doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com C. Mode

For what it's worth, I am looking at the following. Each is marked with the Whitworth stamp, but no tube numbers.

Cashmore Nitro ,ca. 1900
Lefever Optimus, ca 1910
Greener Imperial , ca 1900
L C Smith A2, ca 1904

Mr. Hallquist:
If those tubes in question are post 1897, I wonder if Armstrong was sourced for the Whitworth steel. Any idea of the importer on the American variants? True in 1897 the engineering firms of Armstrong & Whitworth merged but there looks to have been a merger of the Armstrong & Whitworth steel concerns in 1882(or was it Armstrong-Mitchell)???? I may have to eat some crow, which is fine, on Purdey getting tubes from Whitworth, but I still hold that they sourced from an actual tube maker. I've seen copies of a sales book page for a 1927 Purdey that was fitted with Whitworth tubes. Was there a Whitworth steel concern, Whitworth engineering or both?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

All right, I think I have it sorted. Joseph Whitworth patented his compressed fluid steel process in 1865 and the term or protection ran until 1879. At that time after consideration by the powers that be, it was determined to extend the protection period for another 5 years until 1884. Even though the process(not steel type) was patented in 1865, it wasn't fully developed until 1869, a time when the Siemens-Martin furnace came online in Britain by at least 3 makers and was the result of a compromise of between Carl Wilhelm Siemesn & Pierre-�mile Martin. Joseph Whitworth & Company, Limited(converted/formed 1864) owned 2 Siemens-Martin furnaces where they took pig iron and heated it up to a fluid state. It took about 8 hours to complete the cycle and was quite longer than the Bessemer process. But it allowed for better quality control. Can't say if they added any percentages. Anyway, while in a fluid state they formed ingots under pressure and some applications may have been pressed into the desired cast form. Whitworth had corresponding pressure requirements for specific steel needs.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

1875 definition for Whitworth steel variants


Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Hi Raimey,
Well the royalties are not hard to figure out, they were already paid or at least invoiced when Whitworth delivered the tubes...They were not royalties per se, but tangible goods purchased...
I did not say that it was a PUN process, I said that it was similar to the PUN process in the sense that the maker was responsible for marking the gun with the proper number(s)
As for the raw tubes, it is not that difficult to believe. Purdey had a barrel shop with 7 "barrel makers" in 1912 and 9 in 1889. They had also made their barrels from scratch some time in the first part of the 19th century.
"Crossedchisles" should be able to shed some light on this matter.
I am surprised that nobody so far has kept track of the Whitworth numbers per serial number and manufacturing dates. A worthy endeavor no doubt.

Best regards,
WC-

By the way, the tube numbering might have been a Purdey tradition and not necessarily a requirement from Whitworth, and this behavior was possibly copied over by other makers.
WC-

I suppose it could be entered as hearsay for now. And it may be semantics, but I take issue with the term barrel/tube maker in this instance but would accept barrel filer/polisher and barrel borer. There's a reference somewhere that by the early 1870s there weren't any barrel makers in London. And also it may be semantics but no maker made tubes from scratch where they dug the ore, puddled it and rolled out a tube. That's an illusion propagated by the upper rung makers themselves that from the earth they dug the ore and from their shop out rolled the sporting weapon.

I think the serialization had more structure that some ad hoc maker application of a number. Those numbers are there for a specific reason. But you do have a point that the Whitworth-Purdey relationship was stout and Purdey may have set the bar. But this is just one maker, how would the tubes have been distributed to all other makers and to the U.S. of A.(should be some import documentation there).

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Beating a dead horse, and adhering to strict definition of a tube, if a maker received the beginnings of a tube in any other state than bar steel, he was not a barrel/tube maker. There is some gray area or nexus of the universe situation where a tube was sourced with a pilot hole, but if any boring or polishing was performed prior to delivery to a maker, he was not a tube maker. Regarding makers/retailers, my goal is to attribute effort where effort is due by chipping away or eroding the fantasy/fallacy that a maker/retailer performed all tasks in house. If you sourced, say you sourced(its OK) and the British makers were not immune to this practice. The sourcing of specific mechanics or talent pools is going to establish a quality modell, which should not just be purely based on name only. Makers/retailers for the most part functioned as merely quality control.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

One of our astute members(actually posted on this thread) has reminded me that S,D&G(Schoverling, Daly & Gales) was the Krupp authorized importer/distributor for the U.S. of A. and so I don't think it would be a stretch at all to say they were the source of Whitworth compressed fluid steel tubes for the U.S. of A. Curious as to how they sourced & their ledger would be a goldmine of info.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Yeah, I'd say that S,D&G was the U.S. of A. importer. Wonder how they did gee-haw with the American makers.


1903 Hunter Arms advert for Damascus Crown Steel, Nitro Steel, Krupp & Whitworth Fluid Steel Barrels.

Any of you Hunter Arms experts have a set of those Damascus Crown Steel tubes?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse