The allure of the British gun

As always well written and recieved. Thank you for offering your knowledge

Any idea why the lockfast system fell out of favour? Was it the cost of manufacturing or just not well received? Seems like the least likely design to become off face
 
It’s a shame so few shooters today have ever seen a Dougall Lockfast, and I hope, Brybenn, that you’ll bring yours to the next Double Gun Classic.

There was a time when a Dougall Lockfast was just about the most desired gun in Britain. Correspondent “J.A.H.” from Malmesbury, Wiltshire, wrote in the 6 February 1864 issue of The Field, “I can only say that I tried a great many times all over London to get a second-hand lockfast, without success; and I will venture to say that there is not one now to be had in the London market. I think there is no breech-loader equal to the lockfast for solidarity, freedom from escape of gases generated by the explosion of the gunpowder, and for killing powers.”

James Dalziel Dougall obtained Patent no. 1128 for his Lockfast action on 7 May 1860; he then became a tireless promoter of his invention. His hometown newspaper, the Glasgow Courier, almost immediately ran a description in print, which was probably written by Dougall himself, and reprinted in the 1 September 1860 issue of The Field, which said in part:

"As considerable interest is felt at present in improvements of fire-arms, we believe many of our readers will be gratified by the description of a gun recently invented and patented by Mr J. D. Dougall, of this city. The invention is applicable to great guns as well as to fowling-pieces and rifles. In general appearance Mr Dougall’s lock-fast breech-loader resembles the crutch or “Le Faucheaux,” French gun, now in common use among sportsmen; but on examination it is found that the mechanism is widely different, and possesses advantages far beyond those of the latter. The principle of all breech-loaders of this class is that the barrels play upon a hinge a few inches in front of the breech. When the barrels are thrown out of position they expose the breech-end, and become open tubes, into the base of which a pasteboard shell, previously loaded, is inserted. The barrels are then thrown back into position and are ready to be fired. The the “Le Faucheaux” gun the grasp is obtained by a moveable claw affixed to a lever, this lever travelling in a joint, and being opened or shut as desired. The base of the barrels and the false breech against which they abut are both smooth, have no power of adhesion or maintenance of grasp, so that the whole position is maintained by the lever, which being necessarily moveable, can never gain solidarity. Consequently, when the gun is fired the barrels are disturbed; and, as the breech has a tendency to rise, the muzzle is depressed, and the gun shoots low. A rapid loosening of the jointing also follows, and the gun recoils. In Mr Dougall’s gun the grasp is obtained in the false breech itself; by a most ingenious and simple mechanism the barrels are withdrawn from or pressed against the face of the false breech, not falling into position against them, or depending merely upon correct fitting of the parts, but falling into position at some little distance, and then having a compound lever exerting a pressure of several hundred pounds weight to bring the solidly against the false breech. Upon the face of the latter project two discs, one advancing into each barrel, and other similar contrivances at other parts cause the barrels and breech to be so interlocked that no dislodgement can possibly take place when the gun is fired. The gun takes its name from this interlocking. It will be readily understood by sportsmen, therefore, that the barrels not being held by a moveable claw or lever, but by the breech itself, have all the solidity of a muzzle-loader, and are as inescapable as those of the latter of dislodgement. For rifles this solidity is doubly valuable. At the same time, other advantages, such as the direct pressure of the disc upon the base of the shell, increasing the shooting power, and lessening recoil to a minimum, follow as a matter of course. The gun is also handled with much greater ease."

In many ways, the Lockfast was a game-changer. It was the first widely-adopted action substantially different from the French single- and double-bite actions and their British copies. It aimed to address the perceived weaknesses of the standard hinge action with engineering solutions. Was it really better? Difficult to say, as single- and double-bite hinge actions were sufficient to the task, and the Lockfast required a lot of hand filing and fitting. But, as we still have today, companies put out a lot of incredible claims, and there is never a lack of fanboys to shower praise, or attack the competition. Nothing really changes.

In the 4 May 1861 issue of The Field, the widely-respected editor, John Henry Walsh, wrote an editorial on the Lockfast:

“Necessity has been wisely said to be the mother of invention, and to the truth of this aphorism the sporting world is indebted for the application of a great mechanical principle to the construction of breech-loading firearms. Mr Dougall, the possessor of one of the oldest gunmaking establishments in the kingdom, and favourably known to our readers under his signature of “A Glasgow Gunmaker,” finding his cautious countrymen resolved to await the improvement of the “Lefaucheux” gun, confessedly incomplete through the want of any actual locking of the barrels and stock together, set himself to solve the problem, and to do what for twenty years had been pronounced an impossibility, viz., to let the barrels of a “Lefaucheux” gun work upon their hinge-pin, and yet interlock with the false breech. After digesting many plans, and seeing their intrinsic weakness, he finally hit upon the ingenious method of converting the hinge-pin, hitherto a fixture, into an eccentric rod acted upon by a lever, the two representing a locking power which he modestly estimates at 600lb., but perhaps 1000lb. would be nearer to the mark. Not only is a better catch thus obtained, but that catch is at the extreme end of the barrels, the only point where a perfectly solid grasp can be attained. The same pressure acting upon the cartridge, necessarily places it most solidly against the breech, thus diminishing the recoil, and increasing very much the shooting powers of the gun. The value of the invention was seen at once, and large sums were offered for the patent right. These offers Mr Dougall has declined, and has (wisely in our opinion) thrown the invention open to the trade on a moderate royalty, being convinced that this will in no way be adverse to his own private demand, already beyond his powers of supply. “
juwD0nU.jpg


Through 1862 there was a discussion thread on the “stability of the breech-loader,” in which many respondents praised the Lockfast. In 1863, several readers conducted their own trials of the Lockfast, praising the outcome. Interestingly, Dougall built both upwards-lifting lever versions and downward-swinging versions, with the latter eventually being most popular, like the one shown below. However, by 1864, several correspondents offered valid criticisms of the action, to which Dougall replied aggressively. By this time, several gunmakers were making guns with the Lockfast action, for which they paid Dougall royalties. However, Dougall had no control over the craftsmanship and materials used, and some complaints might have been due to lesser quality in some guns, which tarred the reputation of the action (but not those of Dougall’s own make). Due to Dougall’s prickly nature, he eventually started a bit of a pissing match with the Editor of The Field, bringing home the truth of the expression, “never start a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”

This, together with the appearance of much more convenient snap-actions (which Dougall abhorred and slammed at every opportunity), probably contributed to the end of the Lockfast, though Dougall kept building them. There was simply much more competition for the limited market, and the Lockfast became yesterday's gun.

tjs8U3m.jpg

1wWVpZV.jpg

guLSt8k.jpg
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Dougall, here's a 'Lockfast' 16 bore double rifle with polygonal rifling. Fitting barrels to action on the Lockfast must have been a painstaking process requiring plenty of time and great skill. And then it had to be regulated!
Beautifully made, but I find the action not as convenient or quick to operate as more conventional types.

Dougall bore.jpg
Polygonal rifling.


Dougall action.jpg
Action - note semi-circular projection at upper standing breech that fits into the cut-out at the end of barrel rib shown below. Similarly, that projection under the barrels fits into the bottom of the standing breech for double the security!

Dougall breech.jpg

A seamless fit.
Dougal barrels.jpg

Still shoots like a charm!
Dougal right.jpg
 
Last edited:
What a spectacular Lockfast, Mbatten. The epitome of Victorian gunmaking is the double rifle, and that Lockfast is a superb example. Non-rebounding hammers, I think? 1886? Dougall was making about 40 guns a year at that time, both smooth-bores and rifles. You have a rare ‘Best.’

Thinking about the Dougall Lockfast action made me think about actions in general. Britain gave us the sidelock and the boxlock, and a great many tweaks of these over the years (along with improvements to trigger-plate actions). The evolution of sidelocks and boxlocks took us through rebounding hammers to hammerless; intercepting sears; ejectors; second- and third-bites; top-, side- and under-levers, levers that were pushed or pulled, and occasionally push-buttons, to name a few. While the British were not the only ones to build these, they nonetheless remained the standard against which other countries were measured. Birmingham, Liège, Suhl, St. Étienne, and the Basque region, were all gunmaking centres largely due to proximity to coal and iron deposits. London, Paris, Brussels, Vienna and other capitals had their own elite gunmakers, with proximity to wealth being the main determinant. In Britain, closeness to London’s competitive pigeon shooting grounds, and clusters of great shooting estates in Norfolk (think Sandringham) and Scotland also played a factor, especially in providing provincial gunmakers with a wealthy (and demanding) clientele.

The nostalgic image of the British gunmaker, in a combined shop/workshop with workbenches cluttered with hand tools, staffed with a few workers and apprentices, and the Master living above with his family, is in large part fairly accurate. The larger operations might include more workers, more bench space, and perhaps some water- or steam-driven tools. Barrel and action forging were usually done elsewhere, and off-site outworkers would engage in activities such as making locks, forging metal parts, engraving and barrel browning/blacking. The notion of factories came fairly late, as mentioned previously. For the most part, the gunmaking industry was carried out in a very decentralized way, more like dispersed home-based cottage industries supplying parts and services/workmanship to gunmakers who applied oversight and quality control over the final product.

DHC00OH.jpg


Take this Boss & Co. 12-bore, built for Charles-Cecil Martyn, ordered on 22 December 1862 and completed on 3 April 1863, a rapid turnaround. The barrels were made by John Portlock of 2 Globe Yard, South Molton St., in the fashionable Mayfair district of London (probably with tubes imported from Belgium). It was stocked by Daniel Holliman, of Great Hampton Street, Birmingham. It was actioned by Edwin C Hodges, at 8 Florence St., Islington, London. The back-action locks were made by Joseph Brazier of The Ashes, Great Brickkiln Street, in Wolverhampton. The gun was put together (screwed) and finished by William Byrne of 25 Chamber street, London. The gun was engraved by John Thomas Sumner, of 10 Queen Street, Soho, London. The final product was overseen by Boss & Co.’s foreman and managing director, Stephen Grant; this last step might have been the only time the gun was at the Boss premises at 73 St. James’s Street, London (where Thomas Boss’s widow and two nephews were still living, above the workshop/shop). At the time, the firm employed 10 men, including the foreman, nephews and other relatives. Their ability to sell some 95 guns a year, a very big operation by London standards, depended on using outworkers, who were paid for the work done, as opposed to a daily wage. Apart from the names mentioned for the gun pictured, Boss & Co. also depended on John Stanton for locks; Hutchison, Amos Elvins, Henry Squires, Thomas Parkin, Christopher Aston, Thomas Smith, and Joseph Brazier for barrels; John Portlock and Atkins for actioning; Henry Glazier and Whitehouse for stocking; and for finishing, Finucane, Groves, McEvoy, Edwin Wilkes, and Edward Paton, the latter from 108 Mount Street, Grosvenor Square, London. The firm used the Red House Shooting Ground at Battersea Park, London, for testing and regulating their guns. Guns moved around a great deal as they were being built, before finally ending up in the happy client’s hands.

8 Florence St., Islington, London (behind the Mini), where the gun was actioned (courtesy Google Maps).

TvCpnFK.jpg


The scattered production system in Britain still mainly depended on Birmingham workbenches until factories set up by the likes of W. W. Greener, W & C Scott, and co-operatives like the Abington Gun Works and BSA. The Gun Quarter of Birmingham was a city district that was for many years a major centre of the world's gun-manufacturing industry, specialising in the production of military firearms, trade guns, and sporting guns. It was bounded by Steelhouse Lane, Shadwell Street and Loveday Street, and was close to the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal.

Historically, Birmingham had many water mills, and starting in the 16th century, mills initially used for grinding corn were switched over to industrial uses. By the 17th century, mills were used to grind blades for agricultural and military purposes. In time, the aggregation of skilled metal workers led to gun production, and the mills were used for the grinding and polishing of barrels. Gunmaking gradually centered on the Weaman estate around Whittall Street, located near Kettle's Steel Houses, factories dating from the 1730s that processed steel (for which Steelhouse Lane was named). The Birmingham and Fazeley Canal was completed in 1789, facilitating the route from the 'Black Country' (the West Midlands region west of Birmingham known for its coal, iron and steel). In 1767, there were 62 workshops involved in gunmaking in the Quarter, but by 1815, there were 125, by 1829, there were 455, and by 1868, 578 gun firms were operating in the Gun Quarter.

There were also quite a few trades associated with the gun “trade,” as the parts, and putting together of the parts, requires specialist attention. An 1861 directory for Birmingham listed the following gun-related trades: gun and pistol makers, barrel makers, barrel smoothers, barrel browners, barrel riflers, break-off fitters and forgers, breech makers, finishers, furniture makers, implement makers, implement and barrel filers, lock makers, nipple manufacturers, rib forgers, gun and rifle sight makers, screwers, stockers, stock dealers, stock finishers, stock polishers and varnishers, and gun wadding makers. Moving into breech-loading would have seen some aspects of work disappear, while new ones emerged. Showell's “Dictionary of Birmingham” (1885) summarized the following: “...it may not be uninteresting to enumerate the manifold branches into which the trade has been divided till late years most of them being carried on under different roofs: The first portion, or "makers", include “stock-makers, barrel welders, borers, grinders, filers, and breechers; rib makers, breech forgers and stampers; lock forgers, machiners, and filers; furniture forgers, casters, and filers; rod forgers, grinders, polishers, and finishers; bayonet forgers, socket and ring stampers, grinders, polishers, machiners, hardeners, and filers; band forgers, stampers, machiners, filers, and pin makers; sight stampers, machiners, jointers, and filers; trigger boxes, oddwork makers, &c. The "setters up" include machines, jiggers (lump filers and break-off fitters), stockers, percussioners, screwers, strippers, barrel borers and riflers, sighters and sight-adjusters, smoothers, finishers makers-off, polishers, engravers, browners, lock freers, &c., &c.”

This fascinating production history, traceable to actual individuals and places, is a big part of the allure of the British gun.
 
Thank you for your kind comments, Pinfire. It's always a pleasure to read your posts on this forum!

According to Nigel Brown, this old rifle is of late 1880's vintage. The locks are by John Stanton and are indeed non-rebounding. which seems unusual considering that rebounding locks had existed for about 20 years before this gun was made. Perhaps the maker wanted to ensure an extra-solid blow to the strikers if the shooter was confronted by a charging animal, or maybe the customer just preferred them.


Dougall lock.jpg
 
I cannot find any "allure" of these rusted/pitted (pityfull) pictured British guns in compare to same time period made French or German guns !

What's the "allure" on these ?

Unless you mean the common Bristish people couldn't afford them or are no longer allowed to use them ?

Mr. Bean should be driving his Mini 14, no pun indended. :)
 
Last edited:
What a spectacular Lockfast, Mbatten. The epitome of Victorian gunmaking is the double rifle, and that Lockfast is a superb example. Non-rebounding hammers, I think? 1886? Dougall was making about 40 guns a year at that time, both smooth-bores and rifles. You have a rare ‘Best.’

Thinking about the Dougall Lockfast action made me think about actions in general. Britain gave us the sidelock and the boxlock, and a great many tweaks of these over the years (along with improvements to trigger-plate actions). The evolution of sidelocks and boxlocks took us through rebounding hammers to hammerless; intercepting sears; ejectors; second- and third-bites; top-, side- and under-levers, levers that were pushed or pulled, and occasionally push-buttons, to name a few. While the British were not the only ones to build these, they nonetheless remained the standard against which other countries were measured. Birmingham, Liège, Suhl, St. Étienne, and the Basque region, were all gunmaking centres largely due to proximity to coal and iron deposits. London, Paris, Brussels, Vienna and other capitals had their own elite gunmakers, with proximity to wealth being the main determinant. In Britain, closeness to London’s competitive pigeon shooting grounds, and clusters of great shooting estates in Norfolk (think Sandringham) and Scotland also played a factor, especially in providing provincial gunmakers with a wealthy (and demanding) clientele.

The nostalgic image of the British gunmaker, in a combined shop/workshop with workbenches cluttered with hand tools, staffed with a few workers and apprentices, and the Master living above with his family, is in large part fairly accurate. The larger operations might include more workers, more bench space, and perhaps some water- or steam-driven tools. Barrel and action forging were usually done elsewhere, and off-site outworkers would engage in activities such as making locks, forging metal parts, engraving and barrel browning/blacking. The notion of factories came fairly late, as mentioned previously. For the most part, the gunmaking industry was carried out in a very decentralized way, more like dispersed home-based cottage industries supplying parts and services/workmanship to gunmakers who applied oversight and quality control over the final product.

DHC00OH.jpg


Take this Boss & Co. 12-bore, built for Charles-Cecil Martyn, ordered on 22 December 1862 and completed on 3 April 1863, a rapid turnaround. The barrels were made by John Portlock of 2 Globe Yard, South Molton St., in the fashionable Mayfair district of London (probably with tubes imported from Belgium). It was stocked by Daniel Holliman, of Great Hampton Street, Birmingham. It was actioned by Edwin C Hodges, at 8 Florence St., Islington, London. The back-action locks were made by Joseph Brazier of The Ashes, Great Brickkiln Street, in Wolverhampton. The gun was put together (screwed) and finished by William Byrne of 25 Chamber street, London. The gun was engraved by John Thomas Sumner, of 10 Queen Street, Soho, London. The final product was overseen by Boss & Co.’s foreman and managing director, Stephen Grant; this last step might have been the only time the gun was at the Boss premises at 73 St. James’s Street, London (where Thomas Boss’s widow and two nephews were still living, above the workshop/shop). At the time, the firm employed 10 men, including the foreman, nephews and other relatives. Their ability to sell some 95 guns a year, a very big operation by London standards, depended on using outworkers, who were paid for the work done, as opposed to a daily wage. Apart from the names mentioned for the gun pictured, Boss & Co. also depended on John Stanton for locks; Hutchison, Amos Elvins, Henry Squires, Thomas Parkin, Christopher Aston, Thomas Smith, and Joseph Brazier for barrels; John Portlock and Atkins for actioning; Henry Glazier and Whitehouse for stocking; and for finishing, Finucane, Groves, McEvoy, Edwin Wilkes, and Edward Paton, the latter from 108 Mount Street, Grosvenor Square, London. The firm used the Red House Shooting Ground at Battersea Park, London, for testing and regulating their guns. Guns moved around a great deal as they were being built, before finally ending up in the happy client’s hands.

8 Florence St., Islington, London (behind the Mini), where the gun was actioned (courtesy Google Maps).

TvCpnFK.jpg


The scattered production system in Britain still mainly depended on Birmingham workbenches until factories set up by the likes of W. W. Greener, W & C Scott, and co-operatives like the Abington Gun Works and BSA. The Gun Quarter of Birmingham was a city district that was for many years a major centre of the world's gun-manufacturing industry, specialising in the production of military firearms, trade guns, and sporting guns. It was bounded by Steelhouse Lane, Shadwell Street and Loveday Street, and was close to the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal.

Historically, Birmingham had many water mills, and starting in the 16th century, mills initially used for grinding corn were switched over to industrial uses. By the 17th century, mills were used to grind blades for agricultural and military purposes. In time, the aggregation of skilled metal workers led to gun production, and the mills were used for the grinding and polishing of barrels. Gunmaking gradually centered on the Weaman estate around Whittall Street, located near Kettle's Steel Houses, factories dating from the 1730s that processed steel (for which Steelhouse Lane was named). The Birmingham and Fazeley Canal was completed in 1789, facilitating the route from the 'Black Country' (the West Midlands region west of Birmingham known for its coal, iron and steel). In 1767, there were 62 workshops involved in gunmaking in the Quarter, but by 1815, there were 125, by 1829, there were 455, and by 1868, 578 gun firms were operating in the Gun Quarter.

There were also quite a few trades associated with the gun “trade,” as the parts, and putting together of the parts, requires specialist attention. An 1861 directory for Birmingham listed the following gun-related trades: gun and pistol makers, barrel makers, barrel smoothers, barrel browners, barrel riflers, break-off fitters and forgers, breech makers, finishers, furniture makers, implement makers, implement and barrel filers, lock makers, nipple manufacturers, rib forgers, gun and rifle sight makers, screwers, stockers, stock dealers, stock finishers, stock polishers and varnishers, and gun wadding makers. Moving into breech-loading would have seen some aspects of work disappear, while new ones emerged. Showell's “Dictionary of Birmingham” (1885) summarized the following: “...it may not be uninteresting to enumerate the manifold branches into which the trade has been divided till late years most of them being carried on under different roofs: The first portion, or "makers", include “stock-makers, barrel welders, borers, grinders, filers, and breechers; rib makers, breech forgers and stampers; lock forgers, machiners, and filers; furniture forgers, casters, and filers; rod forgers, grinders, polishers, and finishers; bayonet forgers, socket and ring stampers, grinders, polishers, machiners, hardeners, and filers; band forgers, stampers, machiners, filers, and pin makers; sight stampers, machiners, jointers, and filers; trigger boxes, oddwork makers, &c. The "setters up" include machines, jiggers (lump filers and break-off fitters), stockers, percussioners, screwers, strippers, barrel borers and riflers, sighters and sight-adjusters, smoothers, finishers makers-off, polishers, engravers, browners, lock freers, &c., &c.”

This fascinating production history, traceable to actual individuals and places, is a big part of the allure of the British gun.

Just wait, Kiffer "Stammler" will bring in the manure trucks. !
 
Just wait, Kiffer "Stammler" will bring in the manure trucks. !

Plenty of places on CGN for political discourse. This isn’t one of them. Either join the conversation in the spirit of the thread or go elsewhere.

I’ve got a couple English guns and a lot of German guns. So when looking at my collection it’s easy to see what I find alluring, on average. But I don’t sh!t on others’ choices. I look to see if there is something I can learn.
 
Last edited:
Well, you can’t please everyone, and especially on CGN.

Un-alluring rust piles is one way to look at pin-fire game guns (or any 19th-century guns), I will allow, but I choose to look at them differently. The Canadian gun enthusiast scene is a wide one to be sure, encompassing myriad interests, hobbies, and sporting activities. As an amateur historian, I like to think there is value in understanding a bit more about where our guns come from, how the designs and features came to be, and how the decoration and styling of our hunting tools have evolved since, literally, the Stone Age. But not everyone will see it this way.

I admire the mechanical genius of the pump action, and still hold the Ithaca Model 37 and the Remington Model 31 in the highest regard, above all others. I’ve also followed the evolution of the Browning Auto-5, through its many tweaks in its 100-year run. I’ve owned most pump actions, from Christopher Spencer’s onwards, so that I could fully understand their development and evolution from a mechanical standpoint. As to the autoloader, another evolutionary line, I admire the ingenuity of both inertia- and gas-driven actions, and consider Val Browning’s Double Auto the best of them all, by far. As you see, I’m not afraid to hold unpopular opinions.

If evolutionary and geographic timelines had been different, I wonder what might have happened if John Browning had worked alongside the great mid-Victorian gunmakers at the birth of the breech-loader? Might there have been a truly beautiful repeater, bereft of its clanking farm-machinery roots? I wonder. One design that provides a hint to what might have happened, is Joseph Needham’s bolt-action needle-fire game gun of 1852. Still only a two-shot gun, it boasted a hammerless design, coil springs, and fully-consumable cartridges (nothing to eject) and was an early contender for breech-loading supremacy, competing with the pin-fire, base-fire, and central-fire systems. It had its fan-boys, but its detractors as well – many expressed their opinions in print as to the gun’s hideous ugliness. It required extra-long barrels, to house the swing-out breech mechanisms. It’s popularity was outdone by the pin-fire, and both it and the pin-fire were ultimately replaced by the central-fire. Interestingly, one of the complaints of the Needham needle-fire was that one could not hear the locks ‘speak,’ that glorious sound of the sear engaging the bent when the hammer of a hammer gun is pulled back – which I admit is the great disappointment of hammerless actions.

Not mine, sadly, but a friend’s example:
uAXlSnA.jpg

CwIgIOB.jpg


One of the great arguments voiced against the quick-loading breech-loader, which would have been exponentially worse had 3- or 5-shot repeaters been available, was the likely demise of game bird populations, slaughtered by the improved efficiency of these newfangled killing machines. The slow and fiddly reloading routine of the muzzle-loader, made even slower by black powder fouling as the day went on, was replaced by the ease of cartridge reloading and cleaner shooting of the breech-loader, resulting in bigger game bags. This was intensified by the later appearance of snap-actions, ejectors, and the use of paired guns. And some found this notion of greater efficiency morally repugnant. Writing in the 22 January 1859 issue of the weekly gentleman’s newspaper The Field, a correspondent going under the pseudonym Copper Cap started a heated debate with this letter:

Sir, – The argument in favour of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader are, I am practically persuaded, overwhelming and indisputable; it is needless, therefore, to recapitulate them, my object being not to institute a comparison between the two weapons, but to endeavour to draw the attention of my brother sportsmen to the inevitable result that must ensue by the general use of the breech-loader; and general it will be unless a check be given, as few men like to be out with a companion who kills four brace to his one. The natural feeling arises to get a breech-loader, which will enable him to keep pace with his friend. Now this style of proceeding will, it is much to be dreaded, in the course of a few years, occasion an extraordinary paucity of game, and I cannot help imagining that the cause will be readily traced to the adoption of the breech-loader as one reason, and possibly a bad breeding season as another. The latter cause is beyond our control, but should nevertheless have consideration. Men say in reply to this, that we must preserve more and hatch more birds; but how is this to be done without eggs? and eggs cannot be produced without birds. Look at the case of the noble grouse, how they have been punished with disease, breech-loaders, and a morbid desire to make large bags in order that the would-be sportsmen may appear in print. If care be not taken, partridges and pheasants will also be as scarce.
In reference to manors generally, I will merely request those who enjoy the privilege of shooting over the ground to ask themselves the simple questions, How much game can be killed on my ground during the season, leaving a fair stock for breeding? and, How many days do I want to shoot? His answers to these questions will decide him as to the mode of proceeding. If he wish to kill as much in one day as is usually done in two, or if he desire to free the ground of game altogether, let him use the breech-loader by all means, and he will very soon be enabled to accomplish his object.
Quite recently I was out cover-shooting; the party consisted of seven guns, good shots, including one breech-loader; the latter killed more than one-third of the game brought down. This might have been luck, but I have seen a similar case more than once this season, and therefore know that the breech-loader has an immense pull in its favour. Had all used breech-loaders not a pheasant could have escaped; as it was, the slaughter was too great, and the number unnecessarily killed might have afforded many days’ nice shooting if spared for subsequent occasions. Where only one of a party has a breech-loader, it is obviously unfair to the others; if all have them, it is requisite to draw the covers but once, and the tale is told.
There are exceptional manors and preserves where the game is so abundant, and the noble owners so ambitious of renown as shots, that it matters not what they use, so long as they effect their purpose quickly, and it reads so much better in print that Lord So-and-so and party in the course of a few hours killed so much game (one-forth blown to atoms, probably).
Sport nowadays, unfortunately, is a secondary object; “Slaughter – slaughter!” is the burthen of the shooter’s song. There is no lack of good shots; but a good shot does not always imply a good sportsman. To mob a fox is and always was considered to be a cowardly act amongst fox-hunters; but how unmercifully the poor pheasants and hares are mobbed and literally blown away from the guns of shooters like sepoys!
Often when cover-shooting with a party have I stood in a ride and blazed away until the ground around me has been almost covered with dead game, and this, too, with a muzzle-loader; with a breech-loader more, much more, could have been knocked over. Such work is slaughter if you like, but sport it is not; and the survey of the killed at the conclusion of such a murderous day’s work has, after all, presented but a sorry sight to the genuine sportsman.
I admire the breech-loader, and I think it a beautiful and most effective contrivance. For certain purposes it is well adapted – say for snipe, woodcock, and wildfowl shooting, and for which purposes I shall procure one; but for game-shooting it is a mistake, and will prove so, I feel confident, simply because it is too destructive; and I contend that enough and more than enough can be killed without it. Where there is a superabundance of game to be destroyed it may be all very well.
People nevertheless will use what they think at the time most advantageous; but I know as a fact that many men already, who have shooting of their own, have politely intimated to their shooting friends to leave their breech-loaders at home when they favour them with a visit. So good an example I sincerely hope may be followed, and I believe it will. I have excellent shooting myself, few men enjoy sport more, and I purpose keeping my shooting good by an observance of fair play to the game. When birds are scattered and lie well, I have known every bird killed belonging to the covey, in comparatively a few minutes, with a breech-loader. Is that giving them fair play? Men boast of such deeds!
Readers, now let me ask you to pause awhile before you arm yourself with the deadly breech-loader, and consider whether, in the event of your having one, you would be a welcome guest in the field that you have hitherto been?
The breech-loader is undoubtedly a great luxury, but it will be found an expensive one; and I feel that I can advance stronger reasons for its disuse than its use. To gunmakers it must be immaterial whether they manufacture one gun or the other, as the profit can scarcely differ much.
COPPER CAP.


Oh, and does anybody know what Riversrest was going on about? Manure trucks? Insulting me won’t work if I don’t get the joke.
 
I guess living in a time with game limits I've never really thought to much about it comparing a double vs an auto loader or pump
While I have often shot triples on crows using pumps and semis I've shot alot more doubles using sxs guns. In days where the flight is good and the wind is strong I've killed well over 200 crows in a night. If I'd have used a muzzleloader that number would be drastically lower lol
I do live in the crow capital of Canada and when I rented a field the shooting was heavy every day during the cold weather
Now fairs have been sold off and bought up by anti hunters so the major flyways are heavily protected
When taking ducks or geese in modern times with limits 2 to 6 there really isn't a difference in the type of gun used for a days hunt. Cartridges are much nicer than black powder muzzleloading while in a kayak though
 
Oh, and does anybody know what Riversrest was going on about? Manure trucks? Insulting me won’t work if I don’t get the joke.
It's hard to say. He seemed to suggest that the content of this thread lacks veracity. The opposite is true. It's his post that offers no supporting facts.

Ironically, your posts on CGN and your published articles elsewhere are some of the best and most thoroughly researched pieces anywhere. They are written in a style that both informs and entertains. I'm always fascinated by the historical and social context that is included with every single article. A great many sportsmen in numerous countries look forward to the next instalment with anticipation.

IMO, if anything smells of bovine excrement, it's the motive behind such a post.
 
I cannot find any "allure" of these rusted/pitted (pityfull) pictured British guns in compare to same time period made French or German guns !

What's the "allure" on these ?

Well, sure sounds like someone missed the opportunity to create a new thread about the allure of French/German/Continental gun...

I would have certainly joined in... Secretly:giggle: hoping that James shared some more pictures of his little Daly 20g with the broken wrist...

Ho well.
 
Well, sure sounds like someone missed the opportunity to create a new thread about the allure of French/German/Continental gun...

I would have certainly joined in... Secretly:giggle: hoping that James shared some more pictures of his little Daly 20g with the broken wrist...

Ho well.

Mike, that one’s not coming out again until it’s totally done. I do have the wood picked out. Just waiting in line. 🤣 It’s certainly going to give my Purdey a run for its money!

You make a good point about another thread. The problem is, none of the guys I know that have anything like the depth and breadth of knowledge that Steve (Pinefire) has, but on the Germanic guns, post here. They are all in the US and not on this site.

I’m just glad I like them all!. German, Austrian, Swedish, French, Belgian, Czech, English, Scottish. I’m even coming around to the odd Italian. 😀
 
Last edited:
^^ Nice guns and "gun culture"coming from "England!?"

Is this what you wanted to hear - Here you have it !

I'll just gonna get me 3 dozen dogs/horses/men to chase/cripple a single fox with these nice exemplaries of "gun".

It's great sportsmenship, I just don't have the horses ATM.

I'm not a "fan" of it, but I can accept it is the "Holy Grail" for others !

Thank's fellows, keep on agitating....
 
Back
Top Bottom