doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thread Like Summary - A Cameleopard from E. M. Reilly

Gentlemen,

When the Ancient Romans first had the Giraffe described to them they decided that it incorporated features of the Camel and the Leopard and named it the “Cameleopard”.

This evening I present an almost as unusual cross, that probably did not involve the use of a stepladder.

I have mentioned this gun, number 30227 before in Argo44’s Reilly history thread as I was awaiting it from Southams. It was catalogued as “Westley Richards type top lever opening”. I was anticipating that it would be an early Anson and Deeley.

What arrived was intriguingly very different.

The action is the first model of Greener’s Facile Princeps, circa 1881 with a cocking hook attached to the front lump in place of the later sliding stud.

The lever and bolt work is Greener, instead of a Scott spindle.

But instead of the triple locking cross bolt to be expected on a Facile Princeps there is a top extension resembling but not identical to the Westley Richards. It lacks the eccentric double camming arrangement of a true Westley Richards and the sliding top bolt has a relatively short travel.

The original proof marks were mostly expunged when it was sleeved (and it has been restocked) but it is clear that it originally bore London marks. I have taken the stock off and cannot find any hidden makers marks.

On the action flat there is a marking:- G. M. PAT
S. 13


That may have been partly erased, does it mean anything to any of you?

Argo44 dates this in the 1880’s by serial number. As Westley Richards spent the first part of of the decade suing Greener alleging that the Facile Princeps was in breach of their Anson and Deeley patent I cannot imagine that they built it.

Greener seems more likely and could have had it proofed in London.

Unless it was a one-off prototype it would have required some tooling up so there may well be more around.

Has anyone else encountered this combination of features, whether on a Reilly or some other brand?

Happy New Year to All,

Parabola

Thanks John....no blood no foul. At this point with me basically writing my book on the Reilly line...or rather re-writing it and adding a lot more stuff....if someone has questions about a specific Reilly gun, it might be more productive to have a separate line....especially this one which is quite unique.

As I go through Reilly history paragraph by paragraph though, if some historian wants to challenge an interpretation, please do so.

Gene Williams

That is the under bolt. The small piece just above the under bolt is the stud/cam that connects the top lever to the under bolt.

Parabola, very nice gun. Those self acting ejectors are nice, and they work until there is excessive wear or if the the geometry of the sear noses is changed. The old gunsmith rule on these self acting ejector mechanisms is that it’s best not to alter the trigger pulls on these FP actions. They were adjusted and timed at the factory and should remain how they were if possible. The sear nose and tumbler bent are critical in keeping the mechanism in time.
My G-guns do not have the bolt release stud in the action that your gun has. I’m going to post a picture of what the internals on one of these self acting ejector mechanisms looks like. They are actually very simple. There are no separate “cocking dogs” in this action, the tumbler (hammer) and cocking limbs are all one piece. Actually a very simple & very robust action, very few parts, the critical timing of the action being most important to keeping the guns mechanism healthy and working correctly.

1400 km trip though the Sahara and I'm pretty beat. But that is an interesting gun! It is pretty definitively 1889. EM was still alive. Could he have built the whole thing under license? Doubtful but one must ask. The review of the 1885 London Inventions exposition indicate it was possible. Both 16 and 277 workshops were still operational.

And I have to admit Parabola knows a lot more about this action than I ever will!

That early version of the Facile Princeps action is mentioned on page 174 of Graham Greener's book. He describes the FP action as using a hook on the barrel lump or a sliding rod. His description of a hook on the front barrel lump matches the photo you provided. I'm guessing it was built by Greener and merely retailed by Reilly. The action is certainly filed up like Greener work of the period. Greener did use bolted dolls head fasteners like yours, not just the more common crossbolt. The top lever? Who knows. Maybe just tweaking Westley Richards. The patent is listed as 930 of 1880.

Interesting conversations. In the same vein, take a look at this Cogswell-Westley Richards-Greener combo which sold a few days ago.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/924235003

The Cogswell & Harrison pictured by Daryl has a faint "Not for Ball" stamp...and looks to have been originally proofed in London. This would make it 1887 or earlier. (This is not hard and fast... Terry Lubzinski’s side lever 12 bore Reilly has a serial number 303XX - 1889 - but with "Not for Ball.")

Parabola's camelopard is definitively 1889 per the serial number. Close but not so close that a definitive conclusion can be reached.

John, We are addressing Parabola's Reilly. I happen to know a good bit about Reilly so have tried to help.

Re your ungracious comment about the Reilly line, here's the background: I started out just to date the Reilly guns. I found bad history and decided to correct it. I have been continually challenged and accused among other things of "cherry picking" data. So the history is being rewritten with footnotes paragraph by paragraph so that those who hadn't read through all the research could see where the concepts originated. If it doesn't interest you, don't read it.

Now I'd like to address two points which came up on this line.
1) That "Greener might have made the gun and Reilly was merely a retailer." or
2) that Cogswell & Harrison made it (and presumably Reilly retailed it).
My point is this; if Greener could make it, Reilly certainly could and the fact that Reilly is not even being considered as the source of this W-R shows how ingrained non-historical based, oral-legend is within a very conservative fraternity.

I'm not going to fall on my sword to say that after 1880 Reilly didn't finish others' guns. He was above all a businessman and if he decided he couldn't fight Birmingham anymore, he'd join them and make money. But in 1881 he had twice the number of workers as Greener and could make anything Greener could.

Just for information, here are three Reilly Westley-Richards from around the 1889 time period. I've got the information on the various patent use numbers on these guns....they've been posted before and will be again when I finally get up to 1890 in the re-write:

30363 - dated 1889; #1 of a pair. From an internet article:

30364 - dated 1889; #2 of a pair. From and Indian gun board - Norwegian gun; Serial number was matched based on patent use numbers compared with the above gun:

33242 - dated 1893; #2 of pair


If it would help Parabola, I will post the details on these guns.

If it sounded ungracious, my apologies. Just thought Parabola could have added it to the existing discussion. I admire your extensive knowledge and research, Argo. Peace.
JR

Parabola thank you for posting, it is an interesting gun.

Dustin,

Thank you for your kind comments and the very helpful “exploded view” of your lovely G gun.

You are quite right to describe the part as a cocking limb as it is of one piece with the tumbler.

I will carefully avoid tinkering with the works, or any dismantling at all if I can help it. I do plan to try re-browning the tubes without further striking down.

Does your top lever hold open? I thought that the stud I mentioned was necessary to keep the cross-bolt clear of the bottom of the descending top extension.

Gotcha, thanks.

Morning Parabola, RIA is very good at answering questions. I intend to ask them for the address on the rib and can add these questions to my query. I will say that Malcolm King had an excellent collection of Reilly's. All which have come across the block so far have been in very good condition.

Gene Williams

My apologies, I rather naively or stupidly thought you were attempting to add something of value to this interesting topic. Regards

Another gun that shares the Westley Richards top extension/sliding top bolt with the Greener Facile Princeps action. The serial number is in the Greener numbering sequence for 1885, shortly before they started in 1886 at 6001 a separate block for Needham guns that continued until 1941.

It appears that when Greener acquired Needham in 1874 that he moved all the production in house. Whilst some Needham guns bore a Loveday Street address it is the side of the same block as the St. Mary’s works.

I had previously remarked on the similarities of the filing of the top lever on my Reilly to a Needham gun. It seems almost certain that my Reilly was made at the Greener works.

The top levers on all of my FP & G-guns do not hold over if the barrels are removed. The rear of the barrel lump holds the top lever over by putting tension on the under bolt. They are the “typical” type snap actions, typical Greener lever work. I’ve actually never seen the “plunger” on the action flats like that. You can see where AH Fox/Brown etc “borrowed” the idea from though.

I thought it was important to dispel the myth that these Greener self acting ejector actions are extraordinarily complex, etc. Fact of the matter is that there are fewer parts in one of these G or F actions than there are in most pedestrian boxlocks. The magic happens in the fitting of these parts, mostly in the sear angle/bent area. In the US, I believe Kirk Merrington is the only one here that Greeners used to recommend for maintenance (mainly timing issues, trigger pulls etc) on the G action guns.

One would think that the number "13" associated with "G.N. Pat S." should normally be the use number. That's an early use number for an 1889 gun. We just don't know enough about that Patent to hypothesize some reason for this.

I've only one Reilly with a Needham patent and that was for Needham & Hinton patent 706 - intercepting sears on back action (bought by Scott) and was used on a gun with a Scott action. Reilly seemed to prefer Perkes for ejectors. The problem with this of course is that most advertisements just don't list patent use info in them (Toby Barclay being the obvious exception) and that makes the database pretty limited. Never seen another Reilly like this one. Thanks.

Certainly the barrels. Can't say much more than this. E.M. was dead. Both workshops were still open but serial numbered guns decline rapidly. Boxlocks like everyone else likely were made in the white in Birmingham. I've speculated the Reilly company continued to make sidelocks but at this point who knows.

Here are a few Reilly sidelocks made in the 1890's:

I blew it up and played with the contrast and tried to sharpen the image as much as possible. It looks like 813....clearly to these eyes it's an 8 and that would make more sense as a patent use number.




I went down the rabbit-hole pursuing patent use numbers hoping to find 1 maker who was reasonably consistent.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=567037

The 1860 Henry patent 2802 - 7 groove shallow rifling seemed to have the most promise and for the first 5 years or so seemed to be chronological. However when A&T started providing patent use numbers it went haywire.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=568234&page=1

I tried to get Purdey to tell me if they had records on 1863 J. Purdey patent no. 1104 - “double bite” under action bolt....Reilly regularly used that patent up to 1877. Purdey said their records are literally locked up and they cannot access them. So indeed they can't be used to date a gun....unless it is only to identify the last gun before or the first gun after the expiration of the patent in which case it can help with dating.

In my dating chart the last Reilly with a 1104 use number is:
20623 - E.M. Reilly & Co., New Oxford Street, London and Rue Scribe, Paris. 12 bore. Shotgun SxS. U-L, rebounding hammer gun. (Purdey patent 1104 use #3928)
My chart dates that gun to spring 1877 (getting pedantic - possibly late April)...which is certainly a sanity check on the validity of the Reilly Serial Number dating chart since the Purdey patent expired 04 May 1877.

And here are the questions that have never been adequately answered about Patent use numbers:

-- If the owner of a patent made a gun using that same patent, was a patent use number stamped on that gun? For instance are these Greener patent use numbers stamped on Greener made and marketed guns; or are they only used for others who purchase rights to purchase the components or build them under license?

-- If a gun maker built a gun under license using others' patents, assume he paid for the patent use number. And the corollary, how would one know if that gun maker actually made the component himself, or purchased it in the white from the original patent holder?

-- If a gun maker created a gun in the white using patents that were not his - for instance if Scott made a gun in the white for Holland & Holland, but used others' patents (Purdy 1104 for example), who paid for the patent use number and where was it recorded? Scott who built the gun or H&H who finished it?

In the case of this gun apparently it was finished by Reilly but built by Greener (in the white? - probably - because Reilly didn't serial number guns he didn't build; he did serial number guns he finished as did H&H etc.).

Owners of an actual Greener built by Greener and marketed by Greener at this time might note if there is a "G.N.PAT" with a use number stamped on their Greener factory guns. That would at least tell you whether Greener authorized Reilly to build it or sold the components intact.

(813 authorized over say 8 years is not an inconsequential number - 100 a year - so perhaps Greener did put patent-use-numbers on his own guns because Reilly and others were clearly not selling a lot of them).

But one suspects that every firm had its own practices and nothing was industry wide.

Parabola, here are pictures provided by RIA. Gun was made at 16 New Oxford Street, London. You'll see it's a doll's-head extension. RIA did not answer the question about rifling but I assume it is fully rifled.

It has post 1887 London original proof marks. There are two Anson&Deeley patent use numbers - Deeley Patent Ejector use #2363 and the A&D box lock patent use #11096. This is odd. I assume that A&D box lock patent expired in 1889. But here it is a A&D patent use number on a 1991 gun. We've seen this before with Reilly's...barrels using a proof stamp or patent use number after the stamp had changed or the patent expired. Wonder if the barrels were proofed in 1889 and not used on a gun until 20 months later. Reilly did stock barrels to allow him to make faster deliveries. Hope the photos are what you are looking for.

I was wondering about that. T532 is also stamped in large numbers/letters on the barrel flats and that stamp appears to overlay or rather dwarf the original London proofs and the Brum reproof marks. Never seen that on a Reilly before so I assumed it was some sort of local registration number.

Interesting that it might be Transvaal. I was wondering why two Sons in the UK would give their 60 year old father a cannon for his birthday, which really couldn't be used very well in Britain. (Can you imaging using a 12 bore rifle on grouse?) The possible conclusion is this family lived in Africa and since it's 1891, before Brit colonization of Kenya, etc., probably South Africa.

Possible match for the father John Woods and sons John Pattan and Henry Clay? (I've no interest in pursuing this further on genealogy sites since it's not my gun but with the lead to the DOB and two sons' names, it's certainly possible. (John had four children - John, Henry and Maria - fourth not known:
https://www.myheritage.com/names/henry_woods

Henry Clay WOODS, 1858 - 1938 - (connection to Australia)
- Henry Clay WOODS was born on month day 1858, in birth place , to John WOODS and Alice WOODS (born KENNEDY) .
. . .-- John was born on March 26 1831, in Shropshire, England.
. . .-- Alice was born in 1831, in Kilkenny, Donegal, Ireland.
- Henry had 4 siblings: John Patten WOODS and 3 other siblings .
- Henry married Maria WOODS (born HUTCHINSON) on month day 1876, at age 18 in marriage place .
. . .-- Maria was born circa 1856, in Victoria, Australia.
- They had 11 children: William Henry WOODS , John WOODS and 9 other children .
- Henry passed away on month day 1938, at age 80 in death place .
- He was buried in burial place .

John Patton Woods, 1854 - 1935. (connection to Australia)
- John Patton Woods was born on month day 1854, in birth place , to John WOODS and Alice WOODS (born KENNEDY).
. . .-- John was born on March 26 1831, in Shropshire, England.
. . .-- Alice was born in 1831, in Kilkenny, Ireland, United Kingdom.
- John was baptized on month day 1854, in baptism place .
- John had 4 siblings: Maria Russell (born Woods) and 3 other siblings .
- John married Elizabeth Mary Woods (born Madden) on month day 1871, at age 17 in marriage place .
. . .-- Elizabeth was born on June 7 1853, in Jamberoo, NSW Australia.
- They had 15 children: Sarah Maria Nielsen Rossen (born Woods) , Alice Madden Murray (born Woods) and 13 other children .
- John lived in address .
- John passed away on month day 1935, at age 81 in death place .
He was buried in burial place .

Parabola, here is RIA on the rifling and proofs. They really are a class outfit.

Question
Sirs: Re the Reilly 12 bore rifle SN 32760: What is the address on the rib? What is the condition of the rifling and the type? Is it possible to see a photo of the barrel flats/proof marks. Also one of the top rib extension, Finally are there any extraneous initials on the gun. I'm wondering if "WWG" might be there someplace. Many thanks for your assistance. Mr. King certainly had a nice collection of Reilly's.

Responses: (Photos already posted)
Auction 1042- Lot 744: The barrel address reads :"E. M. REILLY & Co. 16. NEW OXFORD St. LONDON." The rifling has 7 grooves and is present the entire length of the barrel with some pitting in areas down the length. Overall the rifling appears to be quite good with a good amount of shine. I am unable to find this set of initials anywhere on the gun, this includes everywhere I can get without taking the gun down past forend, barrels, and action/stock Thanks! Melissa Stohl Customer Service Rep

Date: 10:21 AM January 24, 2023
Auction 1042- Lot 744: You are correct on the proofs given in the photographs. The barrels are both still fully rifled down the length. Thanks! Melissa Stohl Customer Service Rep