doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Westley Richards trade action

Argo44....gimme a break. Reilly didn�t make any WR patent guns. Just like they NEVER made any Scott-Baker patent W&C Scott guns. Sold them, yes. Sold them with their name on the guns, yes. Made them? Like actually made them? ......Not a chance.

I�ve seen German & Belgian guns that were assigned A&D patent use numbers, are we to assume that these guns were also sent back to be inspected for adherence and quality control? Highly doubtful.

There are definitely more explanations that make more sense than all of these makers sending guns back to the patent holders for inspection.

Almost on cue, Y.Sam. Ehhh What's up doc?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXvQMfKjuC8

Let's see what Daryl says Dustin. He has done research into the matter on W-R patents - and as I showed in my still-born attempt to understand how patent use numbers worked in UK (warned by Toby Barclay), each company had a different system.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=568132#Post568132
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=566741#Post566741

I'm still searching for answers on patent use numbers and on Reilly guns, that you long ago decided about definitively, without evidence, without research, relying on what others told you or wrote years ago, which has been proven to be demonstrably wrong, and even though your own posts are contradictory.

Now back to Westley-Richards.

You�re exactly right...back to Westley Richards. No hyphen btw....it was the guys actual name, not two different people. Your obsession with Reilly can be compared to the pop culture �6 degrees of Kevin Bacon�. It always goes back to Reilly. Every post of yours turns into the biggest yawn fest, much ado about nothing�s that has ever graced this board. The Baluch Brahui disaster is a perfect example.

Most companies were assigned patent use numbers to go with the amount of guns they agreed to make in a given year...if they went over that amount, usually the price went up per gun that was paid to the patent owner. The agreement between H&R is a good example. That�s in Daryl H�s wheelhouse, he knows the particulars in regards to the H&R - WR agreement, how many shillings per gun made etc. This is an example of the common type of agreement that other manufacturers would've made with WR during that time.
The other method was when the patent holders made the entire gun or a barreled action and then sold those guns & actions with others names inscribed on them. The retailers or �makers who were buying these actions and finished guns paid for everything up front, and the guns were marked with the patent use numbers during manufacturing.

Dustin, Great post and thanks. But why are you always so angry?" I'm not attacking you. I'm asking questions and looking for answers.

Do you have documentation on that post? It would help (I've become a bit skeptical about historical truisms). Where could I read it? And still...there may be patent holders whose use numbers were chronological. Purdy patent 1104, the records of which are literally locked up by the family, might be one of these.

Still would like to hear from Daryl on WR.

Gene, me angry? Aggressive maybe, but angry...not at all. Cool as a cucumber.

Hopefully this will save Daryl, Raimey, PeteM, etc the trouble of hashing out the APUN thing again...this was a post from 2012�ish. A very in depth discussion on the subject.
Like I said earlier...this topic is definitely in Daryl�s and Raimey�s wheel house.

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=235309&page=1

So made by Hollis and patents approved by Richards? Or Richards made and outsourced to Hollis? Any speculation on date?

That gun not only has the A&D patents but also the C-bolt. As I said in my first post, I do not believe anyone but WR built guns on the C-bolt top lever platform. I could be mistaken on that point but I do not think so. My guess, at a minimum the barreled action was built up by WR, possibly the whole gun and simply branded Hollis.

You might be correct. A good example of this theory would be guns made by Scott for virtually every retailer and gunmaker that were built on Scott-Baker and Scott-Perkes patent actions. Nobody but Scott built those actions. Whether Scott sent them to gunmakers or retailers as completed guns or guns in the White is entirely a different subject. That really is the only question though.
Mr. Barclay has some really good insight on this topic on his excellent webpage on J. Blanch guns.
Talking with various English gunmakers over the last decade and a half has also led me to this very conclusion as well.

Hollis was a large company and capable of building anything, gun wise. It makes sense that Hollis made the gun under written Patent agreements with Westley Richards or earlier with Anson and Deeley. Some agreements were with Deeley, only. I had about 13 original agreements with Deeley, Anson and Deeley, Anson and Deeley with Westley Richards, and others like Turner, Prybill, Scott, Harrington and Richardson, etc. There must have been many others. Harrington and Richardson produced the entire guns in the U.S. under the direction of Deeley who came to the U.S. to supervise. Patent use numbers for the H and R were to be the guns serial numbers.

Other agreements with WR and other makers demanded that the "other maker" bring the guns to WR for inspection of the Patent Uses and numbering. This also applied to Scott, who probably made a huge quantity of guns with the Patent uses. So much so, that later Scott was allowed to do all inspection in house without bringing guns to the WR premises.

I can only guess that WR had agreements with Continental makers that were similar to Scott's later agreement.

The top lever shape is slightly different than most Westley built guns and it is missing the usual set screw as well. You may indeed be correct Daryl.