Recently there was a brief discussion here about a fine boxlock double barreled rifle that was engraved with the name of a builder of very best guns and rifles.

A question was raised-----Did any London gun and rifle makers build any boxlock rifles and guns including the ones that they sold with their names and addresses engraved upon? All of us have an opinion.

However, I think that most of us would want an opinion on this often discussed topic from a person or persons who is an acknowledged premier researcher and whose statement to where these boxlock rifles and guns were built could be relied upon even in a court of law.

The two such researchers (and authors) that came to mind (one of Birmingham gunmakers and the other of London gunmakers) was Douglas Tate, author of BIRMINGHAM GUNMAKERS; and Donald Douglas the prolific author of the definitive books of the history of such London gunmakers as PURDEY, BOSS, HOLLAND & HOLLAND, and Scottish gunmakers DAVID McKAY BROWN, ALEX HENRY and others. Since I am acquainted with each of these gentlemen, I sent to them an email asking them if they had ever encountered any evidence of any London gun or rifle maker building a boxlock gun or rifle? They both responded straight away with the following response:

First from Douglas Tate:

"I have not but then I have never researched London boxlocks. I would ask Diggory Hadoke and Toby Barclay."

NOTE: Since I believe Toby will comment on this post soon we will see what he says and I will contact Diggory.

Next from Donald Dallas:

"Hi Stephen,
The London gunmakers bought in their boxlocks (and many of their sidelocks) either complete, or in the white from Birmingham. There is plenty of evidence for this in their records. For example in the MacNaughton records and the Henry records many state where they were bought from in Birmingham. You will also find evidence on the guns themselves where the Birmingham makers stamped their initials on the barrels and inside the actions. Economies of scale played the major part in this as building thousands of boxlocks in Birmingham was the cheaper option. This in no way implies the Birmingham guns were inferior - they were every bit as good as the London guns. All the Holland guns for example pre 1894, before they had their London factory were made in Birmingham and even after this all their second quality guns continued to be built in Birmingham.
Regards,
Donald Dallas"

Stephen Howell

At least one London gunmaker made boxlock guns.Namely Cogswell and Harrison.In his book Experts on Guns and Shooting,[Published in 1900]G.T. Teasdale Buckell describes in chapter XX1V , Edgar Harrisons adaption of precision machining to reduce the cost of shotgun manufacture. In this chapter Mr.Harrison States,""every part of our cheap guns excepting for the tubes is made in our Gillingam street works."Mr Harrison points out that owners of guns bearing our our name can be confident that it was made in our works,In preference to a gun made elseware, bearing a London sellers name.

Roy;

The authors of "COGSWELL & HARRISON" (Safari Press--2000) repeat that discussion with Harrison and Teasdale Buckell on page 44 of their book in reference to the Gllingham Street Works prior to its destruction by fire in 1922. In my reading of the histories of the London gunmakers this is the only reference to building a boxlock (in this case the Avant Tout) of any London maker.

Stephen Howell

I think we would be well served to define "make" in this context.

Does it mean forge and machine the metal parts, file the action and barrels
stock and finish, etc?

If the action comes from London but the barrels originate in Birmingham or
Belgium - where was it made?

Food for thought.

A Purdey is still a Purdey even if the tubes come from Sir Joseph Whitworth or Krupps.

I would suggest that a start point for “made” is by whom and where the machining of the rough action forging takes place.

Even so it can no doubt be argued that if a London maker acquired a Birmingham barrelled action in the white, strikes down the barrels, files it up, stocks, engraves and finishes it that in terms of “added value” there is more of London there than Birmingham.

Fullerd ceased production in 1844. Thus all London barrel blanks from that time forward were made in other locations.

16 October 1858, "The Field"


But Reilly for one was advertising boring his own barrels as of 1841 - presumably others in London did so as well:

13 Jun 1841, 1843 Bell's Life

Steve;

Good thought.

I was contemplating "make" (since we are subjecting London gun makers) as the Purdey model of making guns and rifles of the period---that of procuring forged actions and barrel tubes from the trade, then filing or machining. boring, drilling, reaming, screwing and so forth required to "make" or build a gun or rifle during the period of about 1880 to 1950. I use the term filing (as you did) because few gunmakers likely had milling machines in 1880--and for a few years. Further the procurement of boxlock (A&D) forging would be expected to come from the trade in the English midlands, to my mind, and of course as you note the barrels could be sourced English or abroad.


Stephen Howell

Stephen,
Frankly I can not see any reason why the London makers would bother themselves with the 'filing or machining. boring, drilling, reaming' of the component parts of a boxlock. I am sure that if the profit margin allowed, they would polish (int & ext), engrave, black, CH, stock and regulate but I really can't think why they would bother with the raw material. They knew that, if the right supplier was contracted, the metalwork (with or without stock and barrels) would be perfectly good for their purposes and they could take it from there.
If I could take Blanch as an example (although Evans and several other well known names would do just as well) I doubt they bothered to do ANYTHING to their main stock lines. They knew the Birmingham trade very well and could specify whatever they needed. Why have a dog and bark oneself?
I grant you that H&H, Boss (Robertson) and Purdey may have had different criteria but I have yet to see a 'London' BL that is any better that a Westley Richard or William Powell (and some a lot worse!).
I have several 'London' boxlocks and I love them all but the difference between them and a 'Birmingham' BL is non-existent.
ATB Toby

Toby;

Thank you for adding your expert and experienced knowledge to this discussion.

ON ANOTHER NOTE, let me say that the very, very rare matched pair of Purdey island lock 30 inch barreled 2 3/4inch chamber hammer guns that you now have for sale are a delight to behold. They are going to make some lucky buyers very happy.

http://www.heritageguns.co.uk/Purdey%208521.22%20Hgun/Purdey%208521.22%20Hguns%20Info.htm


Kindest Regards;

Stephen Howell

Just to reinforce what Toby said, at the 11 Dec 2019 Gavin Gardner catalog there was a whole collection of unfinished actions. Someone was selling them off and there had to be a story behind that. Who made them? Where? Etc.
-- Lot 143 - a T Bland & sons action casting
-- Lot 144 - Reilly 4 bore action
-- Lot 145 - Parts for a 4 Bore W Tolley action
-- Lot 146 - Parts for a 4 bore W. Tolley action
-- Lot 147 - Parts for a 4 bore Army-Navy action
-- Lot 148 - A pair of 20 bore actions for Henry Atkin type self-opening side-lock

re: Lot 144 - Parts to build a 4-bore double barrel Hammer gun. E.M. Reilly action, with underlever, fore-end, iron trigger plate, hammers, etc. I was hoping that a query to the seller would answer some questions about gun making in UK at the time. Here is what Gavin sent me about the action.

"As you can see from the hi res image, it is just a kit of unfinished parts, in the white. It has come from someone in the trade who refers to it as the "Reilly" action and insisted that I refer to is as such. but of course it impossible to prove that this unfinished action is originally from the Reilly works. There are no marks or identifying numbers I am afraid."



I still would like too talk to the seller. He obviously had a connection to the 19th century trade - otherwise why collect action forgings?

Interesting history of Wilkes at Craig whitsey gunmaker.com

Thanks for that Mark, very interesting indeed.

Mark;

Also thank you for directing us to this extraordinarily detailed history of the Wilkes family of gunmakers; the history itself is a real imperial jewel of the gun trade and should be preserved. The connection between the two gun trade centers of London and Birmingham is described in a manner that without this writing would be lost. The amount of guns and rifles that were produced by Wilkes during it's height is staggering.

Here is the link to it:

https://craigwhitseygunmakers.co.uk/html/john_wilkes.html

Vintage gunmakers photos available: https://craigwhitseygunmakers.co.uk/html/classic_photos.html

Stephen Howell

I had a book with the Wilkes history but I can't find it since I moved.they have a very interesting history

What’s really fantastic is one can actually learn about the craftsman that worked at Wilkes…like stockmakers, jobbers, actioners, finishers, even apprentices, etc. Tradesman that actually put tools to metal and wood to make guns. They had names that you can put a face & history to.

Unlike the 300+ employees at EM Reilly’s.
Who was Reilly’s version of Ebenezer Hands & Dickie Bolter???? (Two of the best names in the gun industry ever btw :-)

Albert onions great name in greener history.the story of Wilkes is a great history of gunmaking and survival at one point in the 1850 or 60s the older brother cleaned out the accounts and mortgaged everthing and went to America the younger brother tried to find him I don't think he ever did.wilkes guns are a thing of beauty.

LeFusil;

Your comment about Ebenezer Hand puts to my mind back in 2008 when I went down stairs at William Evans in St. James to see what treasures they had hidden in the gunroom (they had a matched pair of Stephen Grant sidelever damascus barreled guns in storage for the owner), but in my observation of guns they had for sale was a gun that was stocked by Ebenezer Hand--it has Ebenezer trade mark little acorn like "bump" on the butt stock.

Stephen

Right on the nose of the stock. I know exactly what you’re talking about. Pretty much guarantees the gun was stocked by Mr. Hands. I can’t think of anyone else that trademark bump can be associated to. Cool stuff. Love the old characters in this double gun industry. So full of personality, history, and stories. It’s one of my primary interest when it comes to old doubles….the fellas that made them.

Toby,
You are of course correct about who did what in Birmingham and London. My
objective in posing the question was to address a broader issue, Frequently
on this site members launch into passionate debates without first defining
the issue. That said, who 'made this gun?

In 1888, Lancaster sent a set of oval bore .450 barrels to Powell to be fit to
a "lifter' action. Powell supplied all of the other metal pieces as well at a
total cost of £12/10. It was then returned to Lancaster too be completed.
Who made it?
Steve

Barrels, arguably being the most important part of any gun, and the fitting, finishing, stocking & regulating being what really separates fine guns for all the others….I’d say Lancasters made it into an actual working gun.😀
When it left Powell’s, it was just a barreled action.

That is much different from completed Birmingham guns showing up to a London shop, fully functional and ready to be placed in racks to be sold, or fully functional guns that were ordered by London shops/makers that arrived from Birmingham to London in the white to be finished and proofed in London.

I would think a London gunmaker might want to engrave , stock and finish gun to customer request

Sometimes but not always, at times Rigby for example would order fully finished guns from Webley, other times barreled actions.

IMO, at least one gun can be found that suits any of the proposed scenarios. Business need was the driver for how makers supplied guns. Boxlocks were not generally in vogue. It was more or less socially necessary among the upper crust social groups to be in fashion. London built sidelocks were the peak of fashion. IMO, a good many shooters would have been ahead by ordering best work boxlocks rather than sidelocks.

DDA

Many thanks for the excellent short history of Wilkes. The below photos of the Gunmakers' Association...apparently from 1896? - include identifications of the Individuals.
https://craigwhitseygunmakers.co.uk/html/classic_photos.html

Does anyone have access to these identifications? Is there a Reilly representative? This is a blank period in my research and I had to conclude that after the death of EM Reilly in July 1890, his wife Mary Ann took over the company and ran it into the ground. A photo of a representative would help though. Thanks.

Here is the rifle that inspired this thread, a Wilkes 470 ble. It turns out it has Birmingham provisional proofs and London final view marks. Likely sourced through the trade but finished up by the Brothers is my feeling.

My view is it showed up to Wilkes as a fully functional, completed rifle, and then proofed in London for the sake of “panache”. There’s nothing on that rifle that says to me that Wilkes Bros finished it. Looks Birmingham through & through to my eyes.

But when it was made Wilkes had a Birmingham factory /shop so the entire gun could have been made by them the address on this Wilkes was only used one year 1924 1925 so who knows .you are also looking at a picture

The history of Wilkes states that the Birmingham works was shutdown when Jack left in 1923. Sounds like this gun falls into the “outworkers” time frame. After 1923, the history states the Harper, Bayliss , and Webley & Scott were familiar suppliers.

I guess Wilkes could have pitched all there parts or sold them when they closed there Birmingham operation it's to bad more of the inside history isn't known .Wilkes is a favorite of mine I really like there side lock doubles.(this rifle is great)

33428 would date to 1894 per my chart. Advertisement from 1982 Weller & Duffey catalog:

Obviously I haven't completely understood the question...but from my database here are the known Reilly box-locks: the earliest 22482 is 1880. the oldest is the last extant Reilly with a serial number from 1912. 75 out of about 250 extant guns from 1881-1912 - 27%. The premise on these Reillys' is:
1) if Reily serial numbered them, he made them;
2) they all have London proofs on the barrels;
3) rifles will have pistol grips or half pistol grips - if a shotgun has that, it likely was repurposed from a rifle or was a big bore fowler.
There are exceptions and now because of this line I'm going back through the photos looking for workers' initials. I can post the descriptions and photos of these guns if it would help history.

Interesting side-light...1st existing Reilly Boxlock was an ejector - wonder if it was added later. Because it is my impression that until about 1885 there was no great demand for ejectors..at least according to the Rigby-Perks lawsuit 1893:



22482 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned), 12 bore SxS Shotgun. BLE. A&D use # 1156
23236 - E.M. Reilly & Co., Oxford Street, London & rue Scribe, Paris. 12 bore. Shotgun SxS. Top lever. BLE, W-R pattern. A&D patent use #1366.
23536 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. Shotgun SxS 12 ga. BLE. Steel Barrels. (A&D Patent use #3814 )(1st use of renumbered addresses 277, 16)
25038 - E.M. Reilly & Co., New Oxford Sreet, London & rue Scribe, Paris. 12 Bore Shotgun SxS. Top lever, hammerless. Scott/Baker pat 761, use #200; Needham/Hinton sears (Pat 705) 1879 patent.
25171 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 315, Oxford St., London. 12 bore, top-lever Box Lock. #1 of pair (non-extant)
25172 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 315, Oxford St., London. 12 bore, top-lever Box Lock. #2 of pair
25513 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London and rue Scribe, Paris. 10 bore SxS shotgun. Top lever, BLNE, Pistol grip; A&D use #4343
25516 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (no address). 12 bore. Shotgun SxS. top lever, box lock, side ejector.
25519 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London & Paris. 12 bore SxS shotgun. Top lever, BLNE. 7 lbs 6 oz, .0018, .0024 chokes. A&D use #3976
25724 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (no address, sleeved). 12 ga SxS Shotgun. BLE; fine scroll work.
25741 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 522?*, Oxford Street, London W(sic)??. 28 ga. Shotgun (likely originally a rifle) SxS, BLNE. (barrels may have been changed)
26218 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (no address mentioned). 12ga. Shotgun SxS. BLNE. (originally a rifle)
26584 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London & rue Scribe, Paris. 12 bore Shotgun SxS. BLNE. (A&D use #8072)
26718 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). .380 cal. Rifle Black Powder. BLNE. 7 lbs 5 oz.
26730 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London and rue Scribe, Paris. 12 bore. Top key BLNE.
26879 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (action, Stock, Forearm only). 12 bore SxS shotgun. BLNE
27478*- E.M. Reilly & Co., (rebarreled by midland). 12 bore SxS shotgun. A&D BLNE. (SN 7478 - *2 hypothetical).
27665 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London; 12 ga Shotgun Single barrel. Top lever BLNE. "Not for Ball"
28502 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 bore, Shotgun SxS. BLNE.
28650 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 ga Shotgun SxS. Top lever, BLE. AD pat; Ejector Anson pat of 1884.
30152 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 bore SxS Shotgun. BLNE.
30247 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street., London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE.
30257 - E.M. Reilly & Co., no address. 12ga. Shotgun SxS. Boxlock.
30260 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London. 12 bore Shotgun SxS. Steel barrels boxlock.
303xx - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Steel barrels. BLE, Built on W-R action. Not for Ball.
303xx?- E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 ga, Shotgun SxS. BLE. Top lever.
30342 - E.M. Reilly & ? (London address obscured), rue..Paris? (on 2nd barrel). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Boxlock hammerless live pigeon gun.
30255 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London; 28 ga Shotgun SxS. Top lever, BLE. 27” sleeved brls, semi-pistol grip (orig. rifle?)
30363 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE. Top lever, Steel barrels. Built on W-R action. A&D ejector pat #428; Anson & Deely pat use #6250. #1 of pair.
303xx - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE, Top lever, Steel barrels. Built on W-R action. A&D ejector pat #427; Anson & Deely pat use #6265. #2 of pair (Norway)
30375 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (no address - sleeved). 12ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE. Top Lever. Anson & Deeley #1 of pair
30376 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (no address - sleeved). 12ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE. Top Lever. Anson & Deeley #2 of pair
30446 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford street, London. 12 bore, Shotgun SxS. BLE, doll's head W-R type top-lever; 30" Damascus. AD Patent use #7156
30456 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Top lever Box lock.
30768 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE. A&D patent use #8245. (A&D Patent expired sep 1889).
30791 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London. .380 BPE. Rifle SxS. Box lock. A&D boxlock pat use #????.
30846 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned. 450 BPE. Rifle SxS. BLE. Steel barrels.
32530 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). .500 Rifle SxS. BLE.
32543 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (28” reproofed steel barrels, no address). 12 bore, BLE, treble grip action. #1 of pair
32581 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 16 bore Shotgun SxS; T-L, BLE.
32661 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 ga, shotgun SxS, BLE, self-opener.
32665 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE.
32667 - E.M. Reilly & Co., New Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE.
32971 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Boxlock.
32974 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Boxlock. Ball and Shot.
33239 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned); 12 bore, shotgun SxS, BLE. Doll's head.
33241 - E.M. Reilly & Co., London. (sleeved no address). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Steel barrels. BLE, Built on W-R action. #1 of pair. (non-extant)
33242 - E.M. Reilly & Co., London. (address unknown). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE, Steel brls. Built on W-R action. #2 of pair.
33244 - E.M. Reilly & Co,, (stock/forearm only). 12 bore SxS Shotgun. BLE.
33256 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 16 bore SxS Shotgun. BLNE.
33358 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 bore Shotgun SxS, BLE (steel sleeved barrels)
33428 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 10 bore, .550x3.5 SxS BPE rifle. BLNE. Pistol grip stock w/cheekpiece. Anson forend.
33640 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (action, stock, forearm only) 12 bore SxS shotgun. BLE
33713 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 ga SxS. Shotgun. BLNE. Steel barrels.
33881 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Top lever, BLE, Steel brls.(2 brl set).
33889 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Top lever, side lock, BLE, Steel brls. #1 of pair. (non-extant).
33890 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Top lever, side lock, BLE, Steel brls. #2 of pair.
32941 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (sleeved barrels). 12 bore Shotgun SxS. BLE.
34250 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned) 12 bore SxS Shotgun BLNE.
34334 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (Stock, action, fore-arm). 12 ga, Shotgun SxS. Top lever, BLE.
34478 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Boxlock.
34515 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London. .500 BPE, SxS rifle. BLNE. Steel barrels
34680 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 bore. Shotgun SxS. BLE.
34865 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 bore. Shotgun SxS. BLE.
35058 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 bore SxS shotgun. BLE
35097 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (stock and action only). 28 ga, Shotgun SxS. BLE.
35186 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 277, Oxford Street, London. 12 bore. Shotgun SxS. BLE. Steel barrels. Post 1898 trade label. London 1896-1904 proof marks
35367 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE. Steel Barrels.
35394 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE. Steel Barrels.
35398 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 295, Oxford Street, London; 12 bore SxS shotgun BLE, treble grip. (First SN with 295 Oxford.)
35407 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (28” sleeved barrels). 12 bore SxS Shotgun. Top Lever, BLE
35422 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (Action/stock/forearm only). 12 bore SxS shotgun., BLE (#1 of pair to the below gun).
35423 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 295, Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE. #2 of pair.
35458 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 bore. Shotgun SxS. Boxlock.
35472 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (sleeved, no address). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Boxlock.
35554 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 295, Oxford Street, London. .500/.465 SxS Nitro Express rifle, BLE.
35678 - E.M. Reilly & Co., (address not mentioned). 12 bore Shotgun SxS. Boxlock. (Last extant Reilly)

The question was asked, Did London Gun Makers make boxlocks? Reilly definitely did per above. Here's an excerpt from 1882 book "Our Gunmakers" indicating Reilly was prioritizing building A&D Patent guns. Does this help?

From Air Rifles, to Cane Guns, to Pistols, to Shotguns and Rifles, both boxlock and sidelock... were there any type of guns that Reilly didn't build? It is hard to think of another gunmaker anywhere that was so prolific and catered to so many different types of gun buyers.

It still seems rather odd that there has not been one photograph of gunmakers at work within the Reilly factory. Nor has there been any census data recording any London residents who were employed as actioners, filers, barrel makers, blackers, stock makers, etc. at the Reilly Factory. We seem to have ample evidence of actual gun-making employees at other gunmaking firms and factories. But all we get about Reilly is advertisements and anecdotal evidence.

I suppose they could have just been too busy building all these different guns, and printing advertisements, to take any photographs or participate in any census. Or maybe I just missed it????

Wymen's Commercial Encyclopedia 1887 - I've added some commentary to the Reilly history based on this eye-opening discussion:

"In early 1880 Reilly adopted the boxlock (Anson & Deeley 1875 Patent) and began building then in significant numbers, apparently in marked contrast to other London gun makers.*112w The boxlock looks to have been frowned on by London gunmakers for some reason, possibly as being "plebeian." Yet Reilly publicly embraced it. It fitted his anti-establishment style and his model for selling to the guys actually on the ground carrying their own guns. It may be that Reilly, always a gambler on technological innovation, decided that its simplicity and durability were the future of shotgunning, a conclusion reinforced by early 1880’s writings. However, at the same time Reilly was dramatically expanding serial numbered production from 650 to over 1000 a year and the A&D boxlock would certainly have simplified the manufacturing process." Either that or Reilly began to avail himself of Birmingham produced boxlock actions and finished them in London which would also be logical.

The reference is a description of the Reilly Exhibit at the 1885 International Inventions Exhibition in London.



I think I've contributed a bit to this historical question. Opinions anyone? Is this helpful at all or am I totally off-base, missing the point?

Interesting for sure, but in Britain, Anson & Deeley's patent No. 1756 was on 11th May 1875, so I wonder what >>perfection<< as added in 1877? Not sure when the 1st APUN was issued?

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

I noticed that too. Reilly clearly was not a great historian.

Without looking, could the 1877 patent be the forend latch ?

I'm not sure greener made the Anson and deeley them self or brought it in

A&D boxlock patent should have expired on 11 May 1889. However, I've found two later Reilly's in my database with A&D Patent use numbers. 32974 dated to 1893 and 33242 also 1893:

32974 - E.M. Reilly & Co., 16, New Oxford Street, London. 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. Boxlock. Ball and Shot. A&D #122x.

33242 - E.M. Reilly & Co., London. (address unknown). 12 ga. Shotgun SxS. BLE, Steel brls. Built on W-R action. #2 of pair. A&D #1399


Parliament extended the Whitworth fluid steel patent for 5 years. Did they do the same for the boxlock patent?
Or were those actions just hanging around for 5 years; Did EM roll the dice once again on a technological innovation that was indeed revolutionary but which this time was rejected by the shooting classes in London?

Also per above, I have gone through all my stock of Reilly photos looking for workmens' initials which would presumably identify them having been made in Birmingham. There's just precious few auction house photos with this type of detail, though, and I haven't found any. Now I'm not going to go out on a limb and claim Reilly was making all those box lock actions beginning in 1880. Indeed, he suddenly expanded production from about 650 serial numbered guns a year - a level pretty constant for 12 years - to over 1000 in 1881 - so it's entirely possible, even probable that at that time he began to import actions from Birmingham. It's just that without more photos, I can't prove or disprove this.

Gene,

You have left out from this list (you had it in an earlier one) 30227 which is a Reilly A&D non ejector with Westley Richards “type top lever opening”.

I bought it sight unseen at Southams over a year ago but with lockdown intervening have not yet collected it.

It has been sleeved, which no doubt explains why it cost me less than a couple of boxes of 25 bismuth cartridges .

Whilst the sleeving will have lost any marking near the loop and on most of the tubes, hopefully when I get it it will still have the original proof marks on the action bar and possibly on the barrel flats.

I will strip it down to see if there are any hidden makers marks on the back of the action and let you know if the original proof marks are London or Birmingham.

Keep Well

Parabola

Argo44:

I really don't think the patent protection period would be extended unless an additional fee was paid?


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

A&D Patent use #1 - plenty of authoritative books on the Box Lock....Wonder if those 1893 Reilly's had the Westley Richards "Drop Lock" improvement?

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/17947/lot/297/?category=list

THE FIRST ANSON & DEELEY PATENT 12-BORE BOXLOCK NON-EJECTOR GUN BY WESTLEY RICHARDS, NO. 5056 BUILT FOR JOHN DEELEY
The sides of the action-body engraved with the makers name in a scrolling banner surrounded by best foliate-scrollwork, the action flat stamped Anson & Deeley's Patent 1, the underside engraved The First Anson & Deeley Hammerless Gun Patented 11th May 1875, 'Safe' inlaid in gold, well-figured stock with chequered side-panels and border-engraved blued steel butt-plate, the oval engraved 'J.D.', horn-tipped forend with Deeley patent catch, the browned damascus barrels with game-rib engraved Westley Richards, 170 New Bond St., London
Weight 6lb. 12½oz., 14½in. pull (14 3/8in. stock), 30in. barrels, both approx. cyl., 2½in. chambers, proof exemption

Together with a facsimilie of the makers' records, showing that the gun was started in 1875 and completed in 1879, and described as 'Mr. Deeley's Gun'. The stock was originally recorded as 16¾in., but shortened to 14½in. at the time it was finished.

This gun is the first example of W. Anson & J. Deeley's patent no. 1756 of 11th May 1875, where the action is cocked by the fall of the barrels. William Anson was Foreman of the Westley Richards Gun-Action Department, and John Deeley was the Commercial Manager of the company. By 1877 Anson had left Westley Richards and was trading independently, doing so until his death in 1889. John Deeley remained with Westley Richards until his retirement, and died in 1913



1895 Alexander Blair with an A&D APUN - so something happened to extend the patent:

https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...2-3-4-quot--barrels.cfm?gun_id=101072757

Description:
A 12 Gauge patent Anson & Deeley boxlock ejector shotgun from 1895. It has a 30” browned Damascus nitro proved barrels with dolls head extension and a game rib. The rib is marked A. Blair 28 Gordon St. Glasgow. Modern London Nitro proof with the proper reproof marks from 2000, Modern proved for 2 3/4" (70mm) cartridges at service pressure of 850 BAR, Chokes at Improved Cylinder & Improved Modified. Scroll engraving and trace of the original case color hardened finish remain, Double triggers, Best quality walnut stock with traditional English straight hand grip, Splinter forend with Anson release, 15 1/4" LOP over a 1” leather covered pad, Cast Off 3/16” at face, 7 Lbs. 4 Oz. The shotgun is presented in a leather case with tools and accessories. The receiver flats are stamped with the Anson & Deeley patent and this gun is marked as the 7,724th made under this patent.. Alexander Blair resided at 28 Gordon St, Glasgow between 1884 and 1886.

The greener I have is marked 225 pat.use serial number around 19000 1878 or 79 but also marker J brazier under the bottom plate and so is my 1886 greener mabey company's expand there business output by using outside company's who were set up in mfg. complete guns or just barreled actions in your Reilly expansion of output is there a new works mentioned? Or additional workforce?

Thanks Parabola...it's odd how a collection of photos doesn't seem to have the smallest bits when you need them.

Just like the guy in the Boer War or similar group photo will always have his hand clasped round the bit of his rifle that you really need to see to be certain of the exact model.

Just to add a bit to this history for the record. Holland claimed in the above Perks trial that there was little demand for "ejector" guns until 1886. Here are three Reilly labels from 1884, 1885, 1886. "Ejector" doesn't appear until the last label - 1886 - labels and advertisements match history. (and you know what - I still don't like SxS ejectors to this day)

This commentary decisively authenticated two historical questions and thus is important:
1). Did London build or market boxlocks? The answer is "yes." Starting 1880
2). When did "Ejectors" really become important as a marketing tool? 1886

Hope this helps UK gun history.

If we look at the title of this post, the original question was not did London "market" boxlocks. Neither was it about ejectors. " Moving the goal posts" in this discussion about UK gun history is not helpful but harmful.

This question at hand has been a topic of discussion for a long time and unfortunately it is not a subject that is easily decided as say a knowledgeable person of UK guns reading proof marks.

Many important issues are so important that they are only decided by empirical evidence by reasonable and knowledgeable individuals in a court of law and in a scientific environment; and this method is an established method that reasonable and knowledgeable individuals decide issues of importance elsewhere. This discussion to date has not decisively established that London gunmakers "made"( ".....that of procuring forged actions and barrel tubes from the trade, then filing or machining. boring, drilling, reaming, screwing and so forth required to "make" or build a gun or rifle during the period of about 1880 to 1950") boxlock shotguns and rifle with the exception of maybe Cogswell and Harrison. The Cogswell and Harrison exception is as a result as a member of the "gun press" of the day (circa 1900) recording what a principal of the Cogswell and Harrison firm stated about their workshop; however, there were no photos illustrating that boxlock gun production was being carried out in the workshop. This leaves the question are we to take what was written to be statements of a principal of the company to be absolute. It is known from the Cogswell & Harrison history published by later principals of the company (copyright 2000 by Safari Press), that Cogswell and Harrison had specific knowledge of boxlock guns through their extensive direct business interconnections with the Birmingham, England gun trade where boxlock (Anson & Deeley guns were developed and made daily); and it could be assumed by a reasonable and knowledgeable person that Cogswell & Harrison could have had employees in their London workshop gunmakrs that were Birmingham trained, qualified and experience makers of boxlock guns and rifles who could and did build/make boxlocks guns and rifles there.

We know that Mr. Harrison established somewhat nonconformist workshop methods in the Cogswell & Harrison that were not desired by the London trade such as less expensive ways of making parts and also the shoe lump barrel method of production on his best quality SLE versus using chopper lump barrels. So that he might also make boxlocks guns in his shop versus buying them directly from Birmingham could be in his business strategy and tactics.

To my way of thinking Cogswell and Harrison likely built some boxlock guns and rifles in their London workshop, but I have not in hand absolute proof that cannot be empirically disputed--which is what is desired.

[quote=bushveld
We know that Mr. Harrison established somewhat nonconformist workshop methods in the Cogswell & Harrison that were not desired by the London trade such as less expensive ways of making parts and also the shoe lump barrel method of production on his best quality SLE versus using chopper lump barrels. So that he might also make boxlocks guns in his shop versus buying them directly from Birmingham could be in his business strategy and tactics.


[/quote]

Len Bull told me that while working at H&H, if you screwed up you were promptly reminded that you were not employed by Cogswell and F*#@!ing Harrison. I still chuckle when thinking about that story. Not desired practices by the London trade indeed.

Let’s be honest….Who really cares what was desired by the “London trade”….if anything else, looking at the history of British shotgun making, and what we know now to be true and correct….the “London trade” has been found out to be a rather hypocritical bunch of snobs haven’t they? There were some absolutely amazing London based inventions, inventors and tradesmen, nobody is disputing that. Especially prevalent in the public domain (gun writers based in London) and in certain London based gun company brochures, a lot of them always looking down at the Birmingham trade as if they were inferior but all the while getting almost of their trade materials and complete functioning guns from the makers in the midlands of the isle. All on the hush hush. Pretty funny stuff.

I don’t think ANY of the Reilly “stuff” posted on this thread added anything of any real substance to the discussion.

Len Bull told me that while working at H&H, if you screwed up you were promptly reminded that you were not employed by Cogswell and F*#@!ing Harrison. I still chuckle when thinking about that story. Not desired practices by the London trade indeed.[/quote]

Steve;

Your quote of Len Bull is a CLASSIC.

I'd like to thank both bushveld and LeFusil for the statements I QUOTED above.

It needed to be said. Unfortunately, I doubt if it will sink into the head of the offending and obsessive/compulsive party.

Now, here's hoping this post does not get censored, and that it appears sometimes in, oh, the next several days.

Len had lots of great quotes but most cannot be repeated in polite company.

The late Larry Shelton spent a decade plus, and many thousands of dollars, researching and then publishing
J.P. Clabrough: Birmingham Gunmaker. Larry wasn't playing to a big audience, as I suspect all living
Clabrough collectors could fit in the back seat of a Yugo. He wanted to learn, share and then preserve what
he had learned. I am proud that he asked me to assist him. His research is now housed in the Cody Museum
collection. For true 'students of the gun" Larry's work or Jim Cate's books on Sauer, Kopeko's Hunting and
Sporting Guns of the World series (in Russian) or Aaron Newcomer's extraordinary knowledge of the pinfire
era may not be of interest to most, but it is very interesting to many and advances our knowledge in important
ways. Much that has been written about British sporting arms is incorrect and endlessly repeated by writers
who choose not to do their own research. I have co-authored five books on firearms - the most significant of
which is Hemingway's Guns: The Sporting Arms of Ernest Hemingway. Our motto was "Don't be wrong!" Sounds
easy enough but it is extremely difficult. In spite of our best efforts - errors crept in. I know Argo 44 only
through what he publishes on this website. I am not a Reilly collector and have never owned one - yet I applaud
him for what he's doing - correcting the record and expanding our collective understanding of the British
gun trade.

"A question was raised-----Did any London gun and rifle makers build any boxlock rifles and guns including the ones that they sold with their names and addresses engraved upon? All of us have an opinion."

Gentlemen, I've done my best to add to this line constructively.
-- Reilly was a London gunmaker.
-- In the Reilly history I've laid out all the evidence I could muster that Reilly made the guns he serial numbered.
-- Reilly made and sold boxlocks both shotguns and rifles in great quantity from 1880 on.
-- ergo, at least one London gunmaker made boxlocks. QED.

If one believes Reilly did not "make" these guns...i.e. he did not even make the stocks, finish actions bought in the white, etc., then there is not much more that can be done to fill in the blanks.

So, the subject of this line was addressed directly by my posts - it was not "changed" as alleged. The business of ejectors was just an add-on which I thought might be of interest.

Of course, Reilly can be "canceled." However, I'll again state this request from the introduction to the Reilly history:
"Footnotes are provided for each paragraph, indeed each sentence.... Challenges to this research should be as well documented, not just based on "urban legend."

Argo44, Reilly didn’t make boxlocks. Sorry. Didn’t happen. They didn’t make ANY modern breech loading guns. NONE.

Stop ruining threads with your unsolicited Reilly stuff. Seriously.

Steve;

I am sending you a PM about Len Bull.

Regards;
Stephen Howell

I'm beginning to believe that the look alike greener boltwork guns were put together by company's specialising in that produce then anyone could add there name. company's in Wolverhampton and Birmingham could mass produce them either finished or barreled actions in the white.

I only met Mr Bull a couple times, fun guy. You probably didn't want to ask Len what he did in Kenya :-)

This request relates DIRECTLY to Mr. Bushveld's original question.

And: This is a serious request for comments and not just "I'm right and you're an idiot" stuff. I'm posting the below excerpt from the current Reilly history. I have documented every step of this history to this point....nothing is based on what "Someone told me." But at this point to further research the topic some serious questions need to be answered.

Reilly was the "Walmart" of the 1800's...good stuff..cheap price...get it today. If anyone in London would have produced a boxlock, it would have been him. So, if you have one of those Reilly boxlocks, are there initials on the action or barrel? Is there any other evidence that Brum made them?

I'm assuming for the moment based on a lot of good people communicating that Brum likely did make those Reilly actions ...And it's a business decision Reilly would have taken...i.e., "Make your 650 a year pigeon guns for the aristocracy but sell the Brum stuff off the rack."

But a counter argument can be made as well - basically historically Reilly only serial numbered guns he made - he did not serial number assembled guns...as extensively documented in the history..

If you are going to comment about this...
-- first please talk about boxlocks...
-- If you talk about Reilly...please read the complete history and post comments- preferably highlighted - on that line. Thanks.
-- If you're going to insult me, get in line.

- - - - - - - - - current history for publication - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1880: Reilly and the Anson & Deeley Boxlock'

In early1880 Reilly adopted the boxlock (Anson & Deeley 1875 Patent) and began building them in significant numbers, apparently in marked contrast to other London gun makers.

. . .-- The boxlock looks to have been frowned on by London gunmakers for some reason, possibly as being "plebeian." Yet Reilly publicly embraced it. It fitted his anti-establishment style and his model for selling to the guys actually on the ground carrying their own guns.

. . .-- It may be that Reilly, always a gambler on technological innovation, decided that its simplicity and durability were the future of shotgunning, a conclusion reinforced by early 1880’s writings.

. . .-- However, at the same time Reilly was dramatically expanding serial numbered production from 650 to over 1000 a year and had decided to "sell off the rack." The A&D boxlock would certainly have simplified the manufacturing process. Reilly could have tried to produce these himself at least early on..he had the ego and the manufacturing space. Building a boxlock, indeed almost any action from that time period, is not difficult for a competent gunmaker.

. . .-- Equally possible, is that Reilly began to avail himself of Birmingham produced actions. Buying boxlock actions from Birmingham and finishing them in London, as just about the entire trade did at the time, would be a logical business step. Birmingham was fully geared up to producing boxlocks by 1880. However, Birmingham box-lock actions usually have workers' initials on them someplace. None have yet to be found on a Reilly box-lock but this type of information is not usually published by auction houses.

. . .-- SN 22482 (1880): The first surviving Reilly box-lock is SN 22482 (1880), a 12 gauge top lever shot gun, A&D Patent use number 1156. Almost 30% of the surviving Reilly’s from 1881 to 1912, both rifles and shotguns, are boxlocks.

1882: Selling Off The Rack

In late 1881 per advertisements it appears that Reilly made a business decision to stock ready-made guns and sell them off-the-rack as well as selling his usual bespoke made-to-order guns. This might account for the soaring number of guns serial numbered per year, which grew from about 650 numbered in 1880 to some 1050 in 1882. It might also account for certain discrepancies in serial numbered guns from this time forward such as 303xx which would have been numbered in late 1888-early 1889 but still has "Not For Ball" on its barrels (a stamping discontinued in 1887).

If this were the case, Reilly possibly serial numbered his bespoke guns when ordered (usual London practice) and his off-the-rack guns when sold. (When knowledgable gun historians and makers were queried about this phenomena - guns with pre-1887 proof marks apparently made after that date - they shrugged and said essentially that no-one can logically explain the process at the time - some gun makers ignored or stretched the law; some used barrels already proofed..etc.)

The decision to vastly expand production and sell ready-made guns may mark the origin of a trend towards marketing Birmingham-made guns finished in London to satisfy demand, supplementing Reilly’s own production which seemed to max out at about 650 a year per the below chart. Scott "Triplex" actions found on several 1880's Reilly's may be an example (along with the above mentioned pivot to making Anson & Deeley boxlocks).
. . .-- (This said, Scott usually managed to put a Scott number on his guns and actions - none have been found on Reilly's and the Reilly Scott Triplex actions have on their barrels "Improved Patent" for some reason or another. Thus it is also entirely possible that Reilly built them under license. As usual all Reilly serial number guns continued to proofed in London).

1882: Reilly and Steel Barrels'

In addition in January 1882 he advertised for the first time guns equipped with Whitworth compressed fluid steel barrels (originally a 1865 patent extended in 1879 for 5 years).

. . .-- SN 24365: The first extant Reilly with a confirmed Whitworth barrel is SN 24365, a 12 gauge SxS pigeon gun with 31” barrels - top lever, side lock, low hammers, flat file cut rib. It is dated per the chart to 1882.
. . .-- SN 19953: (There is a Reilly .500 SxS BPE rifle from 1876 SN 19953, which appears to have steel barrels; however they may be blued Damascus, the gun description being minimal.)

I can't imagine a production jump like that without outside help .if a company could supply a finished product from plain Jane to best box lock why take th a risk and expand a profitable London business I know greener purchased Anson and deeley guns from brazier and for at least 10 years greener had the factory capable of producing a&d guns I think at one time they were the largest gun factory in England.

And by the way..how can all those Reilly serial numbers be dated? It has to be magic....or maybe 4000 hours of research.

I think the idea was to discuss the probability of box lock guns made in London not just finished up in London from birmingham parts I don't know what dating Reilly guns has to do with that what's the point ? I think if you could prove that reillys added a substantial workforce at the time the London made box locks were supposed to be being built might help with your theory.

mc, thanks for the comment. There are two substrings to this conversation:
-- Did a London gunmaker make A&D actions in and of themselves
-- Did a London gunmaker make guns based on A&D actions from Brum

I've addressed both arguments above.

And if you can't date a Reilly gun with an A&D action..then the whole argument is moot. Right?

And sir, (this really get tiresome) - please read the Reilly line. in 1881 per the UK census...Reilly employed more than twice the number of men than Greener and 5 times that of Purdey.

Or you could read these sections of the current history (It's all there on p. 54 of the Reilly line) (and youall thinking that auction houses endlessly repeating gun "history" is in any way unusual?):

------------history to be published -------------

1878-80: Situation of the Company

Reilly again exhibited at the 1878 Paris exposition and again won medals. By 1880 Reilly sold a third more - soon to be twice as many - serial numbered, hand made bespoke guns than both Holland and Holland and Purdey combined, this in addition to:
. . .-- a very active business in guns sold under license from well known gun makers including revolvers (Trantor, Baumont-Adams, Walker, Colt, etc), rook rifles, repeating rifles (Sharps, Winchester, etc.),
. . .-- as well as merchandising every type of gun accoutrement - reloaders, cartridges, shells, cases, etc.
. . .-- and sustaining a huge business in previously owned guns.

Reilly told the 1881 census taker that he employed some 300 people in his firm, an extraordinarialy high number for the times, an indication of the extent of his gun manufacturing and sales business. (WW Greener in the same census claimed to employ 140, less than half the number of Reilly; Purdey in 1871 said he employed 58, 1/5th the number of Reilly workers).

Reilly in the early 1880's

Reilly's business was booming and gun production topped 1000 a year. Reilly reportedly was making long guns for other London gun-makers. Note: there is a suspicion that with his large industrial spaces (by London terms) that he was doing this for many years - see the Reilly-Purdey kerfuffle from 1866. As an example,
. . .-- a James Beattie percussion gun made circa 1835 has been found with the locks labeled “Reilly,” a possible indication that Reilly made the gun in the white for Beattie, this in the very early years of Reilly making guns.
. . .-- In 1832 Reilly offer special deals for “country gun makers.”
. . .-- Wilkinson marketed at least on Green Bros Breech loader circa 1868; since Reilly was the sole manufacturer of the Green Bros patent, Reilly had to have made that gun for Wilkinson.

He also around this time allegedly (not confirmed) began importing cheap Belgian-made revolvers in parts which he assembled in his buildings, engraved and sold. (Reilly, like Trantor and others, possibly was involved with the Belgian manufacture and "assembly trade" much earlier...perhaps dating to as early as the 1850's).

He exhibited at the 1882 Calcutta fair (a British Empire only affair) and won a medal and was highly praised for his exhibit at the 1884/85 London International Expositions where he again won medals.

(Note there were three different international expositions in London in 1884-85; An exposition at Crystal Palace; the International Health Exposition of 1884; and the International Inventions Exposition of 1885. Reilly apparently won a gold medal at the Internation Health Exposition though why shotguns were exhibited there is unknown – he publicized the medals only as “London Exhibition 1884.” Reilly also won a silver medal at the International Inventions Exposition but did not publicize it; Reilly's exhibit at this exposition is described in Wyman.)

Reilly guns figured very well in live pigeon shooting contests throughout the 1880's. Reilly won the 1882 year-long Hurlingham manufacturers cup championship per the Holt's Shooting calendar and his pigeon guns from these early 1880 years were specifically built to match the Hurlingham weight limits.

Big game hunters in Africa used his guns and advertised the results including Henry Morton Stanley, the Welsh-American and perhaps the most famous of all African explorers, Dr. David Livingston, and noted Victorian era African hunter and author Frederick Selous. Sir Samuel Baker, the most famous Victorian hunter of all, of course, began using Reilly heavy rifles in the early 1850’s, had Reilly build explosive shells for him, and continued to use his Reilly connection to the end of his hunting life as previously mentioned.

I guess I'm just getting old(er) but re-reading the above line is upsetting:'' I posted this about the first existing Reilly Boxlock - mid 1880:

-- SN 22482 (1880): The first surviving Reilly box-lock is SN 22482 (1880)

How in the heck does anybody know that Reilly 22482 was numbered in 1880? Except of course for the 4000 hours of research put in on the Reilly line?

(Or we could rely on what some gunsmith in Uk heard when he started working as a 14 year old apprentice in 1950).

I also asked Donald Dallas and others whether there is a definitive way to identify a boxlock action made in Birmingham. No one so far has been able to respond other than..."there must be workers' initials on there someplace," or "that's what everybody knows or says."

So if there are no "workers initials" on a boxlock, that means it wasn't made in Birmingham? Does anyone else have an idea or comment...or can we now assume that boxlocks without initials were made in London? (And I'm being provocative but the issue needs to be addressed..."Birmingham made all the boxlock actions" is now so imbedded in "gun history" that it's hard to get to the bottom of the story)

By that line of logic, we could also assume that E.M. Reilly did not manufacture any real quantity of firearms, because we have seen no photos of Reilly gunmakers or gun assembly workers, and there is also no London Census data showing anyone employed there in those jobs.

`Birmingham made all the boxlock actions and most of the sidelocks too ` would be closer ! I think you have to remember that our interest takes us into a different world ie the past,and the trade did not operate in such a structured way as modern industry with its traceability .Work of individuals was perhaps identified by the way it was presented ,such as the way an action was filed to shape or parts of the mechanism were made etc.Those involved at the time would easily know who did what but perhaps had no interest in making it obvious at some point in the future .They were simply working to live and would produce product however the customer wanted it.
Bottom line is that there were few rules .HTh.

Imperdix,I agree a task was given for finishing parts the task was completed ,get paid then move on to the next task if you were good and worked efficiently you stayed busy

I know almost nothing of British guns, but in the event this bit of information may add something to the conversation; I own a Fredrick T. Baker 12 bore with a Pall Mall, London address. It is a non-ejector box lock built on an Anson and Deeley action featuring Damascus barrels and very fine 100% engraving coverage. The Roman numerals in the engraving pattern date this gun to 1883, but I have no idea where the action may have been made; only that it has a London address and is high quality.

The figure of 300 employees for Reilly in 1881 seems a very high figure especially in relation to 140 for WW Greener. I cant help but wonder if there is some puffery in this self reported figure. If he really did employee 300 workers he would have had to have made thousands of guns a year to cover this overhead. Perhaps he had other manufacturing business and lumped all his employees under one banner for some reason?

If we take the figure of 300 as correct the evidence of the output will be found in the day proof ledgers of Worshipful Company of Gunmakers proof house. These ledgers and archive of the London proof house can be viewed in the Guildhall Library in Central London. I have spent a many days there myself looking at the period from 1914 to 1945. If Reilly made guns in London the evidence will be in these day books. If Reilly did not make guns there will not be any entries under his name.

Regards

Alan

Alan, many thanks for your always substantive comments.

I've confirmed with the Worshipful Company that neither E.M. nor J.C. were members. This is not a deal breaker - there are prominent gun-makers who were not members. But, if someone can verify what was being proofed at that time....just pick a month - heck a week....I'd be grateful. I can provide a name and an email to the historian at the Company - he owns a Reilly pair.

A look at the Reilly dating chart will show that at least for serial numbered guns, the increase in production in the early 1880's is indisputable. The footnotes prove it.

But identifying that Reilly proofed say 100 guns in "August 1882" or say " 20 guns from Aug 01 - Aug 08, 1882, will not satisfy the question..."Who built the actions?" And in addition Reilly quite possibly was building a lot more guns for the trade at the time. And he was sending literally dozens of pistols to be proofed at the time.

Gun writers have wrapped themselves around the axle about the 1881 census... But Occam's Razor requires the simplest solution... Reilly spoke the truth. If you would read the Reilly line the number of business offshoots he was involved in with three separate workshops and stores plus the decision to upgrade production at that time, combined with the known cyclical employment in the industry, make his declaration credible. This is detailed in the Reilly history...

And this is not about Reilly though that is my interest. Below posted is the essential question - no one has answered it so far:

How can you identify a hypothetical boxlock action built in London in the late 1870's-early 1880's (if there were any) from those built in Birmingham?!!!

That's pretty much the essence of this line and it's an important question. Thanks to Bushveld for bringing this to the fore.

I wonder if a maker had to be a member of the Worshipful Company to have his guns proved in London.Others will know more about this than me. I noted a number of Scottish makers who sent their guns to London
for proofing, when Birmingham would have been closer, no doubt for the perceived cachet. For a London maker to send guns to Birmingham would have meant extra expense and administration plus increased risk of damage or loss.
Even if Reilly did not make the actions he would still have to proof the gun when the barrels were fitted, if he intended to sell the gun. With 300 employees you would think he would have been delivering guns for proof each week and picking them up to bring back to the factory for careful cleaning, as the London proof house did not clean the guns after proof, according to some records concerning the Colt Agency in London prior to 1913.

Regards

AlanD