The allure of the British gun
- Thread starter Pinfire
- Start date
It was the A H Fox company that proclaimed themselves as the makers of the "Finest Gun in the World".
Winchester were somewhat more modest advertising the Model 21 as "Winchester's Finest Gun".
Must've gotten confused. Happens more often these days.
Nothing posted here lately thought I'd mention a very nice( to me anyway) WR Pape side by side on G P. Full coverage engraving, damascus barrels and nice wood. Probably 1890's to early 20th century. I found it odd that ad says 2 3/4 inch chambers unless they've been lengthened?
Not all that strange. A whole lot of guns have had their chambers lengthened. A lot done carefully and still safe to shoot. Some not. I’d measure wall thicknesses around the chamber area on any vintage gun from that era that has 2 3/4” chambers. Especially English guns.
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I spent my allowance already but that Pape is one I've lusted over for awhile. A quick message to the seller would sort out whether original 2 3/4" or not. Guns with the 12 over C could either be 2.5 or 2.75" but if proved for 1 1/4 oz then that suggests the latter of course much less common than the shorter chamber.
Here's a gun with a lot of British allure. Restored down east and done beautifully.
Here's a gun with a lot of British allure. Restored down east and done beautifully.
OK, let's bring things back to the original topic, the mysterious allure of some guns. When using the term ‘finest’ in relation to a gun model, or ‘finest in the world,’ we’re also taken back to the matter of whose guns really are the finest, in design and construction. It also brings us back to the concept of the ‘best’ gun, perhaps from a different angle.
A ‘best’ gun is not by definition the best model a maker/company produces, as the best output of, say, a modern Turkish manufacturer, is not necessarily a high-quality product compared to others. And the finest pump-action shotgun (insert one of several candidates here), for example, is not necessarily an example of the best workmanship. The concept of ‘best’ should be limited to being the finest gun that is humanly possible to make, by hand (and machine?), from the best materials. Regardless of who made/makes it, there shouldn’t be anything better. And at that level, cost should not be a consideration, and if a gun is made to a price point, there has to be a compromise somewhere, and it is therefore not a ‘best’ gun (though it might be that maker’s best-quality gun).
It takes 18-35 hours to build a mass-produced automobile; compare that to 600-800 hours to make a top-quality double gun, not counting engraving. The very best might consume 2,000 hours of work. At modern hourly rates, this puts the very best at eye-watering prices, giving weight to the adage, ‘if you have to ask the price, you can’t afford it.’ I just tried looking up the cost of a new shotgun on the websites of a few top UK makers like Purdey, Holland & Holland and Westley Richards, only to be told POA - price on application. Yeah… out of my price range. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the relative cost of ‘best’ guns has stayed fairly constant in terms of wealth and incomes over the past 170 years. I mean, private jets, yachts and racing cars are ridiculously expensive to own and operate, yet they still make and sell them. Finest-quality guns are just another plaything for the wealthy.
Of course, if you're running a business, there is no point in building something for which there are no buyers. So there is a ceiling of sorts, in terms of the most a small number of patrons are willing to pay. In mid-Victorian times, this was 65 guineas, and the makers who could demand such prices you could count on one hand, and their client list was short. ‘Best’ guns in London generally fell between 40 and 55 guineas, and provincial makers were less demanding. There was an upper limit regarding the wholesale cost of locks, actions, and barrels, and in the daily rates of journeymen gunmakers. London carried a surcharge in terms of rents and wages, which was reflected in gun prices, entirely separately from the premium certain names could command on the basis of reputation alone. Many sportsmen of the day spent an additional half the value of the gun on annual ammunition costs, and still more in leasing shooting estates and rights to shooting grounds. Nobility inheriting wealth, and families made rich through commerce and trade, could afford the best guns and shooting opportunities.
It was family wealth that funded the leisure activities of gentlemen, and such wealth could come from legitimate business and investments, as well as more dubious sources. It can be troubling if one digs a bit into the sources of this wealth. Take this early breech-loader by William Powell of Birmingham. This gun was first completed on 9 November 1866 for Henry William Lord, barrister and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. However, something happened, and this name was crossed out in the company ledger. The gun was renumbered and sold again on 16 December 1869 to “J.B. Dellap,” listed in the ledger as “best patent breech loader, best damascus barrels, 30 in., 7 lb.” I believe the original owner was James Bogle Delap of Lillingstone Lovell, Buckinghamshire. He was the 22-year-old great-nephew of Colonel James Bogle Delap of Monellan Castle, Ireland. Colonel Delap was a member of HRH The Prince Regent’s circle (the Prince Regent became King George IV in 1820). Delap’s family wealth came from Jamaican and West Indies slave-run sugar plantations, so the untold suffering of many paid for this fine gun, and the sport it enjoyed – not a pleasant thought.
Gunmakers could also engage other aspects of business that connected them to the slave trade. For instance, this exquisite breech-loading sporting gun was made by Parker, Field & Sons, gunmaker to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The firm, however, did most of its business in military contracts, supplying arms to the Honourable East India Company, trade guns to the Hudson's Bay and North West Companies, military Enfield muskets to both sides in the American Civil War, and shackles and leg-irons for the slave trade.
The firm also supplied every manner of equipment to the police, from weapons to handcuffs, as well as truncheons which served two purposes, as badges of rank and authority, and to give a good clout. Here is the Parker, Field & Sons gun in its worn case, along with my great-grandfather's police truncheon -- supplied by Parker, Field & Sons.
I suppose one of the reasons that British guns have such a strong allure is the richness of stories they tell, from the craftsmen who made them to those who used them, while reflecting the times when they were made, whatever century that might be.
Last edited:
sillymike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
When I think of British shotgun, for reason or another, I always think of a hunting shotgun... Probably a cognitive bias, as I'm mostly interest in hunting... and anytime spent of a clay range is to somehow help for the hunting season.
Seems to me like the British were the first come up with the right balance between weight/swing/robustness.
And they don't have to cost $$ to be pleasant to shoot and carry. For a reason or another, BSA, W&S were able to produce nice, affordable, lightweight SxS that swing nice... but the similarly spec shotgun from Husqvarna/Suhl (while nice gun) will be 1lb heavier and not swing the same.
Seems to me like the British were the first come up with the right balance between weight/swing/robustness.
And they don't have to cost $$ to be pleasant to shoot and carry. For a reason or another, BSA, W&S were able to produce nice, affordable, lightweight SxS that swing nice... but the similarly spec shotgun from Husqvarna/Suhl (while nice gun) will be 1lb heavier and not swing the same.
Good point, Sillymike. It may have been William Wellington Greener who came up with the rule of 96 (or he may have promoted it, one is never sure about Greener's claims), whereby a game gun should weigh 96 times the shot charge. This means that ideally a 1oz load should be fired from a 6 pound gun, a 1 1/8oz load from a 6 3/4 pound gun, and a 1 1/4oz load from a gun weighing 7.5 pounds. Anything more is unnecessary baggage, and anything less is uncomfortable recoil-wise. Whether such ratios are still valid with modern propellants is a point for discussion, but as a general guideline, it's not far off. Keeping to these numbers usually requires fairly thin barrel tubes, and I suspect this is why British guns tend to feel more lively in the hand, compared to their Continental counterparts. No one can accuse German and Swedish gunmakers of compromising on strength, but that comes at a handling cost! The same goes for American guns.
I would suggest that with the Germanic guns (by which I include Prussian/German/Austrian/Swedish) I think one just needs to be a little more selective and search a little harder to find a light for the gauge, quick and smooth handling game gun. They are definitely out there. Post WWII not so much. But pre war, especially around the turn of the century, there are some sweet Germanic guns. I tend to gravitate towards them for a couple reasons. First, the market generally undervalues them for a given quality level and in general it seems easier to find sub gauges, particularly 16s.
But I don't want to distract from the main theme.....the appeal of British gun. I think the makers of the Germanic guns I really like were highly influenced by British guns of the day, both in appearance and in handling.
I'll add that I tend to buy guns that have completely captured me. However, the two British guns I do have, the Tolley and the Purdey, one might say I came by them accidentally and their specific charms have grown on me over the years. I didn't set out to buy them. However, for the first time, I'm completely captivated by an English gun, a very lightweight Tolley 20 gauge sidelock. I'm arguing with myself about the price but the gun makes my heart race whenever I look at it. Allure? In spades!!!!!!
Last edited:
L
The upper class in Great Britain were ridiculously wealthy and the source of their wealth was often immoral sometimes outright illegal. Many wealthy families on this side of the pond on the east coast of North America got their start in bootlegging during Prohibition. Squeaky clean today but common criminals back then.
No small trick to make a gun with 30 inch barrels that doesn't feel muzzle heavy when the wood and action are light and slim. I guess that's why checking barrel thickness is so important in guns that have had bores polished. From what I read anything below .025 thickness is shaky ground.
The upper class in Great Britain were ridiculously wealthy and the source of their wealth was often immoral sometimes outright illegal. Many wealthy families on this side of the pond on the east coast of North America got their start in bootlegging during Prohibition. Squeaky clean today but common criminals back then.
A few years ago I had a beautiful Westley Richards 12 ga "droplock" with an interesting provenance. This gun was built in 1949, not long after the end of WWII, for Clarence Wallace who was the Lt Governor of British Columbia from 1950 to 1955. He was awarded the title of CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) for his distinguished war efforts for ship building in Vancouver during WWII. That's about as Canadian as it gets.
Enjoy
Enjoy
A new 20 gauge Purdy I got to handle and inspect in 1969. It had just been purchased at Abercrombie and Fitch in New York. It was truly a masterpiece. So light, so well balanced and perfect everywhere you looked. We had to talk to owner out of removing screws to strip it down. I don't care how good your screwdrivers are, it is close to impossible to not leave them ever so slightly 'marked' in some way.
To each their own. Comfort with barrel wall thickness is very much a personal thing. I've concluded after thinking hard about it for a long time, that I'm comfortable hunting with guns that go down to a MBWT of 20 thou. But only if, when I acquire the gun, the barrels are essentially perfect, with good bluing and mirror bores. Something that is never going to need work while I own it.
And when it gets to be that thin, there are other places on the barrels that need to be checked as well. End of the breech, 8" from the breech.......really the whole length needs to be examined, but especially the first 8-10" from the breech. There are easily findable charts that graph what the minimum thicknesses should be all along the length of the barrels. MBWT is simply a shortcut in assessing.
Many years ago a friend took one of my English doubles to England for repairs and re-proofing. The barrels were made of Damascus and the bores measured 0.740 and they passed passed the proof. Can't remember the wall thickness but it was no more than 20 thou. As Canvasback says, there is more to proofing than wall thickness.
Proof testing of barrels… there’s a subject that has been at the core of British gunmaking, though yet again, Britain was not the first. That distinction goes to Austria, by decree of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, dated 12 September 1501. Whereas private testing of artillery barrels was sometimes done in the 13th to the 15th centuries, there was no requirement to do so. The emergence of hand-held firearms, for war and sport, brought the matter of quality control to the fore: if you’re going to ignite gunpowder inches from your brain, maybe it’s a good idea that some prior testing is done…?
This testing was the earliest form of consumer protection, though it also saved the reputation of the gunmaking industry. Official proofing of firearms in Britain started under Queen Elizabeth I, in 1589. The London Proof House was established by Royal Charter in 1637 under King Charles I, continuing to this day, from its original location. Across the North Sea, proof testing began in 1672 in the principality of Liège, in what is today Belgium. At the time Liège was part of the Holy Roman Empire, before falling under French rule in 1795, after which the proofing of firearms became aligned with the rules imposed by Emperor Napoleon’s decree of 1810. Liège fell under Dutch rule in 1815, and afterwards as part of the newly-established Belgian kingdom in 1830. At that point the Liège proof house covered all guns made in Belgium, and not only Liège. The Birmingham Proof House was established in 1813 by an act of Parliament at the urging of the Birmingham gun trade (prior to 1813, a number of British makers used their own proof marks, which was severely objected to by the London trade). In 1855 the British Parliament passed the Gun Barrel Proof Act, merging the rules of the London and Birmingham proof houses, requiring the proofing of all gun barrels sold, imported and exported, and setting penalties for offences against the act.
In 1914 the Liège proof house was instrumental in forming the Permanent International Commission for the Proof of Small Arms (Commission internationale permanente pour l'épreuve des armes à feu portatives, or CIP), an international standards organisation which lays down rules and regulations for the proof of weapons and their ammunition. The 16 current member states of the CIP operate their own proof houses, and recognize each others proof marks. These are Austria, Belgium, Chile, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. Countries that are not members of the CIP have no requirement for proof testing, though gunmaking companies in such countries (eg. USA, Turkey) generally do their own proof testing, comparable to or exceeding CIP requirements, so they claim. We believe them, right?
Records for the Birmingham proof house for 1883 show that in that year definitive proofs were assigned to 63,197 double birding barrels (presumably muzzle-loading, many for export), 110,369 breech-loading birding barrels, and 37,171 choke-bored breech-loading birding barrels, showing that even by then, not all sporting barrels were choked. I’m pretty sure I have numbers for the London Proof House, covering earlier and later years, but I can’t find them right now. I expect the London house had a smaller turnover.
Make up rules, and someone is liable to break them, or avoid them. The reasons might be nefarious, or just plain laziness or parsimony – why go to the extra bother and expense of proof-testing, if you can get away with it, or don’t have to? Here are three mid-Victorian examples of rule-breaking and avoidance:
First is a 12-bore double-bite screw-grip rotary-underlever pin-fire sporting gun made around 1865, signed Masu Brothers. It was made in Belgium by one brother, for sale in London by the other brother. The barrels have Liège proofs only, and the gun would have been retailed from the 3a Wigmore Street address. Lacking British proofs caused Gustave Masu to run afoul of the law, and in March 1866, he was convicted by the Marylebone Police Court of an offence under the Gun Barrel Proof Act, for which he was fined five pounds. Wigmore Street is in London's fashionable West-End Marylebone district and a stone's throw from Cavendish Square. Gustave Masu aimed for a well-to-do crowd and appeared successful at it (despite his run-in with the law), with the business closing in 1892.
Here is another mid-1860s 12-bore rotary-underlever double-bite screw grip pin-fire sporting gun, this one by James Erskine of Newton Stewart in Scotland. Erskine was an award-winning gunmaker, who was appointed Gun Maker to Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (the elder brother of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's consort), and to an Austrian prince, so not exactly your typical small-town gunsmith. Despite his standing, this gun has only a London provisional proof mark, no definitive proofs, and no bore stamp – Erskine never bothered to go through the whole process. The gun also has no serial number, though this was a common practice for makers only building a mere handful of guns in a year.
Lastly, from the same time period, another 12-bore double-barrelled rotary-underlever pin-fire sporting gun, signed William and James Kavanagh of 12 Dame Street, Dublin, Ireland. The barrels carry no proofs or bore markings at all. Any gun intended for sale in England would have had to be proofed, so this gun likely spent its sporting life in Ireland, before somehow ending up in Canada. The client was happy with the craftsmanship and trusted the makers, probably content with denying payment to London or Birmingham!
For reference, here is the most frequently re-posted chart of British proof marks:
This testing was the earliest form of consumer protection, though it also saved the reputation of the gunmaking industry. Official proofing of firearms in Britain started under Queen Elizabeth I, in 1589. The London Proof House was established by Royal Charter in 1637 under King Charles I, continuing to this day, from its original location. Across the North Sea, proof testing began in 1672 in the principality of Liège, in what is today Belgium. At the time Liège was part of the Holy Roman Empire, before falling under French rule in 1795, after which the proofing of firearms became aligned with the rules imposed by Emperor Napoleon’s decree of 1810. Liège fell under Dutch rule in 1815, and afterwards as part of the newly-established Belgian kingdom in 1830. At that point the Liège proof house covered all guns made in Belgium, and not only Liège. The Birmingham Proof House was established in 1813 by an act of Parliament at the urging of the Birmingham gun trade (prior to 1813, a number of British makers used their own proof marks, which was severely objected to by the London trade). In 1855 the British Parliament passed the Gun Barrel Proof Act, merging the rules of the London and Birmingham proof houses, requiring the proofing of all gun barrels sold, imported and exported, and setting penalties for offences against the act.
In 1914 the Liège proof house was instrumental in forming the Permanent International Commission for the Proof of Small Arms (Commission internationale permanente pour l'épreuve des armes à feu portatives, or CIP), an international standards organisation which lays down rules and regulations for the proof of weapons and their ammunition. The 16 current member states of the CIP operate their own proof houses, and recognize each others proof marks. These are Austria, Belgium, Chile, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. Countries that are not members of the CIP have no requirement for proof testing, though gunmaking companies in such countries (eg. USA, Turkey) generally do their own proof testing, comparable to or exceeding CIP requirements, so they claim. We believe them, right?
Records for the Birmingham proof house for 1883 show that in that year definitive proofs were assigned to 63,197 double birding barrels (presumably muzzle-loading, many for export), 110,369 breech-loading birding barrels, and 37,171 choke-bored breech-loading birding barrels, showing that even by then, not all sporting barrels were choked. I’m pretty sure I have numbers for the London Proof House, covering earlier and later years, but I can’t find them right now. I expect the London house had a smaller turnover.
Make up rules, and someone is liable to break them, or avoid them. The reasons might be nefarious, or just plain laziness or parsimony – why go to the extra bother and expense of proof-testing, if you can get away with it, or don’t have to? Here are three mid-Victorian examples of rule-breaking and avoidance:
First is a 12-bore double-bite screw-grip rotary-underlever pin-fire sporting gun made around 1865, signed Masu Brothers. It was made in Belgium by one brother, for sale in London by the other brother. The barrels have Liège proofs only, and the gun would have been retailed from the 3a Wigmore Street address. Lacking British proofs caused Gustave Masu to run afoul of the law, and in March 1866, he was convicted by the Marylebone Police Court of an offence under the Gun Barrel Proof Act, for which he was fined five pounds. Wigmore Street is in London's fashionable West-End Marylebone district and a stone's throw from Cavendish Square. Gustave Masu aimed for a well-to-do crowd and appeared successful at it (despite his run-in with the law), with the business closing in 1892.
Here is another mid-1860s 12-bore rotary-underlever double-bite screw grip pin-fire sporting gun, this one by James Erskine of Newton Stewart in Scotland. Erskine was an award-winning gunmaker, who was appointed Gun Maker to Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (the elder brother of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's consort), and to an Austrian prince, so not exactly your typical small-town gunsmith. Despite his standing, this gun has only a London provisional proof mark, no definitive proofs, and no bore stamp – Erskine never bothered to go through the whole process. The gun also has no serial number, though this was a common practice for makers only building a mere handful of guns in a year.
Lastly, from the same time period, another 12-bore double-barrelled rotary-underlever pin-fire sporting gun, signed William and James Kavanagh of 12 Dame Street, Dublin, Ireland. The barrels carry no proofs or bore markings at all. Any gun intended for sale in England would have had to be proofed, so this gun likely spent its sporting life in Ireland, before somehow ending up in Canada. The client was happy with the craftsmanship and trusted the makers, probably content with denying payment to London or Birmingham!
For reference, here is the most frequently re-posted chart of British proof marks:
I have an Alexander Henry Best Gun made 1867 that only has a single preliminary London proof on the barrels. Pinfire explained to me that it was not uncommon for the period. Quite expensive to transport a gun to London for proof when perhaps the customer didn't care or just animosity towards the English which wasn't uncommon in Scotland or Ireland in the 19th century.
Is it possible to raise the viewing count with just calm discussion alone? Let’s see. Normally, I make posts inspired by thread comments, but this is a first, as I was kindly requested to explain bites. For the sake of moving this thread along, I will do so using British gunmaking as the basis for explaining what I happen to know on the subject, and I hope the person requesting the explanation will be satisfied. Due to CGN's limitations and my long-windedness, I have to do this in two parts.
Bites are typically squared notches in barrel lumps, with the lumps being extensions under the barrels on double- and single-barrelled hinge actions. One lump has a hook to engage the hinge pin, while another has a bite to engage a locking bolt, or multiples thereof. Sometimes, the lump with the hook and the locking bite are the same; it all depends on the construction. There. I could stop at this point, the request fulfilled. But the story of how many bites to use, where to put them, and how to engage them, is manifestly complex, and going from no bites (muzzle-loaders) to the standard double-bite, sliding under-bolt system used in almost every hinge action gun for the past 100 years, all occurred in the brief period of the British pin-fire game gun, so I am more than happy to bore you with the details.
There are only two kinds of breech-loading shotgun arrangements. In one, the breech block is fixed and the barrel moves (the afore-mentioned hinge action), and in the other, the barrel is fixed, and the breech block moves (pumps, autos, Darnes, falling-blocks etc.). When the breech-loader was first introduced, the idea of a moveable barrel was too much for many to accept, and in the shooting press much ink was spilled warning about the dire consequences of such irrationality.
Ask an amateur historian, expect some history. In the first half of the 19th century, the muzzle-loader rose to its pinnacle of development, incapable of improving its core design and construction. The barrels are fixed firmly in place, hooked in at the standing breech and held to the stock with a cross-pin fastener (also known as a key fastener; guns with very long barrels might have two of these). Therefore, It is not surprising that the first breech-loading sporting guns, made by the Parisian inventor and gunmaker Joseph-François Prélat and the Swiss-born gunmaker Jean Samuel Pauly (Samuel Johann Pauli), around 1808, had fixed barrels. Think of a Darne action, if the breech swung up instead of sliding back, and you would be in the right ballpark. Prélat and Pauly also patented a barrel that pivoted down, but it was the lifting-breech version that was marketed (to only limited success). The difficulty in getting any breech-loading mechanism to work is to make it gas-tight; anything less is not sufficiently efficient to drive a charge forward (let alone the unnerving effect of escaping hot gases beside your face). The early breech-loaders were not gas-tight, so they weren’t particularly good, especially compared to muzzle-loaders. In 1814, Pauly took on a 14-year-old apprentice, Casimir Lefaucheux; fast-forward to 1827, and Lefaucheux was running the business started by Prélat, Pauly and others. In 1828, Lefaucheux invented the pin-fire system, though he didn’t patent it until seven years later. Around 1832, Lefaucheux moved away from the lifting breech idea, developing instead a hinge action, with a drop-down barrel rotating on a hinge pin.
Having a movable, hinged barrel for a breech-loader was a good idea (for all the reasons we understand today). The challenge was how to fix the barrels securely to the action, in a way that could be quickly released for loading, and then back to being secure for firing. For this, Lefaucheux employed a bevelled interrupted screw engaging twin lumps under the barrels, activated by a forward-facing rotating under-lever (or by a rotating trigger guard, acting as a rearward-facing under-lever). Turned one way, nothing stops the barrels from tilting upwards; turned the other way, the interrupted screw engages the lumps and wedges down the barrels and holds them secure (this became the standard configuration of Lefaucheux-action guns, into the 20th Century). The lumps were brazed onto the barrel tubes (more modern guns employ stronger methods, such as chopper-lumps, worthy of a separate discussion). Apologies for the long-winded introduction, but that is how we got to hinge actions, lumps, and bites in the first place.
The pin-fire system was presented to the British public at the Great Exhibition in London in 1851, to Lefaucheux’s credit. Arguably there were British gunmakers who already knew about the pin-fire system, since it was around for almost 20 years in France, but this advance was studiously ignored. Pin-fire guns were also being built by an assortment of French makers, several of whom brought their own improvements, modifications, and alternate constructions to the Lefaucheux action. Here is Lefaucheux’s gun as exhibited in London, courtesy of the engravers at The Illustrated London News, published in their 5 July 1851 magazine supplement. Note the two barrel lumps, and the two inward-facing bites on the lumps.
Here is the same double-bite Lefaucheux action, on a gun by Châlet, Père et Fils of St. Étienne, France @ 1856.
Two bites make sense from an engineering standpoint; the slanted edges of the interrupted screw turned by the lever essentially wedge the lumps downward, in contact with the bites or notches cut into them. Which is why it is curious that the first British-made pin-fire guns did not copy Lefaucheux’s strong fastening system, going instead for a mechanically inferior single-bite action, copied from another Parisian gunmaker, Beatus Beringer, who also had a display at the London Exhibition. Two versions of what happened next can be found in print. The first is that upon seeing the Lefaucheux gun on display in 1851, the renowned London maker Joseph Lang had an epiphany, and shortly afterwards started building and selling a British version, his own invention, shortly after the Exhibition closed in October of 1851. The other version is that a young gunmaker, Edwin Charles Hodges, who had freshly finished his apprenticeship, saw the Lefaucheux gun, made a copy after the Exhibition closed, and convinced Lang to build and sell it. Neither of these stories make sense to me – It’s like going to Cabela’s, seeing an Auto-5 on display on a rack for the first time, then going home and building one from scratch. A more plausible scenario is that Hodges, inspired by the Exhibition displays by several French gunmakers, sought a French gun to disassemble and examine in great detail. These were in circulation, though in very small numbers. Hodges happened not on a Lefaucheux but on a Beringer, and he copied the action precisely, right down to the small mechanically-rising stud to help with opening and closing the action. He took his copy to Lang, convinced him to take the leap, and built his own business as an actioner of breech-loading actions, to Lang and the prestigious London trade. The first Lang breech-loader appeared in late 1853 or early 1854, as confirmed by Lang himself (and not the end of 1851 or early 1852, as is generally reported in 20th century gun literature), which is more in keeping with the time to get one’s hands on a gun to study, and the long time it would take to understand it and make all the necessary parts with saws, files and chisels.
16-bore single-bite Lang-type underlever, by John Blissett of London, actioned by E. C. Hodges, @1859.
16-bore single-bite rear underlever, by William Moore & Co. of London @1862.
Until about 1859, all British pin-fires had actions with a single bite, based on the Beringer design. Neither the Lefaucheux double-bite action nor the Lang single-bite action was patented in Britain; anyone could copy them, but strangely, no one copied the mechanically superior Lefaucheux action, sticking instead to Lang’s Beringer copy. The single bite actions were strong enough, if built well, and the contact surfaces were fitted by hand with extremely close tolerances. A number of these have survived to this day, despite heavy use (many thousands of shells per shooting season). Single-bite actions were also built long after double-bite designs appeared, so a single bite was considered strong enough by most gunmakers of the day. The other design on the market, the slide-and-drop action from Charles Lancaster, began in 1853 (the patent having been bought in that year from the Parisian maker Louis Julien Gastinne), also employed a single bite, coupled with an eccentric screw, moved by an underlever, that moved the barrels forward before allowing them to drop. These were very expensive, so few were built.
The Charles Lancaster slide-and drop, 1864.
In 1855, the Bastin Brothers of Hermalle-sous-Argenteau, Liège, went another way, doing away with bites and having the barrels slide horizontally to open the breech; this action had a certain amount of popularity in Britain, incorporated into guns by London makers such as James Purdey.
Bastin action on a gun by the Masu Brothers of London and Liège, @1865.
End of Part One.
Bites are typically squared notches in barrel lumps, with the lumps being extensions under the barrels on double- and single-barrelled hinge actions. One lump has a hook to engage the hinge pin, while another has a bite to engage a locking bolt, or multiples thereof. Sometimes, the lump with the hook and the locking bite are the same; it all depends on the construction. There. I could stop at this point, the request fulfilled. But the story of how many bites to use, where to put them, and how to engage them, is manifestly complex, and going from no bites (muzzle-loaders) to the standard double-bite, sliding under-bolt system used in almost every hinge action gun for the past 100 years, all occurred in the brief period of the British pin-fire game gun, so I am more than happy to bore you with the details.
There are only two kinds of breech-loading shotgun arrangements. In one, the breech block is fixed and the barrel moves (the afore-mentioned hinge action), and in the other, the barrel is fixed, and the breech block moves (pumps, autos, Darnes, falling-blocks etc.). When the breech-loader was first introduced, the idea of a moveable barrel was too much for many to accept, and in the shooting press much ink was spilled warning about the dire consequences of such irrationality.
Ask an amateur historian, expect some history. In the first half of the 19th century, the muzzle-loader rose to its pinnacle of development, incapable of improving its core design and construction. The barrels are fixed firmly in place, hooked in at the standing breech and held to the stock with a cross-pin fastener (also known as a key fastener; guns with very long barrels might have two of these). Therefore, It is not surprising that the first breech-loading sporting guns, made by the Parisian inventor and gunmaker Joseph-François Prélat and the Swiss-born gunmaker Jean Samuel Pauly (Samuel Johann Pauli), around 1808, had fixed barrels. Think of a Darne action, if the breech swung up instead of sliding back, and you would be in the right ballpark. Prélat and Pauly also patented a barrel that pivoted down, but it was the lifting-breech version that was marketed (to only limited success). The difficulty in getting any breech-loading mechanism to work is to make it gas-tight; anything less is not sufficiently efficient to drive a charge forward (let alone the unnerving effect of escaping hot gases beside your face). The early breech-loaders were not gas-tight, so they weren’t particularly good, especially compared to muzzle-loaders. In 1814, Pauly took on a 14-year-old apprentice, Casimir Lefaucheux; fast-forward to 1827, and Lefaucheux was running the business started by Prélat, Pauly and others. In 1828, Lefaucheux invented the pin-fire system, though he didn’t patent it until seven years later. Around 1832, Lefaucheux moved away from the lifting breech idea, developing instead a hinge action, with a drop-down barrel rotating on a hinge pin.
Having a movable, hinged barrel for a breech-loader was a good idea (for all the reasons we understand today). The challenge was how to fix the barrels securely to the action, in a way that could be quickly released for loading, and then back to being secure for firing. For this, Lefaucheux employed a bevelled interrupted screw engaging twin lumps under the barrels, activated by a forward-facing rotating under-lever (or by a rotating trigger guard, acting as a rearward-facing under-lever). Turned one way, nothing stops the barrels from tilting upwards; turned the other way, the interrupted screw engages the lumps and wedges down the barrels and holds them secure (this became the standard configuration of Lefaucheux-action guns, into the 20th Century). The lumps were brazed onto the barrel tubes (more modern guns employ stronger methods, such as chopper-lumps, worthy of a separate discussion). Apologies for the long-winded introduction, but that is how we got to hinge actions, lumps, and bites in the first place.
The pin-fire system was presented to the British public at the Great Exhibition in London in 1851, to Lefaucheux’s credit. Arguably there were British gunmakers who already knew about the pin-fire system, since it was around for almost 20 years in France, but this advance was studiously ignored. Pin-fire guns were also being built by an assortment of French makers, several of whom brought their own improvements, modifications, and alternate constructions to the Lefaucheux action. Here is Lefaucheux’s gun as exhibited in London, courtesy of the engravers at The Illustrated London News, published in their 5 July 1851 magazine supplement. Note the two barrel lumps, and the two inward-facing bites on the lumps.
Here is the same double-bite Lefaucheux action, on a gun by Châlet, Père et Fils of St. Étienne, France @ 1856.
Two bites make sense from an engineering standpoint; the slanted edges of the interrupted screw turned by the lever essentially wedge the lumps downward, in contact with the bites or notches cut into them. Which is why it is curious that the first British-made pin-fire guns did not copy Lefaucheux’s strong fastening system, going instead for a mechanically inferior single-bite action, copied from another Parisian gunmaker, Beatus Beringer, who also had a display at the London Exhibition. Two versions of what happened next can be found in print. The first is that upon seeing the Lefaucheux gun on display in 1851, the renowned London maker Joseph Lang had an epiphany, and shortly afterwards started building and selling a British version, his own invention, shortly after the Exhibition closed in October of 1851. The other version is that a young gunmaker, Edwin Charles Hodges, who had freshly finished his apprenticeship, saw the Lefaucheux gun, made a copy after the Exhibition closed, and convinced Lang to build and sell it. Neither of these stories make sense to me – It’s like going to Cabela’s, seeing an Auto-5 on display on a rack for the first time, then going home and building one from scratch. A more plausible scenario is that Hodges, inspired by the Exhibition displays by several French gunmakers, sought a French gun to disassemble and examine in great detail. These were in circulation, though in very small numbers. Hodges happened not on a Lefaucheux but on a Beringer, and he copied the action precisely, right down to the small mechanically-rising stud to help with opening and closing the action. He took his copy to Lang, convinced him to take the leap, and built his own business as an actioner of breech-loading actions, to Lang and the prestigious London trade. The first Lang breech-loader appeared in late 1853 or early 1854, as confirmed by Lang himself (and not the end of 1851 or early 1852, as is generally reported in 20th century gun literature), which is more in keeping with the time to get one’s hands on a gun to study, and the long time it would take to understand it and make all the necessary parts with saws, files and chisels.
16-bore single-bite Lang-type underlever, by John Blissett of London, actioned by E. C. Hodges, @1859.
16-bore single-bite rear underlever, by William Moore & Co. of London @1862.
Until about 1859, all British pin-fires had actions with a single bite, based on the Beringer design. Neither the Lefaucheux double-bite action nor the Lang single-bite action was patented in Britain; anyone could copy them, but strangely, no one copied the mechanically superior Lefaucheux action, sticking instead to Lang’s Beringer copy. The single bite actions were strong enough, if built well, and the contact surfaces were fitted by hand with extremely close tolerances. A number of these have survived to this day, despite heavy use (many thousands of shells per shooting season). Single-bite actions were also built long after double-bite designs appeared, so a single bite was considered strong enough by most gunmakers of the day. The other design on the market, the slide-and-drop action from Charles Lancaster, began in 1853 (the patent having been bought in that year from the Parisian maker Louis Julien Gastinne), also employed a single bite, coupled with an eccentric screw, moved by an underlever, that moved the barrels forward before allowing them to drop. These were very expensive, so few were built.
The Charles Lancaster slide-and drop, 1864.
In 1855, the Bastin Brothers of Hermalle-sous-Argenteau, Liège, went another way, doing away with bites and having the barrels slide horizontally to open the breech; this action had a certain amount of popularity in Britain, incorporated into guns by London makers such as James Purdey.
Bastin action on a gun by the Masu Brothers of London and Liège, @1865.
End of Part One.
Part Two.
In 1859, the Birmingham inventor Henry Jones came up with an improved double-bite action design, not very far removed from Casimir Lefaucheux’s 1832 patent. The interrupted screw/locking nut engaged two horizontal bites in the barrel lumps, making it quite strong in terms of surface area holding down the barrels. This screw/nut is the core of Jones’s design, not the underlever (despite the annoyingly common use of the term ‘Jones underlever’ to describe the action). Jones let the patent lapse in 1862, allowing any gunmaker to build this simple, strong action royalty-free. For reasons of economy, just about everybody did, from 1863 onwards, making it the most common action found on breech-loaders. As to the underlever origins, I suggest you read my article on the subject here:
https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/lever-over-guard-origins
Here is a typical double-bite action of the Henry Jones type, built by E. M. Reilly of London, @1867.
For guns with barrels swivelling on hinge pins, it was found early on that the barrel acts as a first-class lever with the hinge being the fulcrum. The barrel flips downward ever so slightly when the gun is fired. This involves considerable force, so much so as to bend the steel of the action bar for a split second. This causes a momentary gape at the junction of the barrel and the breech face, especially so at the top, the farthest point from the fulcrum. It was believed gases escaped there, causing breech-loaders to shoot less strongly than fixed-barrel muzzle-loaders. The Scot James Dalziel Dougall confirmed this, by glueing strips of paper across the junction of the barrels and the standing breech, which would tear when the gun was fired. This led him to design his Lockfast action in 1860, which used an eccentric hinge pin to force the barrels backwards onto raised bosses on the breech face, negating, he believed, any upward movement of the barrels that might create a gap. He claimed that under his system the barrels were pressed against the breech face with between 600 and 1,000 pounds of pressure! The barrels also slipped on to a short round projection below the breech which, if closely fitted, acted as an additional bite for strength.
16-bore Lockfast by J. D. Dougall of Glasgow, @1864.
In the early 1860s there was an abundance of new actions, with variations on the one-, two-, and three-bite fastening systems. This led to the development of snap-actions, where hinged barrels could be closed and the action firmly engaged in one move. Quite a number of different methods were employed, some vastly better than others. As with almost all important gun inventions, the French were there first: François Eugène Schneider came up with the first snap underlever, patented in October 1860. This patent was acquired by G. H. Daw in 1861 and immediately improved, for the Daw central-fire breech-loader that first appeared in late 1861. Thomas Horsley was next with a spring-tensioned trigger-guard lever in February 1862; Joseph Needham patented his snap side-lever in May of that year, the first top-lever snap action was Westley Richards’ pull-lever of September, and J.W.P. Field’s snap under-lever was patented in December. James Purdey patented his double-bite snap-action in May 1863, with a sliding under-bolt linked to a thumb-operated lever in the trigger guard. Then came Thomas Horsley again with his sliding top-lever patented in October 1863, Edward Harrison (of Cogswell & Harrison) with a forward underlever snap action in February 1864, William Powell patented his top-lever snap action in May 1864, and Westley Richards patented his lateral top-lever in October 1864. Stephen & Joseph Law patented their side-lever snap action in May 1865. Then, around 1866, Purdey married his double-bite sliding-underbolt action with William M. Scott’s top-lever (which Scott had patented in October 1865).
Joseph Needham side lever (single wedge-shaped bite), by John Blissett, @1863.
James Purdey’s first gun model with the double underbolt, made in 1865.
William Wellington Greener introduced his famous cross-bolt fastener in 1866, with a lateral bolt engaging in a barrel extension fitted to the standing breech. While the best of these actions stayed in use into modern times, most disappeared over the years and the strong and efficient Purdey sliding under-bolt and Scott top-lever spindle became the standard, often with a third bite like the Greener cross-bolt, the Westley Richards ‘doll’s head,’ and the Thomas Bissell-John Rigby rising bite.
Westley Richards Doll’s head, single-bite version, @1865.
While the use of a third bite made for great advertising (unsurpassed strength!!), it is debatable just how much additional strength was provided, or if it was needed at all – especially when a single bite was normally sufficient. There was, however, a call for strong actions, especially for rifle actions and waterfowling guns. This is where the Jones double-bite action, Dougall’s Lockfast, and third-bite actions excelled. But, for the third bite to be effective, it needs to be very carefully fitted by hand so as to offer the promised three solid points of contact. This is rarely the case on factory-produced guns made to a price point, where the doll’s head or Greener bolt are more crudely fitted and more for show than mechanics. And you can buy a brand new Rigby rising-bite shotgun, starting at $209,864 (before taxes and tariffs) – For that price, I bet that third bite is fully functional.
In 1859, the Birmingham inventor Henry Jones came up with an improved double-bite action design, not very far removed from Casimir Lefaucheux’s 1832 patent. The interrupted screw/locking nut engaged two horizontal bites in the barrel lumps, making it quite strong in terms of surface area holding down the barrels. This screw/nut is the core of Jones’s design, not the underlever (despite the annoyingly common use of the term ‘Jones underlever’ to describe the action). Jones let the patent lapse in 1862, allowing any gunmaker to build this simple, strong action royalty-free. For reasons of economy, just about everybody did, from 1863 onwards, making it the most common action found on breech-loaders. As to the underlever origins, I suggest you read my article on the subject here:
https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/lever-over-guard-origins
Here is a typical double-bite action of the Henry Jones type, built by E. M. Reilly of London, @1867.
For guns with barrels swivelling on hinge pins, it was found early on that the barrel acts as a first-class lever with the hinge being the fulcrum. The barrel flips downward ever so slightly when the gun is fired. This involves considerable force, so much so as to bend the steel of the action bar for a split second. This causes a momentary gape at the junction of the barrel and the breech face, especially so at the top, the farthest point from the fulcrum. It was believed gases escaped there, causing breech-loaders to shoot less strongly than fixed-barrel muzzle-loaders. The Scot James Dalziel Dougall confirmed this, by glueing strips of paper across the junction of the barrels and the standing breech, which would tear when the gun was fired. This led him to design his Lockfast action in 1860, which used an eccentric hinge pin to force the barrels backwards onto raised bosses on the breech face, negating, he believed, any upward movement of the barrels that might create a gap. He claimed that under his system the barrels were pressed against the breech face with between 600 and 1,000 pounds of pressure! The barrels also slipped on to a short round projection below the breech which, if closely fitted, acted as an additional bite for strength.
16-bore Lockfast by J. D. Dougall of Glasgow, @1864.
In the early 1860s there was an abundance of new actions, with variations on the one-, two-, and three-bite fastening systems. This led to the development of snap-actions, where hinged barrels could be closed and the action firmly engaged in one move. Quite a number of different methods were employed, some vastly better than others. As with almost all important gun inventions, the French were there first: François Eugène Schneider came up with the first snap underlever, patented in October 1860. This patent was acquired by G. H. Daw in 1861 and immediately improved, for the Daw central-fire breech-loader that first appeared in late 1861. Thomas Horsley was next with a spring-tensioned trigger-guard lever in February 1862; Joseph Needham patented his snap side-lever in May of that year, the first top-lever snap action was Westley Richards’ pull-lever of September, and J.W.P. Field’s snap under-lever was patented in December. James Purdey patented his double-bite snap-action in May 1863, with a sliding under-bolt linked to a thumb-operated lever in the trigger guard. Then came Thomas Horsley again with his sliding top-lever patented in October 1863, Edward Harrison (of Cogswell & Harrison) with a forward underlever snap action in February 1864, William Powell patented his top-lever snap action in May 1864, and Westley Richards patented his lateral top-lever in October 1864. Stephen & Joseph Law patented their side-lever snap action in May 1865. Then, around 1866, Purdey married his double-bite sliding-underbolt action with William M. Scott’s top-lever (which Scott had patented in October 1865).
Joseph Needham side lever (single wedge-shaped bite), by John Blissett, @1863.
James Purdey’s first gun model with the double underbolt, made in 1865.
William Wellington Greener introduced his famous cross-bolt fastener in 1866, with a lateral bolt engaging in a barrel extension fitted to the standing breech. While the best of these actions stayed in use into modern times, most disappeared over the years and the strong and efficient Purdey sliding under-bolt and Scott top-lever spindle became the standard, often with a third bite like the Greener cross-bolt, the Westley Richards ‘doll’s head,’ and the Thomas Bissell-John Rigby rising bite.
Westley Richards Doll’s head, single-bite version, @1865.
While the use of a third bite made for great advertising (unsurpassed strength!!), it is debatable just how much additional strength was provided, or if it was needed at all – especially when a single bite was normally sufficient. There was, however, a call for strong actions, especially for rifle actions and waterfowling guns. This is where the Jones double-bite action, Dougall’s Lockfast, and third-bite actions excelled. But, for the third bite to be effective, it needs to be very carefully fitted by hand so as to offer the promised three solid points of contact. This is rarely the case on factory-produced guns made to a price point, where the doll’s head or Greener bolt are more crudely fitted and more for show than mechanics. And you can buy a brand new Rigby rising-bite shotgun, starting at $209,864 (before taxes and tariffs) – For that price, I bet that third bite is fully functional.
Last edited:
