|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
1 members (SKB),
251
guests, and
8
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,518
Posts545,703
Members14,419
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
If a specific post was interesting or useful to you, we recommend that you Like that post. It tells the post author, and others, that you found the information valuable. Clicking Like is another way to let others know that you enjoy it without leaving a comment.
Log in to join the conversation and Like this content.
|
|
|
mc (Nov 20th 2021), LeFusil (Nov 19th 2021) |
Total Likes: 2 |
|
Re: E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers
#606509
Nov 19th a 06:02 PM
|
by Geo. Newbern |
Geo. Newbern |
I don't know whether E.M. Reilly was a maker or a merchant. My first British double was a Reilly boxlock I acquired from for sale ad here back in the '90's. I inquired here at the time and the prevailing wisdom seemed to be that Reilly wasn't a maker. Our friend Gene has done a yeoman's task of investigation and has been kind enough to share his work with all of us. While I appreciate his work, I cannot yet agree with is conclusion which is counter to the historic opinion on Reilly. I think E.M. Reilly was for his time the epidemy of the tradition of the British gun trade as a multi-layered combination of outworker craftsmen and sales companies whose names appeared on the guns of the period. With, of course a few actual manufacturers whose names and bonafides have traditionally been accepted in the business...Geo
|
|
|
|
|