doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com VGJ Stephen Nash article - Field trials of 1858

Stephen wrote this article for the Vintage Gun Journal (Diggory). It is excellent. He has looked deeply into the origin of pin-fires in the UK. I delved a bit into this as well in the Reilly history. This article is certainly authoritative and lays out the issues for all to read without having to wade through dozens of accounts in "The Field" and other British publications of the era.

https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/how-conclusive-

Enjoyed reading it, Gene. Thanks.

What a great article. I really enjoyed that!

🙋‍♂️

I'm not sure readers take in the turning point this trial was for the development of center-break shotguns. We all assume that once the Lefaucheux gun (and the Berringer) were shown at the Crystal Palace fair in 1851 that voila, people flocked to the new design, and that was history. Well, no it wasn't. As Reilly made clear in his December 1857 letter to "The Field" the break-action gun was regarded as a French novelty.

By the time of the trial though the "French crutch gun" was posing a serious threat to the muzzle-loading fraternity and the trial itself put the nail in the coffin even though muzzle-loaders "won."

By fall 1858 the "Field" was holding Greener senior to account for his prejudice.





This is on the Reilly line but is worth repeating; Here is the text of the December 1857 letter Reilly had published in "The Field."



Commentary on the letter:

. . . . .-- Reilly began looking at French and Belgian breech loaders as early as 1847.

This system differs from other novelties inasmuch as it has been extant about a quarter of a century and it has been in operation in some sporting circles these twenty years.

Some of the arguments which the opponents of the breech-loading system bring forward against its soundness and stability might have been received ten or fifteen years ago, when the originality of the design and curious simplicity of the construction rather took us by surprise. It had not then been so undoubtedly proved, as by the long experience we have had since in extensive and constant use, that the solid flat false breech which the breech ends of the barrels close against is as sound, as durable, and for all purposes of resistance of the charge, as secure and perfect as a breech permanently screwed into the tubes themselves; and they undergo the same proof as muzzle-loaders.

Estimating their powers by the French and Belgian guns that have passed through out hands many years ago, we thought they would be covert guns for short distances; but it soon became apparent with superior workmanship and finer qualities of metal for the barrels, that extraordinary shooting powers might be achieved with the breech-loader;

. . . . .-- Reilly apparently invested in machinery to manufacture the guns and he seemed to have an intimate familiarity with the manufacturing process (though the article was basically couched as a counter-point to anti-breech-loader diatribes - in particular safety, durability, power).

All the patents have long ago fallen in; anybody who does not object to the expense of the necessary tools and machinery, and who can teach his workmen, may set to work and make these guns. The great facts of safety and durability have been fully established by the wear and tear of a long period than a good fowling piece is generally supposed to continue serviceable in hard shooting; and the breech-loader, which requires less care in cleaning, etc., exhibits less appearance of deterioration than the capper cap-gun after the same length of time in hard wear.

. . . . .-- The breech-loaders were originally bought by UK shooters and something of a novelty; It subsequentlyt came as a surprise how easy they were to shoot, clean and how reliable they were:

Until quite recently purchases were made from sheer curiousity, in the most disbelieving spirit as to their utility, but admitting the ingenuity and apparent goodness of this workmanship. The desire was to possess something new, taking its merits upon trust; and it has often been, with no less surprise than gratification that all doubts were dispelled, and the new gun found to be more agreeable to use and possessed of greater power than those on the old plan.

. . . . .-- Reilly did not have a high opinion of some of the guns imported into UK from Belgium and France at the time.

The only objections worth of any notice that have been adduced are those imperfections known to exist in the very worst specimens – the cheap Belgian and French guns, many of which kill very well, and last a fair time, inferior as they may be.

There have been good grounds for prejudices for it has has been badly made, though richly ornamented and, in fact has not been properly understood by the manufacturers until of late years

. . . . .-- He had a belief that the chamber should not end abruptly at the cartridge end and should be beveled.

Very few of the barrels for breech-loaders actually made in this country have been chambered with an abrupt termination, or shoulder, to meet the inner end of the cartridge-case; almost every one has been eased off at a moderate angle.

. . . . .-- He seemed to believe that in late 1857 a lot of barrels used in UK breech loaders were imported from Belgium.

Very few of the barrels for breech-loaders actually made in this country

. . . . .-- He thought the British cartridge industry to be lazy.

Moreover, there has been until recently considerable difficulty about obtaining an ample supply of cartridge-cases, and no one knows better than myself the persuasion it required to induce our apathetic English to undertake their manufacture

Really good stuff, Argo. Thanks