doublegunshop.com - home
Posted By: Backworth Bob Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 07:20 PM
A friend has just purchased this Henry Atkin 12 bore sidelock. I am trying to find out as much of it's history as I can to help in his research
It is a No 2 of a pair
I don't know where No1 is
There is a name of Hodges on the action flats is this the engraver?
The choke is cyl and 1/2. 30inch barrels





Posted By: bbman3 Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 07:42 PM
Wow what a beautiful sleek looking gun with outstanding walnut! Bobby
Posted By: Daryl Hallquist Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 07:43 PM
Hodges was an actioner for the most part. There is a fellow who is a Hodges relative who is doing a lot of work compiling info. on Hodges. Hopefully, he'll come by.
Posted By: Joe in Charlotte Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 07:44 PM
Atkin was a top tier maker. The stock is amazing. It might be a replacement. If you look at the transition from the stock to the checkering, it goes from used and dark at the checkering to clean and fresh going aft. It makes me think a new stock was mated to an old. It is a common repair to mate the head to new wood (fitting the head is the most expensive part of restocking). I lean to that opinion because the stock has no extension or pad.

Americans don't like that repair. Shooters and everyone else think it makes a gun ready for another 100 years.

The other point of view is the stock was refinished and the finisher stopped at the checkering. I would stop there too.

No matter how you feel about my comments, I'd have bought it and gone shooting.

Joe
Posted By: Toby Barclay Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 07:52 PM
Lovely example of Atkin's work.
EC Hodges was a very high grade actioner to the London guntrade and so may have been the actioner who put the basic gun together for Atkins or it may refer to the ejector mechanism that Atkin favoured at one time.
If the latter, it is unlikely to still be the Hodges ejector mechanism which is famous for its unreliability and was almost universally replaced with a something more mainstream and reliable.
Atkin Grant & Lang will supply you with a copy of the ledger page that refers to the gun but don't hold your breath, the information is often very scant.
Posted By: Franc Otte Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 07:53 PM
B Bob,
that looks like a fine gun, lovely timber on it!
Good old Gough Thomas, English Gun authority ordered an Atkin #3510 in 1948, and loved it....I wonder when this # 1733 was built?
Sure looks like a beautiful Gun
Franc
Posted By: L. Brown Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 08:02 PM
As noted above, AG&L may be able to give you an accurate date of production and other info on the gun. As best I can tell from the proofmarks, it looks like it falls in the 1896-1904 period. I see a faint "MAX" on the barrel flats, and there's no chamber length, so it has to be earlier than 1925.
Posted By: DLH Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 08:10 PM
Yes, AGL should have the records. It looks like it was proofed under 1904-25 Rules?

I believe Hodges was an actioner in the trade and worked for Atkins and executed Atkin's variation of the self opening Beesley action in 1909.

The letters H. S. on the underside of the barrels may stand for Henry Squires a barrel maker to the trade who worked for Boss and Hussey amongst others. The barrels appear to be of dovetail type, as are the barrels on my pair of Husseys.

The stock is certainly beautiful and the gun has fantastic lines- long and light, I'm sure it handles exceptionally well. Your friend is fortunate indeed to own such a fine gun.
Posted By: Run With The Fox Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 09:25 PM
And he is in good company. John Pierpont Morgan "aka- The Nose" owned a matched pair of these "Steinways"-- Just as good as the Boss, and a notch above the Purdey and Holland & Holland, IMO. If Gough Thomas had one, that says it all, for me. Very nice!!
Posted By: GLS Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 09:34 PM
AGL will be able to give the date, barrel length, chokes, action type and who it was made for. I was able to obtain the above on my Atkin boxlock by email. A letter will cost. Check http://www.matchedpairs.com/double_rifles.htm
to see if someone has the other gun.
Good luck and beautiful gun. Gil
Posted By: PALUNC Re: Henry Atkin - 03/30/16 09:40 PM
I too have an Atkin, it's a Spring Opener made sometime in the years of 1926 - 1927 per the serial numbers listed in Atkin Grant and Lang by Don Masters. If I am seeing your serial number correct as 1733 according to the book it was made between 1902 and 1904.
When I purchased mine it also had a magnificent stock and I assumed it was a replacement. But a year ago it broke the left lock cocking spring and the Gunsmith told me the stock was original.
I love my Atkin and prefer it over my Purdey and Boss. It is the number "1" of a pair as well.
Your friend can go to the web site "Matched Pairs" and I beleive the guy is named John. He has listed serial numbers of lost guns he is activally looking for. My gun's mate was not listed.
Afew years ago I picked up a nice HJ Hussey Imperial Ejector here locally. After digging around and putting out feelers I found the other mate and it belonged to one of our on members here on this forum. After contacting and emailing him he was not interested in mine and at the time I could not afford his but he was not selling anyway.
But one day he contacted me about selling his Hussey. By that time I had sold mine to a good friend. After discussion with my friend and getting them two together my friend now owns the pair.
And yes I have tried to buy them and he's not selling either and probably never will.
Posted By: Rocketman Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 02:16 AM
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Atkin has Brand Value level two (BV2). The gun looks to be Original Quality grade one (OQ1), a best work gun and as good as any other best work; independent of the brand. BV and OQ are independent.

DDA
Posted By: JohnfromUK Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 05:35 AM
I have an Atkin (Spring Opener model) serial number 20xx. This was dated by Atkin, Grant and Lang to 1911. It too is No 2 of a pair.
Whilst I agree with Rocketman that the Atkin name doesn't have the desirability of Purdey, Holland or Boss, the Atkin interpretation of the Beesley patent action is regarded as possibly the 'best' interpretation. By that - I mean it is a little smoother and easier to close than others. Mine is certainly wonderfully smooth and 'fluid' to use.
Posted By: Run With The Fox Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 11:32 AM
I thought "Whilst" was a Brit card game, similar to contract bridge. Boy Howdy, was old George Bernard Shaw right about the differences in the English you Limeys speak, and we mere Colonists speak--but of course, he was an Irishman- Orange, not Green, but still a Mick.
Posted By: trw999 Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 11:36 AM
I recall that both Hodges and Squires were well known for their Henry Atkin association. Here are their respective IGC entries for information:

Name Edwin Charles Hodges
Address1 23 St James Street, Islington
Address2 8 Florence Street, Islington
Address3 95 Mount Street and 8 Florence Street
Address4 69 Ebury Street
Address5 34 South Audley Street and 8 Florence Street
Address6 8 Florence Street
City/Town London
Country United Kingdom
Trade Gun maker and actioner (outworker)
Other Address
Dates 1852-1909

Notes

Edwin Charles Hodges was the son of Edward Hodges, a leather dresser, and Elizabeth Rachel Hodges (nee Reynolds b.1806 in Sevenoaks, Kent). He was born on 9 October 1831 in Georges Terrace, Crimscott (Grimscott) Street, Bermondsey, and was the younger brother of Henry John Joseph Hodges, a gun and gun lock maker of Bermondsey (1830-1899) and brother of Edward (b.1839) and William (b.1846 d.1912). In the 1841 census Edwin Hodges was recorded living with his parents in Georges Terrace, together with his elder brother Henry and younger brother, Edward. In about 1845 Edwin was apprenticed as a gun maker to his uncle, Ebenezer, a gun barrel maker living at 31 Great Wild Street (just off Kingsway in the parish of St Giles in Fields now in Camden). They were recorded there in the 1851 census. In 1852 Edwin established his own business as an outworking action filer and gunmaker whilst living at 23 St James Street (later Chantry Street), Islington. The business was probably established because Edwin had seen and intended to make breechloading guns similar to those of Casimir Lefaucheux. In 1851 Edwin had visited the Great Exhibition and designed an improved copy of the Lefaucheux breechloader. This he showed to Joseph and James Lang of the firm of Joseph Lang. They were impressed and, when the design was perfected in 1853, the firm sold a number of them claiming that Lang was the first gunmaker to introduce the breechloader to Britain. On 22 December 1855 Edwin married Emma (nee Lane b.1831 in North Walsham, Norfolk). Her sister was married to Robert Hasdell, a gunmaker living at 14 St James Street, Islington. Edwin and Emma's first child, a daughter named Rosa, was born in 1858, Florence was born in 1860. It appears to have been a year or two before 1860 that the family moved to 8 Florence Street, Islington, which had a workshop at the rear of the property.

In 1858 Edwin worked on the first breech loading shotgun produced by Boss; in 1864 he actioned a pair of 12 bore pin-fire guns for Boss. In the 1861 census Edwin and his family were recorded at 8 Florence Street together with a James Robinson and his mother who shared the premises. Edwin was described as a master gun action maker employing 2 men and 3 boys. One man employed by Edwin at this time was John Wilkes who later established his own business in London. In 1862 Edwin exhibited improved breech loading actions at the second International Exhibition in South Kensington. John Rigby expressed the opinion that Edwin's work was "especially worthy of praise". On 4 December 1865 Edwin registered patent No. 3113 which covered an extractor and angled striker for a drop-down barrel action. On 15 November 1866 patent No. 2996 covered an extractor mechanism. This patent was not renewed after 1869 but it was modified slightly from time to time and was used by several makers for about 20 years. At about this time Edwin appears to have started using a patent stamp comprising a crown (to indicate his patents) over a triangle containing the initials ECH. In 1867 the firm started to work for James Purdey and the newly established firm of Stephen Grant. On 31 January 1871 Edwin registered patent No 251 for a treble grip. The early guns used a push forward underlever but later a side lever was used and Stephen Grant bought a licence to use it, apparently on condition that Grant could call it the Grant Hodges patent although Grant was not the patentee.

By the time of the 1871 census Edwin employed 9 men and 3 boys. The extra family members at 8 Florence Street were Lillian (b.1862), Arthur (b.1863), Lionel (b.1866), Edgar (b.1868) and Leslie (b.1870). From 1875 Edwin produced a few guns under his own name but one of his largest customers was Henry Atkin. His other customers at about this time were Alfred Lancaster, William Cartwright, and Samuel & Charles Smith, and he made a few guns for Army & Navy Co-operative Society. An 1876 advertisement in the Field magazine stated that the firm were gun and rifle manufacturers and had been manufacturing guns for 24 years. They were able to provide all kinds of patent treble grip snap-action breechloaders and a patent hammerless gun. Mention was also made of a patent army revolver for service in India, ammunition of all kinds, and "every requisite for shooting". In 1876 Edwin the firm's principle address became 95 Mount Street, Grosvenor Square, but the workshop at 8 Florence Street continued to be used and Edwin continued living there. Quite obviously, the firm needed additional space located closer to the top London gunmakers with whom he did business. On 22 March 1878 Edwin patented his own hammerless action with an underlever and safety on the trigger guard strap (No. 1145).

In 1881 the Mount Street premises were relinquished in favour of 69 Ebury Street. In the 1881 census Edwin and Emma still lived at 8 Florence Street. Edwin described himself as a gun maker. Their children living in the house at the time were Florence, Julia (b.1862 governess), Arthur (surgical instrument maker), Frederick (b.1866 stationers clerk), Ella (b.1873) and Frank (b.1876). On 20 March 1883 Edwin together with Thomas William Webley and George Bouckley registered patent No. 1463 for cocking and safety mechanisms for drop-down barrel guns. In 1884 the firm moved to 34 South Audley Street, but in 1886 the firm's address once again became 8 Florence Street. The firm is known to have worked on barrels for James Purdey at about this time, and it was owed money by Lang & Hussey. They appear to have been doing an increasing amount of business with Henry Atkin. In 1886 Ernest Charles Lawrence became an apprentice actioner with the firm, he went on to work for James Woodward and then James Purdey. In the 1891 census Edwin (gunmaker) and Emma were living at 8 Florence Street with Rosa, Edgar (stockbrokers clerk), Leslie (gunmaker), Ella (milliners assistant), and Frank (occupation not described possibly still a scholar but later became foreman at Florence Street).

On 23 September 1899 patent No. 19167 covered a single trigger mechanism. In the 1911 census Edwin was recorded living and working from home. His wife Emma died in 1913, and the firm of E C Hodges ceased to be listed in 1915. In 1919 Edwin moved to reside with his daughter, Ella, at 125 Leaside Road, Golders Green, he died on 10 February 1925 and was buried next to Emma in East Finchley cemetery.

More information is at Robert Hodges excellent web site http://hodgesgunmakers.yolasite.com/ where he details his family's extensive gun making history.

Name Henry Squires
Other Names Frank Squires
Address1 Upper Seymour Street, St Pancras
Address2 4 George Yard, Wardour Street
Address3 4 Dansey Yard, Wardour Street
Address4 82 Berwick Street, Oxford Street
City/Town London
Country United Kingdom
Trade Barrel maker
Other Address
Dates 1882-1915
N
otes

In the 1841 Census, Henry Squires was recorded as an apprentice gun barrel maker aged 15 of Upper Seymour Street, St Pancras. He appears to have been apprenticed to his father (?), William.
In 1882 he was in business at 4 George Yard, Wardour Street (occupied nos. 3 and 4 at unknown dates); 4 George Yard was also the address of John Robertson, both worked for the trade, including Holland & Holland, James Lang and Lang & Hussey. In 1882 he was succeeded by his son, Frank; father and son supplied barrels to Thomas Boss, amongst others. In 1885 George Yard was re-named Dansey Yard. In 1899 Frank Squires moved the business to 82 Berwick Street, Oxford Street. The firm appears to have ceased trading in 1915.

Tim
Posted By: L. Brown Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 11:49 AM
Originally Posted By: Rocketman
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Atkin has Brand Value level two (BV2). The gun looks to be Original Quality grade one (OQ1), a best work gun and as good as any other best work; independent of the brand. BV and OQ are independent.

DDA


Don, I'd disagree with you on OQ1. The gun doesn't have chopper lump barrels. I think it would need them to be OQ1. But very nice gun in any case.
Posted By: trw999 Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 01:13 PM
Some first class, exceedingly well made best guns originally had dovetail barrels, some made by the best barrel makers of their day.

My contention would be that lack of chopper lump barrels should not be a bar to supposing the gun to have been of best quality. I refer particularly to original spec, not replacement/restored guns.

Tim
Posted By: Gr8day Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 02:02 PM
Rocketman, maybe this is a topic for another thread, but how does manufacture date affect your formula? For example a pre WWI BV1 vs. a "Golden Age" BV1. Thanks!
Posted By: Condor Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 02:21 PM
Originally Posted By: Gr8day
Rocketman, maybe this is a topic for another thread, but how does manufacture date affect your formula? For example a pre WWI BV1 vs. a "Golden Age" BV1. Thanks!


Perhaps this can be another thread, but I am curious with how this system takes into consideration hybrid guns in the other direction. I.E . I have a Grant (BV2)Side lever Side lock with not original barrels but rather Boss (BV1) Barrels done in 1907. How would this fit into the system you have.
Posted By: lagopus Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 03:37 PM
1733 would be for 1904. Lagopus.....
Posted By: L. Brown Re: Henry Atkin - 03/31/16 08:44 PM
Originally Posted By: trw999
Some first class, exceedingly well made best guns originally had dovetail barrels, some made by the best barrel makers of their day.

My contention would be that lack of chopper lump barrels should not be a bar to supposing the gun to have been of best quality. I refer particularly to original spec, not replacement/restored guns.

Tim


Tim, I think that's a point that can be debated. There were also very fine guns made that were not stocked to the fences (although this one is). Does that lower them a notch from top quality? Re the barrels on this gun in particular, given the production date of 1904, I think one might contend that the barrels on a best quality gun--whether chopper lump or not--ought to be either best quality Damascus or else Sir Joseph Whitworth steel. But I'm not positive that would lower it from best quality to something less either. Will be interesting to see what Rocketman has to say re his rating system.
Posted By: Rocketman Re: Henry Atkin - 04/01/16 03:38 AM
"Best work gun" for my system has been defined as best design (with allowance for further development and overlap time), best materials (with allowance for development of more advanced materials), and best workmanship (with allowance for changes in fashion). The "London best work gun" ticks the boxes for "best work" and London fashion: "top tier" London maker, top lever hammerless SLE, stocked to the fences, no through lumps, chopper lump barrels, 75%+ coverage of best engraving, outstanding quality wood usually highly colored and figured (but never sacrifice of quality for color/figure).

There are a number of issue concerning best guns that can/have been debated since back when. Chopper lump barrels are one such issue. "Best work" dovetail barrels are most certainly good enough. Choppers may be a bit better, but not sufficiently to dismiss dovetails as a disqualification from "best work." Design issue.

Steel barrels have supplanted damascus. However, we seem to have accepted that best work damascus is good enough. Damascus barrels does not disqualify a gun from "best work." Materials issue.

Somewhere out there works the poorest quality gunmaker considered capable of best work. While others may do better work, his is still good enough to make the "best work" cut. Sorta like the Dr. who graduated last in his class. Workmanship issue.

If you can accept the "London best work" as a fashion subset of "best work," we can look a bit deeper. Can a hammer gun be "best work?" Yes. Can a flatback SLE be "best work?" Yes (1890's Boss). Can a boxlock be "best work?" Yes (Greener G-gun). Can a non-ejector gun be "best work?" Yes (1880's - 1890's). Can a damascus barrel gun be "best work?" Yes. Can a gun with through lumps be "best work?" Yes. Can an unengraved gun be "best work?" Yes (funeral style guns). Can a plain figured stock be on a "best work gun?" Yes (early 1900's Purdeys). And, of course, a top lever. Oh, yes, can a "best work gun" bare a plebian maker's name? Yes (all makers could get out a best gun via the trade if so commissioned).

One of the things I look for in all (honest) guns is harmony. Do the design, materials, and workmanship all go together?

My system has 405 pigeon holes for guns. I can't say it takes in every gun ever made because I haven't seen every gun ever made. I think it takes in the Lion's share of Brit and Continental guns bade between 1890ish and 1960ish. When you can imagine/picture in you mind a gun for each pigeon hole you will have a jump start on understanding what is really out there.

Questions??

DDA
Posted By: trw999 Re: Henry Atkin - 04/01/16 08:46 AM
"If you can accept the "London best work" as a fashion subset of "best work," we can look a bit deeper. Can a hammer gun be "best work?" Yes. Can a flatback SLE be "best work?" Yes (1890's Boss). Can a boxlock be "best work?" Yes (Greener G-gun). Can a non-ejector gun be "best work?" Yes (1880's - 1890's). Can a damascus barrel gun be "best work?" Yes. Can a gun with through lumps be "best work?" Yes. Can an unengraved gun be "best work?" Yes (funeral style guns). Can a plain figured stock be on a "best work gun?" Yes (early 1900's Purdeys). And, of course, a top lever. Oh, yes, can a "best work gun" bare a plebian maker's name? Yes (all makers could get out a best gun via the trade if so commissioned)."

I agree with this statement absolutely.

Boss guns squared back action, used up until around 1900: not stocked to the fences, yet top quality workmanship.

Whitworth may have been the first to use pressed fluid steel but other firms such as Siemens and Cammell turned out steel of similar quality which was used by the best barrel makers alongside Whitworth steel.

Steel all a bit topical here in the UK currently, since it seems our home-based steel industry is in danger of dying out. Swedish steel seems to be the best favoured high quality steel currently; I know Longthorne use it to mill their double barrels from billet. Very good they are too. But I digress, sorry!

This is take nothing away from Henry Atkin and the excellent work they turned out. I'm sure this gun fits the bill.

Tim
Posted By: SKB Re: Henry Atkin - 03/27/20 02:23 PM
Any idea when Atkin #188X would have been made?
Posted By: justin Re: Henry Atkin - 03/27/20 02:50 PM
1906 as per Brown
Posted By: SKB Re: Henry Atkin - 03/27/20 02:55 PM
Thank You. I was just coming to a similar conclusion after reading through the Masters book. A few years prior to the spring opener Atkin patent it seems.
Posted By: RichardBrewster Re: Henry Atkin - 03/27/20 02:58 PM
Henry Atkin also made lovely border engraved sidelocks at a lower price point. I have one (ordered in 1902 by an English lord/Field Marshal) for sale at Safari Outfitters for anyone interested in a highly affordable Atkin. http://www.safarioutfittersltd.com/EnglishPage101.htm
Posted By: ed good Re: Henry Atkin - 03/27/20 04:48 PM
there is something so very alluring and beguiling about the bright freshness and cleanly executed lines of an english box lock...much the same as with english women...
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com