doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Early days of England's best gunmakers

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.