doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com 2 Patent questions - Boxlock & Martini Action

So I wonder if Reilly was paying the royalty for the A&D APUN to R.E. Couchman?? If so, you might chase that rabbit?

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

For what it's worth, I have a Chas Daly pretty closely dated with help from this group to 1885-1891. It is stamped with an A&D patent license mark.

What might be that number?


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

A question for the Collective:

Was the APUN applied to any ole block of steel or was the frame, parts kit/Gesteck, sourced from the holder of the Patent?

With that in mind, I assume the same station where one paid the royalty for the APUN, the same station, or satellite stamping station, applied the APUN?

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Presumably gunsmiths could make a patent themselves under license, pay the royalties and stamp the royalty number. Or the patent device could be bought from the patent holder in complete order. I was looking at early Westley-Richards made boxlocks and they did not stamp a patent use number on their own guns, just the A&D patent. Some makers insisted on requiring a look at their patents made under license by other gunmakers; others seem to have sold blocs of numbers. This is a rabbit hole I've gone down before and there is no easy answer.

However, it is documented that the Henry rifling patent was extended by Parliament in 1874 for four years. Likewise the Whitworth compressed fluid steel patent was extended for 5 years in 1879.


I can't explain 1888 Reilly's with A&D patent use numbers in the 6-7000 range, and the two 1991 guns with patent use numbers in the 11-12,000 range unless Parliament extended the patent. If this were done, there will be a record.
left - 32769 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .right 32974


I asked Diggory and he really didn't address the issue completely, stating that actions could have been stamped with a patent use number, then stockpiled/not used for several years. However, if this were the case for the two Reilly 1891 gun, the numbers would have been in the 7000 range.

Given the readiness of Westley Richards to litigate all the way up to the House of Lords to protect the A&D patent I think that we can take it that they paid the requisite fees to extend their patent for as long as possible.

Unlike the unfortunate Mr. Jones who died in poverty because he couldn’t afford to!

Except for Harrington and Richardson, and later W C Scott, and maybe Webley and Scott, Westley Richards required the complete or almost complete gun made by others to have the guns brought to Westley Richards for inspection of WR patents. I assume WR applied it's number to the gun being inspected . If so, each maker using a patent would not have his own patent use numbering system.

Most interesting tid-bit of info. So with that, I would hazard a guess that Lindner sent his frame over to Francotte in Liége to the Francotte Satellite Stamping Station??

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

I have no guess on where Continental guns got their A and D stamps. In fact, was a use number often found on Continental guns ? Maybe not part of this conversation, but I have often wondered about the side safety and crossbolts on Continental guns, seemingly related to Greener designs.

It had to be with Francotte. There wasn't in Suhl because there just weren't enough followers of the A&D Body Action whilst the patent protection period was still in place. Almost all the Suhl makers were trying to devise a better mousetrap but when the patent protection period expired, Sauer and others modified it & made it their staple platform.

I just don't know on the Greener Safety, which was most prevalent on Drillings.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse