guns imported into UK from Belgium and France at the time.
"The only objections worth of any notice that have been adduced are those imperfections known to exist in the very worst specimens – the cheap Belgian and French guns, many of which kill very well, and last a fair time, inferior as they may be."

"There have been good grounds for prejudices for it has has been badly made, though richly ornamented and, in fact has not been properly understood by the manufacturers until of late years"

Comment: There is something odd about the tone of Reilly's comment; i.e. - "Isn't the quality of those ornamental Continental guns awful but they sure do shoot well and should be fine once British quality takes over." i.e. The obligatory nod to British parochialism while supporting the concept and promoting the innovation .

. . .5) He had a belief at the time that the chamber should taper at the cartridge end and should not end "abruptly" at right angles as were found on European breech-loaders.
"Very few of the barrels for breech-loaders actually made in this country have been chambered with an abrupt termination, or shoulder, to meet the inner end of the cartridge-case; almost every one has been eased off at a moderate angle."

Comment: Apparently Lang originally followed the Lefaucheux chambering model touting this as an "advance." UK gunmakers filed off the chamber "shoulders." Lang then claimed he was the origin of this change. Lang apparently had a character that inspired a lot of upset in the UK gunmaking fraternity).

. . .6) He spent a lot of time discussing the wadding of reloads and the fact that cartridges did not need to be cut, etc.

. . .7) He seemed to believe that in late 1857 a lot of barrels used in UK breech loaders were imported from Belgium.
"Very few of the barrels for breech-loaders actually made in this country"

. . .8) He thought the British cartridge industry to be lazy or very conservative.
"Moreover, there has been until recently considerable difficulty about obtaining an ample supply of cartridge-cases, and no one knows better than myself the persuasion it required to induce our apathetic English to undertake their manufacture, although a model was put into their hands that they had only to follow a pattern without the least exercise of the inventive faculty."

Comment: Shortly thereafter Reilly decided to begin manufacturing his own breech loading pin-fire cartridges.

If I get permission from "The Field" I will post the letter. It can be interpreted in several ways - as an advertising brochure, an advertisement for his guns, a promotion for breech-loaders, etc. The fact remains that at the time, no-one in UK challenged the fact that Reilly was making breech-loaders at New Oxford Street.

(A letter to the field in early Jan 1858 in response to Reilly's above letter was published above- reposted below):

Great additions, Gene.

And I’ve just got my hands on a pinfire game gun by Robert Ringer of Norwich. Interestingly, it has the ring-tipped underlever in the style often favoured by E.M Reilly. Pictures will follow soon.

Robert Ringer, Great Orford Street, Norwich; in business there 1868 to 1890. Look forward to seeing it. Lagopus…..

I may as well post this gun from the Reilly line. I believe this may well be the oldest datable extant UK made center-break pin-fire.

==========================================================================================
10054 - Vintage Gun Journal comments

Double gun enthusiasts are passionate about their history. Per posts two pages earlier, Diggory Hadoke forward an advertisement for a Reilly pin-fire SN 10054. It is absolutely the earliest Reilly center-break gun found to date and would date to early fall 1856 per the Reilly chart.


Diggory published the following article in September "Vintage Gun Journal" on the gun:
https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/the-earliest-reilly-breech-loader-

A few comments:
-- The dating of the gun is far more complex than is presented in the article, and is far more precise. Please read the serial number dating chart and go over the p.44 list of extant guns. (I need to move both history and list forward)
-- Mark Crudgington was introduced to me by Diggory, and I have had an on-going conversation with him about Reilly; we disagree on a number of points - he has been extremely helpful on others. Some of the comments he made to me are included in Diggory's article.

10054 is still the Earliest Reilly center-break ever found. It may be in fact the earliest extant UK made center-break pin-fire.

Mark said that he knows of two dated Lang pin-fires from 1854 per the receipts. (Per Lang's own essay we know he began to make them about early 1854). Mark like David Trevallion and Robert Dollimore in New Zealand, are the historical repository of knowledge of gun making from the 1950's - 60's and in Mark's case because of his father Ian Crudgington stretching back to the 1940's. However, over the years I've learned to wait for the physical evidence.

As promised, here is another pinfire to add to the mix, with a feature that so far had eluded me.

Born in 1821, Robert Ringer began making guns under his own name in 1852 in Watton, near Thetford, in the rural county of Norfolk. He appears to have taken over the premises of William Burton, who started the business in 1839. Prior to 1852 Ringer was a journeyman gunmaker in the market town of Swaffham, working for either William Parson or Abigail Sutton. Where he completed his apprenticeship is not recorded, but it may well have been with Burton, Parson, or James Sutton. Ringer must have been successful in Watton, as he was able to open premises in Norwich in 1868, closing the Watton premises shortly afterwards. Around this time he employed one man and one boy, a fairly typical arrangement for a provincial gunmaker.

Norwich is the county town of Norfolk, established as a city in the 10th century, and from the 11th century onwards the second largest city after London. A thriving commercial centre into Victorian times, Norwich was built on the wool and textile trade, and as a gateway to mainland Europe (before the rail line established in 1845, it was said to have been quicker to travel to Amsterdam than to London). The county was also very good shooting country, for partridge, and later for pheasant – many storied shooting estates were located in the county, where by the middle of the 19th century, over a hundred Norfolk families owned estates greater than 2,000 acres in size.

Norwich was therefore a good location for a talented gunmaker, and in 1868 the pinfire game gun still ruled. In that year there were four other Norwich gunmakers in operation, with the best-known being George Jeffries (in business from 1841 to 1899, who had obtained in 1860 patent no. 1900 for a turnover tool which improved the performance of the pinfire cartridge; this invention was overshadowed by James Purdey’s patent no. 302 of 1861, a better turnover tool). The other three Norwich gunmakers, Robert Norton Dale, Robert John Howard, and John Ottway, were short-lived, open only in that year. Like Jeffries, the Ringer business survived until around 1890, and would have turned out percussion guns, pinfires, and centrefires, in due course.

Terry Wieland’s book, Vintage British Shotguns: A Shooting Sportsman Guide, tantalizingly illustrates a beautiful Robert Ringer pinfire, a single-bite underlever 12-bore, made from the Watton address. I say tantalizingly, because the underlever is not fully visible, and I would have liked to see its distal end, to see if it has a ring-shaped knob.

On page 30 of this thread I presented a comparison of 30 rearward underlevers, to show the range of shapes, lengths, decoration styles etc. on pinfire guns, but did not have the elusive ring-tip to include. That shape of knob/finial, as seen on E. M. Reilly’s pinfire of 1859, as shown by Argo44 on the first page of this thread, is unusual. In fact, I have only seen it on Reilly guns (if you have DGJ vol. 15 issue 2, look at page 150; also Reilly’s 1871 advertisement, on page 48 in Argo44’s Reilly thread, or the photo on page 30 of that thread). Not all Reilly underlever guns had this feature, but I don't recall having come across this design on other makers’ guns – until this game gun by Robert Ringer fell into my hands.

It is a 12-bore double-bite screw grip rotary-underlever, serial number 796, signed “Robert Ringer Gt Orford St Norwich” on the top rib. The 30” damascus barrels have London proofs, and the thin fences and lack of a radius between the action bar and the breech face are consistent with an earlier design, as might be found on provincial guns. The Great Orford Street address means its manufacture cannot be earlier than 1868, and a lack of records and surviving Ringer guns makes it difficult to date precisely – but I’m guessing 1868-1869. It is a well-made gun, with signed back-action locks, an elongated top strap, rounded dolphin-headed hammers, good foliate scroll engraving, and a raised clip on the trigger guard bow. The well-figured stock suffered a catastrophic break at one point, and the period repair at the wrist kept it in the shooting field. It is a very trim and slim gun, light for a pinfire 12-bore at 6 lb 13 oz. The stock escutcheon has the letters “LHS” in script, unfortunately not enough to trace its ownership. And it has the enigmatic ring-tipped underlever. I can’t see a purpose for this design feature, it may be just for looks. I had believed the ring-tip was perhaps part of a Reilly house style, but now I’m not so sure. If anyone has an example of this type of underlever on a pinfire game gun by a maker other then Reilly, I would like to hear of it.

Steve asked a question in another line about Reilly's use of "ring" type under-levers. I went back through all the center-break shotguns to the Lefaucheux U-L era. Here is a collage of 46 of them dating from a drawing in late 1859 to SN 18797 in 1874 at the close of the pin-fire era. There is no consistency in what type of under lever, ring or solid fill ring, that Reilly used during this time. Towards the end of the 1870's and on into the 1880's (after this chart) he more often than not used the solid fill rings but there are still ring levers found.




Details on these guns are found on p.44 of the Reilly line - Dated List of Extant Reilly's
1 - 1859 Book Illustration
2 – 11537
3 – SN Unknwn
4 – 12527
5 – 13033
6 – 13081
7 – 13224
8 – 13688
9 – 13816
10- 14115
11- 14469
12- 14983
13- 15285
14- 15129
15- 15255
16- 15255
17- 15283
18- 15318
19- 15625
20- 15964
21- 16015
22- 16139
23- 16257
24- 16341
25- 16442
26- 16585
27- 16720
28- 16768
29- 16808
30- 16810
31- 16830
32- 17204
33- 17244
34- 17261
35- 17391a
36- 17391
37- 17552
38- 17556
39- 17626
40- 18533
41- 18550
42- 18593
43- 18688
44- 18763
45- 18766
46- 18797

Gene, thank you very much for taking the time to put together the collage of Reilly levers. The ring (or torus) tipped under-lever is clearly a common pattern used by Reilly, though not universally. It fascinates me that so much effort went into the lever tips, with convex and concave profiles, rounded and squared, chequered and plain, and the ring tip. They must have all started as rough forgings, before being put to the file, all for a part that is rarely looked at in detail.

As we don’t know the reason some Reilly’s have the ring tip and some don’t, it either comes down to the client or the gunmaker’s preference. I now have an example of another gunmaker using the ring tip, which gives me two avenues to explore — did all Robert Ringer guns have the ring tip, and how many other makers used this decorative feature. One question answered, two more questions emerge...

Steve, there are a couple of other observations from the Reilly Collage (and this is only observations of surviving Reilly's):

-- The last noted Reilly pin-fire is 17566 dated to spring 1872 by my chart. After that...no pin-fires
-- Center-break pin-fires really did not appear to become predominant until 13033 (mid 1863).

Up to that time for Reilly's there was a lot of competition on what would sell. Reilly was also making Enfields, other muzzle loaders, breech loader rifles (Prince patent, Green Patent, etc.). This was in the midst of the bonanza from the War Between the States for UK gunmakers. So Reilly made pin-fires...but from that list of extant guns,1863 was the date they really took over the market - 1872 was the denouement.

(Of course pin fire guns were made by Reilly from 1855...but the above analysis is based on the percentage of the types of surviving guns.)

Certainly the Thomas Bland 'Keeper's' model hammer gun had the ring lever. It was a plain low grade model. I previously owned one but regrettably sold it some years ago. Very plain but it shot well. Lagopus…..