The evidence is overwhelming to you. You want this to be true so badly that its making your research and opinions extremely biased. 300 people employed by Reilly....possibly a huge number of those for the retail? Think big department store, like Herrods. No frickin way Reilly employed 300 people making guns, swords, knives and pistols, and not a one of them went out on their own, not one of them carried the prestigious title of lead gunmaker, lead barrel maker, lead finisher, lead actioner, Head of iron monger shop, etc. Not one of those 300 employees went anywhere else to build guns and ply their craft??? No one struck out on their own and used Reillys name to establish themselves????? No one was ever apprenticed at Reillys???Think Henry Atkin, Beesley, etc. gunmakers like them apprenticed and worked for firms before striking out on their own. Its well documented. What, Reillys was the exception????? No.
Not one of those 300 wrote an article detailing the in house gunmaking that was supposedly taking place?
Every bit of evidence you provide of their gunmaking pre dates the breech loader and the Golden Age of gunmaking in England.
I do maintain that Reilly didnt have the capabilities (expertise, materials, facilities, machinery, etc) to build complete ground up guns in the late 1870s to until the went belly up, nothing is out there that proves otherwise.
Why is it you never hear of an old gunmaker talking about some Bloke at Reillys who was the inspiration for their work? Because the werent there. Thats why.
Again...if Reilly had the capabilities to produce as many weapons as you claim....they wouldve been used to arm her and his majestys armies in the Great War, the boer war, etc. Yet......they didnt receive a single significant government contract to produce anything of value. Hollands, Purdeys , and a myriad of other secured contracts to produce all sorts of wartime implements. Weird isnt it.