doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com A Cameleopard from E. M. Reilly

Gentlemen,

When the Ancient Romans first had the Giraffe described to them they decided that it incorporated features of the Camel and the Leopard and named it the “Cameleopard”.

This evening I present an almost as unusual cross, that probably did not involve the use of a stepladder.

I have mentioned this gun, number 30227 before in Argo44’s Reilly history thread as I was awaiting it from Southams. It was catalogued as “Westley Richards type top lever opening”. I was anticipating that it would be an early Anson and Deeley.

What arrived was intriguingly very different.

The action is the first model of Greener’s Facile Princeps, circa 1881 with a cocking hook attached to the front lump in place of the later sliding stud.

The lever and bolt work is Greener, instead of a Scott spindle.

But instead of the triple locking cross bolt to be expected on a Facile Princeps there is a top extension resembling but not identical to the Westley Richards. It lacks the eccentric double camming arrangement of a true Westley Richards and the sliding top bolt has a relatively short travel.

The original proof marks were mostly expunged when it was sleeved (and it has been restocked) but it is clear that it originally bore London marks. I have taken the stock off and cannot find any hidden makers marks.

On the action flat there is a marking:- G. M. PAT
S. 13


That may have been partly erased, does it mean anything to any of you?

Argo44 dates this in the 1880’s by serial number. As Westley Richards spent the first part of of the decade suing Greener alleging that the Facile Princeps was in breach of their Anson and Deeley patent I cannot imagine that they built it.

Greener seems more likely and could have had it proofed in London.

Unless it was a one-off prototype it would have required some tooling up so there may well be more around.

Has anyone else encountered this combination of features, whether on a Reilly or some other brand?

Happy New Year to All,

Parabola

1400 km trip though the Sahara and I'm pretty beat. But that is an interesting gun! It is pretty definitively 1889. EM was still alive. Could he have built the whole thing under license? Doubtful but one must ask. The review of the 1885 London Inventions exposition indicate it was possible. Both 16 and 277 workshops were still operational.

And I have to admit Parabola knows a lot more about this action than I ever will!

That early version of the Facile Princeps action is mentioned on page 174 of Graham Greener's book. He describes the FP action as using a hook on the barrel lump or a sliding rod. His description of a hook on the front barrel lump matches the photo you provided. I'm guessing it was built by Greener and merely retailed by Reilly. The action is certainly filed up like Greener work of the period. Greener did use bolted dolls head fasteners like yours, not just the more common crossbolt. The top lever? Who knows. Maybe just tweaking Westley Richards. The patent is listed as 930 of 1880.

Thank you gentlemen. Gene, I have to say that I did not know anything about this action until it arrived and inspired me to do a bit of research.

I have found the above illustration in “Practical Hints on Shooting, by 20-Bore” 1887.

It shows the same action, but with bites for the bolt in both lumps. I do not know if any were made like that or whether when they went from paper to metal they found there was not enough room for the forward bite.

There is a similar illustration in Stonehenge (J. H. Walsh) the Modern Sportsman’s Gun and Rifle, 1882.

In Diggory Hadoke’s online Vintage Gun Journal I have read an October 2021 article about a F.T. Baker gun built with Needham’s patent ejectors.

I was struck by the similarity of the shape of the top lever to the one on the above Reilly gun. Greener took over Needham in 1874 but seems to have run them in parallel for the rest of that century.

If Needhan built the Baker gun, might they be a possible source for this Reilly boxlock?

Out of Africa with a 10 day break for omicron quarantine: I took another look at this interesting box-lock. Never seen another Reilly with that action. Whether Reilly made any box-lock actions or bought them from others (Birmingham) as was the case nearly universally with London gunmakers cannot be determined.

However, the gun is serial numbered. According to the research from the Reilly line, that indicates Reilly built the gun, whether or not he used outsourced actions/parts. Will continue to look through the 600 Reilly's I have photographs of to try to learn more but again it's unique so far. Very interesting.

Lot 1597 in the forthcoming Holts sale is another box lock with an interesting combination of features.

It is a 1930’s 10-bore by T. Bland and sons. It has an Anson and Deeley action, Westley Richards top lever with bolted dolls head and a Greener side safety.

Re-proofed in 2022, presumably one the auctioneers considered too nice to be offered as a stock and action.

Looks pretty rough to me....

I have not examined it myself, but suspect that the green paint makes it look worse than it really is.

He seems to have been a serious Wildfowler.

Interesting conversations. In the same vein, take a look at this Cogswell-Westley Richards-Greener combo which sold a few days ago.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/924235003

Well spotted , Daryl!

The Cogswell and Harrison is, apart from the presence of ejectors and a slightly more typical shaping of the front of the Westley Richards style top lever, a near twin to mine.

I wish mine still had Damascus barrels, but then if it had it would no doubt have cost me more than £55.

I see that the gun you mention is marked C & H on the tubes where the barrel maker’s stamps would appear. Cogswell and Harrison were manufacturers, and unusually for London makers built boxlocks in house.

It seems likely that this was one of their own making.

It is very close in date to mine, and raises a moderately strong possibility that they built mine for E. M. Reilly.

E. M. REILLY!
E. M. REILLY!
E. M. REILLY!
JR

The Cogswell & Harrison pictured by Daryl has a faint "Not for Ball" stamp...and looks to have been originally proofed in London. This would make it 1887 or earlier. (This is not hard and fast... Terry Lubzinski’s side lever 12 bore Reilly has a serial number 303XX - 1889 - but with "Not for Ball.")

Parabola's camelopard is definitively 1889 per the serial number. Close but not so close that a definitive conclusion can be reached.

Hello, could you please clarify? Regards

Gene,

30227 also has a NOT FOR BALl stamp in the same place as the gun Daryl spotted. If you look at the top picture in this thread you will see ALL the rest being obscured by the front lump.

It also bears that CHOKE mark in a similar location. Unfortunately where the C&H mark appears on Daryl’s example the area has clearly been struck down in the course of re-sleeving.

A definite answer might lie in Cogswell and Harrison’s records (IF they kept a record of guns made by them for the trade). Edwinson Green built guns for London Sporting Park and recorded the London Sporting Park serial numbers he applied.

We will probably never know for certain, but the similarities in building have moved Cogswell and Harrison close to the top of my list of suspects.

Now, has anyone any ideas about the marking:-
G M PAT
S. 13
on the action flat on my Reilly

Gladly. Heavy on sarcasm. After 80 pages of E. M. Reilly talk that began in 2016, with over 1.3 million views and almost 800 replies, I'm not sure why an additional thread is needed to discuss more of the same, save the fact it's another example for, more of the same, if you get my drift.

Not judging, just saying...
JR

I think this adds to the idea that the English gun trade was an incestuous lot.

John, We are addressing Parabola's Reilly. I happen to know a good bit about Reilly so have tried to help.

Re your ungracious comment about the Reilly line, here's the background: I started out just to date the Reilly guns. I found bad history and decided to correct it. I have been continually challenged and accused among other things of "cherry picking" data. So the history is being rewritten with footnotes paragraph by paragraph so that those who hadn't read through all the research could see where the concepts originated. If it doesn't interest you, don't read it.

Now I'd like to address two points which came up on this line.
1) That "Greener might have made the gun and Reilly was merely a retailer." or
2) that Cogswell & Harrison made it (and presumably Reilly retailed it).
My point is this; if Greener could make it, Reilly certainly could and the fact that Reilly is not even being considered as the source of this W-R shows how ingrained non-historical based, oral-legend is within a very conservative fraternity.

I'm not going to fall on my sword to say that after 1880 Reilly didn't finish others' guns. He was above all a businessman and if he decided he couldn't fight Birmingham anymore, he'd join them and make money. But in 1881 he had twice the number of workers as Greener and could make anything Greener could.

Just for information, here are three Reilly Westley-Richards from around the 1889 time period. I've got the information on the various patent use numbers on these guns....they've been posted before and will be again when I finally get up to 1890 in the re-write:

30363 - dated 1889; #1 of a pair. From an internet article:

30364 - dated 1889; #2 of a pair. From and Indian gun board - Norwegian gun; Serial number was matched based on patent use numbers compared with the above gun:

33242 - dated 1893; #2 of pair


If it would help Parabola, I will post the details on these guns.

If it sounded ungracious, my apologies. Just thought Parabola could have added it to the existing discussion. I admire your extensive knowledge and research, Argo. Peace.
JR

Thanks John....no blood no foul. At this point with me basically writing my book on the Reilly line...or rather re-writing it and adding a lot more stuff....if someone has questions about a specific Reilly gun, it might be more productive to have a separate line....especially this one which is quite unique.

As I go through Reilly history paragraph by paragraph though, if some historian wants to challenge an interpretation, please do so.

Gene Williams

Gene,

Thank you for the pictures of those 3 Westley Richards actioned Reilly guns. All 3 appear to be typical Anson and Deeley actions as made by Westley Richards and undoubtedly by others in the trade.

My gun Reilly 30227 differs in having the Facile Princeps action with its rounded front to the bar, and being the first model Facile Princeps the bottom end of the cocking hook protruding through the action body.

Those features, combined with the Westley Richards style top lever, are shared with the Cogswell and Harrison Daryl located and I would be interested, as I said at the outset, in learning about other guns sharing those features as it would now appear mine is not a “one off”.

Parabola

My apologies, I rather naively or stupidly thought you were attempting to add something of value to this interesting topic. Regards

Parabola thank you for posting, it is an interesting gun.

Thank you.

I was in two minds as to whether to re-open this thread when I saw the Bland gun at Holts.

I am very glad that I did, as the Cogswell and Harrison gun Daryl found goes some way to answering my original post, and otherwise I doubt if I would ever have known about it.

Parabola, fascinating and unique gun. I knew nothing about that action. Thanks for posting and I for one certainly learned a lot.

Daryl Hallquist kindly assisted with my search for a similar gun by providing a link to a Cogswell and Harrison offered on Gunbroker. As that link has now expired I am uploading the images I saved in case anyone wishes to compare them with the gun I have now found and will show in the next post.

Another gun that shares the Westley Richards top extension/sliding top bolt with the Greener Facile Princeps action. The serial number is in the Greener numbering sequence for 1885, shortly before they started in 1886 at 6001 a separate block for Needham guns that continued until 1941.

It appears that when Greener acquired Needham in 1874 that he moved all the production in house. Whilst some Needham guns bore a Loveday Street address it is the side of the same block as the St. Mary’s works.

I had previously remarked on the similarities of the filing of the top lever on my Reilly to a Needham gun. It seems almost certain that my Reilly was made at the Greener works.

I have now taken delivery of the Greener built J.V. Needham gun pictured above and find that it is another early model Facile Princeps action with the swinging cocking hook on the front lump, albeit in this case incorporating the Needham/Greener ejectors.

The photo of the water table shows the stamp for the Greener Patent number 930/1880 for the Facile Princeps action. Situated below it in the bolt release stud which holds the top lever and bolts open. Necessary in guns fitted with a Greener cross bolt, less so in this case with a dolls-head to extension.

J.N. Patent 676 - I can’t match this to a particular Needham Patent and take it 676 could be a use number.

I assume the 1881 U.S. patent was Greener getting protection for his 1880 Facile Princeps patent.

The ejector operates as follows. On firing the cocking dog drops to press down under tension on the upper projection on the cocking hook.

As the gun opens it slips off and strikes the ejector kicker before engaging and being re-cocked by the rising lower part of the hook.

It is a wonder that they worked at all, let alone (at least in this case) more than 130 years later.

Although a well used gun it does not appear to have been externally abused, and the action still bears traces of a dried grease coating which doubtless helped preserve it.

Parabola, very nice gun. Those self acting ejectors are nice, and they work until there is excessive wear or if the the geometry of the sear noses is changed. The old gunsmith rule on these self acting ejector mechanisms is that it’s best not to alter the trigger pulls on these FP actions. They were adjusted and timed at the factory and should remain how they were if possible. The sear nose and tumbler bent are critical in keeping the mechanism in time.
My G-guns do not have the bolt release stud in the action that your gun has. I’m going to post a picture of what the internals on one of these self acting ejector mechanisms looks like. They are actually very simple. There are no separate “cocking dogs” in this action, the tumbler (hammer) and cocking limbs are all one piece. Actually a very simple & very robust action, very few parts, the critical timing of the action being most important to keeping the guns mechanism healthy and working correctly.

Dustin, what is that part between the hammers (to the right) and the top lever (to the left)? It appears to be a two piece affair that will swivel from one side to the other.

That is the under bolt. The small piece just above the under bolt is the stud/cam that connects the top lever to the under bolt.

Gotcha, thanks.

Dustin,

Thank you for your kind comments and the very helpful “exploded view” of your lovely G gun.

You are quite right to describe the part as a cocking limb as it is of one piece with the tumbler.

I will carefully avoid tinkering with the works, or any dismantling at all if I can help it. I do plan to try re-browning the tubes without further striking down.

Does your top lever hold open? I thought that the stud I mentioned was necessary to keep the cross-bolt clear of the bottom of the descending top extension.

The top levers on all of my FP & G-guns do not hold over if the barrels are removed. The rear of the barrel lump holds the top lever over by putting tension on the under bolt. They are the “typical” type snap actions, typical Greener lever work. I’ve actually never seen the “plunger” on the action flats like that. You can see where AH Fox/Brown etc “borrowed” the idea from though.

I thought it was important to dispel the myth that these Greener self acting ejector actions are extraordinarily complex, etc. Fact of the matter is that there are fewer parts in one of these G or F actions than there are in most pedestrian boxlocks. The magic happens in the fitting of these parts, mostly in the sear angle/bent area. In the US, I believe Kirk Merrington is the only one here that Greeners used to recommend for maintenance (mainly timing issues, trigger pulls etc) on the G action guns.

If you will forgive me (some of you probably won’t) for going back to my original post, I posed a question as to the meaning of a stamp (possibly partly erased) that I read as G.M. PAT.

I have just emerged from the Google rabbit hole (“where’s the day gone?”) searching for the operative dates of Needham’s ejector patent and was directed to a post by Small Bore in 2005 on this Forum where he said :-


“Greener did indeed buy Needham's in order, largely, to get hold of the ejector rights. He moved from the original Needham ejector to the Self-acting ejector and then the Unique ejector variants. Some patents stamps are marked 'G&N' withe the patent number , for 'Greener & Needham”

Which I think must answer my original question.

Now I just need to learn to read.

One would think that the number "13" associated with "G.N. Pat S." should normally be the use number. That's an early use number for an 1889 gun. We just don't know enough about that Patent to hypothesize some reason for this.

I've only one Reilly with a Needham patent and that was for Needham & Hinton patent 706 - intercepting sears on back action (bought by Scott) and was used on a gun with a Scott action. Reilly seemed to prefer Perkes for ejectors. The problem with this of course is that most advertisements just don't list patent use info in them (Toby Barclay being the obvious exception) and that makes the database pretty limited. Never seen another Reilly like this one. Thanks.

It clearly is N not M, and I am now puzzled that I ever thought otherwise. Not sure on enlarging the photograph if the S is really S or might be 8?

Like I said, I need to learn to read.

Gene, I recollect others in this forum warning against over reliance in using patent use numbers in dating guns. We assume that they were applied in chronological sequence starting at ***1 but they may have been issued in blocks or batches.

To take a case in point, if on the J. V. Needham gun I show above the J. N. PATENT stamp refers to the Needham’s ejector patent 1205 of 1874, the 676 would seem an absurdly low use number for an important Patent then in force for over 10 years.

On the Reilly the stamp could have been partly struck down when the gun was sleeved and the action blued. The number might have been 13** or 13***. Or is the S part of an alphanumeric sequence that started A***1?

Or is it just 813?

I blew it up and played with the contrast and tried to sharpen the image as much as possible. It looks like 813....clearly to these eyes it's an 8 and that would make more sense as a patent use number.




I went down the rabbit-hole pursuing patent use numbers hoping to find 1 maker who was reasonably consistent.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=567037

The 1860 Henry patent 2802 - 7 groove shallow rifling seemed to have the most promise and for the first 5 years or so seemed to be chronological. However when A&T started providing patent use numbers it went haywire.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=568234&page=1

I tried to get Purdey to tell me if they had records on 1863 J. Purdey patent no. 1104 - “double bite” under action bolt....Reilly regularly used that patent up to 1877. Purdey said their records are literally locked up and they cannot access them. So indeed they can't be used to date a gun....unless it is only to identify the last gun before or the first gun after the expiration of the patent in which case it can help with dating.

In my dating chart the last Reilly with a 1104 use number is:
20623 - E.M. Reilly & Co., New Oxford Street, London and Rue Scribe, Paris. 12 bore. Shotgun SxS. U-L, rebounding hammer gun. (Purdey patent 1104 use #3928)
My chart dates that gun to spring 1877 (getting pedantic - possibly late April)...which is certainly a sanity check on the validity of the Reilly Serial Number dating chart since the Purdey patent expired 04 May 1877.

And here are the questions that have never been adequately answered about Patent use numbers:

-- If the owner of a patent made a gun using that same patent, was a patent use number stamped on that gun? For instance are these Greener patent use numbers stamped on Greener made and marketed guns; or are they only used for others who purchase rights to purchase the components or build them under license?

-- If a gun maker built a gun under license using others' patents, assume he paid for the patent use number. And the corollary, how would one know if that gun maker actually made the component himself, or purchased it in the white from the original patent holder?

-- If a gun maker created a gun in the white using patents that were not his - for instance if Scott made a gun in the white for Holland & Holland, but used others' patents (Purdy 1104 for example), who paid for the patent use number and where was it recorded? Scott who built the gun or H&H who finished it?

In the case of this gun apparently it was finished by Reilly but built by Greener (in the white? - probably - because Reilly didn't serial number guns he didn't build; he did serial number guns he finished as did H&H etc.).

Owners of an actual Greener built by Greener and marketed by Greener at this time might note if there is a "G.N.PAT" with a use number stamped on their Greener factory guns. That would at least tell you whether Greener authorized Reilly to build it or sold the components intact.

(813 authorized over say 8 years is not an inconsequential number - 100 a year - so perhaps Greener did put patent-use-numbers on his own guns because Reilly and others were clearly not selling a lot of them).

But one suspects that every firm had its own practices and nothing was industry wide.

Thanks for the photo analysis work Gene.

I had always assumed that my Reilly was built as a non ejector but started to puzzle why it should bear the GN patent mark for an ejector mechanism.



Looking at it more closely, and now being able to contrast it the the Needham ejector gun at page 3, it becomes clear that it has been converted to non-ejector.

The cocking hook has been reshaped but retains the slot for the ejector kickers, the front lump the retaining “nail”, and the split ejectors have been soldered together to act as a one piece extractor.

Owen, hoping that this answers your questions.

Parabola

[quote=Argo44]This is not meant to bring the Reilly line back; The book is still being edited.

However, For the first time in three years a Reilly gun has come to light which required extensive changes in the dating chart on p.57.
https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...raved-e-m-reilly-co-12-bore-double-rifle



This is SN 32760 , a 12 bore SxS rifle, top lever, BLE with 28" barrels. It is adorned with a plaque saying it was presented as a birthday present on 26 March 1891. This means it was likely ordered and numbered a couple of months earlier.

Comment by Parabola:-

Argo44 has just posted the above in his Reilly history thread.

The rifle is made with what appears to be an A&D (not a Facile Princeps) action but has a Greener side safety.

Re-proof at 70mm indicates relatively recent re-proof in the UK.

Perhaps I should not complain about the Auction cataloguing, when I have not the slightest intention of buying it, but I find the lack of detailed information disappointing.

There is no description of the type or condition of the rifling (assuming it was not smooth bored prior to reproof or was not made as a ball and shot gun?), type if any of top extension or picture of the proof/barrel markings.

If any of you plan to attend the view I would love to know if there are WWG stamps on the tubes?

Morning Parabola, RIA is very good at answering questions. I intend to ask them for the address on the rib and can add these questions to my query. I will say that Malcolm King had an excellent collection of Reilly's. All which have come across the block so far have been in very good condition.

Gene Williams

Thanks Gene,

A picture of the top of the action would be helpful if you can get them to add one?

Parabola, here are pictures provided by RIA. Gun was made at 16 New Oxford Street, London. You'll see it's a doll's-head extension. RIA did not answer the question about rifling but I assume it is fully rifled.

It has post 1887 London original proof marks. There are two Anson&Deeley patent use numbers - Deeley Patent Ejector use #2363 and the A&D box lock patent use #11096. This is odd. I assume that A&D box lock patent expired in 1889. But here it is a A&D patent use number on a 1991 gun. We've seen this before with Reilly's...barrels using a proof stamp or patent use number after the stamp had changed or the patent expired. Wonder if the barrels were proofed in 1889 and not used on a gun until 20 months later. Reilly did stock barrels to allow him to make faster deliveries. Hope the photos are what you are looking for.

Thanks Gene, that is very helpful.

The barrels would have been proofed on the action and at the same time, but the Patent use marks could have been applied to the action prior to barrels being fitted.

It was originally London proofed as an 11 bore.

As the Birmingham re-Proof is at 19.7mm I would bet that if it ever was rifled it is now a smooth bore.

I believe RIA sent photos of the wrong gun. There is no Reilly SN. Malcolm King had a number of high-quality Reilly's. A 10 bore box lock with no Reilly SN is not in this sale but they have been dribbling out his collection for a few months and this gun may be an upcoming one. I've written to confirm that the above photos are for Iten 744, SN 32760. Will let you know.

Gene,

I think you will find that they have photographed the right gun. It is not a 10 bore, as it is chambered for 12 bore cartridges in both iterations of proof.

It was clearly originally made “over bored” perhaps to use thin brass 12 bore cases, like a “chamberless gun”.

The Reilly serial number is probably on the guard tang.

Yes the SN is on the tang. But virtually every Reilly I've looked at also had it stamped on the water-table, barrels and fore-end. You are probably right looking at the sights and the 12/1 stamps. Still, I sent them a note. Would like to see the rifling.

Gene,

I have just noticed that there is a number (mostly obscured by their stand) stamped on the rear lower rib. It does not appear to match the Reilly number.

The T532 is probably a local (Transvaal?) registration mark of the sort applied to privately owned guns in various parts of the Empire.

I was wondering about that. T532 is also stamped in large numbers/letters on the barrel flats and that stamp appears to overlay or rather dwarf the original London proofs and the Brum reproof marks. Never seen that on a Reilly before so I assumed it was some sort of local registration number.

Interesting that it might be Transvaal. I was wondering why two Sons in the UK would give their 60 year old father a cannon for his birthday, which really couldn't be used very well in Britain. (Can you imaging using a 12 bore rifle on grouse?) The possible conclusion is this family lived in Africa and since it's 1891, before Brit colonization of Kenya, etc., probably South Africa.

Possible match for the father John Woods and sons John Pattan and Henry Clay? (I've no interest in pursuing this further on genealogy sites since it's not my gun but with the lead to the DOB and two sons' names, it's certainly possible. (John had four children - John, Henry and Maria - fourth not known:
https://www.myheritage.com/names/henry_woods

Henry Clay WOODS, 1858 - 1938 - (connection to Australia)
- Henry Clay WOODS was born on month day 1858, in birth place , to John WOODS and Alice WOODS (born KENNEDY) .
. . .-- John was born on March 26 1831, in Shropshire, England.
. . .-- Alice was born in 1831, in Kilkenny, Donegal, Ireland.
- Henry had 4 siblings: John Patten WOODS and 3 other siblings .
- Henry married Maria WOODS (born HUTCHINSON) on month day 1876, at age 18 in marriage place .
. . .-- Maria was born circa 1856, in Victoria, Australia.
- They had 11 children: William Henry WOODS , John WOODS and 9 other children .
- Henry passed away on month day 1938, at age 80 in death place .
- He was buried in burial place .

John Patton Woods, 1854 - 1935. (connection to Australia)
- John Patton Woods was born on month day 1854, in birth place , to John WOODS and Alice WOODS (born KENNEDY).
. . .-- John was born on March 26 1831, in Shropshire, England.
. . .-- Alice was born in 1831, in Kilkenny, Ireland, United Kingdom.
- John was baptized on month day 1854, in baptism place .
- John had 4 siblings: Maria Russell (born Woods) and 3 other siblings .
- John married Elizabeth Mary Woods (born Madden) on month day 1871, at age 17 in marriage place .
. . .-- Elizabeth was born on June 7 1853, in Jamberoo, NSW Australia.
- They had 15 children: Sarah Maria Nielsen Rossen (born Woods) , Alice Madden Murray (born Woods) and 13 other children .
- John lived in address .
- John passed away on month day 1935, at age 81 in death place .
He was buried in burial place .

Frustrating that they did not add father’s names to the inscription.

A 12 bore rifle or ball and shot gun would have been over the top for any quadruped found in the UK.

It would have been useful in South Africa, India, Ceylon, Malaya and perhaps Australia.

The number on the bottom rib is not the T532 found on the flats.

Here is the number. Tried to clean it up but this is the best I can do. Looks like possibly 68 or 89. I could ask RIA but don't want to waste their time. It is not in the place were a serial number should be (on the barrels).

Parabola, here is RIA on the rifling and proofs. They really are a class outfit.

Question
Sirs: Re the Reilly 12 bore rifle SN 32760: What is the address on the rib? What is the condition of the rifling and the type? Is it possible to see a photo of the barrel flats/proof marks. Also one of the top rib extension, Finally are there any extraneous initials on the gun. I'm wondering if "WWG" might be there someplace. Many thanks for your assistance. Mr. King certainly had a nice collection of Reilly's.

Responses: (Photos already posted)
Auction 1042- Lot 744: The barrel address reads :"E. M. REILLY & Co. 16. NEW OXFORD St. LONDON." The rifling has 7 grooves and is present the entire length of the barrel with some pitting in areas down the length. Overall the rifling appears to be quite good with a good amount of shine. I am unable to find this set of initials anywhere on the gun, this includes everywhere I can get without taking the gun down past forend, barrels, and action/stock Thanks! Melissa Stohl Customer Service Rep

Date: 10:21 AM January 24, 2023
Auction 1042- Lot 744: You are correct on the proofs given in the photographs. The barrels are both still fully rifled down the length. Thanks! Melissa Stohl Customer Service Rep

That is most interesting, Gene.

I wonder if the rifling was cleaned up using a cast lead lap, free to turn in the rifling as it lapped the lands and grooves.

As the enlargement from 11 bore (.750 +?) to 10 bore (19.7 mm = .775)indicates up to 25 thou enlargement I am pleasantly surprised that it still retains its rifling, and would have lost my bet.

The original Victorian proof would have been measured with a plug gauge, and would have been the bore diameter to the top of the lands.

I suppose that it is possible that the 19.7mm may have been measured with a micrometer, and taken from the groove diameter. If so my calculations as to the enlargement of the bore may be over-stated.

The rifling being full length suggests that it was built as a dedicated purpose rifle, rather than being intended to be used like a Paradox with shot as well as bullet.

Gene,

As you said Rock Island Auctions are very helpful. They have confirmed to me that the number under the rear bottom rib is 9936.

That suggests to me that someone else made it for Reilly, or at least suppled the barrelled action, but does not give any obvious clue as to who that was.

Certainly the barrels. Can't say much more than this. E.M. was dead. Both workshops were still open but serial numbered guns decline rapidly. Boxlocks like everyone else likely were made in the white in Birmingham. I've speculated the Reilly company continued to make sidelocks but at this point who knows.

Here are a few Reilly sidelocks made in the 1890's:

I decided to part with the E.M. Reilly gun number 30227 featured in my original post, having had a lot of fun tracking down what it was, as I am left handed and couldn’t hit anything with its pronounced right hand cast off.


It is now languishing as Lot 6788 in Holts unsold lots from the Sealed Bid sale.

If anyone in the UK (or the US but the shipping and export costs would be prohibitive) wants an interesting gun please pm me and I could tell Holts to let it go to a good home for a nominal amount.

It is sleeved, has good bores and works OK (as long as you are not left handed).