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

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 ?