The allure of the British gun
- Thread starter Pinfire
- Start date
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
An English gun by W. Richards may be real, just not Westley but rather another gunmaker with surname Richards. A Belgian Richards is a different story. Also "J. Manton & Co" (Pieper, Belgium) although "Manton and Co." without the 'J' was a genuine company based in Calcutta, originally operated by a Manton nephew (but they were retailers, not makers - along the lines of Army and Navy CSL)
Londonshooter, the name Westley Richards always raises red flags for me, so I focus on details, especially details that would NOT be reproduced on a spurious gun. More red flags: higher-end WR's had island locks, and WR's name on the lock plate was usually near the upper edge, and not the lower edge. The wood looks slightly refinished, though not overly so. There might also be some shrinkage, so probably not a 'best.' Drop points on the stock are not typical for a WR, but not unheard of.
Now, to the positives. The engraving style looks correct. The scroll-ended trigger guard is a nice 'extra', and fakes usually don't have extras. The same goes for the cheek piece. The slightly shorter front trigger is absolutely correct, as are the flat-sided hammers that WR favoured. The hammers are also nicely and correctly shaped, the kind of trouble counterfeiters don't do. The name in gothic script is not typical, but not unheard of in WR guns. I quite like it, and again, not something that would appear on a fake. It is indeed Westley (I had to convert your picture to a negative to see it clearly). Flat-topped chequering is correct. My guess? It is a real Westley Richards (huzzah!), mid-grade as it has some extra features, and much of the gun might have been outsourced, hence the slightly different stock work, engraving etc. Once in the hand, I would race to remove the barrels and look under them for the initials w.r., which I believe went on all his guns, and the proofs should be Birmingham, not London, if I'm not mistaken. WR had two separate serial numbering systems, so the serial number for a 1840s gun should either be in the 800-1500 range or so, or 4500-6900; the highest number for WR muzzle-loaders was 3030 or 6920, depending on the numbering system used (up until 1860 or so). You probably have a copy of Nigel Brown's book; if not, let me know the number to get a better date. No serial number, or something wildly out of sequence with these numbers, would not be a good sign!
I think you lucked on a good find, probably overlooked by many.
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
So you heard about this guy before?
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
There may not be a serial #. At least that is what the ad description said - and little else other than brief condition report of P/F. Bore diameter close to 16 bore, pits, 30" barrels. No mention of proofs. No photo of the barrel undersides.
The waiting is part of the fun I guess. Temporarily a mystery but I will be surprised if there is truly no serial #. Just can't know yet.
Thanks to Pinfire for the guide above to help identify the real article.
The waiting is part of the fun I guess. Temporarily a mystery but I will be surprised if there is truly no serial #. Just can't know yet.
Thanks to Pinfire for the guide above to help identify the real article.
My purpose in starting this rambling thread is not to convince anyone about the superiority of British guns and gunmaking. If I praise them above others, it is because of ‘ownership bias’; I have more British guns than anything else. I’ve also been researching British gunmaking for close to three decades, so I know more about how they were made and how designs came about than for any other country’s guns. While I try to read all I can, there is only so much to be found on other European sporting gun makers, and American gunmaking is more a study in factory production and streamlined assembly, rather than artisanal craftsmanship (with exceptions). I've stuck to British guns.
What I’m trying to pin down is the allure of British guns – why and how. French guns have always been more clever, German guns, stronger, and both of these are known for outside-the-box thinking (think sliding breeches and trigger-plate actions). Where other countries have excelled, it is often by copying British designs (think hammerless sidelocks and boxlocks). I suppose British gunmakers have taken the best parts of everyone’s ideas, added a few blistering insights and game-changing developments, and come up with sporting-gun perfection – at least until the repeating gun evened the score, mostly by being more affordable and cheaper to make. A factory-built repeater will always be cheaper to buy/produce than a regulated double gun that requires more time, materials, and inspection/input to finish. Simple economics means there will be a greater demand for cheaper guns than expensive ones, more so when it comes to extremely expensive ones. Repeaters will always outnumber good-quality doubles.
As the thread moves along (11,700 views as of today!), I hope I’m shedding some light on some of the factors that make British guns desirable. Yes, Britain once ruled the world in commerce and might, dominating trade whether you liked it or not. The weird symbiosis of rich moneyed classes obsessed with blood sports, and skilled tradesmen/craftsmen who worked at their benches, resulted in game guns of stunning beauty and perfection. The styles and innovations evolved, eventually trickling down to affordable, everyday guns, which is good news for us. The guns can show great decoration, attention to detail, obsessiveness about weight and balance, and perhaps best of all, give us cracking good stories. Sporting guns are social objects, and reflect a lot about social norms, standards, etiquette, working conditions, social stratification, land management, and conservation thinking. Georgian guns differ from Victorian guns, which in turn differ from Edwardian guns, and these are distinct from pre- and post-WW2 guns. Not just in technology, but in their use, purpose, and ownership.
I admit, the guns I picture here are old, beyond-outdated, and probably not likely to ever go back into the field (oops, did I just describe myself?). To some of you who have recently joined CGN or just found this subforum, you might have never seen a pin-fire game gun; so many gun books devote fewer than two sentences to the pin-fire, if mentioned at all. An evolutionary blip lasting a few years, now long forgotten.
But let’s not kid ourselves. 21st-century shooting is not all phasers and blasters. Using chemicals to detonate gunpowder started in 1805, as we said good-bye to flint. Primers started about 1818, leading to the percussion cap. The hinge-action cartridge gun has remained little changed since 1835. Guns using centre-fire cartridges first appeared in 1853 (I shoot one of these). Smokeless nitro powder was first mentioned as used in sporting guns in 1856. If you ignore Pauly’s gun of 1812 and Needham’s needle gun (1852), the first hammerless double was Murcott’s of 1871. Joseph Needham patented the first split extractor, ejector and barrel cocking action in 1874, paving the way for the hammerless sidelock ejector, the acme of sporting guns. In 1875, Anson & Deeley patented the boxlock, so every boxlock today is a clone. Christopher Spencer invented the pump shotgun in 1881, and the pump was made infinitely better with John Browning’s 1893 design. Browning’s Auto-5 long-recoil repeater was designed in 1898. Boss & Co. introduced the over/under in 1909 (and just about every Beretta over/under is a clone of the Boss fastening system). The first gas auto-loader was put on the market in 1953, which is still before I was born. Much of what we shoot today was refined and improved over time, while remaining largely faithful to its distant roots.
Some call me a Fudd because I use and enjoy old guns; however, the designs in your gun cabinets are not exactly new, are they?
No posts without pictures! Here is a pin-fire game gun from a British maker specializing in martial arms on contract to the War Department, but who also dabbled in sporting guns, Benjamin Woodward. Woodward began as a gunmaker in 1838, and in 1840 he relocated his business to 10 Whittall Street in Birmingham's Gun Quarter, an address he maintained until 1883. In the 1841 census, Benjamin was described as a gunmaker, and two of his sons, Frederick and Benjamin, then both 15, were listed as gunmakers' apprentices. The younger Benjamin quit his apprenticeship, and another son, Henry, was taken into the business. In 1842, the firm became Benjamin Woodward & Sons. The firm is best known for producing military arms, notably the .577 three-band 1853 Enfield rifle-musket. Benjamin Woodward was also one of the Birmingham Small Arms Co. (BSA) founders in 1861, “a company to make guns by machinery,” an effort to compete with Enfield in the production of military arms. In addition to the main business of government contracts, Benjamin Woodward & Sons continued to make a small number of hand-made sporting guns. I should point out that there is no family connection to the more famous James Woodward of the London gun trade.
The gun shown here is a 12-bore double-bite screw grip rotary-underlever pin-fire sporting gun, serial number 134, made some time after 1863. The 29 13/16" damascus barrels have Birmingham proofs and barrel maker's marks “C.H.,” for the Birmingham barrel maker Charles Hawkesford of Court, 2 Summer Lane. Other marks include “B.W.” for Benjamin Woodward, suggesting he worked on the gun himself. The upper rib is signed “B. Woodward & Sons Makers to the War Department No. 134,” reflecting the firm's main area of business, and the low serial number is in keeping with the very small number of sporting arms the firm produced (I recently obtained gun no. 152, also a pin-fire, but in relic condition). The back-action locks are signed “B. Woodward & Sons” and have game scenes on both lock plates. The foliate scroll engraving on the action body is quite pleasant, with attractive starburst patterns around the pin holes. The game scenes on the lock plates are particularly well-executed. The gun still has mirror bores and weighs 6 lb 12 oz.
As long as the viewership creeps along, I will keep hitting the keyboard and posting. When interest wanes, I'll call it a day.
What I’m trying to pin down is the allure of British guns – why and how. French guns have always been more clever, German guns, stronger, and both of these are known for outside-the-box thinking (think sliding breeches and trigger-plate actions). Where other countries have excelled, it is often by copying British designs (think hammerless sidelocks and boxlocks). I suppose British gunmakers have taken the best parts of everyone’s ideas, added a few blistering insights and game-changing developments, and come up with sporting-gun perfection – at least until the repeating gun evened the score, mostly by being more affordable and cheaper to make. A factory-built repeater will always be cheaper to buy/produce than a regulated double gun that requires more time, materials, and inspection/input to finish. Simple economics means there will be a greater demand for cheaper guns than expensive ones, more so when it comes to extremely expensive ones. Repeaters will always outnumber good-quality doubles.
As the thread moves along (11,700 views as of today!), I hope I’m shedding some light on some of the factors that make British guns desirable. Yes, Britain once ruled the world in commerce and might, dominating trade whether you liked it or not. The weird symbiosis of rich moneyed classes obsessed with blood sports, and skilled tradesmen/craftsmen who worked at their benches, resulted in game guns of stunning beauty and perfection. The styles and innovations evolved, eventually trickling down to affordable, everyday guns, which is good news for us. The guns can show great decoration, attention to detail, obsessiveness about weight and balance, and perhaps best of all, give us cracking good stories. Sporting guns are social objects, and reflect a lot about social norms, standards, etiquette, working conditions, social stratification, land management, and conservation thinking. Georgian guns differ from Victorian guns, which in turn differ from Edwardian guns, and these are distinct from pre- and post-WW2 guns. Not just in technology, but in their use, purpose, and ownership.
I admit, the guns I picture here are old, beyond-outdated, and probably not likely to ever go back into the field (oops, did I just describe myself?). To some of you who have recently joined CGN or just found this subforum, you might have never seen a pin-fire game gun; so many gun books devote fewer than two sentences to the pin-fire, if mentioned at all. An evolutionary blip lasting a few years, now long forgotten.
But let’s not kid ourselves. 21st-century shooting is not all phasers and blasters. Using chemicals to detonate gunpowder started in 1805, as we said good-bye to flint. Primers started about 1818, leading to the percussion cap. The hinge-action cartridge gun has remained little changed since 1835. Guns using centre-fire cartridges first appeared in 1853 (I shoot one of these). Smokeless nitro powder was first mentioned as used in sporting guns in 1856. If you ignore Pauly’s gun of 1812 and Needham’s needle gun (1852), the first hammerless double was Murcott’s of 1871. Joseph Needham patented the first split extractor, ejector and barrel cocking action in 1874, paving the way for the hammerless sidelock ejector, the acme of sporting guns. In 1875, Anson & Deeley patented the boxlock, so every boxlock today is a clone. Christopher Spencer invented the pump shotgun in 1881, and the pump was made infinitely better with John Browning’s 1893 design. Browning’s Auto-5 long-recoil repeater was designed in 1898. Boss & Co. introduced the over/under in 1909 (and just about every Beretta over/under is a clone of the Boss fastening system). The first gas auto-loader was put on the market in 1953, which is still before I was born. Much of what we shoot today was refined and improved over time, while remaining largely faithful to its distant roots.
Some call me a Fudd because I use and enjoy old guns; however, the designs in your gun cabinets are not exactly new, are they?
No posts without pictures! Here is a pin-fire game gun from a British maker specializing in martial arms on contract to the War Department, but who also dabbled in sporting guns, Benjamin Woodward. Woodward began as a gunmaker in 1838, and in 1840 he relocated his business to 10 Whittall Street in Birmingham's Gun Quarter, an address he maintained until 1883. In the 1841 census, Benjamin was described as a gunmaker, and two of his sons, Frederick and Benjamin, then both 15, were listed as gunmakers' apprentices. The younger Benjamin quit his apprenticeship, and another son, Henry, was taken into the business. In 1842, the firm became Benjamin Woodward & Sons. The firm is best known for producing military arms, notably the .577 three-band 1853 Enfield rifle-musket. Benjamin Woodward was also one of the Birmingham Small Arms Co. (BSA) founders in 1861, “a company to make guns by machinery,” an effort to compete with Enfield in the production of military arms. In addition to the main business of government contracts, Benjamin Woodward & Sons continued to make a small number of hand-made sporting guns. I should point out that there is no family connection to the more famous James Woodward of the London gun trade.
The gun shown here is a 12-bore double-bite screw grip rotary-underlever pin-fire sporting gun, serial number 134, made some time after 1863. The 29 13/16" damascus barrels have Birmingham proofs and barrel maker's marks “C.H.,” for the Birmingham barrel maker Charles Hawkesford of Court, 2 Summer Lane. Other marks include “B.W.” for Benjamin Woodward, suggesting he worked on the gun himself. The upper rib is signed “B. Woodward & Sons Makers to the War Department No. 134,” reflecting the firm's main area of business, and the low serial number is in keeping with the very small number of sporting arms the firm produced (I recently obtained gun no. 152, also a pin-fire, but in relic condition). The back-action locks are signed “B. Woodward & Sons” and have game scenes on both lock plates. The foliate scroll engraving on the action body is quite pleasant, with attractive starburst patterns around the pin holes. The game scenes on the lock plates are particularly well-executed. The gun still has mirror bores and weighs 6 lb 12 oz.
As long as the viewership creeps along, I will keep hitting the keyboard and posting. When interest wanes, I'll call it a day.
Well, dang. I've just caught my second bout of Lyme Disease. F%&@ing ticks. And just when I was getting back to normal. All praise to antibiotics, is all I can say. As I take a break from facing the diabolical little critters outside, I might as well continue this thread, and the subject of how military and sporting-gun making could be linked.
Britain in the 19th century was a great military and colonial power, and the gunmaking world wanted in on the lucrative business this created, for military and trade guns. The government’s gunmaking facility at Enfield was insufficient to supply all needs, leaving a significant amount of contract work for parts and whole guns, built to government specifications. From a business standpoint, what is going to be more lucrative, building 10,000 muskets or 10 sporting guns? Of course, for a single company to build up the physical capacity to perform volume work required a large number of daily-paid skilled workers, powered machinery (usually water- or steam-powered), and sufficient floor space, all of which represented a significant investment and high operating costs. These were usually well beyond the means or capacity of most gunmaking firms, who, in mid-Victorian times, still built sporting guns with hand tools. The dispersed nature of the industry meant that a lot of work could be done by individual Birmingham workshops, at least for parts, locks, etc., which could keep small operators going during the times of year when sporting guns were not in demand. The Brits did not conceive of assembly lines for making guns; the Americans were first to do so, and would eventually export this manufacturing advance to the rest of the world. Instead, it was a lot of small workbenches making a lot of parts and individual assembly, adding up to big numbers. Just about everyone in a town like Birmingham was involved in some way, sort of like how China makes iPhones today.
Some gunmakers banded together to form cooperatives, combining their forces, talent, and capacity to meet government needs. I’ve already given the example of John Dent Goodman and BSA, and Benjamin Woodward, whose first priority was fulfilling War Department contracts and who put together the occasional sporting gun. Another large-scale military provider who inexplicably built a small number of sporting guns was John Edward Barnett. He established his firm in London in 1796, and by 1842 it was recorded as John Edward Barnett & Sons. Barnett's guns were usually marked “Barnett,” and flint and percussion trade guns were supplied to the North American fur trade (notably to the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company). Barnett was the most prolific of English manufacturers associated with the American Confederacy, having made and sold thousands of Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle-Muskets and P-1856 cavalry carbines, as well as refurbishing some 30,000 earlier P-1839 and P-1842 muskets and P-1851 rifles for their use. With such a profitable business in martial and trade arms, you wouldn't think Barnett would bother with the tiny sporting gun market – but they did, though their sporting guns are rarely recorded. Perhaps with the emergence of the pin-fire breech-loader in the 1850s, the firm saw an opportunity to expand its trade? In practice, it never did go in that direction.
The gun pictured here is a 12-bore signed ‘Barnett,’ featuring a single-bite forward under-lever action and a rising stud, which was directly copied from the Parisian gunmaker Beatus Beringer. The action bar is signed “Joseph Brazier.” Joseph Brazier was a gunlock maker and gun and pistol maker at The Ashes, Brickkiln Street, Wolverhampton, from at least 1827, and in the 1861 census he was listed as a master gunmaker employing 70 men and 20 boys. His firm might have provided Barnett the barrelled action and the locks, or Brazier might have made the entire gun to Barnett’s wishes. The gun has seen hard use, but is in generally good order for what may be an 1850s-dated pin-fire. I still can’t quite comprehend why this gun even exists, why one of the largest military and trade-gun suppliers would bother making, or commission to make, a sporting gun at the very beginning of breech-loaders in Britain. And if you’re going to make just a few of these (as to my knowledge this is the only known Barnett pin-fire), it will be in competition with makers who have excellent, hard-earned reputations in the sporting community. Why even bother? No answers to these questions, yet.
Later, once gunmakers had their own factories, they could be called upon by the government in times of war. A notable example is Holland & Holland, which refined Enfield-built Lee-Enfield rifles into sniper versions and manufactured sights and telescopic sight mounts for the war effort.
Britain in the 19th century was a great military and colonial power, and the gunmaking world wanted in on the lucrative business this created, for military and trade guns. The government’s gunmaking facility at Enfield was insufficient to supply all needs, leaving a significant amount of contract work for parts and whole guns, built to government specifications. From a business standpoint, what is going to be more lucrative, building 10,000 muskets or 10 sporting guns? Of course, for a single company to build up the physical capacity to perform volume work required a large number of daily-paid skilled workers, powered machinery (usually water- or steam-powered), and sufficient floor space, all of which represented a significant investment and high operating costs. These were usually well beyond the means or capacity of most gunmaking firms, who, in mid-Victorian times, still built sporting guns with hand tools. The dispersed nature of the industry meant that a lot of work could be done by individual Birmingham workshops, at least for parts, locks, etc., which could keep small operators going during the times of year when sporting guns were not in demand. The Brits did not conceive of assembly lines for making guns; the Americans were first to do so, and would eventually export this manufacturing advance to the rest of the world. Instead, it was a lot of small workbenches making a lot of parts and individual assembly, adding up to big numbers. Just about everyone in a town like Birmingham was involved in some way, sort of like how China makes iPhones today.
Some gunmakers banded together to form cooperatives, combining their forces, talent, and capacity to meet government needs. I’ve already given the example of John Dent Goodman and BSA, and Benjamin Woodward, whose first priority was fulfilling War Department contracts and who put together the occasional sporting gun. Another large-scale military provider who inexplicably built a small number of sporting guns was John Edward Barnett. He established his firm in London in 1796, and by 1842 it was recorded as John Edward Barnett & Sons. Barnett's guns were usually marked “Barnett,” and flint and percussion trade guns were supplied to the North American fur trade (notably to the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company). Barnett was the most prolific of English manufacturers associated with the American Confederacy, having made and sold thousands of Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle-Muskets and P-1856 cavalry carbines, as well as refurbishing some 30,000 earlier P-1839 and P-1842 muskets and P-1851 rifles for their use. With such a profitable business in martial and trade arms, you wouldn't think Barnett would bother with the tiny sporting gun market – but they did, though their sporting guns are rarely recorded. Perhaps with the emergence of the pin-fire breech-loader in the 1850s, the firm saw an opportunity to expand its trade? In practice, it never did go in that direction.
The gun pictured here is a 12-bore signed ‘Barnett,’ featuring a single-bite forward under-lever action and a rising stud, which was directly copied from the Parisian gunmaker Beatus Beringer. The action bar is signed “Joseph Brazier.” Joseph Brazier was a gunlock maker and gun and pistol maker at The Ashes, Brickkiln Street, Wolverhampton, from at least 1827, and in the 1861 census he was listed as a master gunmaker employing 70 men and 20 boys. His firm might have provided Barnett the barrelled action and the locks, or Brazier might have made the entire gun to Barnett’s wishes. The gun has seen hard use, but is in generally good order for what may be an 1850s-dated pin-fire. I still can’t quite comprehend why this gun even exists, why one of the largest military and trade-gun suppliers would bother making, or commission to make, a sporting gun at the very beginning of breech-loaders in Britain. And if you’re going to make just a few of these (as to my knowledge this is the only known Barnett pin-fire), it will be in competition with makers who have excellent, hard-earned reputations in the sporting community. Why even bother? No answers to these questions, yet.
Later, once gunmakers had their own factories, they could be called upon by the government in times of war. A notable example is Holland & Holland, which refined Enfield-built Lee-Enfield rifles into sniper versions and manufactured sights and telescopic sight mounts for the war effort.
Last edited:
Despite the best intentions, hunting is never without risk to person and canine collaborators. Between mosquitos and ticks carrying all manner of pathogens, one has to be careful lest the hunter become the hunted. I hope your recovery is total and quick. I'll say no more, lest it serves to distract from the subject of this superb thread.
