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.