Well, I went to an arms and antiques fair yesterday and ended up coming away with a 22 gauge (c.15mm) double flintlock shotgun. Nothing fancy, but well made and in fine condition.
The locks are signed "Cutler", while the top rib simple says "LONDON" and the undersides of the barrels are marked "STUBS TWIST" and "ISH" (or HSI, if they were stamped at 108 degrees from the previous marking!). There are no proof marks and I've not found any maker's marks on the inside face of the locks.
I've identified a Birmingham gun maker called Richard Cutler:
Richard Cutler, 1807-47, & Son 1848-58. Victualler and gunmaker. Lench Street, B'ham 1807-11,
24 Weaman St., 1822-40,
26 Weaman St., 1841-58. (Though the last date may be wrong, since his will is dated 13/05/1857)
... all good, but nowhere can I find a connection with London.
Do any of the knowledgeable members on here know
(a) how a gun by a Birmingham maker with no London premises might come to bear the name of that city on its rib, and
(b) who ISH/HSI might be?
Images below:
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gc48...rlkey=vrn64jgl64ozaayp9s583wtae&dl=0[/img]
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/luee...rlkey=rny9kjqewy8gdxjuhvc38rgx7&dl=0[/img]
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jw73...rlkey=4v58wji5o24v2g7k37vm5kryb&dl=0[/img][img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v9qz...rlkey=q2sw9q8kb5p8zi293er743vk3&dl=0[/img]

Perhaps he was just anticipating the next extension of the London Ultra Low Emissions Zone?

I think a double-barrelled coal-burner is probably the antithesis of Mr. Khan's vision for a cleaner London.

On topic, I picked up this snippet from another forum, but have yet to read further on the matter:

"Shortly before the B'ham proof house opened, in 1813, there was a piece of legislation introduced in Parliament, sponsored by the London gun trade. It required that all barrel markings denote where the barrel was actually made - which would have ended the custom of putting "London" on B'ham made barrels. The legislation went absolutely nowhere when the B'ham makers pointed out that virtually all of the London makers were buying their barrels semi-finished from B'ham, finishing them and having them proved at the London proof house... so even the "real" London barrels were B'ham products.

https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=15087.0"

If the above is accurate, perhaps it might help frame a date for the gun.

My concern is that there are no UK proof marks at all. The word LONDON on the rib was somewhat duplicitous in as much as it could describe a type of twist steel but also imply to the unwary that the gun was made in London. Many examples end up in the colonies in one guise or another.

In my experience, any percussion or flint gun that is marked "London Twist," "London," "Stub Twist," or variations is going to probably be Belgium or maybe Birmingham made. I have never worked on a quality London gun that lacked the maker's name and address on the rib or barrels. The same goes for Birmingham guns.

The proof is in the proof marks.

Thanks for the replies.
I can't see a more likely origin than Birmingham, -given the recorded presence of a maker called Cutler in the Gun Quarter in the era to which the gun belongs, not to mention a viewpoint undoubtedly weighted by having bought the gun not half an hour's drive from there- hence my puzzlement at the London attribution on the rib.
I can't see anyone counterfeiting a Cutler gun (hardly a name to conjure with, and no minor nuisance to Google for when so many early gunmakers' were also sword cutlers). Moreover there are no stylistic features of the gun itself I would take to be Continental and thus suggestive of a Belgian origin overall.
This brings us to the idea that Birmingham gunmakers in the 1830s (?) bought barrels from Belgium, rather than shopping (much) closer to home. I must confess this seems implausible to me, but as surprise is often a signpost on the road from ignorance to knowledge, I'll keep an open mind, especially if the absence of British proof marks, and perhaps also "STUBS" rather than "STUB" twist, may indicate barrels made abroad. [Edit: see my later post on the likelihood of Belgian barrels in this case.]

Still niggling away at the things I don't know about the Cutler...
I'm getting the impression that the maker was a "follower" (for which read "poor imitator") of Manton's style, but suppose that once Manton had set the standard, that description might be applied to most English gunmakers of the later 18th and early 19th centuries.
For example, here's a picture of the trigger guard of a genuine Manton:
And here's a picture of the same area of Cutler's gun:
I'm less interested here by Cutler's emulation of Manton's pineapple finial: though it's a pretty good copy, it's too widely imitated a motif to put much weight on. What interests me more is Manton's depiction, on his trigger guard, of a pointer flushing a bird from a clump of vegetation; and how this is emulated (very badly) by Cutler: indeed, Cutler's engraver, perhaps doubting his ability to depict the pointer's legs, portrayed it lying down:
Ahead of it is a bird rising from a clump of vegetation:
A similar thing occurs on the tang of the butt-plate. Where Manton (on another gun) has a nicely-realised trophy of arms:
Cutler gives his customer this approximation:
Anyway, as much fun as I'm having looking for stylistic similarities, none of this resolves the "Stubs twist" and "London" questions, or explains the lack of proof marks, or helps assign the gun to either Cutler's Lench St. (1807-1811), or Weaman Street (1822-1840) periods, or whatever he was doing between 1812-1821... although, I suppose absent proof marks may be more likely in 1807-811 than in the 1820s and after.

Belgium seems a good bet. Not having previously looked at British sporting gun production pre/c.1800, I hadn't appreciated how much Liège dominated twist barrel production. Having now read this: "By 1700, Liege was producing Twist barrels, and Crolle Damascus by about 1750. After Gen. Napoleon Bonaparte’s expedition against the Mameluks in Egypt and Ottomans in Syria 1798-1799, production of Damascus barrels in St. Etienne and Liege was markedly expanded. [1798 - William Dupein obtains a British patent for a twist gun barrel of iron and steel.] J. Jones was granted a British patent in 1806 for a method of making barrels from scelps or strips coiled around a mandrel and by 1817 Rigby of Dublin was producing Damascus barrels. “Damascus iron” was manufactured in Birmingham by Wiswould and Adams by about 1820 and Charles Lancaster supplied Purdey (and others) c.1811-1826 before establishing his own gun making company. [https://sites.google.com/a/damascusknowledge.com/www/home] I am left feeling that, to equip a gun with "stubs twist" barrels c.1807-1811, Mr. Cutler of Birmingham would in all probability have had to obtain these from Liège.


And there's the rub: I'm not readily finding information on proof-mark rules/conventions pre/c.1800. Most of my books choose to start at 1850 (presumably for good reason!) A nice set of Liège, Birmingham or London stamps would make everything much clearer. Instead, all I have is the enigmatic "ISH".

Not just no UK ones, no marks at all. Just "ISH" and "STUBS TWIST".


Cutler's name on the locks indicates that he was taking a degree of responsibility for his guns, and possibly also some pride in them. At the same time, he doesn't appear to have enjoyed the kind of name-recognition that led to numerous "Richard" or "Purdy"-style forgeries.

Jules, that is a very handsome flintlock (the photograph of it do not display on my screen this evening - might want to repost). I do not believe that it was mandatory to proof barrels in the UK until the Firearms Proof Act of 1813. You mentioned this earlier. Here it is and it created the Birmingham proof house at the same time:
https://vlex.co.uk/vid/firearms-act-1813-808157429

If so then surely your Cutler is pre 1813 or if it dodged the proof laws a fortune in fines awaited the maker. There are examples of gun makers who were so sanctioned. And thanks for your highly interesting postings on the early use of Damascus in Liège and its gradual infiltration into UK barrel making. Fullerd was the last London barrel maker and he closed shop in 1843.

I may be wrong but if so Diggory Hadoke is as well for his widely used proof chart begins in 1813.

Argo44, thanks for the information and the chart, which I'd previously seen but had not fully appreciated the start date of.
I suspect the images you can see are of the Mantons I was comparing the Cutler somewhat unfavourably to.
Here are some more images of my gun. Hopefully these will display properly (I have yet to figure out why some of my Dropbox links work when others don't):

[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ypa2...rlkey=3147ubxnhe3ixer6lyx2dtart&dl=0[/img]

[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b9sb...rlkey=tggy5qkqmlivxl9pxazcr4g1u&dl=0[/img]

[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7ns5...rlkey=2thc2dkqpd5sl0xyt69nulht8&dl=0[/img]

I found a source stating that there was no penalty for selling an un-proved barrel until the Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1855.

https://vlex.co.uk/vid/gun-barrel-proof-act-808271557

Easy to be an "expert" when there are no experts on pattern welded barrel identification, but IMHO those are English Stub Twist barrels. Unfortunately I have no list of early Birmingham tube makers to ID 'HSI'

c. 1780 Henry Nock flintlock with very messy Stub Twist



"Fine Twisted Stubbs" I don't know the ?Crown over V and the 'R' marks



I think this is a Kirkwood with "Fine Stubs Twisted"

Joseph Manton percussion ML single which much nicer Twist barrels. Manton was at Hanover Square c. 1812-1820



Interesting Crolle flat and Twist tube, with London proof. I don't know 'JB'

I'll add Jules photos so all can see the gun. I find this topic extremely interesting as a historical understanding of the UK proof process.

Anno Regni GEORGII III. Britanniarum Regis,Quinquagesimo Tertio. An Act to insure the proper and careful manufacturing of Fire Arms inEngland ; and for making Provision for proving the Barrels of such Fire Arms.

(53 Geo. 3) C A P. CXV
[10th July 1813]

'WHEREAS serious Injuries are frequently sustained by Persons using Guns, Fowling Piece, Blunderbusses, Pistols and other Fire Arms, from the bursting thereof, in consequence of the Barrels of such Guns, Fowling Pieces, Blunderbusses, Pistols and Fire Arms, not having been sufficiently proved; and it is therefore expedient that the Manufacturers of Fire Arms should be compelled to prove the same at some Place appropriated for that Purpose as a Public Proof House: And whereas great Quantities of Fire Arms and Barrels for Fire Arms are manufactured in the Town ofBirmingham and the Vicinity thereof, and it would tend to the Safety and Security of the Public if a Proof House for Fire Arms, under proper Superintendance and Inspection, were to be established in or near the said Town:' May it therefore please Your Majesty, that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That, from and after the Expiration of Three Weeks from the passing of this Act, no Barrel shall be used in the making or manufacturing of any Gun, Fowling Piece, Blunderbuss, Pistol or other Description of Fire Arms usually called Small Arms, unless the same shall have been duly proved at the Proof House of the Gunmakers' Company inLondon , or at the Proof House to be established under the Provisions of this Act, or some Proof House belonging to His Majesty, or other Proof House established as a Public Proof House by Law; and which Public Proof Houses His Majesty is hereby authorized and empowered to establish in such Places, and under such Regulations as to the Care and Management thereof, as His Majesty shall think fit.

S-II Using or selling Barrels not duly proved.
II Using or selling Barrels not duly proved.

II. And be it further enacted, That, from and after the Expiration of Three Weeks from the passing of this Act, every Person who shall use or cause or procure to be used any Barrel in the making, manufacturing or finishing of any Gun, Fowling Piece, Blunderbuss, Pistol, or any other Description of Fire Arms as aforesaid, or who shall sell or cause to be sold any Barrel for the making of any Gun, Fowling Piece, Blunderbuss, Pistol or other Description of Fire Arms, which shall not first have been duly proved, and marked as proved at the Gunmakers Company's Proof House inLondon , or at the Proof House to be established under the Provisions of this Act, or some Proof House belonging to His Majesty, or other Public Proof House established as such by Law or by His Majesty, shall forfeit and pay for every such Offence any Sum not exceeding Twenty Pounds to be recovered as hereinafter mentioned.
. . . . . .etc., etc.

Thanks Gene.

Another Hanover Square Manton with not as nice Stub Twist

Many thanks, Drew and Gene, for the fascinating gallery of twist examples, and for the repost of my uncooperative images. Fascinating, too, to see the actual text of the legislation that set the seal of authority on the proof system.
Here are a couple more images of if the Cutler:
Barrel stamps
links[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aged...rlkey=2qml71rv3s1yal5httiqst3d2&dl=0[/img]
Twist pattern
[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a4l3...rlkey=7634o7w05e9gu3s2hgbbuimwc&dl=0[/img]

I found the following description of barrel-making in an 1818 work by Sir Richard Phillips (1767-1840), The book of English trades, and library of the useful arts (London, Stereotyped by G. Sidney, for R. Phillips; published by J. Souter, 1818). It may be that this is already a well-known passage. It may also be suspected that Phillips is not entirely to be relied upon in matters of detail. In any event, I though it of enough interest to share here.

A facsimile of Phillips' work, containing the complete article on the trade of "Gun Maker", from which this is an excerpt, is available from the Internet Archive:

"To form a gun barrel in the manner generally practised for those denominated common, the workmen begin by heating and hammering out a bar of iron into the form of a flat ruler, thinner at the end intended for the muzzle, and thicker at that for the breech; the length, breadth, and thickness of the whole plate being, of course, regulated by the intended length, diameter, and weight of the barrel. This oblong plate of metal is then, by repeated beating and hammering, turned round a cylindrical rod of tempered iron, called a mandril, whose diameter is considerably less than the intended bore of the barrel. The edges of the plate are made to overlap each other about half an inch and are welded together by heating the tube in lengths of two or three inches at a time and hammering it with very brisk but moderate strokes upon an anvil which has a number of semicircular furrows upon it, adapted to the various stages of barrels. The heat required for welding is the bright white heat which precedes fusion, and at which the particles of the iron unite so intimately with one another that when properly managed no trace is left of their former separation. These heatings and hammerings are repeated until the whole barrel has undergone the same operation, and all its parts are rendered as perfectly continuous as if it had been bored out of a solid piece. For better work, the barrel is forged in separate pieces of eight or nine inches in length and then welded together, lengthways, as well as in the overlapping. The other mode being the easiest and quickest done, is the most usual.

The barrel is now either finished in the common manner or made to undergo the operation of twisting, which is a process commonly employed on those barrels which are intended to be of a superior quality and price. This operation consists in heating the barrel in portions of a few inches at a time to a high degree of red heat; when one end of it is screwed into a vice, and into the other is introduced a square piece of iron with a handle like an auger, and by means of these, the fibres of the heated portion are twisted in a spiral direction, which is thought to resist the efforts of the powder much better than a longitudinal one."

Yes, that would be the early "Twisted" (not Twist) barrel. The tube was fabricated by folding a sheet of "Plain Iron" over a mandrel, then welding the long edge



Gervis Francois Magne’ de Marolles, 1789
An Essay On Shooting (An English adaptation of Marolles’ original)
http://books.google.com/books?id=-Q0AAAAAQAAJ&dq

The (Twisted) barrel when forged (is) made to undergo the operation of twisting, which is a process employed by the French workmen on those barrels that are intended to be of a superior quality and price to others; but which as will be seen in the sequel, is very different from that followed by the English workmen in the formation of their twisted barrels. This operation consists in heating the barrel in portions of a few inches at a time, to a high degree of red heat, when one end of it is screwed into a vice, and into the other is introduced a square piece of iron with a handle like an augre and by means of these, the fibres of the heated portion are twisted in a spiral direction that is found to resist the effort of the powder much better than a longitudinal one. To render this operation as complete as possible, it is necessary to observe, that when one the several portions of the barrel have been twisted, the heats that are afterwards given in order to consolidate the fibers of the metal in their spiral direction, by means of the hammer, ought not to be very great. Otherwise the grain of the metal will regain its former state, and the barrel be no better than it was before it underwent to twisting.
From the process it is evident, that to twist a barrel in this manner, throughout its whole length, it must be forged nearly a foot and half longer than it is intended to be when finished, that a portion at each end may be kept cold, so as to give a sufficient purchase to the vise and twisting instrument during the operation: these portions are afterwards to be cut off before the barrel is bored.
The English workmen with whom we have conversed…are all of opinion…that this process of twisting…is really injurious to the barrel, by straining the fibres of metal.

French flintlock with "Twisted" barrels





Thomas Burgeland Johnson, The Shooter’s Guide; Or, Complete Sportsman’s Companion, 5th Edition, p. 157, 1816
http://books.google.com/books?id=5DQCAAAAYAAJ

A common gun-barrel is formed in the following manner. – The workmen begin by heating and hammering out a bar of iron into the form of a flat ruler, thinner at the end intended for the muzzle, and thicker at that for the breech; the length, breadth, and thickness of the whole plate being regulated by the intended length and diameter, and weight of the barrel. This oblong plate of iron is then, by repeated heating and hammering, turned round a cylindrical rod of tempered iron, called a mandril, the diameter of which is considerable less than the intended bore of the barrel. The edges of the plate are made to overlap each other about half an inch, and are welded together by heating the tube in lengths of two or three inches at a time, and hammering it upon an anvil that has a number of semicircular furrows in it, adapted to the various sizes of barrels; and by this means, the whole of the barrel is rendered as perfectly continuous as if it had been bored out of a solid piece.
The barrel, when forged, is either finished in the common way, or made to undergo the operation of twisting; which is a process employed on those barrels which are intended to be of superior quality and price to others. This operation consists in heating the barrel, in portions of a few inches at a time, to a high degree of red heat; when one end of it is screwed into a vice, and into the other is introduced a square piece of iron, with a handle similar to that of an auger; and by means of these, the fibres of the heated portion are twisted in a spiral direction, which has been found to resist the efforts of the powder better than a longitudinal one.
Twisted barrels are deservedly celebrated superior elegance and strength. The iron employed in them is formed of old horse-shoe nails, which are originally made of the softest and toughest iron that can be produced; and which is still further purified by the numerous heatings and hammerings it has under gone in being reduced from a bar into the size and form of nails. Twenty-eight pounds of these stubs are required to make a single barrel of the ordinary size. These barrels are twisted into a spiral form, by means of the anvil and hammer alone, which is not the case with common barrels…

Lots of methodology information here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BdbWHfJmr2EyvzcPybid7pwlEliH6m9pr1LxMESM3W0/edit
and
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oPd3fOeToSHZwCaahXNIyV3sGVqow_Z_ENO8Fnk7kTQ/edit

Drew, thankyou for those extracts (and for the references to their sources), as well as for the images of the French twisted barrels - another thing I never knew of before.

A source you may already know, but which I came across today, and that others may be interested to know of, is John Holland's, A treatise on the progressive improvement & present state of the manufactures in metal (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1831-34), 3 vols. [specifically] Vol 2, Ch.V "Firearms", pp.85-123. In this chapter we find the following comment on the 1813 legislation:

"In 1813, a bill was introduced into the House of Commons, the object of which was to oblige every manufacturer of firearms to mark them with his real name and place of abode. The Birmingham gun-makers took the alarm, petitioned the house against the bill, and thirty-two gun-makers instantly subscribed £100 to defray the expense of opposing it. They represented that they made the component parts of the London guns, which, in fact, were only put together and marked in the metropolis. The petitioners were successful, and soon afterwards, government authorized the gun-makers of Birmingham to erect a proof-house of their own, with wardens and a proof-master, and allowed them to stamp on their guns the ensigns of royalty. All firearms at present manufactured in Birmingham and its vicinity are subjected to the proof required by the Board of Ordnance; the expense not to exceed £1 each piece, and the neglect of proving is attended by a penalty not exceeding £20."

The same chapter contains quite detailed descriptions of barrel-making processes. I've made a PDF, which is available here (if my link works!)

An excerpt:

"The Birmingham workmen, in preparing the material for stub barrels, usually cut up strips of iron and steel with large shears into bits like two-inch nails. These bits are then arranged and annealed in a variety of forms by filling them compactly into a hoop or ring, in a manner similar to that which is common among the blacksmiths for using up old horseshoe nails. The hoop is then formed into a bloom in the furnace, after which it is welded and drawn out under the rollers or hammer into the strips already described. The metals, when properly mixed, exhibit a beautiful appearance when treated with an acidulated liquor, after which the barrel is finally finished.
Being finished at the welding shop, the barrel is carried to a workman whose duty is carefully to examine it, and, without heating it again, to set it perfectly straight by means of a few strokes with his hammer upon an anvil. He likewise tests its soundness by placing one end in a bucket of water and sucking with his mouth at the other end until the water fills the barrel. By this means, if there is any crack or flaw, however produced, which extends through the substance of the barrel, it is presently detected by the appearance of moisture on the outside. When this happens to be the case, the article is returned to the forger, and the fracture is closed by re-welding."

List of London Gunmakers from 1825. Cutler is not there. You'll note that the list comes from the 4th edition of "Instructions to Young Sportsmen, by Ltc P. Hawker which compares flintlocks to percussion guns. Taking a look at earlier editions of Hawker's book might turn up something about Cutler. (1st edition was 1814. . .9th edition was 1859 - couple of years after his death. . .is was reprinted up to 1988):

And a few excerpts from Hawker's 5th edition, 1826:

Charles Lancaster was a barrel maker for Joseph Manton in the early 1800s. In 1811 he set up his own shop in Drury Lane, supplying barrels to Manton and the rest of the London Gun Trade, including Purdey. In 1826 he began making guns under his own name on New Bond St.

Purdey percussion ML with stub twist tubes

Thankyou very much for the further information. It's particularly interesting to learn of Charles Lancaster's profile as a leading barrel-maker, and to see his initials so clearly stamped on his work.

The list of London gunmakers is also stimulating of fresh ideas. I hadn't really expected to find Cultler on it, as someone with serial addresses in Birmingham's gun quarter (who moreover goes missing from the record for a decade), seems unlikely to have had either the cash or the cachet to establish themself in the capital. However, I'm thinking that if "ISH" is the equivalent of "CL", then it may be fruitful to search the London Directories of the early 19th century for a barrel-maker with a first name beginning with "I" and a surname beginning with "H" (or possibly "S", if the surname is itself double-barrelled! - however unusual it may have been for a tradesman to style himself in this way).

In that regard, if anyone reading this has a copy of Howard L. Blackmore's Gunmakers of London: 1350-1850 to hand, would you be kind enough to look for "I*H" entries from the first decades of the 19th century?

Edit: I find nothing in the Post Office Annual Directory, 1808
Nothing in the Post Office London Directory, 1841. [Part 1: Street, Commercial, & Trades Directories), either.

In old documents “J” is sometime rendered as “I” (or vice versa?).

It may be worth searching for JSH as well as ISH.

Thankyou for suggesting this. It had occurred to me, but as it is typically used by the Classically-educated, there being no "J" in Latin (Iulius Caesar!), to indicate their erudition, and that wasn't a description I linked to a barrel-maker, I'd set it to one side. However, the turn of the 19th century was arguably sufficiently infused with Classical motifs for tradesmen to affect them, and in any case I'm having no luck with "ISH", so it's a good moment to revisit that one.

Edit: just re-read this and it struck me as thoroughly pompous - I do apologise! This was not my intent.

Edit: I also have to stand well-and-truly corrected in the light of the following : "REVOLUTIONARY WAR PERIOD ENGLISH SILVER MOUNTED FLINTLOCK OFFICER’S PISTOL, BY “GRIFFIN” ca. 1760 [...] iron barrel with two (2) London Gunmaker Co. proofmarks and an “I.G.” (Joseph Griffin: Please see “Gunmakers of London…”, pg. 212-213) maker’s mark." (https://www.ambroseantiques.com/fpistols.htm)