The allure of the British gun
- Thread starter Pinfire
- Start date
I echo Iron Cat, what a beauty !
I bet that’s a lot of fun in a slim 28
Licensed to kill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Peace Country Alberta
I suck at pics but here are a couple.
I find it curious that, while the gun was manufactured in the early 1950’s, it is marked as being proofed for smokeless powder. I thought that, by the ‘50’s, smokeless would be a given. Tips the scales at 4lb 6oz
To keep this thread going, I’m going to go back to the original subject, the draw of British guns. To many, and I include myself, the Brits managed to achieve the pinnacle of gunmaking from at least the middle of the 19th century and through most, if not all, of the 20th century. In the current age of computer-guided CNC machines and advanced metallurgy, I’m not sure any distinction between companies and nations still stands, unless you go so far as to compare each company’s software coding and access to source materials and space-age alloys, which is too far removed from the days of the skilled artisan to be of interest to me.
First, a few words about the evolution of gun manufacturing, as I frequently see questions like “what model is that old gun?” and “what factory made it?,” and “what does the serial number mean?” British guns rarely had what could be called a model name; such names if used at all denoted a specific action or gun type, such as J. D. Dougall’s “Lockfast,” patented in 1860, William Wellington Greener’s “Facile Princeps” in 1876, Holland & Holland’s “Royal” in 1885 (arguably the most famous), W&C Scott’s “Premier Imperial” in 1890, or Westley Richard’s “Explora,” for ball and shot, in 1905. Some guns even gathered unfortunate nicknames, such as Charles Lancaster’s “Wrist-Breaker” in 1909, in reference to the difficulty in operating the action, a name that has stuck ever since.
Gunmakers instead operated on a distinction of grades, such as “best,” “second,” and “third-quality” guns, depending on whether they included patented features, first-rate materials, and degree of decoration; W&C Scott used the letter designations “A,” “B,” and “C” for quality, and within these were several grades, usually indicated by the degree of engraving. Gunmakers rarely indicated the grades on the guns themselves, though some, like Dougall, did indicate the highest grade on certain Lockfasts. Some makers chose to identify entire lines of lower-priced guns by using a different name; Boss & Co. sold Birmingham-made boxlock doubles under the name “John Robertson,” and Greener sold utility-grade guns under the trade name “William Wellington.” The firm of Holland & Holland sold Birmingham-sourced boxlocks in the 1960s under the abbreviated trade name “H&H,” with the added text “H&H Shot and Regulated” to provide some degree of quality control.
As to sporting-gun factories, these came relatively late to the party; WW Greener established his “St Mary’s Works” factory in 1863, expanding it in 1884; the first Purdey factory appeared in 1881, 67 years after the founding of the company; the Westley Richards factory was built around 1889, some 77 years after that company was founded; and Holland and Holland’s first factory was built in 1892. Perhaps the earliest operation that could be called a sporting gun ‘factory’ was the premises of W&C Scott in 1855, who later moved into larger premises around 1874-1875. Not surprisingly, larger operations such as Scott’s were the source of many sporting guns retailed by smaller firms, and the big names as well. While the Gunmaking Quarter in Birmingham could be called a ‘factory’ of sorts, it was really a decentralized operation of several hundred independent gunmakers, producing and supplying parts and finished guns, to hundreds of gunmakers throughout Britain. This was not limited to Birmingham; some towns were largely devoted to gun part production, such as lock-making in Wednesbury, and barrels elsewhere, usually connecting to Birmingham via the canal system. Aside from the larger factory operations, it is surprising how small most 19th century gunmakers were, often being a master gunmaker employing a daily-paid workman and an apprentice (the latter often being a blood relation). Operations employing 10 or more workmen were unusual. Machinery, first steam- or water-powered, and later electric, came late and only in the larger factories, such as those producing military arms. The building of sporting guns in much of the 19th century was largely a matter of hand tools and skill, carried out on small workbenches, shifting to a mix of machinery and hand tools in the beginning of the 20th century.
In addition to traditional factories, there were also associations, such as the Birmingham Small-Arms Trade Association, formed in 1854 by John Dent Goodman, John Field Swinburn, Isaac Hollis, Thomas Turner, Joseph Bourne, Thomas Wilson, John Rock Cooper, William Tranter, Charles Playfair, Benjamin and Henry Woodward, and others who in 1861 established the Birmingham Small Arms and Metal Company Ltd. (BSA) to produce arms by machinery and thereby compete with the government operations at Enfield. In 1867 Abingdon Works was formed, a manufacturing partnership located in Birmingham to supply the trade with ready-made guns and gun parts. The partners were Goodman, Thomas Bentley, William Bourne, Charles Cooper, Charles Pryse, Richard Redman, Joseph Smith, Charles Playfair, Joseph Wilson, John Field Swinburn and Fred and Henry Woodward. The purpose was profit, taking advantage of pooled resources and improved machinery.
Serial numbers had a limited purpose to British sporting gun makers. Smaller firms might produce fewer than 10 guns a year, and were often unnumbered. Numbers might keep track of overall retail sales, without distinguishing between pistols, rifles or shotguns. Some carried several different numbering systems, which might relate to the various suppliers of parts, or different retail establishments. Other times numbers might be reserved for certain semi-built guns, which were only completed when a client was found, meaning serial numbers did not indicate sequential production; earlier numbered guns might be completed years after later-numbered guns. The bottom line is that gunmakers used numbers for different reasons, none of which involved allowing the tracing and dating of guns decades or centuries after they were made. And even if meticulous records were kept, several world wars and eventual bankruptcies have erased most of them.
With that out the way, who were the top makers? Who are the top makers now? I strongly believe that at a certain level of perfection, you can call it “London Best” if you like, it doesn’t matter who the maker is or was – there is nothing above it. Best materials, flawless construction, finish, and ergonomics, appropriate decoration, and a proven design, all aimed at achieving the highest level a game gun can be. But to be sure, it comes at a price most would balk at. Even the well-heeled hiccuped at the expense, with King George VI (1936-1952) famously saying “A Boss gun, a Boss gun, bloody beautiful, but too bloody expensive!” The firm in question, Boss & Co., is said to be London’s oldest gunmaking business. In 1862 the firm was briefly appointed gunmaker to the Prince of Wales, and in 1866 the managing partner, Stephen Grant, left to start his own business across the street. While having the highest reputation, output fluctuated from about 100 guns a year to fewer than 50 in some years. In the 1890s, the firm employed 10 craftsmen, and operated several workshops employing some 36 gunmakers, putting out around 70 guns a year. In 1910 the number of in-house gunmakers increased to 46, putting out 100 guns, and doing work for other gunmakers when times were slow. By 1982 Boss & Co. employed only eight gunmakers, putting out about six guns a year. In 2004 the number of gunmakers employed rose to ten, putting together a small number of over/unders per year. There have never been many Boss guns in circulation, and with exclusivity comes desirability. Not all sporting gun makers had such a limited output, but even popular makers produced very small numbers of their “Best” grade guns, sometimes fewer than ten a year. When shooting is an expensive sport, limited to wealthy land-owners and those who could afford to lease hunting grounds, the market for fine guns is very limited, especially when a quality gun has a working life of three generations.
The holy trinity in British gunmaking is still Boss, Holland & Holland, and Purdey. These are no longer stand-alone family businesses: Boss & Co. was bought by a property developer in 1999, Holland & Holland was bought by Chanel perfumes in 1989, and Purdey was bought out by a luxury brand conglomerate in 1994, combined with the brands Cartier, Dunhill, Baume & Mercier, Montblanc, and Chloe and Karl Lagerfeld. At least these gunmaking firms are still making guns, though many of the big names now derive profits from branded accessories and fashion lines. Other historic London gunmakers include Joseph Lang, E. M. Reilly, William Moore, Cogswell & Harrison, James Woodward, Stephen Grant, and Charles Lancaster. Westley Richards, William Powell, and Greener are big names from Birmingham, and James Dalziel Dougall, John Dixon & Son, James MacNaughton, and Alexander Martin are renowned names from Scotland, joined recently by David McKay Brown. Irish gunmakers include such famous names as Rigby and Kavanaugh. Provincial gunmakers could also achieve renown, such as William Rochester Pape and Thomas Horsley. Small gunmakers could even obtain Royal warrants, such as Edward Paton and James Erskine. Any of these makers could produce guns equal to the very best, if they could get the commission, though many of these names are forgotten now, and as a result under-valued in the vintage gun market. Considering who is the best is also a reflection of the times; ask any of the top London gunmakers in the 1850s who was the very best, and probably all would point the finger at George Fuller, a name all but forgotten now.
OK, enough rambling for now. Happy New Year everyone!
Here’s a Boss & Co. single-barrel pin-fire, one of only three the firm made, built for Sir John Harpur-Crewe (1824–1886), 9th Baronet of Calke Abbey:
First, a few words about the evolution of gun manufacturing, as I frequently see questions like “what model is that old gun?” and “what factory made it?,” and “what does the serial number mean?” British guns rarely had what could be called a model name; such names if used at all denoted a specific action or gun type, such as J. D. Dougall’s “Lockfast,” patented in 1860, William Wellington Greener’s “Facile Princeps” in 1876, Holland & Holland’s “Royal” in 1885 (arguably the most famous), W&C Scott’s “Premier Imperial” in 1890, or Westley Richard’s “Explora,” for ball and shot, in 1905. Some guns even gathered unfortunate nicknames, such as Charles Lancaster’s “Wrist-Breaker” in 1909, in reference to the difficulty in operating the action, a name that has stuck ever since.
Gunmakers instead operated on a distinction of grades, such as “best,” “second,” and “third-quality” guns, depending on whether they included patented features, first-rate materials, and degree of decoration; W&C Scott used the letter designations “A,” “B,” and “C” for quality, and within these were several grades, usually indicated by the degree of engraving. Gunmakers rarely indicated the grades on the guns themselves, though some, like Dougall, did indicate the highest grade on certain Lockfasts. Some makers chose to identify entire lines of lower-priced guns by using a different name; Boss & Co. sold Birmingham-made boxlock doubles under the name “John Robertson,” and Greener sold utility-grade guns under the trade name “William Wellington.” The firm of Holland & Holland sold Birmingham-sourced boxlocks in the 1960s under the abbreviated trade name “H&H,” with the added text “H&H Shot and Regulated” to provide some degree of quality control.
As to sporting-gun factories, these came relatively late to the party; WW Greener established his “St Mary’s Works” factory in 1863, expanding it in 1884; the first Purdey factory appeared in 1881, 67 years after the founding of the company; the Westley Richards factory was built around 1889, some 77 years after that company was founded; and Holland and Holland’s first factory was built in 1892. Perhaps the earliest operation that could be called a sporting gun ‘factory’ was the premises of W&C Scott in 1855, who later moved into larger premises around 1874-1875. Not surprisingly, larger operations such as Scott’s were the source of many sporting guns retailed by smaller firms, and the big names as well. While the Gunmaking Quarter in Birmingham could be called a ‘factory’ of sorts, it was really a decentralized operation of several hundred independent gunmakers, producing and supplying parts and finished guns, to hundreds of gunmakers throughout Britain. This was not limited to Birmingham; some towns were largely devoted to gun part production, such as lock-making in Wednesbury, and barrels elsewhere, usually connecting to Birmingham via the canal system. Aside from the larger factory operations, it is surprising how small most 19th century gunmakers were, often being a master gunmaker employing a daily-paid workman and an apprentice (the latter often being a blood relation). Operations employing 10 or more workmen were unusual. Machinery, first steam- or water-powered, and later electric, came late and only in the larger factories, such as those producing military arms. The building of sporting guns in much of the 19th century was largely a matter of hand tools and skill, carried out on small workbenches, shifting to a mix of machinery and hand tools in the beginning of the 20th century.
In addition to traditional factories, there were also associations, such as the Birmingham Small-Arms Trade Association, formed in 1854 by John Dent Goodman, John Field Swinburn, Isaac Hollis, Thomas Turner, Joseph Bourne, Thomas Wilson, John Rock Cooper, William Tranter, Charles Playfair, Benjamin and Henry Woodward, and others who in 1861 established the Birmingham Small Arms and Metal Company Ltd. (BSA) to produce arms by machinery and thereby compete with the government operations at Enfield. In 1867 Abingdon Works was formed, a manufacturing partnership located in Birmingham to supply the trade with ready-made guns and gun parts. The partners were Goodman, Thomas Bentley, William Bourne, Charles Cooper, Charles Pryse, Richard Redman, Joseph Smith, Charles Playfair, Joseph Wilson, John Field Swinburn and Fred and Henry Woodward. The purpose was profit, taking advantage of pooled resources and improved machinery.
Serial numbers had a limited purpose to British sporting gun makers. Smaller firms might produce fewer than 10 guns a year, and were often unnumbered. Numbers might keep track of overall retail sales, without distinguishing between pistols, rifles or shotguns. Some carried several different numbering systems, which might relate to the various suppliers of parts, or different retail establishments. Other times numbers might be reserved for certain semi-built guns, which were only completed when a client was found, meaning serial numbers did not indicate sequential production; earlier numbered guns might be completed years after later-numbered guns. The bottom line is that gunmakers used numbers for different reasons, none of which involved allowing the tracing and dating of guns decades or centuries after they were made. And even if meticulous records were kept, several world wars and eventual bankruptcies have erased most of them.
With that out the way, who were the top makers? Who are the top makers now? I strongly believe that at a certain level of perfection, you can call it “London Best” if you like, it doesn’t matter who the maker is or was – there is nothing above it. Best materials, flawless construction, finish, and ergonomics, appropriate decoration, and a proven design, all aimed at achieving the highest level a game gun can be. But to be sure, it comes at a price most would balk at. Even the well-heeled hiccuped at the expense, with King George VI (1936-1952) famously saying “A Boss gun, a Boss gun, bloody beautiful, but too bloody expensive!” The firm in question, Boss & Co., is said to be London’s oldest gunmaking business. In 1862 the firm was briefly appointed gunmaker to the Prince of Wales, and in 1866 the managing partner, Stephen Grant, left to start his own business across the street. While having the highest reputation, output fluctuated from about 100 guns a year to fewer than 50 in some years. In the 1890s, the firm employed 10 craftsmen, and operated several workshops employing some 36 gunmakers, putting out around 70 guns a year. In 1910 the number of in-house gunmakers increased to 46, putting out 100 guns, and doing work for other gunmakers when times were slow. By 1982 Boss & Co. employed only eight gunmakers, putting out about six guns a year. In 2004 the number of gunmakers employed rose to ten, putting together a small number of over/unders per year. There have never been many Boss guns in circulation, and with exclusivity comes desirability. Not all sporting gun makers had such a limited output, but even popular makers produced very small numbers of their “Best” grade guns, sometimes fewer than ten a year. When shooting is an expensive sport, limited to wealthy land-owners and those who could afford to lease hunting grounds, the market for fine guns is very limited, especially when a quality gun has a working life of three generations.
The holy trinity in British gunmaking is still Boss, Holland & Holland, and Purdey. These are no longer stand-alone family businesses: Boss & Co. was bought by a property developer in 1999, Holland & Holland was bought by Chanel perfumes in 1989, and Purdey was bought out by a luxury brand conglomerate in 1994, combined with the brands Cartier, Dunhill, Baume & Mercier, Montblanc, and Chloe and Karl Lagerfeld. At least these gunmaking firms are still making guns, though many of the big names now derive profits from branded accessories and fashion lines. Other historic London gunmakers include Joseph Lang, E. M. Reilly, William Moore, Cogswell & Harrison, James Woodward, Stephen Grant, and Charles Lancaster. Westley Richards, William Powell, and Greener are big names from Birmingham, and James Dalziel Dougall, John Dixon & Son, James MacNaughton, and Alexander Martin are renowned names from Scotland, joined recently by David McKay Brown. Irish gunmakers include such famous names as Rigby and Kavanaugh. Provincial gunmakers could also achieve renown, such as William Rochester Pape and Thomas Horsley. Small gunmakers could even obtain Royal warrants, such as Edward Paton and James Erskine. Any of these makers could produce guns equal to the very best, if they could get the commission, though many of these names are forgotten now, and as a result under-valued in the vintage gun market. Considering who is the best is also a reflection of the times; ask any of the top London gunmakers in the 1850s who was the very best, and probably all would point the finger at George Fuller, a name all but forgotten now.
OK, enough rambling for now. Happy New Year everyone!
Here’s a Boss & Co. single-barrel pin-fire, one of only three the firm made, built for Sir John Harpur-Crewe (1824–1886), 9th Baronet of Calke Abbey:
Very nice gun. I had a William Powell 16 gauge boxlock nitro proofed in 1904. Lovely gun not a best gun but nicely engraved and handled like a wand. 3 inches drop at the heel and fit like a glove for some reason. Being young and stupid I sold it for nothing and wish I had it back. Don't even have photos to pine over. Good write up btw.
sillymike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
When I think of the allure of British guns, I cannot help but make a parallel to (older) British sport cars.
- they just feel right, and are a whole lot fun (for individual who like the driving experience)
- they just feel right, and are a whole lot fun (for individual who like the driving experience)
sillymike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Yes. Nice TR6! He's a lucky guy
Most fun I had driving on a secondary Rd, was with Bugeye Sprite... It doesn't make any sens, as it doesn't have any HP, the suspension/steering/brakes were archaic... But you can't help but have a stupid grin on your face while driving it.
Most fun I had driving on a secondary Rd, was with Bugeye Sprite... It doesn't make any sens, as it doesn't have any HP, the suspension/steering/brakes were archaic... But you can't help but have a stupid grin on your face while driving it.
Licensed to kill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Peace Country Alberta
My Mom had a red TR6. It was left in the charge of my older brother when Mom & Dad went on vacation for a couple weeks. The car was NOT to be moved. Well, my brother wanted me out if the house (his girlfriend was coming over) so he gave me the keys to the TR6. Woohoo, I remember racing a buddy of mine with his ‘67 Camaro (327). Raced to Vancouver and back (from Squamish). I could take him on the flats and curves but could not stop him from passing me on Furry Creek hill.You mean like this?
My son's 18th birthday/high school grad present.
The Brits knew how to make a proper conveyance.
This was my Sunday chariot, before moving back to Canada:
Very nearly bought one in the late 1980s. Belonged to Betty Kennedy who was a regular on Front Page Challenge.
I was surrounded by Jaguars back in the day. E Types and XJ 12s. Family cars.
My own preferences ran to 240Z (more than a couple) and Alfa Romeo’s.
But they were all good and fun. Lots of time spent in Spitfires.
OK, back to guns, apologies for furthering the diversion. Canvasback, I’ll leave my admiration for Alfa Romeos for another day, since we appear to have the same interests (I had the 147, the Brera, and the superb Montreal).
What makes the British guns British? I would venture it is a stylistic distinction. German guns are built for strength, an admirable objective, but in the process towards bank-vault attributes, fluidity of lines is lost. British game guns try to go with the minimum amount of steel as possible, in the barrels and action – taken to the extreme with bar-in-wood guns. The result is lightness and balance that Continental guns are generally shy of achieving, with a few exceptions. Where Spanish guns match British ones, it is usually because they are perfect copies, not because they bring anything new to the table; I have rarely seen engraving on Spanish guns match that of the Brits. Fine Belgian guns are a close competitor, but only amongst certain makers, at the highest level – hardly a general comparison, though we all have, or have seen, Belgian box-locks that are equal to standard British fare.
A perusal of the engraving thread shows the evolution of British engraving patterns, from the earliest open floral designs to the tight scrolls of the 20th Century. Even dog and game scenes have a finer quality than those usually found on Continental and American guns. Perhaps for any given price point, British guns offer a little bit extra in design, construction, and decoration. Comparing anyone’s ‘best’ is probably pointless when looking for faults, there shouldn’t be any, regardless of the country of origin. Where a comparison is more useful is in comparing lesser grade pieces, which I think favours the classic British gun. Care in shaping actions, slim stocking and choice of wood, and balancing weight versus strength seem to be in the British gun’s advantage. Of course, this is only an opinion, feel free to disagree. Any other lovers of British guns out there?
What makes the British guns British? I would venture it is a stylistic distinction. German guns are built for strength, an admirable objective, but in the process towards bank-vault attributes, fluidity of lines is lost. British game guns try to go with the minimum amount of steel as possible, in the barrels and action – taken to the extreme with bar-in-wood guns. The result is lightness and balance that Continental guns are generally shy of achieving, with a few exceptions. Where Spanish guns match British ones, it is usually because they are perfect copies, not because they bring anything new to the table; I have rarely seen engraving on Spanish guns match that of the Brits. Fine Belgian guns are a close competitor, but only amongst certain makers, at the highest level – hardly a general comparison, though we all have, or have seen, Belgian box-locks that are equal to standard British fare.
A perusal of the engraving thread shows the evolution of British engraving patterns, from the earliest open floral designs to the tight scrolls of the 20th Century. Even dog and game scenes have a finer quality than those usually found on Continental and American guns. Perhaps for any given price point, British guns offer a little bit extra in design, construction, and decoration. Comparing anyone’s ‘best’ is probably pointless when looking for faults, there shouldn’t be any, regardless of the country of origin. Where a comparison is more useful is in comparing lesser grade pieces, which I think favours the classic British gun. Care in shaping actions, slim stocking and choice of wood, and balancing weight versus strength seem to be in the British gun’s advantage. Of course, this is only an opinion, feel free to disagree. Any other lovers of British guns out there?
Funny......my one foray into American cars back then was a '67 Camaro. However it was an RS/SS 350 Convertible. Not built for racing but as a "boulevardier". Perfect ride for cruising. Not so much for winning races. LOL
Please be quiet. I am not quite done on my Belgian gun quest. LOLAh, the Belgians... Their centuries-old mastery of the cheap trade gun gave them good profits, but earned them a bad reputation for quality. This is sad, because Belgian gunmaking is equal to the best, no mistake -- but the good ones are drowned out by the volume of bad ones. Liège has been in the gun-making business since about 1350 (not a typo, yes, that old). By the end of the 1700s, Liège was a major centre for European gunmaking, and it only grew from there. Belgium and The Netherlands were once a united kingdom (1815-1830), and the Dutch invested heavily in developing the Liège gun industry. The venerable John Rigby, writing in 1863 of his observations on the international exhibition of 1862, praised the gunmakers of Liège, adding "...the barrel forgers of Birmingham and the iron masters of Wednesbury who supply their rod-iron, have a great deal to learn in many respects" when comparing British gunmaking of the day to the Belgians. Fine sporting guns were being made in Belgium in the 1850s and 1860s, like this large-bore rifle by Jean-Baptiste Rongé et Fils:
While excellent at copying the best designs of the day, Liège had its own inventors, like Maximilien Nicolas Colleye, who came up with his own solutions to breech-loading:
The 1860s also started what would become the firm of Lebeau-Courally. If I can't have a Purdey sidelock or a Holland & Holland Royal, I would happily have a Lebeau-Courally of any stripe. A good overview of the company and a pair of their guns is found here:
There is a reason why John Browning was very happy with FN building his ideas. Belgian guns should never be overlooked, there are real gems among the chaff. We don't often come across the fine ones this side of the Atlantic, but they are there, if you look hard enough!
Speaking of names and value in British guns. Someone on the equipment exchange yesterday got a real bargain. They payed 900$ or less for a 1960s Webley and Scott 12 gauge double in very good condition. It had the upgraded(from base model) stock design and engraving.
It was cheap , apparently because it had the name Ringwoods on it instead of Webley. A fine example of a gun maker or marketer taking a Webley actioned/built gun with abit of upgrade and making it their own. Congratulations to whoever recognized the gun for what it was.
It was cheap , apparently because it had the name Ringwoods on it instead of Webley. A fine example of a gun maker or marketer taking a Webley actioned/built gun with abit of upgrade and making it their own. Congratulations to whoever recognized the gun for what it was.
