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

Excellent Stephen and that is a classic slim-line beauty and a historic gun now in good hands. It's amazing how much of the center-break technology started out in France. It's my understanding that Daw's patent 203 from 1861 was a centerfire concept originated by Pottet in France. Pottet's patent for center-fire shells was broken by Eley in 1865 which began the downfall of the pinfire.

Purdey historian Nicholas Harlow was queried about the records of royalty payments for patent 1104 in connection with the Reilly line. The history and the books for Purdey from that time frame, are, according to him, literally "locked up." I don't quite know what that means but am wondering if there is a legal dispute of some sort.

As for the Purdey thumbhole snap release. . .the last extant Reilly so equipped in the database was SN 19951 ...1875.
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/13598/lot/12/


One assumes that as soon as a superior technology appears, everyone will adopt it. Not so. Choke boring popularized by Greener in 1875 wasn't ubiquitous until the 1880's; ejectors not till the 1890's (and to this day do you really need them?).

Purdey historian Dr. Nicholas Harlow read this line and sent a message on the Purdey patent records clarifying the matter:

(The) surviving Private Account ledgers, which record the transactions of the family, are in ledgers which are locked by a clasp across the open side of the book, similar to those young girls’ diaries of old. Unfortunately I do not currently have the correct key to access them, and so hence why I described them as ‘locked up’. It is an issue for a locksmith, rather than a lawyer, thankfully!

Hopefully these records contain information on patent use payments which might really help in understanding elements of gun history.

An interesting account, Gene. One can only hope that the information on royalty payments and arrangements might see the light of day.

Guns evolve. We don’t see it much now, as the major mechanical advances behind most popular guns have been around for some time. Just in popular autoloading guns, the gas, inertia and recoil systems have been around for 79, 123 and 125 years respectively. The ‘classic’ double-barreled central-fire hinge-action gun appeared 170 years ago, an advance over the first pin-fire cartridge guns that first saw daylight in France some 190 years in the past. Over/under shotguns are more recent, but have nevertheless been a thing for 114 years now. Inventions, though, never occur in a straight line, as the first central-fire cartridge was developed 215 years ago, and the first hammerless action was designed for it four years later (though shooters did not like giving up their hammers, and it was to be another 60 years before the hammerless idea came back). The only major shotgun advance that has occurred within my lifetime is removable chokes, which have been around for 64 years (though I’ve managed to avoid them so far).

Within these larger developments, there were smaller ones, and there probably wasn’t a single invention or feature big or small that did not meet with opposition. Today’s gun is an example of engineering creativity to increase the speed of loading and re-loading, though it is hard to imagine a time when the shotgun feature of being able to operate an action and close barrels quickly was ‘new,’ and not necessarily appreciated by all. While some viewed the effective use of a breech-loader in a positive light, this opinion was not necessarily shared. James Dalziel Dougall, in his 1857 book Shooting Simplified: A Concise Treatise On Guns And Shooting, did not consider speed desirable:

It is this word, "quickness," on which the whole question hinges. Is this great quickness desirable in sporting as well as in war? And is it quite an improvement to deprive the pursuit of game of those little rests, while loading, to men and dogs, which preserve their strength throughout the day, and add a zest from the incidental conversation during these pauses? In grouse and partridge shooting can the dogs be so handled, after firing and killing, as to render the quickness in loading advisable? Were extermination of game the purpose of the sportsman, the use of a gun which can be loaded in a few seconds would certainly be a desideratum.

In the 22 January 1859 issue of the weekly sporting newspaper The Field, one correspondent argued against the breech-loader for its excessive efficiency, with ‘sport’ and ‘fair play’ giving way to ‘slaughter,’ and ‘a murderous day’s work.’ The muzzle-loader, he argued, was enough, the breech-loader being far too deadly. To the proponent of the ‘battue,’ or driven shoot, speed of loading and re-loading was a definite plus, and any means to simplify or quicken the process was advantageous. The appearance of snap-action breech-loaders in 1861-1862 would have been seen by some as essential for a battue, while to others it presaged the death knell of game numbers. The quickest snap-actions incorporated self half-cocking features, as the rebounding lock was still distant in the future. One such action is that of Joseph Needham of Birmingham, one of several famous inventors with that family name, and whose history is intertwined with that of the breech-loader. Near the beginning of this thread, I pictured a Needham snap-action game gun by John Blissett. It should not be confused with a very similar action by Joseph Smith, which has a different locking mechanism, also pictured earlier in the thread.

William Needham (b. 1800) and Joseph Needham (b. 1813) of Birmingham were related, though the relationship is not clear. Both were gunmakers. William began his business around 1830, and in 1845 William moved to London where he opened at 26 Piccadilly under the name William Needham & Co.; from 1849 to 1851 the firm was renamed William Needham. In 1851 Joseph joined the business and the name was changed to William & Joseph Needham. In the same year, at the Great Exhibition in London, William and Joseph displayed a version of needle-fire gun after the design of Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse. Joseph Needham patented his ‘hammerless’ needle-fire lock in 1852. Needham’s needle-fire guns proved to be popular, though from their complicated nature they were only produced as ‘best’ guns, and correspondingly expensive. Pictures of a Needham needle-fire are also covered earlier in this thread.

In 1853, the name of the London business was changed to Joseph Needham & Co. Around 1858, Needham granted John Rigby of Dublin a licence to manufacture his needle-fire gun, and Rigby apparently built 102 guns and rifles on this design between 1858 and 1864, before the needle-fire was replaced entirely by the pin-fire and central-fire systems; Rigby may have made more examples of the needle-fire gun than Needham himself. However, by the early 1860s the pin-fire gun was predominant amongst the early breech-loaders, and George Daw’s snap-action central-fire gun had also appeared on the scene.

On 22 May 1862 Joseph registered patent No 1544 covering several mechanisms for pin- and central-fire guns, including a rotating-bolt single-bite snap action, with a side lever acting directly on a transverse spindle behind the action face. On the spindle was a lug that engaged a slot in the barrel lump, and the mechanism also incorporated an automatic half-cocking mechanism, as the spindle lifted the hammers; the central-fire version also retracted the firing pins. The Needham side-lever was used by London, Birmingham, and regional makers such as the earlier-mentioned Blissett, Harris Holland, Westley Richards, John Rigby, Charles Ingram and others, and Needham of course produced guns under his own name. A fair few have survived, perhaps owing to the high quality of their manufacture.

Here is a particularly fine example of a pin-fire game gun, a 12-bore Needham patent action signed John Rigby & Co. of London and Dublin, number 13192. It has the Needham patent with transverse spindle, sidelever-opening and self half-cocking action, and it was made around 1868-1869. It is likely the gun was built for an Irish client, as the barrels and action are lacking proofs (though the double-R Rigby trademark is present); had the gun been destined for the London showroom it would have had to have been submitted to the London or Birmingham proof house, to comply with the Gun Barrel Proof Act. The 27 ¾” fine damascus barrels are marked “John Rigby & Co. Dublin & London” in Gothic script, and the bar-in-wood design incorporates a non-detachable fore-end, this latter feature being different from other Needham actions I’ve seen and handled. The bores are moderately pitted, but otherwise, the gun is in fine shape. It is one of the most beautiful bar-in-wood guns I’ve ever come across, and its original wealthy owner, who I’ve not yet been able to trace, would have been very proud of it. I am most indebted to two fine gentlemen, readers of this thread, who helped me acquire this exquisite gun.




The exact origins of the Rigby gun-making line are unclear. There have been claims the business was started in Dublin in 1735, though the recognized date is when John Rigby founded his business in 1775, first at 14 College Green, Dublin, moving later to Suffolk Street. John died in 1818, and his sons, William Rigby and John Jason Rigby continued the business, re-naming the firm Wm & Jno Rigby; by 1841 it was known as Willian and John Rigby. William died in 1858, and John succeeded to the business, without changing the name. In 1865, the firm opened a showroom at 72 St James's Street, London, and the name of the firm was changed to John Rigby & Co. (still in business today).

Part of the story are the Roper revolving shotguns. These guns , circa 1870 , had a choke that was screwed on to the muzzle . It was many decades before the modern screw in choke came into use. Presumably the screw on choke could be had in different constrictions, although I have never seen a Roper shotgun offered with more than one choke ring.

Fascinating, Daryl. I had to Google that one. So removable chokes aren't so new after all.

That Rigby above is not unlike the the Henry Drew pin-fire pictures I sent you. Lagopus.....

Indeed, Lagopus... It takes a sharp eye to tell the difference between the Needham action and that of Smith, as on your Henry Drew shown here:



Thanks for sharing the picture!

The expertise of this board never ceases to amaze:

Thanks for posting my picture. The gun is in pretty good order with good bores. I'm looking forward to making some cartridges for it in order to test it out. Lagopus.....

An appeal for help. In 1854 or 1855 the then new outdoor magazine "The Field" ran a review of the Lefaucheaux center-break type breech-loader just being offered for sale by Joseph Lang. It including analyses of the gun and detailed drawings. I have searched in vain for this article or articles without success although it is referenced in numerous subsequent letters to the editor, etc. Does anyone know where this article/review can be found? In view of its significance, might it be posted here?