Engliah gun lovers know today that many or most of the great English "gunmaker" names did not in fact make their own guns, but were either assemblers of trade sourced components, or had guns made to their specs with their name engraved upon them.

Was this also commonly known to the early retail customers at the time the brand name was being marketed as a best maker, or were they under the impression that these great named firms were the actual manufacturer of their bespoke gun?

Possibly the greatest makers were the Manton brothers.Many employees of Manton went on to become best makers in their own right.I am sure the customers had a very good idea where their soon to be prized possession was made.Then the trade just grew due to demand.

The average person did not care per se, they were not into guns to the level we are(us on the forum, ie knowing where every screw and ivory bead came from). But they did want a fine gun and going to a great "name" gave them a certain trust or piece of mind that whom ever they, the maker, used to do their work, it would be up to a certain high standard and quality of worksmanship set forth by the great English Gunmakers. Looking at these companies in retrospect, they did not disapoint their customers. I own a few of these such guns from some of these great makers and feel truley lucky indeed, no matter where they got the parts.

T

As a follow-up to my original question, I recall only seeing trade labels inside English gun cases only ever stating "Gun Maker" or "Manufacturer". Were these terms more loosely used back then, or is it a U.K. versus American language difference, or combination of both, etc?

This simply isn't true:

"English gun lovers know today that many or most of the great English "gunmaker" names did not in fact make their own guns, but were either assemblers of trade sourced components, or had guns made to their specs with their name engraved upon them."

The top makers made their own guns - especially their Best-grade guns. While they did send some stuff out - they were still making their own guns. These guns had styles, features, and sometimes systems, that were unique to the makers.

Once H&H had their factory up and going, they made their H&H Royals themselves. There other grade were made here and there in the trade.

Some smaller makers did outsourced their top stuff - companies that really weren't in the Best-grade business - but most folks were making their own guns.

OWD

When you buy a best name makers highest grade gun you are buying his reputation as well as the gun. Boss, H&H and others would never have allowed anything but the best workmanship to go into their best grades. Their reputation was their future and their fortune. Soil it by selling anything but the best, as a best, and they were out of customers. I think that Thimothy S has it right, a buyer got peace of mind when they bought from a name maker regardless of who made the gun.

Retailers, who use others as makers, still have to make sure the goods are up to snuff. Sears sold millions of guns but made none after 1910 or there abouts. They let others make the guns but they retained quality control over the gun. If the gun was made below their specs they would have stopped selling the gun and sent it back to the maker.

Maybe I didn't phrase my question correctly so all could understand it, so I will try it from the opposite side. Did any of the English houses list themselves "at the time" as a gun maker or gun manufacturer who never actually made or assembled a gun themselves?

I know that gun lovers today know that all English makers didn't make their own guns, I know that the name back then was an assurance of the best product whether made in house or not, and I know that many many USA companies, whether Weatherby, Browning, Sears, etc. etc. had/have guns made to their quality specs with their name on it. But I don't remember that Sears ever called itself a gun maker.

This is not a finger point whatsoever. I just want to know that if an English house in the 19th century called itself a gun maker or manufacturer, it at the very least meant that it had assembled at least one of its models at one point in time to use one of those descriptive terms.

Maybe this is a simpler way to ask the question.

What did the term "maker" imply to the English consumer of guns in the 19th century? Did this term have the same implication in other English consumer goods areas?

Sounds like you're trying to lump all English gun makers together...it can't be done.

HJ, not at all, I'm just trying to understand if the term back then had the same meaning that it has to me growing up in the late 20th century USA. I'm interested from the historical perspective only, and I know that the English used terms sometimes like Purveyor to communicate distribution rather than manufacturing, even if what they sold had their name on it.

I believe most makers worked hard to earn a Royal seal from someone if not the King then a Earl or Duke,whatever. If Purdey had a Royal seal from the King and the gun was built by Scott I'm sure Scott whould have let the world know. There were a few great lock makers and I would have no problem findeing their locks on a best from another company. I know more than a few folks purchased Whitworth Tubes from BSA to finish and use in their guns.

Pre Trades Descriptions Act there was a lot more licence with terminology. However, remember that most gunmakers were exactly that - gun makers. The man whose name appears on the Teade label - e.g. Thomas Boss, when he set up on his own cannot have been expected to actually action, stock barrel, regulate and finish every gun he sold with his own two hands. He employed people to do this for him, though almost certainly still worked at the bench himself. Some of tose people were 'on the books' and some were 'in the trade'.

It was not really until the early 20th century that the ubiquity of the easily recognised 'Trade models' really became evident the length and breadth of the country.

If you wanted a best gun, you went to aman who could be trusted to provide you with one. The aristocracy generally left 'Trade matters' to the Trade. They just wanted the gun to look perfect, balance beautifully and shoot wonderfully. The gun maker 'made it so'. I'm sure lord Ripon never gave athought to who the lockmaker was that fitted his Purdeys.

I think what you're talking about happened in the Edwardian age.

Consider Holland and Holland. They commenced selling guns around 1835. Their factory produced its first gun around 1890. Where do you suppose the guns for the first 55 years came from? What does pre-1890 advertising say about H&H as a gunmaker?

Way back when, there was no gun trade - anywhere (revolting thought, I know, but bear with me). The concept of gun technology became known, along with the formulation of black powder. Some few of the most creative craftsmen of the time taught themselves to make guns. They obviously did the whole enchalada. With each generation, guns got better and demand grew. To meet the growing demand, shops expanded and guilds were formed to protect the commerce. By the time guilds form, a trade is usually starting to specialize. Specilization promotes higher standards and higher production; first barrels and then locks for the now developing gun trade. Craftsmen find niches where they can prosper beyond working "on the books" in a single shop and become tradesmen. As the trade matured, many business models (of course, the men at the time were not aware they were working to a model) were tried with varying degrees of success. Classic master and workmen small shops faded early. Larger shops/small factories have shown the most staying power. Large factories, like Webley and Scott, had their hayday and have now faded.

I find it wonderful fun to unravel bits and pieces of this mystery. I fully believe that best guns can come with any name on them. The issue is not being shop made, rather quality control. Remember that guns were always made to a price point. Until the customer was willing to committ sufficient money, he got less than best.

Kinda like there are Ford Mustangs and then there are Shelby's

Now this answers my question. Apparantly it was not uncommon in 19th century England to use the term gun maker or manufacturer even if one only supplied a custom ordered and high spec'd finished gun from elsewhere up to that point in time. Sure took a lot of replies to just say this.

Your original question was not about Holland and Holland...each English gunmaker has their own history.

Only most recently has William Evans made guns. BUT, really big BUT, 'ole William was one of the best at making sure his customers got their money's worth and what they wanted/needed. His customer service was second to nobody!! Mostly, his guns came from W&S. I believe he opened (from Purdey's) about 1885 and is CIB.

On the other hand, Charles Hellis appears to have both made guns and bought in guns. Purdey's always made guns and bought in a few as an experiment in graded guns. Boss always made guns and doesn't appear to have bought in or dabbled in graded pieces. Plenty more examples in both directions and most in betwixt.

Holland certainly didn't have manufacturing facilities in the 1800's but by 1850 he had employees, including William Froome. Exactly who was suppling what on the early guns was unknown (prior to 1880), but the fit, finish and regulation were impeccable. So is a manufacturer someone who makes the part or someone who is able to finish and deliver a reliable product time after time.

It was my understanding that in the early years Holland was in the same strip of shops as all the Mantons and purchased many of his parts from that group of makers.

I ran this rabbit through here a few years ago when I purchased my first Brit-Gun, an E.M.Reilly&Co boxlock. The consensus then was that Mr. Reilly was a merchant and not a maker, and furthermore, that the same applied to a large percentage of the well known British tradenames of the "Golden Age"...Geo

I think you really need consider the name of the gun before you make a decision.For example there is no doubt that the various Scott names were manufacturers, Wm.Evans has always been more of a salesman than a craftsman.H&H has been both at various times, including selling W.C. Scotts right up to the 1990's E.M. Reilly was a superb gunmaker so how he became a merchant is bewidering.The guntrade has always been and probably always will depend on outworkers to provide specialist skills.

Salopian, I'm a babe in the woods as far as real gun knowledge goes and most of what I "Know" comes from reading the posts of the more well versed members on this BBS. I'd love to know that my Reilly was built at his hand, but that didn't seem to be the opinion of most when I asked...Geo

I'm wondering about what we are inferring from this statement:

"Consider Holland and Holland. They commenced selling guns around 1835. Their factory produced its first gun around 1890. Where do you suppose the guns for the first 55 years came from? What does pre-1890 advertising say about H&H as a gunmaker?"

H. Holland was a gunmaker, wasn't he? I don't believe it was recorded that he was trained as one, but I always thought he did make some guns himself. Maybe not.

His nephew apprenticed to him 1860 to learn "...the Art of Gun Manufacturing..." so it sounds like the old man knew something about how to use a file. Of course, maybe the whole apprentice deal was open to interpretation. Perhaps the H. Holland outsourced that, too.

Also, where does it say that the firm H. Holland never made a gun before 1890? I'm looking through the H&H book now to find this information. Does anyone know what page it is on, or where another authority has stated this?

I would like to look it up and read more about it.

Thanks for the help.

OWD

BTW: on page 49 of Nigel Brown's London Gunmakers is the following: "He (Harris Holland) probably did so (produce guns) initially using guns available through the trade, but soom made them up himself for which he showed a natural talent."

The book,"Experts on Guns and Shooting",by G.T.Teasdale-Buckell, First published in 1900, but currently available as a reprint , provides a review of the past master gun makers,Joe Manton, Joseph Lang. In addition the contributions of sixteen leading Experts/makers of the day are covered.It is a refeshing to find a book that, in addition to reviews of well known London names, also pays tribute to makers such as; Greener,Westley Richards, Webley,Gibbs & W.P. Jones. I recommended this book to those interested in researching gun makers and experts on shooting.

This thread is a load of old "Bollocks" Sorry to offend all these Colonial Ears'......Twisted Old Gunmaker....DT.

For Roy Hebbes, Anything in the book about John Dickson & Sons? If not, can you recommend something. Nothing technical. Just something about Dickson and his guns, esp the pre 1900 guns.

tommcdevitt@hotmail.com

I'd probably agree with yee if I knew what an "old bullocks" was.....


Down south we have what we call "bull hOckey" is that similar ?

Twisted Old Gun, heck, we shouldn't even be talking about this sorta thing. We colonials had companies make guns here. Not a company and a spin off and another spin off and another spin off. Here a gun maker there a gun maker every where a gun maker gun maker. Hell, we can't even figure the damn thing out. And you call us names...

Merriam Webster’s on-line dictionary defines “maker” as “one that makes as... d) manufacturer” (14th century). They define “manufacturer” as “one that manufactures, especially an employer of workers in manufacturing” (1687). They go on to define “manufacture” is “1. something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery 2. the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor 3. the act or process of producing something” (1567).

Websters-online-dictionary.org gives a slightly more modern definition of “manufacture” as “1. The organized action of making of goods and services for sale. 2. The act of making something (a product) from raw materials. Verb 1. Put together out of components or parts”.

By these definitions a person can call himself or his firm a gunmaker or a gun manufacturer if he, or his employees, either make guns from raw materials, or assemble guns out of components. This would exclude from either label any person or firm which never actually at least assembled components into a gun, no matter how good their services might have been or how respected they were, either then or now. Since the definitions above go back to Europe in the 14th, 16th and 17th centuries they would have been in common use in England in the 19the century. Even if a firm calls itself that today and doesn’t meet one of the above definitions, it is doing so only for commercial marketing reasons.

I respect the various great English names, and the great guns themselves no matter the name, but I also don’t think we need to always bend over backwards to explain or rationalize away some of the liberties taken within the trade. This particular topic always seems to generate as much emotion within these forums as the unfortunate poor soul who identifies himself as a Democrat for O’Bama.

DRM, so tell me do you feel the makers got away with one so to speak by outsourcing? I just do not understand why you are so passionate about this subject.

Tim

Them who brought in guns - and them who had the top out-workers finish 'em, did a fair enough job for most.
Perhaps real makers couldn't rear their heads from the third tier.
Its all in the finish product.

I agree with you 110%.

A Democrat for O'bama is an "unfortunate poor soul"...

Back to the topic...it's simple

There is no simple answer....when you talk about English guns their makers or their purveyors you have address each one individually.

Interesting stuff here and we are finally getting to the nitty gritty of the English trade. Concerning the history of Cogswell & Harrison, and I quote, "Prior to the take over of William Moore & Grey in 1908, Cogswell & Harrison made some fine quality London sidelock ejectors that Moore & Grey sold under its own name"
Also, "In the post war period substantial trade work was done for Cogswell & Harrison by J. Blanch & Sons who also undertook work for companies in the Churchill, Atkin, Grant & Lang group".

DRM-

Why does it seem like you want to perpetuate the myth that many or most of the makers were not making guns.

While this may have been the case for a handful of "makers", most outfits in the UK that called themselves gunmakers were doing just that - making guns.

I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make?

Regardless of the name on them, an English gun's quality is what has made them so desirable. That's what has stood the test of time.


OWD

OK, let's address E.M.Reilly&CO. It is the only Brit gun I own. Also the best gun I own. Tell me what you know: Maker or Merchant???...Geo

Don't ask me... I'm a Scott man myself.

Another convoluted tid bit of information, "By 1815, it was the London gunmakers turn to bring a bill into the House of Commons that would have required every manufacturer to place his real name on his product but 'such was the power of the Birmingham gun trade that they were able to quash the bill, pointing out that they supplied most of the components for the London Makers'"

This may shed some light though, "Many wiseacres abuse all the heads of the trade, and swear that they can ALWAYS GET THE BEST OF GUNS, at a quarter the price, from Birmingham! This may be, provided a person has such good judgment, or interest there, as to get PICKED WORKMAN FOR THE WHOLE PROCESS of his order: but, in general, the immense business carried on at this place is for the WHOLESALE LINE, and only requires to be IN THE ROUGH; from, which circumstances the workmen are not much in the habit of FINISHING as those employed daily FOR THAT PURPOSE.
So, to answer the questions posed above, the trade was a DULL one and it was NOT unusual to buy guns wholesale from Birmingham and finish them to a high standard in London."
This argument was posed in 1814.

I know that, Joe, and you have some fine guns to prove it. What about the rest of you guys. Salopian said I was wrong about Reilly being a merchant rather than a maker and for all I know he is dead right. What say the rest of you...Geo

You both are probably right.

Come on guys this is interesting stuff here, no other firearm can even approach the history of the London firms everyone knows that!!
Except maybe Winchester!!

Hmmmm, you had to pick E.M. Reilly didn't you!

A small reference doesn't help much though, "When he first went to Africa in 1871, Selous took along, 'a small double breech-loading rifle' made by Reilly's of Oxford Street".
I'm still looking!

Treblig-

Interesting stuff.

I wonder what a gun "..in the rough.." was. How rough? If you're dealing with forgings, then you're a long way from a gun. If you're dealing with parts that still need to be completed, fitted, engraved, etc, then you are still a long way from a gun.

If a person could take these rough or raw parts and turn them into a gun, then I'm sure you were qualified to call yourself a gunmaker.

And if these quotes are all from around 1814, aren't you talking about a different era of gunmaking in the UK? I don't think the sporting trade really took off until near the end of the percussion era - say 1860.

Before that, I wonder how many "gunmakers" were serving the sporting market. It wouldn't surprise me if there was much less demand for sporting guns at that time.

OWD

The book, "Shotguns and Gunsmiths" by the late Geofrey Boothroyd,contains agreat deal of information on John Dickson and the Dickson family.

B****** is British vernacular,verging on obscene,[refers to the male genitals]. Used by the uncouth, to express disbelief or lack of comprehension of a particular event or statement. Pleased to say it is not used by Canadians.

In his book BEST GUNS Michael McIntosh makes a passing reference to Reilly in a list of turn of the century "London Gunmakers" who used Harry Kell for their engraving. Terry Wieland (sp?) recently published an article about his Reilly in GRAY'S and referred to him as an "obscure London gunmaker".

Nigel Brown wrote that EM Reilly was the son of a gunmaker and worked with his father in the 1840's and that he made airguns from 1848-1860. Further that EM continued under several Reilly company names untill 1917, when Reilly was absorbed by Charles Riggs and Co which in turn ceased trading in 1966. There do not seem to be any patents issued in his name. His heyday seems to have been the 1880's. E.M. apparantly died in 1898

Do a google search on the name and you'll turn up a multitude of different varieties of guns bearing the Reilly name. Rifles, pistols, big-bores, and sxs's ranging from underlevers, to sidelocks to pedestrian boxlocks like mine. Some, like the Colt 1851 and Trantor percussion pistols were obviously just bought in and marked with the Reilly name.

Michael Petrov once posted that there is no record of any Reilly factory, and that the guns and rifles were sourced from Birmingham.

That's all I know. Sounds like a merchant instead of a maker to me...Geo

You're right and I agree with you OWD but it seems that workers who supplied guns 'in the rough' would not or could not or, more importantly, were not trained to, 'finish' the gun whereas the London makers took the rough stock and because they were trained in finishing brought the rough piece to its final complete form.
That's just speculation on my part but that seems reasonable. Referring back to Holland & Holland, prior to building their factory it would seem they took forgings that had been rough out into shape and with their workers finished the gun to its highest standard. These rough forgings would be almost impossible to track down or why would it matter who roughed out the forging.

But the EM Reilly's and William Evan's of the world that's a different story there has to be a way to track down the actual maker. There as to be a maker's mark someplace on that firearm proving the actual maker.

Birmingham has always had an adequate supply of craftsmen able to finish guns to best work standards, both in-workers and out-workers. Keep in mind that there are many routes to get from forgings and blanks to finished gun; rough forging, machined forging, rough finished forging, barreled action, gun in-the-white, finished gun. The trade used all routes as far as I can tell at one time or another.

In the case of H&H, they seem to have gone from bought-in guns to their own complete factory. There was most likely a considerable series of steps from bought-in to factory. Older small shops seem to have gone from bench made guns to buying in at some level. Younger shops seem to have started at a more nearly finished to finished gun. Vendor shops seem to have usually had a service shop. Depending on work load and skill of on-the-books help, they likely bought in guns at some level of completion to provide for slack time work. Out-workers were available to do any work the shop was incapable of doing on its own. Very few, if any, of the brands have done it one way exclusively.

Prince Joseph Pouiatowski's Reilly courtesy of dt/cc

DT/CC/XC - did Mr. R build it or did it start life on another bench?

Thanks to Dr Drew, Once again for posting the 20bore E M Reilly, I have the 12b also Cased with allLoading Goodies. The letter along with the 2 Guns is, European Royalty and the Reilly Invoice shows just how Mr Sturtevant of Newport R.I.U.S.A. brought the Guns to America.I am not the owner, just the Researcher/Cleaner/Photo'Snapper".The Empress Euginie, Mother of Napoleon lll. Used the 20b Quite Often' I hope to get the story into "ONE of the Glossie's...Some Grand Photos. The Guns are the Quality expected from London Best Makers of the period. The stripped-down photos will show this...DirtyDave /cc

Best guns, no doubt. But, we are waiting with batted breath to hear your take on who, or what shop, whittled the wood and metal on 'em.

I agree Rocket but it would seem that even for the Birmingham 'gunmakers' that finished the guns had these rough out shops providing them with 'in the white' forging that were later finished by either the Birmingham or London maker. These rough out shops would be impossible to track down and identify. And why would you need to, they only provided the raw material, the 'Maker' made the gun or finished product.

Well my last post seemed to result in doubling the number of these pages. And a lot of specific information is being shared, always a good thing. But my questions were more general in nature.

Some of your own comments since have included: do you feel the makers got away with one so to speak by outsourcing?, when you talk about English guns their makers or their purveyors you have to address each one individually., why does it seem like you want to perpetuate the myth that many or most of the makers were not making guns?, I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make?, etc.

Here are my reasons. When I first started out asking a similar question on a post on English brands some time ago I got chastised for even asking if all were actually makers. I thought at the time that those in the know would simply respond by saying that “probably” of the well known names calling themselves maker that “perhaps” maybe X % actually made a fair portion of their components, maybe Y % primarily sourced available components to finish and assemble, and maybe Z % just had complete finished guns made for them with their name on it. Instead of any direct factual responses, all the answers were either evasive, diversionary, defensive, justifying, protective, etc. Similar response if the same question was addressed on any current English brands. It was like a political finger pointing debate rather than knowledgeable people sharing factual information. No matter how I rephrased the question it was impossible to get a direct answer, just like in politics.

So I decided to try again in a new post to see if this time around the question might actually get some direct answers, but the result was the same. So while I started out perhaps naively believing that nearly all 19th and 20th century English makers who labeled themselves as such did at the very least source, finish and assemble components, I am not sure anymore.

But I will admit that once I finally figured out that all these names were just revered as the gods of the gun world, and that the old paint can had a bees nest in it because those gods can’t ever be questioned, I just couldn’t resist kicking that can a couple of times as this thread progressed.

P.S. … at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter to me if 99% of the English makers made nearly all of their parts, or if 99% did nothing more than unwrap and wipe the grease off the guns that were made with their name on it by someone else. If I wanted an English gun to shoot I would buy the gun that I both liked and could afford, and not the name. The name would only really matter to me when I wanted to sell it for big $.

Makers Like Westley did make their own guns, but, did they make their own sidelock ejectors...I think not!
The better sidelock ejector has always been top drawer - so, what does this do to the make of Westley Richards eh?
You might just want a finished London Sle then.

Why do you think WR didn't make their own SLE?

Why do we think so many others did not make their own guns ol'Rocketman?
I looked two Westley Sle guns, one Belgium made and AA Brown the other.
Not many out there, and not their thing - thats why.

E.M.Reilly & Co; exhibited at the U.S.International,Centenial exhibition of 1876,held in Philadelphia. According to the "official catalogue", their exhibit included Breech loading guns and express rifles. A total of 20 leading British gunmakers of the day participated in this exhibition.[ The exhibition ran for 159 days and attracted 9.9 million visitors!]There is little doubt that E.M. Rilley was,in the beginning a bonafide gun maker in the best traditions of the London trade.I recently examined a cased, mint, pair of Reilly percussion pistols the quality of which was second to none!
In their later days they did develope into a wholesale gun makers and dealers. Records show that their business was established in 1841 and that it closed in 1917.

I think that perhaps a fairer answer to the questions of who made what parts of the guns sold under there name is no one knows exactly for sure. If some one could produce a given makers transaction records with other firms it would IMO be possible to approximate what that specific maker actually built and what he outsourced.
Jim

It is highly likely that only three gunmakers in London built guns entirely in house and probably four in Birmingham.
But this really is, I believe a futile thread, because all makers to my knowledge when busy or not having a particular skill outsourced.If we are talking quality issues here let us address the guns supplied by 'Best' makers.Were the guns supplied to the Colonies in exchange for Cotton, Tea, Cocoa etc., by the 'Best' of the highest quality? Of course they were not, which is precisely why my 'Best'gun will be of superior or inferior finish and quality than some other owner of the same 'Best' and indeed, were they even made by the name on the rib? Of cause not.I would guess 90% of guns are/were not entirely in house, 40% probably never went near the Makers workshop and probably 20% of the gunmakers spoke Walloon or Belgique rather than Cockney.London Proof has no International barriers.

Thanks Salopian,

This helps now put it into some better perspective for me.

You stated: "which is precisely why my 'Best'gun will be of superior or inferior finish and quality than some other owner of the same 'Best'".

Are you saying that some of the better known names used several different enough suppliers for their best grade guns that one can sometimes see signifant differences between essentially the firm's same best model? Excluding the engraving of course.

cc/dt is digging deep beneath the bench for his Reilly stash, so I went ahead and made a PictureTrail album
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=19914837

Here's the Pouiatowski Monogram

Salopian-

Come on - entirely inhouse is not the same as having guns made in Birmingham and then engraving your name on them in London.

And you're pulling those numbers out of the air. You might as well say 75%, 20% and 5%, or mix it up another way. None of us have any way to know what those numbers really are.

Yeah - the London guys outsourced. If you had a small shop, you probably didn't have an engraver on your staff, or maybe you had a special job that required exceptional skills, so you went to the best finisher in London.

But so what? For the most part, the guns were still being made in London by the gun makers who sold.

And a lot of times the guys they outsourced to were in London - not Birmingham. Why? Because the best craftsmen were in London. Why again? Because that's where their skills commanded the highest rates.

In his book London Gunmakers, Nigel Brown lists 48 records the "Individual histories of 48 London gunmakers and related businesses."

Did some of the gunmakers bring stuff in from Birmingham and then finish it off inhouse. Sure. But I think most of them were making a lot of their guns in London at their shops or factories.

OWD

Salopian,s assessment ot the gun trades out-sourcing practice is excellent. Even the great Joe Manton out-sourced the Forging of breech blocks for his stanchion guns to Fuller. All of which and much more on the trade between Birmingham & London is detailed in the Diaries of Colonel Peter Hawker.
Other factors that forced increased out-sourcing on many makers were;
1/The introduction of;steel to replace damascus as a barrel material.
2/The success of various patent actions.
It is obvious that production of steel barrel blanks was out of the question for individual gun makers. At the same time if a customer demanded a specific action for a new gun[ie; Anson and Deeley] many gun makers would purchase actions, "In the white", for finishing in their own works or alternatively a complete gun bearing their name; rather than risk loss of business.

Just found a Reilly with the rib marked "Barrels by Darlow's, Norwich"

OWD - I don't think you will ever see a more accurate estimate than that given by Salopian.

The take-away from this thread should be that it matters much more what level of workmanship was ordered, paid for, and enforced (QC) than who did it where.

London may have paid better wages, but it had a higher cost of living. If not, all craftsmen would have gone to London --- and they didn't. Then, as today, people have a wide range of reasons for living in any given location.

This is the most difficult point for me. I believe that few craftsmen had the kind of passion for gunmaking that we love to imagine. Then, as today, most found themselves stuck in a job and not at all sure how they got there. Gunmaking paid decent wages for the time and place, not more. Very few got rich in the gun trade.

Best guns came about only by rigirous enforcement of QC standards from a master/owner with his reputation on the line. It came not from the fortuitious assemblage of blessed parts made in a given location or factory. I did come from the demanding supervision of all aspects of his guns by a man who counted his money to the penny.

Exactly..no one knows or will ever know..the numbers he posted are just a wild guess at best.

Note to Squire Glenthorn, I have on my Bench a Westley Richards , Sold by Abercrombie & Fitch NY.Sr No 187** built 1950, Sold 1969.Its built on a H&H pat.action Standard Opener, Hidden 3rd Bolt,Hand Detachable Locks with a H&H pat, Lock Screw.Its a 12b.2.3/4"chambers,28" Tubes,(Whoops Or Bullups')Barrels,Built by the Dovetail Method,They "Ring" like Old Maisie's ankle bells when she was running down the alley behind Purdeys with the 'Law"on her tail....The Locks, by the way , were made by Joseph Brazier, Ashes."How more better could you want?Barrels Bored at .729"and measure out at .729".Only Stampings on tubes is a PG.(Plus the Birmingham Proof Stamps)Which is K-1-B in the circle.Blacking is typical Brum. (As opposed to the London Deep Black,Johnsons of Kilburn Lane was the "Man")Gun Weighs 6.10lbs.Has Auto Safety, Double Triggers.Forend has a Anson Latch, with a Diamond Inlay in the center of the wood.Top Rib is Engraved, Westley Richards, LONDON. The Small Scroll Engraving with Bunches of roses,(Very ah la London) is of the highest Quality. I see no indication on any part that it was built by anyone outside of the Bournbrook,sp? Factory other than the Brazier Locks. I have Restocked a 1930s 20b Side Lock Westley,built for a Scottish Titled Lady. back in my Chicago Days....Whats the saying......Brum Guns are the Workhorses, London guns are the Thoroughbreds........cc/dt

Don, I have to respectfully disagree.

If you have ever seen best work and I think you have- and I know I have- I can tell you that the people I know personally that do best work, do it for the love of the craft; they are driven by perfection. Peter Nelson is a perfect example.

Where did it get him?

The chap that preceedes me is another case-in-point.

C.

I'm with homeless jOe here. Where's the facts to back up some of the allegations being made as to who produced what inre to doubles?
Jim

I will have to read Hawker.

But again, just because you outsource certain parts does not mean you are not making the gun. At one point, a lot of London's gun makers were use damascus bbls by Lancaster. I think just about everyone outsourced action forgings and locks. Once fluid-compressed steel took over, of course the makers outsourced bbl production. Most of them didn't have the capacity to do that kind of work in house.

But I don't see why this matters. So what if certain parts were outsourced? A gun maker put those parts together and created a firearm out of them. In London, these gun maker's gave their guns distinct looks. A Boss does not look like a Holland, a Purdey does not look like a Woodward, and Lang is not a Churchill and on and on.

As for patent actions, none of the London makers called A&D guns their bests. Most of them weren't really in the business of making them (except for Churchill). If a customer wanted one, it only made sense to bring in it in the white and finish it off. Of course, finishing a gun off still leaves a lot of gunmaking. The shaping of the action, engraving, style of stock (a Churchill stock doesn't look like a Boss stock), etc, left gunmakers with a lot of room to do their own thing. I've seen J. Robertson (Boss) boxlocks and they are a hell of a lot nicer than anything I've ever seen from Army & Navy.

What about other patent actions? Well, H&H was having their Climax guns made in Birmingham. Later on their boxlocks and guns like the Dominions were outsourced.

I'm pretty sure J. Blanch was buying actions in th white from Scotts and then finishing them off in house, at least early on. I've seen some early Churchill's built on Murcott-patent actions and I once saw a best-quality Purdey that was not on a Beesley. I contacted Purdeys about this gun and they confirmed that the action for this gun came from Birmingham (it was a Rogers patent) and they finished it.

But for the most part, the London makers were doing a lot of gun making themselves. The idea that these guys were just taking and fulfilling orders is not true.


OWD

Does an exact match between a W&S trade wholesale catalog listing and a London marked gun (complete with W&S serial on the barrel loop) qualify as data?

There is no doubt that a lot of guns were made in London. Equally, there should be no doubt that a lot of London marked guns came partly, or wholly, from Birmingham and other trade suppliers.

CK - respect of position accepted and happily returned. This is a good discussion.

I surely don't disagree with you on some craftsmen having the passion for perfection. I do think, though, that such passion is not common among craftsmen. In my experience, there are a lot more people who can, and will, do a good job with supervision than there are those who will do a good job every time on their own initative. How many craftsmen of equal passion work in Peter Nelson's shop?

BTW, I don't mean to argumentative, rather, to keep this a debate type discussion of an interesting subject. Hope we can all agree on that.

Prolly just much ado about nothing

You can only go so far with the history of the American doubles their collapse as the repeaters appeared was complete. However, the English trade has a long and rich history of basically making the same 'form' of firearm, the double barrel. We could also apply this discussion to the French, Belgium, Italians and Spanish gun industry.
I'm reading through my new book about Thomas Horsley that I recieved the other day, looking for some information concerning the Scotish trade as well!!!
Great Book by the way!!!

One must wonder if the Motherland would have followed the American trend of repeaters if their gun laws had been the same as ours.You do find older Win.94's and Marlin L/As over there on the used market as well as the mod.12 and 97.

I'd guess not as the shooting tradition was entirely different. We shot for subsistance (or so we thought) and they shot for socialization and sport (as they defined it).

Hunting in Great Britian,and in most of Europe as I have understood it is and has been primarily a rich mans sport.
Keeping that in mind; I wouldn't think there would be much of a market for inexpensive repeating shotguns there.
As we well know just about anyone can afford to hunt here in the USA. Being able to afford to hunt has never translated into being able to afford the best in shotguns. The ones that can afford it IMO tend to gravitate to doubles and enjoy owning and using fine firearms as much as hunting. Additionally; many of the people I've hunted with over the years considered their(usually pumps or autos) shotguns as tools and had no great interest in them whatsoever.
I hope I haven't veered too far off course with this post.
Jim

Don, the thread is wafting off into thin air, but let me make a few final observation if I may; consider early engravers. How many of them tried to pass-off slag on steel? Their work simply speaks for itself. If they were'nt any good, they found another apprenticeship. There was no "supervision". Would you equate engravers to be as talented as best action-filers, stockers and finishers?


Yes, of course the owners had to supervise. But I put it to you that most of their woes were due to their own greed and bad management- trying to make more guns than they had labor for. A craftsman is just that and shouldnt be confused with a hack holding a file.

Have a good weekend,

C.

Good points, CK. I wonder how self-starting would compare among the various specialties? Were engravers more motivated than barrel makers? One would expect an outworker to be more highly motivated - if he wanted to "get ahead." So, what % of best engraving was done by inworkers as compared to done by outworkers?

Looks like rain - which we really need!!

I thought they just immigrated to America and went to work.

Don't remember whick book but I read where one maker went to the engraver and told him to put on as much as he could for 20#s or some such figure.Fairly sure it was one of GB's books on Britsh gunmakeing.

Following is a quote from a maker to the engraver.

We send you a Best Gun to be engraved in the very best way....
As our polisher has now as much work as he can do would you kindly ask Mr.(name) if he would now harden some of the guns for us(and blue).

Question for those who have handled a lot of English guns, and picking up on what Rocketman said.

Do those guns from houses that did their own finishing and assembly in house consistently have just a little more quality than those known for outsourcing the entire completed gun?

I am reminded of a scene from the movie "The Red Violin" where the owner was walking through his shop and smashed a violin in progress that he didn't think was up to his name's standards. Tough to do anything about it though should the completed gun arrive from the actual maker with your name on it and it is not up to your expectations or your customer's.

Yeah - sure. But was the retailer selling it as a Best-grade gun, or as a sub grade?

And can you share pics & the maker's name?

I would love to see it and learn more.

Thanks

OWD

BTW: I checked out Hawker. I didn't realize that Treblig already quoted from the Colonel's book "Instructions to a Young Sportsmen..." If anyone wants to read the excerpt, go here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yXUCAAA...result#PPA13,M1

and look at around pg. 6.

DRM - best work is best work reguardless of the name on the gun. Original Quality must be judged independently of the Maker's Name. So, a Midland best gun must be as good as a Purdey best gun; it will always sell for less due to difference in Brand Value.

If a finished gun arrive at William Evans and it didn't meet ordered quality, it went basc post haste.

Rocketman, are you English?You talk far too much sense to be domiciled in the Colonies.
In this weeks edition of Shooting Times John Knibbs formerly of BSA writes an article about the Birmingham Gun Trade.
"Fifty years ago the Birmingham Gun Trade Registry listed a total of only 30 master gunmakers, of whom just 20 made guns under their own name, others in the registry branched out into gun related activities"
"A current check of members of the Birmingham Trade Registry lists 44 active gunmakers or companies, the highest number for 100 years".
Right now settle down and let me give you a little history lesson.
London is the home of the self proclaimed 'Best' gunmakers.
Birmingham is the home of the workshop to the World.
W.W.Greener who possibly did more for gunmaking than even Joe Manton based his workshops in Birmingam, so did Westley Richards, & WC Scott who between them shaped what we all use and love and cherish today.
So lets end the myth that only London produced a quality shotgun once and for all.
Anyone who doubts this should have a look at a current Purdey or H&H then go to Birmingham and look at a current Greener or A.A.Brown.
Getting back to the original question of this thread about in house manufacture.
A current Greener although made wholly by Greener the components are all crafted by individual craftsmen specialising in different aspects of the gun in different workshops until final assembly where it becomes the responsibility of the finisher to pass off all quality issues.

Didn't you know everybody with any sense left Jolly old England years ago.

You really should edit your post ol'chap it should read.....Birmingham was the home of the workshop to the World now Turkey is.

Courtesy of dt/cc

HLJ,
Didn't YOU know that most Turks are now on benefit in the UK and Turkey is full of Brits on holiday.
Drew,
Is that a stock repair by DT I see? (only joking David)

Were any "best guns" built in Edinburgh?

The late Geoffrey Boothroyd had a high regard for Dickson.
Certainly the aesthetics are exceptional.
But how do you really define a 'Best' gun?
We talk of Purdey, H&H, Boss as being 'best' indeed Boss pride themselves as being makers of 'Best' guns only.Bearing in mind their latest offering is made in Birmingham by 'outworkers' where is the defining line?

The late Geoffrey Boothroyd had a high regard for Dickson.
Certainly the aesthetics are exceptional.
But how do you really define a 'Best' gun?
We talk of Purdey, H&H, Boss as being 'best' indeed Boss pride themselves as being makers of 'Best' guns only.Bearing in mind their latest offering is made in Birmingham by 'outworkers' where is the defining line?

The late Geoffrey Boothroyd had a high regard for Dickson.
Certainly the aesthetics are exceptional.
But how do you really define a 'Best' gun?
We talk of Purdey, H&H, Boss as being 'best' indeed Boss pride themselves as being makers of 'Best' guns only.Bearing in mind their latest offering is made in Birmingham by 'outworkers' where is the defining line?

Peter: here's one of dt's better efforts

I can't find the actual post now but an English maker is starting to have an OU made in Italy for them with their name on it, and to a design that was their's many decades ago. This is so that they can now offer a basic $20K gun to their customers to help fill out their line of current $80K+ offerings.

It could be possible to even have the best quality guns completely made for the current great English makes by suppliers outside of Northern Europe altogether. With the correct combination of specifications, close working relationships, honest information sharing, quality control, etc. etc. there is no reason to believe that a fine maker in Italy or Spain coulln't make best guns for their English partners.

If this ever were to possibly occur, how might it effect everyone's perceptions and acceptability down the road? It seems agreed that "it's the gun not the brand", and while Birmingham is acceptable to be the manufacturing location for many of the English guns,if the quality was just as good, would Italy, Spain or even Turkey be just as acceptable? I am not speaking about sourced components within this question, but the possibility of completely finished builds for English brands.

Is that CC leaving England ?

"My ordinance was as follows; 3 double-barrel rifles, by Purdey, William Moore and Dickson of Edinburgh - the latter a two-grooved, the most perfect and useful rifle I ever had the pleasure of using"
He, R. Gordon-Cumming writes circa 1850 concerning his hunting adventures in Africa in 1843, had a high opinion of the Dickson also, but I believe, rather strongly I might add, that his opinion holds far more weight!!!!!!!

Once again when we talk of English gunmaking we get far off topic.

I believe that Turkey or Spain could become the manufacturing hub of modern gunmaking but there is something inherently wrong about that. It just doesn't ring true.

The best gun for the field, is, and always - the pre WWII London Sle from a known company. Barrels struck to a tee and everything else that follows in that order.

Here's something that Purdey definitely did not make themselves:

http://cgi.ebay.com/VERY-RARE-PURDEY-SON...1QQcmdZViewItem

Was this something used for boar hunting? Or was it just some kind of novelty they offered?

OWD

I saw that...Maybe it was for dispatching dangerous driven birds.

Here's an "F" grade Purdey....with a B grade price.

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=20460

Could it be built in Turkey ?

Could'nt get to the "Time Machine"after revdocdrew put the 2 photos up today....The 2 B&W Photos are c 1951 are of a "Gentleman of the Snare"Taught me some of the "Fine Art of Poaching" Elliot Goodman, Rabbits, Pheasants,Foxes,All sold at the "Back-Door of the Village Pub. I think More "Game" was killed by the "Lower Middle-Class" with such a variety of Shot-Guns, DB/ Single BBl.(I acquired my first shotgun,Harrington-Richardson, 12b S/B 30"x2.3/4"on my 16th B/D.Killed (Bushwacked)many Bunnies& Woodies'they were a "Cash-Crop" for us "Lads of the Gun"I think, at that time the "Proper Hunters"could'nt hold a candle to all the Quantity that the "Lads of the Village could bring in" I remember having to help count "SO many Pheasants that had been'Shot, Snared, We loaded them into a 1937 Ford Van. It collapsed the back-end!!This was Gloucestershire in the 1950s. I did'nt see a "Pump-Gun" untillPurdeys had a Client from the States,send in 2 Mod 12 Winch, They were restocked in"Best French", The 1st Semi-Auto that I personally saw, Handled, Shot"AT" Coypu,in Norfolk, on the Fens"was loaned to me by Norman Johnson,(Johnsons the "Best Barrel Blackers, Kilburn Lane, Kensal Rise,)after a short lesson on how to Load it,I was off th kill Coypu with Peter Finch,Apprentice Ejectorman at Purdeys,We met the locals in the Pub, Told them what our intentions were, got laughed out of the Pub.....next morning we stated our "Walkabout" looking for Giant Coypu. I had loaded the Browning "5 Shot" we saw a Rabbit,Peter shot both Barrels of the Dickson...Missed, I took my 1st shot. all hell broke lose, all 5 rounds went off 'Full-Auto"It had an Extended Mag...and a Buggered Sear.....The 1st and last Automatic shotgun I had anything to do with in the UK. Hope this fits in somewhere on this Early Best Gunmakers Thread..I mean we were Fully Trained Best London Gunmakers......cc/dt

CC is that you in the bottom picture ?

Not so long ago, factory, city, and country of manufacture of a gun could be quite definitve. Looking at gunmaking, one needs consider design, materials, and workmanship, and style. Design is protected for a time by patents. The designs that we on this BBS generally admire have long ago expired; anyone anywhere can copy them. Best gunmaking materials were for a long time only regionally available and very expensive. Now they are generally available to anyone anywhere at madest prices, including transprotation. Workmanship was taught in an arduous and carefully protected program from apprentice to journeyman to master; not all apprentices became masters, only those truly good enough. Now, wire cutters, CNC, and EDM machines surely take the edge off the grunt work. They are not quite up to finishing work, but it is foreseeable. Robots are getting better very fast. But, will "machine made" ever be able to capture style??

I think a very interesting question is allowable mix of hand work and machine work.

Robots seem to be taking the "Who" and "Where" out of the equation.

H/Joe,...Yessirresir, Festival of Britain Handpainted Tie 1951. Mum had squandered 2/3rds of her MeagerSingleMum Wages to buy that baby....Mr Goodman made me take it off when we were killing Woodies" Said they could see it from 'Miles Away"!!!I was the 'Picker-Upper' I did get to shoot That Purdey 12b"Daw Lever-Cocker" the next year.I was 13 yrs old,in less than 24 mths I was Junior Tea-Boy at Purdeys S.Audley St.(Basement Workshops)In the photo of Mr G' with the Poachers Game-Bag across his back, we had crossed onto the Duke of Beauforts Estate, later to be caught by 2 of his Game-Keepers, Mr "G" had unloaded his "Game-Bag,So he got a Big Black-Eye, I was 'Spanked, soundly across the arse, we were sent packing...Mr"G" returned under cover of darkness and Retrieved all the Rabbits and a couple of Cock pheasents....cc/dt

Great story.

Now we have proof that W.Palmer Jones built a gun for W&C Scott & Sons who, along with P Webley & Sons, built guns for other firms.
Holy smokes!!!!
The only way any of us can make sense of this is through the accounting records of these old firms. The want add should say;

"Needed an accountant turned gun collector/author someone to go in and look at the cash disbursements journals and check registers and ascertain what the Hell is going on"!!!!

Here's a tid bit of information I found in "Heyday of the Shotgun" by Mr. David J. Baker, "The problem facing the gentlemen of moderate means was the apparent size of the choice confronting him. However, if he understood the way the gun trade was organized at that time, he would have realized that practically all these competitively-priced guns were made by relatively few makers in Birmingham, no matter which names were engraved on their ribs and locks or which proof marks they had stamped on their barrels and actions".
We're not 'doggin' your guns or the history of them, guys, we're just trying to find out who built the dam things!!!

With W&C Scott & Sons big factories I can't see them needing W.Palmer Jones...let's see the proof.

I don't think a competitively priced gun was a Best-grade gun.

Since most of the London makers were in the Best-gun business, it only makes sense to outsource the lower, competitively-priced grades.

OWD

Joe, Salopian said it under the topic for W. Palmer Jones, that he had a Jones built Scott.
OWD, I agree that there are differing levels of the English trade and the 'Best' guns shouldn't be included in my posts; The Best guns and makers are in a world onto their own.

I agree with your basic concept on competitively priced guns. Note that, over time, it made increasing sense to outsource as Birmingham developed big factories which shifted from bench built to manufactured. A manufactured plain, but sound and functional, boxlock non-ejector could be delivered for 10% - 20% of the price of a best gun. Bench built less-than-best guns couldn't economically compete. Lower priced guns greatly broadened the economic possibility for gun ownership while changes in culture opened shooting to a broader range of people.

I don't agree that most of the London trade was about best guns; H&H, William Evans, Army & Navy, and W. J Jeffery for example. Best guns were, of course, the gold standard. Few people could afford them. There are a lot more "competitively priced London guns" than "London best guns."

Keep in mind that all makers, by utilizing trade out-workers, could have gotten out a best work gun if they had secured a commission for one. Conversely, the "best gun makers" sold competitively priced guns at one time or another, depending on their marketing strategies.

London built, London proofed, and London sold are three different things. Presence of all three or absence of all three of these things has little to do with best work guns. For example, a Purdey would have all three, while a Scott Premiere might have none (Birmingham built, Birmingham proofed, and sold out of the Birmingham shop).

Each estate had a keeper or two and if the Lord or Earl bought his guns from Purdey he most likely purchased his keepers gun there too and I dare say I doubt they were Purdey best.

Having seen a Birmingham made boxlock non ejector marked James Purdey that is probably likely. They would supply anything the customer wanted. I know where there is lovely little J. Woodward 28 bore box lock non ejector that was of Birmingham origin. I would think that Father went into Woodwards for his gun and bought Junior something less expensive to practice with. It is very nicely finished. Some Makers such as Thomas Blands made specific 'Keeper's' guns, as did the Midland Gun Company. I have a Bland keeper's hammer gun; well made but very plain. Lagopus.....

Could Salopian have his Palmers mixed up ?

Quote:
"as Birmingham developed big factories which shifted from bench built to manufactured. A manufactured plain, but sound and functional, boxlock non-ejector could be delivered for 10% - 20%"
of the price of a best gun. Bench built less-than-best guns couldn't economically compete. Lower priced guns greatly broadened the economic possibility for gun ownership while changes in culture opened shooting to a broader range of people."

Rocketman:

I for one would appreciate it if you would set some timeframes here in discussing "manufactured" guns. To the best of my knowledge even today it isn't possible to manufacture a double with out some skilled handwork even if it's just for barrel regulation. If you go back 50 years ago then 100 years ago it seems to me less likely you could truly manufacture a double and come up with anything really presentable.
From my own experience I know for a fact that Colt hand assembled and fitted every revolver they made up into the 70s. This also included hand polishing them before blueing which is a time consuming and skilled process.
One of the reasons you're seeing less and less steel(Blued)new revolvers and autos is the hand finishing required to make them presentable is cost prohibitive.
Anyway my thoughts.
Jim

Check out this Westley:


http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/MSG396WestleyRichardsWeb4.jpg

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/MSG396WestleyRichardsWeb7.jpg

Not bad for Birmingham. I wonder if Westley made it. It reminds me of a Scott Premier. That engraving looks Kell-esque. Maybe Alb Brown?

OWD

A sidelock ejector will clog-up the works in the world's most famous boxlock maker's assembly line.
Most likely made in the back alley sweatshops of B'ham!

In this the age of "stuff," it seems almost inconcievible that the very concept of interchangable machine parts entered the world less than 175 years ago. Eli Whitney showed in the 1840's (as I recall) that guns could be built with interchangable parts. From that point on, Americans focused on factories that mass produced interchangable parts. The American paradygm was mass markets for utilitarian goods at low prices. The old European paradygm, on the other hand, was limited production of high quality goods at high prices. While the interchangible concept was not entirely wasted on Brit gunmakers, they had a had a tradition of small shops and believed their market was limited.

Seems that the Birmingham factories started to grow in the 1870's. It looks to me like that by around 1900 the issue of bench built mid-price and lower guns vs factory built was decided in favor of the factory. In this same time frame, the style issue of boxlocks and sidelcks got decided in favor of the boxlock as the high volume gun and the sidelock as the high quality gun. The higher the quality, the more bench time required. The more bench time, the more possible the small shop. Machine tools were expensive and hungry. Small shops couldn't afford a lot of tooling, but could afford to buy machined work from the trade. Same applies to specialized out-workers.

Always view the Brit gun trade with the understanding that all involved did whatever was necessary to turn a GBP.

It really is amazing how many nice English SxS guns there are still on the racks of rural gunshops in the UK.This week alone I have been shown a multitude of very, very nice guns, some original, some restored and some needing just a little TLC.But like fine ladies of breeding there they stood radiating elegance and poise, amidst Yildiz, Ugartechea's, Baikal' and dare I say the word ( Remingtons)

Those guns that are still on the racks are from the "Nowhere to go with 'em crowd." The un-invited, the city love power people and the multicultural new arrivals.
The Ol'Shots have turned to bones - but their guns remain in gunshop limbo.

Seeing as we are now well off topic the question of when factories appeared has arisen. The factory as we know it was effectively a Birmingham invention, the brainchild of Mathew Bolton. Together with Watt they set out to mass produce reciprocation beam engines starting firstly (1781)with a 2 storey Engine shop to manufacture smaller ( think 8' connecting rod) engine parts. In 1795 he purchased land to set up an assembly plant and foundry. He refferred to it as a "manufactory" which contracted to become factory (ironically manu = hand, fact= to make). British parliamentary delegations were despatched to the US to study machine manufacture of firearms under the interchangeable system 1853 & 1854. On June 7th 1861 11 of Birminghams leading gunmakers met at The Stork Hotel and subscribed capital towards the building of a factory to make rifles with machine tools called the Birmingham Small Arms Co. (BSA) I will give their names as some still show up on sporting guns we see today:-
Joseph Bourne, Joseph Bentley, John Cook, Joseph Cooper, John Goodman, Isaac Hollis, Charles Playfair, Pryse & Redman. Joseph Smith, John Swinburn, Thos Lawden, William Tranter, Thomas Tuner
As a group they probably reflected more bias towards the military end of the market. Of the Birmingham Sporting gun makers I can think of the following who would typically be considered as factory makers, Greeners, Scott, Webley,Bonehill,
BSA, The Midland Gun Co. The Sporting Gun Co. C.S.Wright, Westley Richards (1875-@ 1895)
If anyone is interested I suggest reading:-
The Birmingham gun trade, David Williams ( Gunnerman Books)
A History of Birmingham, Chris Upton (I got mine in the UK)
Well back to the bench.
http://www.hglomasgunmakers.com

Off topic or not, and as we debate not specifics but theory, which we all seem to have enough of, in other words BS, the fundamental question as this arguement developed is why would W & C Scott & Sons need anyone and especially W. Palmer Jones to build them a shotgun???

Possible reason: the gun in question was built on a patent registered to Jones. Could be Jones (theoretically speaking, of course) had not licensed this patent to other makers, hence they would build it if Scott's for some reason wanted one.

Conversely, Scott's built plenty of guns not to their own original design. If the patent was in force -- and they had an agreement -- they would license it from patentee and oftentime you will see another's patent number and "use number" on Scott's action flats.

Again, just a possible reason.

All Right back on topic again!!!
Good points were made there Blackadder, however how can we find out who built OWD's pic of a sidelocked Westley Richards???
Also, awhile back I saw a beautiful Willaim Moore muzzleloader for sale, it looked way out of his league, I wonder if he was the one to build it or did someone else???

Get me a serial # and I'll try to find out. In the meantime I will hazard a guess. If it is a pre-war gun, and esp a pre-First War gun, it will (almost) certainly have been built in-house, or finished out in-house and perhaps on an action in-the-white supplied by the trade -- maybe Phillipsons but who knows as yet. It is only in the wreckage following the Second World War that WR would have outsourced an SLE -- and even then if it were to AA Brown's, the latter's factory would have been within the WR factory grounds. These days they (WR) are again building their SLEs in-house again -- though any gunmaker on the bench there will tell you the hand-detachable is harder to make.

Blackadder-

The Westley is #11521. Did Westley have a seperate # system for sidelocks? I ask because this # comes up on their site as having been made in the 1860s - obviously not when this gun was made.

Thanks

OWD

I believe Blackadder has covered all the rumor mills quite well. "In-house built, finished-out in house or action from the trade".
So, how about, Westley was never known for their Sle guns, so a good bet would be that it was made by someone else.

Contrary to the admonition that we need to deal in excruciating detail about each "maker", why can't we settle this by analogy once and for all? Seems to me the American midwest was once a great "car quarter" filled with tool and die jobbers and yet we have always referred to "mere" car assemblers such as Ford and GM as car makers. I don't think these arrangements particularly mysterious or differing wildly from the Birmingham trade. And many a smart boy with a patent has never touched a file; likewise many an investor with his name painted second (or first) on the bricks. Maybe by the time you're back to Joe Manton, you're on the ground floor of "cottage industry" and the old man is slaving alongside the rank and file. By international analogy again, the Browning bros. did manage to cobble together a few single shots on the way to providing designs and eventually "outsourcing". But nobody ever asks how many Ollie Winchester made with his own hands out back in the woodshed. The meaning of words may be contradictory to first impressions or polarly opposed to intuition. The evolution of economic and manufacturing process likewise no doubt but there must be some common ground between the English gun trade and our own. Neither was imported from Mars!

jack

Something tells me, Rocketman is throwing a bone to the boxlock set - never had I ever heard of the keeper's gun doing more duty(high volume) than the ol'man's(quality) sidelock ejector!

Rabbit,
Very well said !
I think that many of you guys over the Pond can't get your heads round the fact that 'The Trade' didn't have manufactories like the Detroit car makers.
Imagine if you will, the illegal whisky stills in the prohibition era. Then you will be about right.
I think this subject has now run its course, let's move on.

I think he's speaking of production and sales volume, LG.

jack

What I really meant to say, Peter, is that Detroit and Flint didn't either. Totally dependent on specialist outworkers. And there again, patented items that can't be licensed have to be purchased. Chrysler made automatic transmissions for the now defunct American Motors. The Brum trade fascinates and the "royally appointed" Londoners more so but their workaday schemes are hardly so exotic as to be unimaginable from the viewpt. of Yankee experience.

jack

OWD: I'll try to find something out for you -- though like anything in the trade answers (if forthcoming) may take a while. Good question on the serial. Certainly in the modern era (post Second War) WR SLEs are in their main book # sequence.

Salopian.....Oh so 'Delicately Worded'.....cc

Solopian I'm having trouble seeing what Detroit car makers...illegal whisky stills and the prohibition era has to do with English gun making ?

Are you trying to tell us that most English gunsmiths are drunks and have lost their drivers license's ?

I take full credit for the Detroit comparison, JoE. My wife assembled solenoids in Kokomo, IN so even she knows in a general way who puts the ram in the ram-a-lama-ding-dongs. She may not know who put the bomp in bomp-sha-bomp-sha-bomp #3456 but still she knows in that "experienced way" that says you don't get your name on the car just because you're a necessary cog in the machine. Reverting to the first graph of the original question/assertion, replace every instance of "English", "gun", and "gunmaker" with "American", "car", and "carmaker" and it still makes perfect sense. I don't know where to put the moonshine either?

jack

Courtesy of cc/dt and pics of a WR with locks from "Ashes" to follow

Westley Richards courtesy of cc/dt. Commentary to follow.

Every time we bring this topic up our English brothers start getting all defensive.....Why.
I mean if you read some of the web-sites concerning American long rifles (referred to as the Kentucky rifles to most people) there are some bitter fights over "This rifle was found in North Carolina and it looks like it was built there". "No it wasn't look at the patch box it was repaired in North Carolina but it was originally built in Allentown Pennsylvania".
The English shotgun and their makers are far better documented then our long rifles so we can investigate this subject with more documented proof as opposed to conjecture.
Plus, I could look at these pics of these high grade English sidelocks all day long!!!

My Thanks once again to The Good Dr.There is a Book"Modern Sporting Gunnery" by Henry Sharp,Printed in London 1906.Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton,Kent & Co., Ltd. Mr Sharp said in the Preface,How fortunate he was that he was able to gain entree'to gun-works owned by a firm of world-wide reputation, (its a bit long for me to write all this... so I'll cut to the'Meat')..Messrs. Westley Richards opened their doors, and gave the 'Good Gent" free rein to look in every crook & nannie...I found that it was the kind of book that is a 'Classic"! I have brought futher copies over the years for 'Gifts" for fellow Gun-Rifle enthusiasts. Carol Barnes at Her Book-Store, See the AD' at the bottom of this page, has managed to locate several copies. It has everything a person who wants to read about Westley Richards,(Up to 1906)needs to know.It shows all the lock Mechanisims from Flint through to the "SIDE_LOCK" and of course the W/R Hand-Detachable Locks. Theres a Great chapter for the Ladies,Chapter 17,"Ladies in the Field", By Her Grace the Duchess of Bedford, (Good photo of "Her-Self".The Gun I have the photos of is No18721 Brm. Proof 1959. 2.3/4"chambers,28" bbls. Dove-tailed Lumps.Purdey DB Under-Bite, with a Hidden 3rd Bolt. 6lb.8oz. Sold New by Abercrombie & Fitch New York, 1961.Joseph Brazier.'Ashes' Locks...A best Quality SIDE_LOCK Build by the Best Birmingham Craftsmen to the High Standards of the London Trade!!!Maybe someone will be able to put some Names & Faces to the Gunmakers???cc/dt

With Adobe Reader, Modern Sporting Gunnery can be viewed here
http://ia341239.us.archive.org/2/items/modernsportinggu00sharuoft/modernsportinggu00sharuoft.pdf

Like the snap of the bicycle "soldier". What's the white wrap on the wrist of the hammergun in foto 2? Is the lad you, Mr. T?

jack

Nice gun...do you think the quality of the locks match the beauty of the gun ?

Jack R. That was the First stock repair that I was involved with. Snapped thru the front screw hole. I had to hold the gun while the "Hunter" used copper wire, then covered it all over with that white 'Sticky-Tape'! It must have been a 'pretty-sound repair", as I remember useing that Purdey to kill a fox in 1954.inside a chicken house,in the dark..with a Black-Powder Cartrige.Mr G' would never sell his "Ole Lunnunn Gunn"He died whilst I was'Doing my Army Stint".I tried locating the 'Lunnun Gunn for several years,with NO luck.Them Old Purdeys just keep on 'Ticking', so I expect its standing in a corner of an old Cow-Shed just waiting for the next cartridge to be loaded into its chamber......cc//.....HomelessjOe. I think I know what you mean about the 'Inside work, screw heads, bridle finish.etc...I have to be very carefull when I pass comment on Guns not from my Home-Town...cc/dt

The town I grew up in had a curious shop, one that just kept growing. A fair number of locals went in and out and earned a better than average (for the area and time) wage. They were machinists and the shop had machie tools. Truck loads of metals came in and wrapped packages went out. The owner periodically hopped into his Cessna 310 and flew off for awhile. When he came back, he usually had more work. The shop was called Detroit Tool; curious name since we were nowhere near Detroit. It made automobile dies. Who knew what that was, but it was good for the local economy, that was for sure. I agree that this has parallels in many trades, English guns included.

If you look at strong drink and an "industry" and "moonshinin'" as the cottage part of the industry, you have a parallel.

LG, I think you underestimate the prevelence of boxlocks in Brit shooting. Move down the social ranks a notch or two and, I think, you will find boxlocks aplenty being shot a lot. Keep in mind that there were a lot of social circles of varying levels of income. Shooting was not just one thing with one set of rules. Were this not true, we would not see all the graded sidelocks and boxlocks that have rather obviously had a serious shooting life.

Query: Can you make a sidelock gun, WR, WR? Reply: I get by with a little help from my friends.

jack

To beat this horse to death, for a while in my glamorous but meandering career track, I made thermoform tooling for "wide body kits" [Kydex class dividers, overhead luggage rack doors, window reveals] for commercial aircraft. Still said Lockheed on the airplanes which were "made" on the other side of the continent.

jack

Is it true that most English gun makers don't mine their own iron ore? Or get their blanks from company owed groves behind the shop?

DT/CC,
Have no fear about speaking your mind about out of town guns.I am not a big fan of WR, in fact I think their sleeving jobs which they used to do were awful.
Probably the cause of the demise of the Brum guntrade was the fact that the trade would provide any standard of finish dependant on the delivery date and cost.Where as if you had to ask the price of a Boss or Purdey, you probably couldn't afford it.
As for asking for a firm delivery date, all you got in London was a look of disdain.

The world is not in short supply of Brit boxlocks, nor the work-a-day Sle, which would make me believe they all saw some kind of action in some kind of social circle settings.

My decription machine not working but that last one made the old free associationometer peg. Someone was telling me about a tower shoot where the stands completely encircled the tower. Fortunately it was a large circle and birds were released in a manner which ensured that only a few stands would be engaged at any time. Just now I got a mental picture of beaters and birds completely surrounded by some old boys with--dare I say it-- boxlocks!, all of whom look exactly like James Mason. These daymares are frightening; please expand upon your observation, Delphic one.

jack

CC that Westley Richards reminds me of a Bentley with a Volksvagen engine.

Sorry Lowell. I checked Rocketman's post where he explains that there actually was a category of folks between M'Lord and his keeper who might be expected to buy guns and shoot them. Who knew?

jack

With American firms you get a Bald-Faced Lie, these days.

Postoak,
This is NOT the shootingsportsman.com site do NOT mention that saga.


Oh! go on then, I could do with a yawn.

I'd be piffed off too if I'd paid full price for permanent layaway. A unique yet not very farseeing business practise as someone notme once opined.

jack