Sigh, more disinformation. It would help if what I wrote would just be read.

I am talking about Serial Numbered guns above.
-- Reilly never claimed to make pistols after 1837.
-- He engraved and sold a lot of rifles and shotguns but unless they are serial numbered he did not make them. For instance he put his name on 6000 Reilly-Comblain's...not one was serial numbered.
-- There is a Reilly "sword bayonet" for a Jacob's rifle...but it has another maker's name on it as well. I don't think he made them.
-- There are no other makers' names, extraneous manufacturing marks, etc. on Reilly SN'd guns from the 1860's - with the exception of one pin-fire with S.Breedon (Birmingham center-break lock maker after 1861) on the action and I've discussed that gun. There is one with a Joseph Brazier action - he advertised this option for an additional £5.

So Dustin, in your theory you'll have to account for why this is and what is the difference between serial numbered and non-serial numbered guns. You need to try reading what's on paper and address that not something you've created out of whole cloth.

As for post 1880 when Reilly expanded production to over 1000 a year and began seriously marketing boxlocks...I have that caveated. I have flat out said that it's quite likely he began using actions from Birmingham for his boxlocks and if so for the Scott triplex actions as well like my Reilly 16 bore. But I also said, there are no extraneous marks, initials, names on these guns that I've seen or been told about or have found and Scott it seems always found a way to put a mark on his guns.

And I've asked a question that has not been answered. How can you guarantee that a boxlock action was made in Birmingham? Oh, "everybody says it?" Or, "it will have workers' initials on it?" So, If a boxlock does not have workers' initials etc on it, was it made elsewhere? What are the definitive markers? If a boxlock action were made in London how would you know? This is the type of thing I'm interested in. John Cambell wrote a recent well researched book on boxlocks which I've ordered.

I pay attention to what Dustin says. But here's a request:
-- Please try and keep the discourse civil - personal insults do not advance a case and actually are pretty childish.
-- Read what I've written in the history not what you think has been written, note the sentences you have a problem with and I'll let you know why I wrote it that way.
-- And please don't set up straw men - it just makes the dialog courser.

Last edited by Argo44; 11/25/21 05:52 AM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch