I would like to address two points, one by Dustin and one by George. And this is meant to be a conversation, not a confrontation. We're all trying to advance the knowledge of UK gunmakers.

1) Re Dustin's point, "How was it possible for Reilly to make" so many different type guns?"

. . .A. The idea for an answer came from the judge in the 1893 Westley-Richards vs Perks patent infringement lawsuit. The judge, commenting on the ejector, essentially said, "Any competent gunsmith could make it."

. . .B. And that's the point. Simply put, presumably once a competent gunmaker had a template and the measurements for a patented gun or action or other system and made one gun under license, making additional guns should not be difficult. For instance W-R rifles were made in the 1860's under license by many gunmakers. There is nothing inherently difficult about producing a range of weapons if you have the tools and measurements on hand.

. . .C. Reilly was not tooling up a factory for a run of 10,000 guns, He was making from 8 to 12 serial numbered guns a week on average and these were certainly mostly hand-made.

. . .D. In addition, I reviewed the extant Reilly's from 1858-1866, one of the most dynamic period of British gunmaking. I can identify 8 types of long guns he serial numbered (see p. 57):
-- Single and double-barrel percussion sporting guns and rifles
-- Enfield rifle muskets
-- Jacob patent SxS muzzle loader rifles (no extant copies but mentioned in ads and articles)
-- Terry patent breech loader rifles (no extant copies but mentioned in ads and articles)
-- Prince patent breech loading rifles
-- Green patent breech loading rifles (exclusive manufacturing rights)
-- Snider-Enfield breech loading rifles
-- SxS and single barrel center-break pin-fires - rifles and shotguns. Center-fire examples just eek into this time period.

This is not much different what what any other gunmaker in London was making. And to clarify, the Green Bros Patent and the Snider were essentially Enfield muskets with a breech screwed onto the barrel.

So I don't believe Dustin's assertion is valid.

2). Re George's mention of "historic opinion" on Reilly. I am curious about when this opinion was promulgated and by whom? I can find no mention of Reilly being a retailer anywhere in the British press from 1828 to 1912. And no mention afterwards until possibly the 1980's. On the contrary the record is rife with calling him a gun maker and this done by very credible witnesses. So, is the "historic opinion" really historic? Is it accurate? (The IGC history of Reilly from 2002 also mentioned that he made guns; I don't visit the site after some unpleasantness). If anyone can find an early reference to the term "retailer" applied to Reilly, would much appreciate your posting it here.

Dustin knows a heck of a lot about English guns and I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge. And, we've conversed enough for me to know I am not going to change his mind. That's fine. However, I would like to add that in looking at every existing detail on the Reilly company over 90 years of existence, the conclusion is unmistakable - that he had to be making his own guns - the facts cannot be folded, spindled and mashed to come to any other conclusion. So I'm unlikely to change mine.

Whatever I've done my best on this research. If it's not acceptable to some, that's life. I'll continue to look into the topic. More information always turns up.

Last edited by Argo44; 11/28/21 07:46 AM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch