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

That Westley Richards really is in good shape, Daryl, thanks for posting it. I hope readers of this thread will pull out any pinfires lurking in their collections and post pictures and information on them.

Here's the second to last of the snap actions from me, a gun with the S&J Law Patent No 1276 of May 1865, with one of the first snap side-levers. This patent is interesting, as no examples are pictured in Crudgington & Baker's The British Shotgun. However, the real question is whether this gun was from a real gun-making company, or was it just part of a stock swindle...?

With the growing popularity of the pinfire system in Britain in the mid-1860s, a number of new gunmaking firms appeared to fill the demand. One of these was the Breechloading Armoury Company Limited of London, selling guns from their fashionable 4 Pall Mall address for only a short period between 1866 and 1868. One of their guns is shown here, a distinctive twelve-bore game gun with bar-action locks and a slender side-lever to release the breech. The hammers are nicely sculptured, and the thick fences, the radius cut between the action bar and the breech face, and the long action bar are typical features of a later pinfire gun built for improved strength. The top rib is signed "The Breech Loading Armoury Company Limited 4 Pall Mall London", the gun is London proofed, it has 29 5/8" damascus barrels, the bores are fair with moderate pitting, and the gun weights 6 lb 12 oz.

The gun has a high serial number (10244) for a gun produced by a new company that lasted less than three years. This, together with the fact that the firm's name is lacking from the lock plates, suggests that the gun was obtained from an established gunmaker or supplier, with only the company's name added to the top rib. But more on this most peculiar company later.

The very unusual action is a single-bite snap-action worked by a side lever, using part of Stephen and Joseph Law's provisional patent number 2063 of 1865. The original patent belonging to these Wolverhampton gunmakers was for an ingenious design that would release the barrel locking bolt by pulling one of the hammers at half cock. The patent included a pivoting locking bolt whose rounded free end engaged a hook-like barrel lump, with a vertical V-spring applying tension against the bolt. This is the locking system used on this gun, and the action flats are stamped with the inscription "Law Bros Patent." The slender side-lever, when pressed downwards, rotates and disengages the locking bolt. This is slightly different from the patent specification, but it may be that the Law brothers' hammer-release design was too difficult to build or too fragile for heavy use, and was never really implemented. In practice the action works well, though the downward throw required to release the barrels is quite long and, coupled with the fragile build of the lever, one can only speculate as to how many of these levers might have been bent or broken off during a hectic pheasant drive.

Another feature of this particular gun is that it is dual fire, being able to use either pinfire or centrefire cartridges. During the transitional period between the pin-fire and the centre-fire when centre-fire cartridges were still difficult to obtain, some believed such a gun offered the best solution. It appears this gun was built as a dual fire gun, as opposed to being later modified, from the elaborate extractor mechanism. The two-piece strikers appear based on Thomas George Sylven's 1866 patent. Two holes are drilled into the breech face for each barrel, one vertical and one horizontal, meeting inside the breech face. One striker fits in the vertical hole, while the other striker slides in the horizontal hole. The upper striker is retained by a locking screw at the rear of the action, while the horizontal striker is kept in place by a plug fitted flush against the breech face. Upon being struck by the hammer, the first striker moves downwards and its angled tip transfers its energy to the second striker, which moves forward and explodes the cap. Should a pinfire cartridge be inserted instead, the hammer nose would strike the pin and explode the charge before the hammer would reach the centre-fire striker. The gun does not carry Sylven's mark, so it is unclear whether this is Sylven's work, or if this was done by another gunsmith. The centrefire cartridge soon became as readily available as the pin cartridge, and the need for dual-ignition guns disappeared.

The story of the company is quite interesting. It starts with Bertram Calisher and William Terry's capping-breechloader carbine of 1856. It had a very limited service use with the British 18th Hussars from 1859 to 1864, after which the same rifles were re-issued to the Cape Mounted Rifles, until 1870. In addition, some rifles were built by these Birmingham gunmakers for sporting use. In April 1865 Calisher and Terry sold their London and Birmingham premises and patents to a new concern, which was to operate under the name The Breech Loading Armoury Company. The new company was incorporated in May 1865. It aimed to build and market the carbine and other guns, and offered a prospectus to attract investors, making available 6,000 shares at £25 each. The Chairman of the new company was Rear-Admiral Mark John Currie, who had played a significant role in the exploration of Australia and the foundation of the Swan River Colony, later named Western Australia. However, in July 1866 a shareholder took the company to court, accusing it of fraud. While the role or responsibility of the company directors in the matter was never established, the court saw fit to order the winding down of the company in July 1866. In court it was shown that the prospectus shown to investors had a number of gross misstatements -- such as the Calisher & Terry rifles built by the company had been approved and adopted by the government and supplied to the cavalry forces (the British government had only agreed to a trial of the rifles); English, French, American, Austrian and Belgian patents had been obtained (only one English patent had been obtained); several large payments had been made to the company (none had been made); and that 35,000 rifles had been supplied to the Government of New Zealand (which was not the case). Lord Romilly, the judge in the case, stated "I must confess that the statements in the prospectus of this company are beyond anything the worst I have ever met with. The mis-statements are the most wanton I ever saw."

Internet and publication searches tell us that in the short time the company operated, it marketed Calisher & Terry rifles and Beaumont-Adams revolvers which carry the Breechloading Armoury Company name, and, from the example pictured here, at least one sporting gun! While the Terry carbine was a good design, it was never adapted to metallic cartridge use, and was simply superseded by better centre-fire cartridge rifles. The actual maker of the gun pictured here is likely to remain unknown, and if anyone out there has ever seen another Law Bros action, or Breech Loading Armoury Company sporting gun, I'd sure like to hear about it. How a little-used patent appeared on a well-made gun likely built on contract to a company that just retailed the gun is a mystery. Was it a special request? A marketing attempt, to attract clients? Investors? Why use such a little-known patent, when so many others were better, and readily available? The lack of any others turning up makes it impossible to tell.