doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com What is this?

That gun wouldve cost just a little bit more than a standard colonial grade from another maker. I would think of the Lancaster colonial grade in the same way you would a WR "gold name ". Very high quality gun, without a couple of expensive features such as ejectors and engraving. If you notice that the Lancaster has a patent block safety, which is a type of intercepting sear, definitely a feature found on higher quality English guns. Not many colonial grade Brit guns were built with that feature. For reference, these body action Lancasters were built on Beeselys patent #425 of 1884, the safety is covered by patent # 14,488 also of 1884. Both types of guns, body action and SLE are covered under the same patent. Another patent, #7242 of 1894 was an improvement on the action by changing the design of the cocking dogs, etc. Also, the "body action" Lancaster is not a A&D box lock. Completely different animal.
The cost of the gun? Prices on the body action started at �35 and went up from there, the SLE started at around �50.

Rocketman . I would guess it was the current model and just becuase people lived out in the wilds did not mean that they did not want the "most up to date" designs . Please do not forget that many of these guns would have been bought in London by Army Officers as well as people traveling to the Colonies to settle ,work , vist or explore/hunt . They were not just guns that were exported for sale in those countries.

Thanks, all.

gunman, can you offer up a better name than "colonial/farmer grade" to designate the bottom end of Brit gun production (BLNE with plain wood, minimal engraving, no "bells and whistles," minimum hours on finish and checkering)?

DDA

Wasn't it what was known as "keeper's gun"?


Sort of an OT, but

I guess, if Jeeves had his way (and he would), his gun would have very modest finish, but in all shooting essentials (weight, balance, design, fit) it would be a 'best' and not cheap at all

I have been under the impression that a "keeper's gun" would vary with the wealth, generosity, and need to show such at the time the gun was ordered. Also, I was under the impression that the keeper's gun was usually/often ordered from "me Lord's" usual maker. I suppose it did/could have happened any way you care to imagine it happening. Maybe I should just go ahead and call it "Bottom 'o the heap" = OQ9. Or, does "Colonial/farmer grade" = OQ9 hit the mark in a high enough percentage of the time that we can overlook the times it doesn't??

DDA

Don, I think a "keeper's gun" might have been ordered FROM the estate owner's usual maker, but not likely BY that maker, if it was someone like Purdey or Boss. But I expect they certainly could have ordered in a basic boxlock made "in the trade" for a good customer--on which they would not have put their name. Then again, maybe it didn't work that way and the noble had to go elsewhere to find a keeper's gun.

I've seen quite a few Colonial grade Lancasters and all were of the self opening type. Quite undervalued across here. Hard to close though as the spring is quite strong.

Certainly Thomas Bland sold a 'Keeper's' gun as did Midland Gun. Plain they were but poorly constructed they certainly were not. Good sound and honest but without frills. Lagopus.....

So, Lagopus, is a "keeper's gun" as I described above? Or, is it something else and there is a lower grade. Remember, we are speaking of guns of Brit make. I know there are plenty of non-Brit made guns of truly inferior quality.

DDA

The thing is, I feel, that the designations of lower-end Brit guns doesn't always reflect the people who actually bought these guns. As is the common knowledge, ever since George III (?), only the well-to-do could hunt legally. And if one could afford paying 4 pounds a year for a shooting license, one could also afford a pretty decent gun, at about at least 20 to 40 pound range (allowing 4 pounds over 5 or 10 years). However, reading any period book on shooting gives you the feeling that poaching was widespread and almost anyone in Brit countryside had a gun, and of course these weren't the 'best' type or even close. It would be embarrassing for the trade to admit they were supplying poachers, so they probably had to make believe the low-end guns were for the keepers, or for the colonies, or for export in general (Greener calls these 'export grade' guns, if I'm not mistaken).

Another thing is that apparently, any traveler before WW1 had to pay full custom duties on guns he had on him. Temporary import permits were not yet invented. The duties were very high, often 50% of the cost of guns (from Modern Sporting Gunnery, by Henry Sharp, 1906), and a fellow visiting numerous counties could save quite a few pennies by making his guns look cheap and claiming less value.