Hey Frank, Let me summarize this line and where we're at in a sort of argument, counter-argument style.

1). Hypothesis: Reilly made guns in London for 90 years; Any gun with a Reilly SN was made by him.
-- During the 19th century, Reilly guns were mentioned in dozens of articles, were used by champion pigeon shooters and well known explorers and big-game hunters, were given as gifts to foreign dignitaries by the British Royal family, were given to royalty abroad.
-- He was active in all the London shooting circles, sold thousands of guns, and serial numbered some 33 thousand of them.
-- He published where he made the guns, let people who were buying them look at the progress of his gun.
-- He had manufacturing rights to Green Brothers patent breech loaders and Complain breech loaders.
Not once in all that time period, in the whole 19th century, did anyone in England ever say he did not make his own guns.

2). Counter: Nope Reilly didn't make any guns at all: Where did the story that he did not build guns come from? As close as I can figure it originated in the late 20th century and has since been repeated over and over again until it became "truth" or "established knowledge' or "urban legend" or maybe "old wives tale." Perhaps it originated with the Riggs-"Reilly's" which decidedly were not Reilly's and were built in Birmingham? Here is the evidence usually cited for Reilly not making guns:
...a) No one ever wrote about visiting his workshops.
...b) There are no photos of the workshops.
...c) His guns look like Scott, or Westley Richards, or Purdey, or H&H or something.
...d) No one can name a person or a foreman who worked for Reilly.
...e) He had no gun patents other than patents for shells.
...f) He had to have had extensive testing facilities and shooting ranges.

Here are some refutations to para 2 above: Starting with our own respected LeFusil, who has written that he has proof Reilly made muzzle loaders and pin fires.

3) History: The same "experts" who have maintained Reilly did not make guns, also have published widely repeated "histories" of the firm." Our own respected LeFusil in a post on Reilly repeated the mantra that Reilly closed rue Scribe in 1872. Where did Lefusil hear that? These histories have been decisively proven in the above line to be wrong. There is an entire post above which replays various versions of Reilly history put out by Brown, written by highly respected authors such as Terry Weiland, and others including very well known auction houses. No-one here has challenged the above re-write of the history of the Reilly company. So, the "experts" can be wrong about the history of Reilly but they have to be right about his making guns?

4) SN Chronology: The above has recreated a chronology of Reilly Serial Numbers. So far no-one has challenged the date chart of serial numbers I've put together. If anyone wants to do so, please post your objections...this can only benefit the research.

5) Serial Number and Non-serial numbered Reilly's: As detailed above he made and sold both serial numbered and non-serial numbered guns with his name on them. I'm referring to long guns, not pistols though early on he made pistols as well. It is a fact detailed above that there is not one Reilly serial numbered gun with a Birmingham proof. There are Reilly long guns with Birmingham proofs - no serial number.

5). Patents: The fact that Reilly took out no gun patents is a non-starter as an argument he didn't make guns. He made guns under license using others patents.

6). Employees: Reilly was an important company in the 1850's-80's. EM himself told the 1881 census taker he employed 300 persons. The "experts" have tried to explain this away - they have tried to bend that statement to mean - "he must be referring to all the people he might have employed had he actually made guns." That is a "let's put the toothpaste back in the tube" sort of statement trying to square it with the original précis that he didn't make his own guns. The Employment records are lost. Only a couple of persons can be identified; but there is on-going research on the subject.

7). Workshops: Outside photos of his two large buildings at 16 New Oxford Street and 277 Oxford Street have been posted above. The photos clearly show they had more than enough size to house extensive workshops. Search for other photos are on-going. But the fact interior photos of the workshop can't be found doesn't mean the workshop didn't exist. Reilly sold thousands of guns. Yet there is not one photo of his retail sales stores.... So the retail sales stores didn't exist either?

8) Testing facilities: Reilly had two ranges, a 300 yard range outside of London and a 50 yard range at 277 Oxford Street. These ranges were so well publicized that if they didn't exist, one of the newspapers or magazines such as "Field" would have commented on it.

Nothing in the above empirically proves Reilly made his own guns; nothing in the counter-argument can establish that he did not. But if you look at the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, you'll have to say that until proven otherwise, a serial numbered Reilly was made by the Reilly firm in London.

Here's what I'll be doing to further research this:
-- I'll be looking at census records from 1840-80 in the Oxford street area to see if someone might have identified his employer as "Reilly." The citizens were only required to give their occupation.
-- I've detailed the problem with the 1912 bankruptcy records. I will look further. I'll also search journals and newspapers for possible sales of gun making equipment in 1898 when he closed 16 New Oxford Street and in 1903 when he down-sized from 277 Oxford Street.
-- And I'll continue to look for photos of the Oxford Street area and of those two buildings in particular.

Now I feel it's time for those who have doubts about anything that has been published in this line, or that is written in the "New History" above, to put them in print here and let's discuss it, and how the doubts can be resolved. I would particularly like to hear from the UK knowledgable posters - Reilly was a London gun making company and this is UK history. As I mentioned in the New History of Reilly....I feel at this point I can defend ever word written. There is still a lot of work to do. But what it clear is that what was written about Reilly over the past 50 years - has now been shown to be erroneous.

Last edited by Argo44; 01/26/19 09:38 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch