Oh, to have been around London in the 1850s and experience first-hand the technological advances and geopolitics of that time...

Fortunately we do have limited contemporary information sources to chronicle these events, and the guns themselves add to the ever-building narrative. Argo44, you've recently added really good information on this early period, and the published adverts and case labels are very informative.

Reilly was definitely prominent in the very early adoption of the French breech-loader, with Joseph Lang and John Blanch. Reilly was one of the very few London makers to enter their pinfire guns in the Field trials of 1858 and 1859, but all three were building pinfires before that. The earliest British pinfires (pre-1860) all appear to follow the design of Lang's first offering (1852-53?), with a single-bite attachment and forward-facing underlever, and often fairly thin fences and short action bars. Lang's pattern also included a assisted-opening stud rising from the action bar, though this feature was never patented. Not the mechanically strongest of designs, but good enough for the times. The New Zealand example of a Reilly of this type is a joy to look at. While not clear from the photos, I would bet it has a single-bite attachment, and from its characteristics I would certainly date it from the 1850s. I can just about make out the Lang assisted-opening stud on the top edge of the picture showing the serial number on the action bar.

I am fortunate to have obtained three single-bite, forward-underlever pinfire guns, very much like the New Zealand Reilly: a Barnett of London, a John Blissett of London, and a Hugh Snowie of Inverness. For the sake of keeping this thread focussed on Reilly guns, I won't post pictures here.

Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Hawker, esteemed author of Instructions to young sportsmen in all that relates to guns and shooting, stated in its 9th edition (1844) that breech-loaders were "a horrid ancient invention, revived by foreign makers, that is dangerous in the extreme”. By the publication of the 11th edition fifteen years later (1859), Hawker’s opinion changed dramatically from denouncing breech-loaders 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.”

Hawker had nice things to say about Lang’s design:

“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.”

The first British pinfire guns were also being admired in France. The Exposition Universelle des produits de l'Agriculture, de l'Industrie et des Beaux-Arts de Paris 1855 was an international exhibition held on the Champs-Élysées in Paris from 15 May to 15 November 1855, to rival the Great Exhibition of 1851. Over five million visitors examined the objects on display. The “military arts” portion included exhibits of guns from French and foreign makers. Joseph Lang earned a First Class medal for his exhibit (No. 851), which included his pinfire gun, which was noted for the quality of its workmanship. It was also remarked, in 1856, that all French gunmakers were building Lefaucheux-type pinfire guns at this time. (Reference: Anon., 1856. Exposition Universelle de 1855, Rapports du jury mixte international, Tome II. Imprimerie Impériale, Paris.)

At some point in the 1850s an improvement to the Lefaucheux design was made by the Parisian gunmaker Beatus Béringer, who reversed the placement of the breech-fastening lever to over the trigger guard loop (to what we call the lever-over-guard). Whether London gunmakers copied this or came up with it themselves, is a matter of speculation. What is clear is that rearward-lever, single-bite guns were being made, which didn't infringe Henry Jones' 1859 patent for an interrupted-screw, double-bite attachment, with the lever over the trigger guard.

Of this type of action I have a Charles F. Niebour of Uxbridge, a Harris Holland of London, a William Moore & Co. of London, and the Joseph Lang. The Niebour was actioned by E.C. Hodges, and with Uxbridge at the time being on the outskirts, it might be considered a London gun.

So, mid- to late- 1850s perhaps all British pinfires have the forward-facing underlever and single-bite actions. At some point in the 1850s single-bite rearward-facing underlevers started to appear in British guns, continuing to be made using this pattern into the early 1860s. I used to think that the single-bite underlever design stopped being made when the better Jones design was available, but I have a Lang pinfire on this pattern that, according to the order book, was made in 1867.

When the Jones patent lapsed in 1862, a strong and simplified design was within every maker's reach, and the majority of pinfire guns I've come across use this fastening method (and date from after 1862). This might mark the point that Birmingham really got involved in a big way making pin-fire guns and actions. Guns not using the Jones design tended to be by makers pushing proprietary inert designs, such as J.D. Dougall's Lockfast, and later in the 1860s the proprietary snap-actions by the likes of William Powell, Cogswell & Harrison, Westley Richards, Thomas Horsley, J.V. Needham, Parker Field & Sons etc. Whether they made their actions entirely in-house or had them made in the Birmingham gun quarter is another subject for speculation.

When did Birmingham start making patent-free Jones-type guns? That's easy to answer. But when did Birmingham start making pinfire guns? That is much harder to nail down. There was likely not very much demand prior to 1860, though two Birmingham makers entered pin-fire guns in the Field trial of 1858 (Moore & Harris, Christopher Penrhyn Aston) and one in the Trial of 1859 (Eliot). As to provincial pinfire makers entered in the trials (Edwin Ladmore of Hereford, William Egan of Bradford, Philip Hast of Colchester), I have not been able to find out anything about the guns they entered. I am guessing that all of the British-made pinfires entered in the trials (except one) were single-bite guns with forward-facing underlevers, as nothing was remarked about there being differences between them. The Reilly gun pictured in Walsh's ('Stonehenge') book confirms it was the single-bite kind.

Argo44, in your post of 25 October, you wrote: "When did Reilly change from primarily using the Lefaucheux system? It's pretty obvious that it was right after the Jones (a Birmingham gunsmith) under-lever "double-bite" system was patented in September 1859. The above book published in early 1860 shows a sketch of a Reilly using the Jones under-lever system. SN 11469 dated to April 1860 is another example. Reilly the businessman always jumped on the most sale-able system." I would just point out that the Reilly gun in the advertisement appears to be a single-bite gun, so not of the Jones type. Do you know if Reilly gun No. 11469 has a single-bite action? It could well be that Reilly made rearward-lever single-bite guns (as other London makers were doing) in the late 1850s before switching to Jones-type double-bite actions post-1862.

I can't help but finish my ramblings by commenting on the original Lefaucheux gun exhibited in London in 1851. It had a double-bite, interrupted-screw action, a stronger design than the first British copy. The Jones patent of 1859 basically reverted to the original configuration.

Many years ago I passed on a Reilly pinfire with the ring-tipped underlever, because the condition was poor. This was before I realized that all pinfire guns have value in telling some aspect of the story. Stupid me.

Keep up the research!