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

Sorry, no gun pictures today, just some random thoughts on a rainy day, prompted by William Greener's anti-pinfire opinions.

Of value in understanding the transition between the muzzle-loader and the breech-loader are the views of prominent sportsmen, and how these views changed over time. Thankfully several noted sportsmen put down their thoughts in print (nowadays we would call them "influencers," if my understanding of modern lingo is correct). One such person was Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Hawker (1786-1853), diarist, author, sportsman, and long-time friend of Joe Manton. Hawker served with the 14th Light Dragoons under the Duke of Wellington during the Peninsular War, resigning his commission after having been wounded at the Battle of Talavera in 1809. Hawker first published his influential "Instructions to young sportsmen in all that relates to guns and shooting" in 1814. In the 9th edition of the book (published in 1844) Hawker stated that breech-loaders were "a horrid ancient invention, revived by foreign makers, that is dangerous in the extreme." Presumably he was referring to the original Casimir Lefaucheux guns that first appeared in France in 1835, and his experiences with Napoleon's finest probably impacted his opinion of all things French!

In its 11th edition (published in 1859, six years after Joseph Lang's pinfire arrived on the shooting scene), Hawker was equivocal on the subject, noting "breech-loaders have come very considerably into fashion, and are still on their trial; for although their superiority over the muzzle-loader is asserted by some, it is denied by others equally competent to form an opinion; it is, therefore, not intended to advise sportsmen either to discard the old system or to adopt the new one too hastily." The fact that breech-loaders were being built by British gunmakers probably tempered his views.

Peter Hawker (engraving by H. Adlard of a sketch by Alfred Edward Chalon)

Peter Hawker (mounted) with Joe Manton (engraving by H. Adlard of a sketch by J. Childe)


The 11th edition, with its far more conciliatory tone, also provides us with an interesting perspective on the availability and desirability of breech-loading guns at that time. Hawker first described the three main breech-loading systems available at the time, namely the pinfire, the base-fire, and the needle-fire:

"It may be as well to state, that in addition to the principle of breech-loading, the various methods of applying it, merit particular attention, as they are very dissimilar; some being simple, easy in use, and effective in practice, others more complicated and therefore more liable to derangement. Lang, Lancaster, and Needham construct these breech-loaders: the first of the three, combines in its plan, simplicity with efficiency; the second evinces considerable ingenuity in contrivance, and although it seems to work well, in much use it may be subject to get out of order; the third is the most complicated of the three, and has an ugly appearance."

Concerning the pinfire, Hawker saw safety in loading as the main advantage of the breech-loader, writing that the gun:

"...is an adaptation of the principle introduced many years since in France; its appearance and simplicity are equally in its favour; no contrivance can be more easily worked or better answer its purpose, and efficiency is combined with security and the liability to accident consequent on ramming down the muzzle-loader is completely obviated; in fact, you obtain rapidity in loading and firing, without risk. There can be no difference of opinion as to the importance of getting rid of a cause by which many persons yearly suffer serious injury to the hand..."

The rate of fire possible with a breech-loader was of little value to Hawker, as he wrote: "...the advantages arising from firing an additional number of shots may be questioned, as the present system is quite fast enough relatively to the amount of game on many moors and other shooting grounds." The idea of driven shooting had only begun to be possible with the use of breech-loaders, so it is not surprising that the ability to fire several shots to each one from a muzzle-loader was not yet seen as an advantage.

Hawker described the Lang gun and its use in detail:

"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."

Little is said by Hawker on the Lancaster base-fire and the Needham needle-fire, though he noted the safety advantage of easily knowing when the pin-fire gun is loaded, by the exposed pins of the cartridges. In the space of 15 years, Hawker's opinion changed dramatically from denouncing breech-loaders as horrid, foreign and dangerous, 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."

The main criticism of the pin-fire at the time was over shooting performance, with the belief that the muzzle-loader shot "harder" (see the earlier post on William Greener's assertions). For Hawker, the safety advantages outweighed these concerns, as he wrote:

"The principal objection to the breech-loader urged by its opponents is, that it does not shoot so strong, even when allowed a quarter of a drachm of powder extra. But even admitting the present inferiority of the breech-loader in this respect, it is one so trifling in degree, that it ought to have but little influence when so many weighty considerations preponderate in its favour."

The improvement that finally made the performance of the pin-fire equal or superior to any muzzle-loader was not in the gun design, but in the cartridge -- with the development of the turn-over or rolled-over closure. Again there is uncertainty over who came up with the idea first, or whether the solution was independently arrived at by several inventors. For example, the Parisian inventor Benjamin Houllier is said to have patented a turn-over for his cartridge in 1857, though it is usually the Norwich gunmaker George Jeffries who is credited for his invention in 1859 of a simple tool to roll over the edges of the cartridge's cardboard body over the top wad, which was later perfected in 1861 by James Purdey. The shot charge in a cartridge with a rolled-over top would remain in the cartridge a fraction of a second longer once the powder was ignited, letting the pressure build up to a higher level behind the shot charge, and allowing the full powder load to burn efficiently. This increase in internal pressures drove the charge harder and provided better patterns, finally overcoming the complaint of weak-shooting breech-loaders.

Cartridges are not my area of research, so perhaps AaronN and others can help us with more precise cartridge development timelines?