Does anyone know if it was a common practice in the past with English vintage guns, for gunmakers from small firms to use barrels made and labelled by a different maker? Or would this likely just indicate an instance of replacement barrels after the fact, possibly to change from damascus barrels to fluid steel barrels? I’ve seen a couple instances of guns for sale where an action was made by one gunmaker, and the barrels are labelled as made by another. I wouldn't think a gunmaker would brand with someone else's name on the barrels, unless it was a legal thing or marketing ploy. Just curious.

Tim

If things don't match up, assume the worst. Common-practice or not. If a gun was re-barreled by somebody competent, they generally re-layed the original ribs. Anything else would be suspect.

I've seen a few instances of guns rebarreled by someone other than the maker recently. I believe there are one or two currently on the Champlin Arms website. In any case, if it's a Damascus gun with replacement steel barrels, if done any time in the last 60 years or so, the proofmarks will show them to be replacement no matter the name on the rib. If they're properly done and by a well-known maker, and if we're talking a gun other than a "best", I don't know that it would bother me all that much.

Pretty common for replacement barrels. I've got a Lang 16 ga SLE, a nice gun but by no means a 'Best gun' and the replacement barrels were made by Gallyon & Sons. When I shoot a Grouse with it, the bird doesn't know the difference.

Thanks guys. Yes, the proof marking and serial # (?) should indicate if the barrels were replacement compared against the action. I was thinking vintage guns pre-WWII, and not “best” guns. I have only one English Birmingham trade shotgun which is pre-1921 and it has no marking whatsoever on the action to indicate the maker, only the barrel rib indicates the gunmaker. I think I read somewhere that within the early English gun trade, it was common that smaller gunmaking firms would purchase components, barrels and actions from the bigger firms then just fit them together as their own guns; just wasn’t sure about the labelling/branding part.

Tim, not to be pedantic, but I'm not sure you are aware of the "makers to the trade." They specialized in parts, all parts. A brand name maker could buy anything from a pin (screw) to a finished gun with his name on it. Some are little known and some, Webley and Scott, for instance, are quite well known. For the right money, one could have anything from a colonial grade BLNE to a best SLE with one's name on it. I think it rather unusual, although not unheard of, for a name maker to sell parts or a finished gun to a rival. Of course, some makers made a pretty penny off sale of patent use.

I expect you could find several examples of any scenario of "mismatch" you could dream up. Good barrels were valuable and always in demand. Far better to judge the quality of the parts and the integrity of the whole rather than the "righteousness" of the match-up.

DDA

Some British auctions would call a gun "spuriously marked" if it's new barrels were using the same ribs, but barrels by "another". I have a fine 1896 Jeffery sidelock, beautifully engraved and a fine shooter with new barrels from the 50s by Bland and so marked.

Yeah, I just thought it was really interesting. I’m not arguing that it’s improper because it’s not original, if it’s up front, nobody is being deceived. Heck, I would buy a Birmingham lesser trade gun with new barrels made and branded by Westley Richards; it’s about the “best” that I would ever be able to afford. That’s what I was wondering, if say a Birmingham gunmaker back then could buy a set of barrels from say Frederick Beesley, branded as such, and put it on his named action and legally sell it. I mean that could be a good marketing ploy if you’re an unknown small maker. It would be something like branding the “Frederick Beesley from Purdeys”; akin to riding along on someone’s reputation. I get the replacement barrel thing, if the original gunmaker is no longer in business you have to get new barrels from somewhere.

One of the interesting things to me about these early "Trade Guns" is how the engraving on the bottom of the lugs often doesn't seem to match the rest of the engraving on the gun. Anyone have any thoughts on the reason? I'm referring to guns with matching numbers, so I'm guessing it was a normal practice, with the bottom lug being engraved by the barrel-maker, possibly in a standard pattern.


Picture 15 is an example, although is this particular case there is some scrollwork on the lugs. Often, it appears there is only diagonal cross-hatching, not really matching the rest of the scroll-work on the reciever.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=478790500

Regards,

Ken

Some barrels are remarked when work is carried out, on guns converted from muzzle loaders to breach loaders sometimes the names on the locks will show the original maker and the barrels will read

" converted by (then the smiths name) "

When guns are rebarreled sometimes they read

" replacement barrels by ( then the smiths name ) "

The same is occasionally done when guns are sleeved, if its not showing evidence of work ie the barrels just say "Westley Richards" and the action says something different i would assume its something that's been cobbled together.

In the former circumstance where the engraving is evidence of a guns history i'm rather partial to them.

The engraving on this gun tells the guns whole story - started in 1835 as a muzzle loader, then converted, and then re done as a presentation piece with solid silver furniture in 1882, then has been nitro proofed and survived that.

Ken, attached is a picture showing the barrel lugs on my Birmingham "Trade Gun".

My shotgun was made by JP Clabrough & Johnstone. I believe it was likely made for the Canadian market through the Hudson Bay Company, which was the biggest retailer in the country at the time. In the book 'Trade Guns of the Hudson Bay Company 1670-1970' by S. James Gooding, the first mention of the English breech loading shotgun is listed in the first HBC catalog dated 1896-1901, these English shotguns were simply listed as "The Imperial Line", three models of these shotguns were available for purchase. The book states that, “the HBC played heavily on brand recognition, a sales technique which began on their firearms with the short-lived Garry model announced in 1896. Some, like the Imperials, were made in great quantities to special order for the Company while others were probably taken from the manufacturer’s inventory and stamped with a brand name.” The book goes on to state that, "most of the muzzle and breech loading shotguns in this period were made by the traditional London & Birmingham suppliers: Hollis, Bentley & Playfair, C.O. Bircham, C.G Bonehill (Ltd.), W.J Jeffrey & Co., T. Bland & Sons, JP Clabrough, and later JP Clabrough & Johnstone (HBC production between 1894-1920+), Joseph Bourne & Son, and Bentley & Playfair." pgs. 102-105, 147. There is an old HBC Advertisement of the Clabrough & Johnstone “English Hammerless Shotgun” “Used by Fur Traders All Over the Dominion” on pg. 105, fig.119, and is named “The Bay Gun” looks identical to my shotgun, although my shotgun doesn’t bear any retailer branding. Fig. 119 states, “This advertisement illustrating a double hammerless gun made in England by Claborough & Johnstone, probably appeared in the 1920s. No examples of “The Bay” have been reported.”

Anyway, I think the trade guns are interesting, a tangible piece of history.



Tim

That looks very nice, with the lug engraving matching very well.

Here's a nice looking gun, yet the lug engraving, shown on picture 11, is considerably different.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=478272139

Regards
Ken

I had a Stephan Grant Sidelever Sidelock that was re-barreled by Fredrick Beesley. The ribs must have been new as well as they were marked Beesley not Grant. They said "Fredrick Beesley (formerly of St. James St. London)

Wow, that's a beautiful gun Adam. Yup, nothing wrong with that. What year was the re-barreling done?