Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
Great episode, Pinfire!
The allure of the British gun
- Thread starter Pinfire
- Start date
My objective is to reach the 1,000-post mark this year. I’m at 925 and climbing…
I appreciate the input and comments from CGN friends, and I can’t help but notice it is the same regulars who take a moment to comment, and share their views and experiences, for which I am thankful. I’m assuming others are following along too, from the rising view count (I checked, visiting the thread multiple times from the same account doesn’t add to the number of views). To the many lurkers out there, don’t be afraid to chime in, ask questions, tell me I’m wrong, or just say hi. It’s all good. This is the friendly corner of CGN. Knowing folks are getting something useful out of all this, even if only summer reading, keeps me going.
Back to history and the sporting press. The debate between the merits of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader in the pages of The Field is of great interest to me, and I can only imagine that back then, regular readers of The Field looked forward to every new issue, with many taking out their steel-nib pens, inkwells and blotters to write queries or elegant responses to the Editor, usually hiding their identities with a snappy handle-- sound familiar? The readership of The Field not only included the gentlemanly class, but also the principal gunmakers, who used The Field for their own advertising and to stay up-to-date with the current ideas that influenced the demands of prospective clients. With column space being limited, only select letters would be printed, and it appears the Editor chose those that made the best points, provided valuable information, or gave opinions that might provoke a subsequent response. Letters that might leave a bewhiskered gentleman red-faced, spluttering into his port, and reaching for his writing-box, sold newspapers. Regularly, the Editor would add a comment to a letter, sometimes intended to challenge or provoke. Or the Editor would call for a more temperate tone between warring correspondents when it looked like a call for seconds and pistols at dawn might be an outcome. Occasionally a spat occurred between a gunmaker and the Editor, for which the 20th-century expression “never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel” most certainly applied, as the Editor always had the last word, and the sharpest nib.
For a full account, you’ll have to wait for my book. Suffice to say that the Editor, John Henry Walsh, felt he was doing his civic duty by proposing the newspaper host a public trial to test the merits of muzzle-loaders and breech-loaders. Claims had begun to be so far-fetched (think of fanboys arguing, each trying to out-claim the other), that an objective trial had to be conducted to settle what had become a noisy battle-without-end, even if in the meantime it did help sell papers. Here is an example. In the 31 October 1857 issue of The Field, Major Henry Astbury “The Old Shekarry” Leveson’s letter was published, titled “Observations on the Breech-loader.” Leveson, a prolific author and one considered to be amongst the greatest big-game hunters of the Victorian period, championed the cause of the breech-loader. As someone who fought Napoleon in the Peninsular Campaign, favouring a French invention, albeit one ‘improved upon’ by a London gunmaker, is quite notable! Leveson stated, “being fully convinced in my own mind that, sooner or later, a complete revolution must take place in the manufacture of firearms, and the present gun (notwithstanding the excellence it has attained) will be as completely superseded by the breech-loader (both for sporting purposes as well as in the army), as the old flint Brown Bess is by the Enfield rifle.” In his letter he chose to compare the use of the muzzle-loader with that of the breech-loader, pointing out such matters as the difficulty of reloading a muzzle-loader while on the back of an animal; the noise and bother of using a ramrod, thereby scaring game; soiling one’s clothes from having to place the butt of the muzzle-loading gun on wet or muddy ground for reloading, and having one’s hands blackened from powder stains; the difficulty of loading a muzzle-loader in cold weather; and the ease of changing loads, or shot for ball, with the breech-loader. Leveson also maintained that having a breech-loader obviated the need for a second gun and loader.
Unfortunately, in addition to his accurate observations on quickness, safety, convenience, and ease of use, Leveson also made a number of claims that were almost too good to be true, and in doing so, sparked many subsequent responses, including criticisms from some of the most highly regarded gunmakers at the time. These included the assertions that “there is much less report from a breech-loader than from an ordinary gun, from the whole discharge taking place internally;” that “There is very much less recoil than from an ordinary gun, – a great advantage in a long day’s shooting; no blackened shoulders, no stiffness the day after;” and, most controversially, “The breech-loader hits much harder, and consequently carries further, than the ordinary gun.” The reasons Leveson gives in support of the improved performance are that “the ignition takes place in the body of the charge itself, and is consequently more instantaneous, the whole of the powder exploding. Now, with an ordinary gun, having a long communication (the nipple) between the point of ignition and the charge, the force of the powder in the nipple and that part of the charge nearest to it drives the powder in the most distant part of the charge unexploded through the barrel – consequently, the explosive force of part of the powder is lost.” Leveson also claimed “there is no windage – the wads which enter the breech end of the barrel being too large to enter the muzzle,” and “there being so very little recoil from a breech-loader, a much greater charge of powder can be used, and consequently the shot is driven further and harder.” Leveson concluded: “Altogether, the breech-loader by Lefaucheux, with the recent improvements made by Mr. Lang of Cockspur-street, is the most perfect arm for the sportsman that has, as yet, been brought out; and I conclude my rather long effusion by advising my friends and brother sportsmen to try the breech-loader themselves.” To which the supporters of the muzzle-loader claimed it was all nonsense, nothing could surpass the ‘common gun.’
Here is one such ‘common gun,’ a good (but not top) quality double-barrelled 13-bore percussion gun marked Robert Adams of London, made 1858-1865. It has no serial number, 30” fine twist barrels, and the top rib is marked “Robert Adams 76 King William Street London EC.” While there are many finer examples around, I grabbed this one to illustrate a decent front-stuffer, because from the address I know it comes from the period when sportsmen were informed by The Field trial and could choose between the muzzle-loader and the pin-fire. It has seen remarkably little use, the springs are stiff, and the chequering is about as good as one can find in a 165-year-old gun (thanks, Bryben, for correcting my calculation!).
Adams is, of course, better known for his revolvers and his many patents related to them, but he also made a number of sporting guns. Robert Adams was born in 1811 in Marldon, Devonshire, and he may have been apprenticed to the gunmaker John Clarke in Newton Abbott. Robert moved to London in 1841, to work for George & John Deane, hardware dealers and gunmakers, at 30 King William Street. In 1846, Robert became manager of George and John Deane's gunmaking business. In 1851, he was made a partner in Deane, Adams & Deane, but it appears that by then he was also trading on his own account. In 1856, Robert became a shareholder in the London Armoury Company Ltd who took over the Deanes's factory at 2 New New Weston Street. Robert was appointed manager, while also remaining a partner in John Deane & Sons. In 1858, Robert resigned from the London Armoury Company Ltd, and started his own business as a wholesale and retail gun maker at 76 King William Street. He was also appointed gunmaker to the Prince Consort, Prince Albert. Robert was declared bankrupt in 1865. He began again in 1866, at 40 Pall Mall, but the business closed within the year, and he died in 1870.
Next, the rules of the trial, and the results.
I appreciate the input and comments from CGN friends, and I can’t help but notice it is the same regulars who take a moment to comment, and share their views and experiences, for which I am thankful. I’m assuming others are following along too, from the rising view count (I checked, visiting the thread multiple times from the same account doesn’t add to the number of views). To the many lurkers out there, don’t be afraid to chime in, ask questions, tell me I’m wrong, or just say hi. It’s all good. This is the friendly corner of CGN. Knowing folks are getting something useful out of all this, even if only summer reading, keeps me going.
Back to history and the sporting press. The debate between the merits of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader in the pages of The Field is of great interest to me, and I can only imagine that back then, regular readers of The Field looked forward to every new issue, with many taking out their steel-nib pens, inkwells and blotters to write queries or elegant responses to the Editor, usually hiding their identities with a snappy handle-- sound familiar? The readership of The Field not only included the gentlemanly class, but also the principal gunmakers, who used The Field for their own advertising and to stay up-to-date with the current ideas that influenced the demands of prospective clients. With column space being limited, only select letters would be printed, and it appears the Editor chose those that made the best points, provided valuable information, or gave opinions that might provoke a subsequent response. Letters that might leave a bewhiskered gentleman red-faced, spluttering into his port, and reaching for his writing-box, sold newspapers. Regularly, the Editor would add a comment to a letter, sometimes intended to challenge or provoke. Or the Editor would call for a more temperate tone between warring correspondents when it looked like a call for seconds and pistols at dawn might be an outcome. Occasionally a spat occurred between a gunmaker and the Editor, for which the 20th-century expression “never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel” most certainly applied, as the Editor always had the last word, and the sharpest nib.
For a full account, you’ll have to wait for my book. Suffice to say that the Editor, John Henry Walsh, felt he was doing his civic duty by proposing the newspaper host a public trial to test the merits of muzzle-loaders and breech-loaders. Claims had begun to be so far-fetched (think of fanboys arguing, each trying to out-claim the other), that an objective trial had to be conducted to settle what had become a noisy battle-without-end, even if in the meantime it did help sell papers. Here is an example. In the 31 October 1857 issue of The Field, Major Henry Astbury “The Old Shekarry” Leveson’s letter was published, titled “Observations on the Breech-loader.” Leveson, a prolific author and one considered to be amongst the greatest big-game hunters of the Victorian period, championed the cause of the breech-loader. As someone who fought Napoleon in the Peninsular Campaign, favouring a French invention, albeit one ‘improved upon’ by a London gunmaker, is quite notable! Leveson stated, “being fully convinced in my own mind that, sooner or later, a complete revolution must take place in the manufacture of firearms, and the present gun (notwithstanding the excellence it has attained) will be as completely superseded by the breech-loader (both for sporting purposes as well as in the army), as the old flint Brown Bess is by the Enfield rifle.” In his letter he chose to compare the use of the muzzle-loader with that of the breech-loader, pointing out such matters as the difficulty of reloading a muzzle-loader while on the back of an animal; the noise and bother of using a ramrod, thereby scaring game; soiling one’s clothes from having to place the butt of the muzzle-loading gun on wet or muddy ground for reloading, and having one’s hands blackened from powder stains; the difficulty of loading a muzzle-loader in cold weather; and the ease of changing loads, or shot for ball, with the breech-loader. Leveson also maintained that having a breech-loader obviated the need for a second gun and loader.
Unfortunately, in addition to his accurate observations on quickness, safety, convenience, and ease of use, Leveson also made a number of claims that were almost too good to be true, and in doing so, sparked many subsequent responses, including criticisms from some of the most highly regarded gunmakers at the time. These included the assertions that “there is much less report from a breech-loader than from an ordinary gun, from the whole discharge taking place internally;” that “There is very much less recoil than from an ordinary gun, – a great advantage in a long day’s shooting; no blackened shoulders, no stiffness the day after;” and, most controversially, “The breech-loader hits much harder, and consequently carries further, than the ordinary gun.” The reasons Leveson gives in support of the improved performance are that “the ignition takes place in the body of the charge itself, and is consequently more instantaneous, the whole of the powder exploding. Now, with an ordinary gun, having a long communication (the nipple) between the point of ignition and the charge, the force of the powder in the nipple and that part of the charge nearest to it drives the powder in the most distant part of the charge unexploded through the barrel – consequently, the explosive force of part of the powder is lost.” Leveson also claimed “there is no windage – the wads which enter the breech end of the barrel being too large to enter the muzzle,” and “there being so very little recoil from a breech-loader, a much greater charge of powder can be used, and consequently the shot is driven further and harder.” Leveson concluded: “Altogether, the breech-loader by Lefaucheux, with the recent improvements made by Mr. Lang of Cockspur-street, is the most perfect arm for the sportsman that has, as yet, been brought out; and I conclude my rather long effusion by advising my friends and brother sportsmen to try the breech-loader themselves.” To which the supporters of the muzzle-loader claimed it was all nonsense, nothing could surpass the ‘common gun.’
Here is one such ‘common gun,’ a good (but not top) quality double-barrelled 13-bore percussion gun marked Robert Adams of London, made 1858-1865. It has no serial number, 30” fine twist barrels, and the top rib is marked “Robert Adams 76 King William Street London EC.” While there are many finer examples around, I grabbed this one to illustrate a decent front-stuffer, because from the address I know it comes from the period when sportsmen were informed by The Field trial and could choose between the muzzle-loader and the pin-fire. It has seen remarkably little use, the springs are stiff, and the chequering is about as good as one can find in a 165-year-old gun (thanks, Bryben, for correcting my calculation!).
Adams is, of course, better known for his revolvers and his many patents related to them, but he also made a number of sporting guns. Robert Adams was born in 1811 in Marldon, Devonshire, and he may have been apprenticed to the gunmaker John Clarke in Newton Abbott. Robert moved to London in 1841, to work for George & John Deane, hardware dealers and gunmakers, at 30 King William Street. In 1846, Robert became manager of George and John Deane's gunmaking business. In 1851, he was made a partner in Deane, Adams & Deane, but it appears that by then he was also trading on his own account. In 1856, Robert became a shareholder in the London Armoury Company Ltd who took over the Deanes's factory at 2 New New Weston Street. Robert was appointed manager, while also remaining a partner in John Deane & Sons. In 1858, Robert resigned from the London Armoury Company Ltd, and started his own business as a wholesale and retail gun maker at 76 King William Street. He was also appointed gunmaker to the Prince Consort, Prince Albert. Robert was declared bankrupt in 1865. He began again in 1866, at 40 Pall Mall, but the business closed within the year, and he died in 1870.
Next, the rules of the trial, and the results.
Last edited:
I'm guilty as charged. I gravitate to this thread daily. I find genuine history fascinating (as opposed to the fictionalised variety).
Another area of interest which, I believe, likely overlaps your particular areas of expertise Stephen, is etymology. Reading this thread, for example, brought some sense into the use of the term "pin" in gunmaking. From my point of view, it's these little details that fill in the blanks leading to a clearer "big picture".
I will never understand those who can appreciate firearms, but don't thirst for knowledge regarding their history, manufacture, sale, repair, etc. I suppose these are the same people who own (but don't know a lick about) cars, motorcycles, aircraft, scuba gear, computers, and the rest.
Feel free to digress on side bars of interest and pepper your writings with whatever tidbits come to mind. It's sure to be both interesting and entertaining.
Another area of interest which, I believe, likely overlaps your particular areas of expertise Stephen, is etymology. Reading this thread, for example, brought some sense into the use of the term "pin" in gunmaking. From my point of view, it's these little details that fill in the blanks leading to a clearer "big picture".
I will never understand those who can appreciate firearms, but don't thirst for knowledge regarding their history, manufacture, sale, repair, etc. I suppose these are the same people who own (but don't know a lick about) cars, motorcycles, aircraft, scuba gear, computers, and the rest.
Feel free to digress on side bars of interest and pepper your writings with whatever tidbits come to mind. It's sure to be both interesting and entertaining.
Here's some weekend reading, concerning The Field, and the gun trials. The objective and public trials of shotguns, held by The Field in 1858, 1859, and 1866, did much to popularize the breech-loader and promote breech-loading actions, and expose the shooting world to choke boring. In doing so, the trials set the stage for the rapid development of British gun technology throughout the 1860s and beyond. For now, I’ll concentrate on the 1858 trial as it was a first, and it set the parameters for future events. I’ll sum it all up: the rules to The Field trial were agreed, and after some necessary date changes, the first public trial was held at Ashburnham Park, London, on 9 April 1858, a cold and wet day. The muzzle-loaders won. Case closed.
Oh, if it were so easy and straightforward… Just getting the rules decided upon in advance was quite a debacle, with each side pushing for stipulations that favoured one side or the other. A compromise set was finally agreed upon. It was allowed that breech-loaders could increase their charges by a quarter of a drachm of black powder, to be ‘equal.’ The science of cartridges and what happened in the first few inches of the barrels (e.g. hard shoulders versus forcing cones) was far from understood, as was obturation, cartridge design and fit, crimps, etc., leading to the belief that breech-loaders needed a slightly larger charge, as something was lost along the way. The timing of the trial was also tricky. It had to be after the shooting season, as sportsmen and their guns were otherwise occupied. Gunmakers, who handled orders for new guns outside the shooting season, found themselves without the several months’ time needed to come up with new guns to compete with, and trial guns had, by necessity, to be ones already in sportsmen’s hands. For a gunmaker making hand-made guns and improving with each one, relying on a pool of guns already in use posed a worry for breech-loaders, as so few were in circulation at the time. The odds were good that some early guns built by inexperienced hands might find themselves in the competition (indeed, one of the breech-loaders in the trial was a provincial gunmaker’s first attempt at building one).
The judging criteria for the muzzle-loaders and breech-loaders were based on three points. First, the driving power of each at 40, 50, and 60 yards, as tested by the number of sheets of brown paper pierced by them. Second, the regularity of delivery of the shot at each of these distances, within a circle 28 inches in diameter (the pattern). Third, the amount of recoil, both when clean and after thirty discharges, as measured by a recording spring attached to a fixed rest. This last point was to settle a major claim by proponents of the breech-loader, namely that such guns had much less recoil. Uh huh, as if the laws of physics somehow didn’t apply to the pin-fire… In any event, the scales used to measure recoil were insufficient, and the data inconclusive. From what was possible to measure, most guns registered in the 90-100 pounds of recoil range, while some appeared to reach 120-130 pounds, which made for very uncomfortable shooting. At least the claim of one type recoiling less than the other was put to rest.
Guns were separated by weight and bore class:
Class 1. 12 bore, weight not exceeding 7 ½ lb, barrels not more than 32 in.
Class 2. 13 bore, weight not exceeding 7 ¼ lb, barrels not more than 32 in.
Class 3. 14 bore, weight not exceeding 7 lb, barrels not more than 32 in.
Class 4. 15 bore, weight not exceeding 6 ¾ lb, barrels not more than 30 in.
Class 5. 16 bore, weight not exceeding 6 ½ lb, barrels not more than 30 in.
To overcome the possibility of one type outnumbering the other, and therefore making the trial biased, as soon as all the classes were tried and the targets examined, the best muzzle-loader and the best breech-loader from each class were to be shot again three times at 40, 50, and 60 yards respectively (both barrels). It was initially envisaged to shoot each gun from a fixed rest, but in practice, this proved too time-consuming to set up, and the guns were fired from the shoulder. The Editor was responsible for recording the data and for publishing the results.
All the guns were loaded by parties appointed by the Editor, from powder and shot furnished by him, and in the presence of the inspectors. The one exception was Lancaster’s gun, firing base-fire cartridges loaded by Lancaster (this was because the cartridges loaded on the day performed so poorly, they believed they were doing something wrong; they switched to Lancaster’s pre-loaded cartridges, but the results were just as bad). The charges were not to exceed 2 ¾ drachms of powder for the muzzle-loader, and 3 drachms for the breech-loader, with 1 ¼ oz. of No. 5 shot for each. The empty cartridge cases were furnished by The Field. For this, and the cost of paper and the shooting grounds, each exhibitor paid in advance the sum of ten shillings and six pence to cover costs.
The 17 April issue provided a full account of the 1858 public gun trial: “Owing to the cold and wet weather which we experienced, the attendance was very limited; but among the London gunmakers present we noticed Mr [Robert] Adams, of the London Armoury Company, Mr [Joseph Vernon] Needham, Mr [James] Lang, jun., Mr [Frederick] Prince, and Mr [John] Blanch. The great guns stood aloof, having everything to lose and nothing to gain by a competition with their provincial brethren; but perhaps next time they may see that they suffer more in reputation by their absence than they could possibly by being present. At all events, we have done our best to satisfy those sportsmen who are unable to test the matter for themselves; and if we have not been able to effect all that we desired, we have at least laid the foundation for another and more satisfactory series of experiments.” So, after taking a dig at cowardly London gunmakers who avoided the trial, in both their absence and their guns, Walsh intimated that future trials would be held, and they had better show up next time.
What did the competing guns of 1858 look like? All of the pin-fire breech-loaders were said to be of the forward-underlever type, which is understandable as the next wave of designs wouldn’t appear until the 1860s. Here is a Joseph Lang 16-bore pin-fire that was completed by him on 28 March 1858, and delivered on 8 September 1858, as per the Lang records still kept by Atkins, Grant & Lang. While Joseph Lang did not participate in the trial (and neither did any of his guns), his son, James, watched on, and all of the competing pin-fires were similar to this:
Here is a Charles Lancaster 14-bore central-fire gun, made in 1858 for Capt. Henry John Bower, of the 4th (The King’s Own Royal) Regiment of Foot:
It is a slide-and-drop action. Here is how much the barrels travel forward before dropping:
Oh, if it were so easy and straightforward… Just getting the rules decided upon in advance was quite a debacle, with each side pushing for stipulations that favoured one side or the other. A compromise set was finally agreed upon. It was allowed that breech-loaders could increase their charges by a quarter of a drachm of black powder, to be ‘equal.’ The science of cartridges and what happened in the first few inches of the barrels (e.g. hard shoulders versus forcing cones) was far from understood, as was obturation, cartridge design and fit, crimps, etc., leading to the belief that breech-loaders needed a slightly larger charge, as something was lost along the way. The timing of the trial was also tricky. It had to be after the shooting season, as sportsmen and their guns were otherwise occupied. Gunmakers, who handled orders for new guns outside the shooting season, found themselves without the several months’ time needed to come up with new guns to compete with, and trial guns had, by necessity, to be ones already in sportsmen’s hands. For a gunmaker making hand-made guns and improving with each one, relying on a pool of guns already in use posed a worry for breech-loaders, as so few were in circulation at the time. The odds were good that some early guns built by inexperienced hands might find themselves in the competition (indeed, one of the breech-loaders in the trial was a provincial gunmaker’s first attempt at building one).
The judging criteria for the muzzle-loaders and breech-loaders were based on three points. First, the driving power of each at 40, 50, and 60 yards, as tested by the number of sheets of brown paper pierced by them. Second, the regularity of delivery of the shot at each of these distances, within a circle 28 inches in diameter (the pattern). Third, the amount of recoil, both when clean and after thirty discharges, as measured by a recording spring attached to a fixed rest. This last point was to settle a major claim by proponents of the breech-loader, namely that such guns had much less recoil. Uh huh, as if the laws of physics somehow didn’t apply to the pin-fire… In any event, the scales used to measure recoil were insufficient, and the data inconclusive. From what was possible to measure, most guns registered in the 90-100 pounds of recoil range, while some appeared to reach 120-130 pounds, which made for very uncomfortable shooting. At least the claim of one type recoiling less than the other was put to rest.
Guns were separated by weight and bore class:
Class 1. 12 bore, weight not exceeding 7 ½ lb, barrels not more than 32 in.
Class 2. 13 bore, weight not exceeding 7 ¼ lb, barrels not more than 32 in.
Class 3. 14 bore, weight not exceeding 7 lb, barrels not more than 32 in.
Class 4. 15 bore, weight not exceeding 6 ¾ lb, barrels not more than 30 in.
Class 5. 16 bore, weight not exceeding 6 ½ lb, barrels not more than 30 in.
To overcome the possibility of one type outnumbering the other, and therefore making the trial biased, as soon as all the classes were tried and the targets examined, the best muzzle-loader and the best breech-loader from each class were to be shot again three times at 40, 50, and 60 yards respectively (both barrels). It was initially envisaged to shoot each gun from a fixed rest, but in practice, this proved too time-consuming to set up, and the guns were fired from the shoulder. The Editor was responsible for recording the data and for publishing the results.
All the guns were loaded by parties appointed by the Editor, from powder and shot furnished by him, and in the presence of the inspectors. The one exception was Lancaster’s gun, firing base-fire cartridges loaded by Lancaster (this was because the cartridges loaded on the day performed so poorly, they believed they were doing something wrong; they switched to Lancaster’s pre-loaded cartridges, but the results were just as bad). The charges were not to exceed 2 ¾ drachms of powder for the muzzle-loader, and 3 drachms for the breech-loader, with 1 ¼ oz. of No. 5 shot for each. The empty cartridge cases were furnished by The Field. For this, and the cost of paper and the shooting grounds, each exhibitor paid in advance the sum of ten shillings and six pence to cover costs.
The 17 April issue provided a full account of the 1858 public gun trial: “Owing to the cold and wet weather which we experienced, the attendance was very limited; but among the London gunmakers present we noticed Mr [Robert] Adams, of the London Armoury Company, Mr [Joseph Vernon] Needham, Mr [James] Lang, jun., Mr [Frederick] Prince, and Mr [John] Blanch. The great guns stood aloof, having everything to lose and nothing to gain by a competition with their provincial brethren; but perhaps next time they may see that they suffer more in reputation by their absence than they could possibly by being present. At all events, we have done our best to satisfy those sportsmen who are unable to test the matter for themselves; and if we have not been able to effect all that we desired, we have at least laid the foundation for another and more satisfactory series of experiments.” So, after taking a dig at cowardly London gunmakers who avoided the trial, in both their absence and their guns, Walsh intimated that future trials would be held, and they had better show up next time.
What did the competing guns of 1858 look like? All of the pin-fire breech-loaders were said to be of the forward-underlever type, which is understandable as the next wave of designs wouldn’t appear until the 1860s. Here is a Joseph Lang 16-bore pin-fire that was completed by him on 28 March 1858, and delivered on 8 September 1858, as per the Lang records still kept by Atkins, Grant & Lang. While Joseph Lang did not participate in the trial (and neither did any of his guns), his son, James, watched on, and all of the competing pin-fires were similar to this:
Here is a Charles Lancaster 14-bore central-fire gun, made in 1858 for Capt. Henry John Bower, of the 4th (The King’s Own Royal) Regiment of Foot:
It is a slide-and-drop action. Here is how much the barrels travel forward before dropping:
In the trial, there were 8 breech-loaders pitted against 19 muzzle-loaders. Looking just at 12-bores (1st Class), there were 4 breech-loaders against 7 muzzle-loaders. Of these, the four top-scoring guns were muzzle-loaders, followed by two breech-loaders, two muzzle-loaders, a breech-loader, a muzzle-loader, and finally the Lancaster (ouch). “Case closed,” screamed the muzzle-loading crowd, and The Field did acknowledge the front-stuffers won the day. The four muzzle-loaders that won the 1st Class were by Frederick Prince, William Rochester Pape (x2), and William Greener. Then, breech-loaders by William Moore & William Harris and Christopher Penrhyn Aston, followed by muzzle-loaders by Alexander Henry and Orlando Smith, a breech-loader by Edwin Ladmore, a muzzle-loader by Edward Reilly, and last, Lancaster’s base-fire.
If you examine the actual results, it is not so clear-cut —at least, I don’t think so. By modern standards and the choke-bored barrels we’re used to, all the results were poor, for everyone. A 1 ¼ oz charge of No. 5 shot is about 212 pellets, but I can't say if the numbering/sizing system used in 1858 is the same as today’s. The Field did intentionally choose larger shot to make the counting of holes easier and less tedious. A cylinder-bored barrel should put 40%, or 68 pellets, within a 30-inch circle, but in the end, The Field chose to use 28"x11" oblong targets, to save on paper costs, which explains the relatively low hit counts. All barrels in 1858 were nominally cylinder-bored, as it would be some years yet before choke-boring appeared on the scene. However, gunmakers at the time were aware of minute differences in barrel boring practices that could affect/improve patterns – what we would recognize today as back-boring and jug-choking. There was a reason why barrels of some makers were treasured above all others.
At the 40-yard mark, the top-scoring gun put 51 and 60 pellets (right-left) within the 28x11-inch oblong; second-best was 47 and 38, and the third-best, 28 and 57. The ‘losing’ breech-loader put 43/42 and 53/45 in the ring. At the 60-yard mark, the top four muzzle-loaders put 21/9, 22/6, 27/15, and 14/20 in the ring. The top breech-loaders scored 24/23 and 25/18 pellets within the circle (the Lancaster scored 18/25 and 14/23). Not exactly conclusive, but the number of pellets driven through all the folds of the paper targets was slightly higher for the muzzle-loaders, which, when all scores were totalled up, gave the day to the shooters of the ‘common gun,’ by a small margin. I’ve been playing with the data to see if, in fact, the differences are statistically significant. Still working on it, as I’m not an adept mathematician.
Here are the results, as printed in the 17 April 1858 edition of The Field:
With scores so close, the aftermath was predictable. The fanboys of each type didn’t change, and neither did the competing claims and arguments. Some pointed out the differences were minor: “a breech-loader made by a country maker (his first attempt) was third – a good third, being only three pellets behind No. 2 in strength, beating fifteen out of seventeen guns on the ordinary percussion-cap principle” wrote Major-General Thomas Charritie, a prominent supporter of the pin-fire system. Others claimed total victory. Despite Walsh’s hopes, the battle of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader did not, however, end with the trial, and the correspondence column of The Field remained filled with hotly debated claims throughout the rest of the year. The newspaper, therefore, held another event on the fourth and fifth of July 1859, at Hornsey Wood House in the Finsbury Park area of London. The rules and classes were the same as those of the previous year, and although organizers strengthened the machine to measure recoil, a double discharge from one gun broke it, and some of the guns went untested. I’ll cover the results of the 1859 trial in my next instalment.
I can’t help but speculate what it would be like if a similar trial were held today. Standardization of cartridges, loads, and pellet manufacture might render penetration tests moot, as all should be the same (or perhaps a separate trial for all the different ammunition brands?). Or would penetration testing prove whether one manufacturer’s ‘new’ barrel steels are indeed ‘slipperier’ with a given shot charge (I’m looking at you, Beretta)? Measuring recoil might be educational, if it meant quantifying in real numbers just how much recoil is absorbed by the type and weight of the gun. By far, the most edifying would be pattern testing. One would think the big manufacturers already do their own testing, but then again, if customers aren’t finicky, why go to the expense? If a trial were held today, would the big names give it a pass, to avoid the embarrassing risk of being equalled or outperformed by a cheaper, Turkish-made brand? Would top-of-the-line choke manufacturers really want a public, objective test against factory or fixed chokes? I wonder.
If you examine the actual results, it is not so clear-cut —at least, I don’t think so. By modern standards and the choke-bored barrels we’re used to, all the results were poor, for everyone. A 1 ¼ oz charge of No. 5 shot is about 212 pellets, but I can't say if the numbering/sizing system used in 1858 is the same as today’s. The Field did intentionally choose larger shot to make the counting of holes easier and less tedious. A cylinder-bored barrel should put 40%, or 68 pellets, within a 30-inch circle, but in the end, The Field chose to use 28"x11" oblong targets, to save on paper costs, which explains the relatively low hit counts. All barrels in 1858 were nominally cylinder-bored, as it would be some years yet before choke-boring appeared on the scene. However, gunmakers at the time were aware of minute differences in barrel boring practices that could affect/improve patterns – what we would recognize today as back-boring and jug-choking. There was a reason why barrels of some makers were treasured above all others.
At the 40-yard mark, the top-scoring gun put 51 and 60 pellets (right-left) within the 28x11-inch oblong; second-best was 47 and 38, and the third-best, 28 and 57. The ‘losing’ breech-loader put 43/42 and 53/45 in the ring. At the 60-yard mark, the top four muzzle-loaders put 21/9, 22/6, 27/15, and 14/20 in the ring. The top breech-loaders scored 24/23 and 25/18 pellets within the circle (the Lancaster scored 18/25 and 14/23). Not exactly conclusive, but the number of pellets driven through all the folds of the paper targets was slightly higher for the muzzle-loaders, which, when all scores were totalled up, gave the day to the shooters of the ‘common gun,’ by a small margin. I’ve been playing with the data to see if, in fact, the differences are statistically significant. Still working on it, as I’m not an adept mathematician.
Here are the results, as printed in the 17 April 1858 edition of The Field:
With scores so close, the aftermath was predictable. The fanboys of each type didn’t change, and neither did the competing claims and arguments. Some pointed out the differences were minor: “a breech-loader made by a country maker (his first attempt) was third – a good third, being only three pellets behind No. 2 in strength, beating fifteen out of seventeen guns on the ordinary percussion-cap principle” wrote Major-General Thomas Charritie, a prominent supporter of the pin-fire system. Others claimed total victory. Despite Walsh’s hopes, the battle of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader did not, however, end with the trial, and the correspondence column of The Field remained filled with hotly debated claims throughout the rest of the year. The newspaper, therefore, held another event on the fourth and fifth of July 1859, at Hornsey Wood House in the Finsbury Park area of London. The rules and classes were the same as those of the previous year, and although organizers strengthened the machine to measure recoil, a double discharge from one gun broke it, and some of the guns went untested. I’ll cover the results of the 1859 trial in my next instalment.
I can’t help but speculate what it would be like if a similar trial were held today. Standardization of cartridges, loads, and pellet manufacture might render penetration tests moot, as all should be the same (or perhaps a separate trial for all the different ammunition brands?). Or would penetration testing prove whether one manufacturer’s ‘new’ barrel steels are indeed ‘slipperier’ with a given shot charge (I’m looking at you, Beretta)? Measuring recoil might be educational, if it meant quantifying in real numbers just how much recoil is absorbed by the type and weight of the gun. By far, the most edifying would be pattern testing. One would think the big manufacturers already do their own testing, but then again, if customers aren’t finicky, why go to the expense? If a trial were held today, would the big names give it a pass, to avoid the embarrassing risk of being equalled or outperformed by a cheaper, Turkish-made brand? Would top-of-the-line choke manufacturers really want a public, objective test against factory or fixed chokes? I wonder.
Last edited:
The idea of putting breech-loaders and muzzle-loaders to the test was not limited to The Field’s efforts, and some correspondents were pleased to report the results of their own research on the matter. One such correspondent, writing under the pseudonym ‘Practice,’ suspected the criticism of breech-loaders was not the result of actual experience with them. In the 22 January 1859 issue, The Field published his lengthy letter:
The reference to Greener and to his book, the full title being “Gunnery in 1858: Being A Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms; explaining the Principles of the Science of Gunnery, and Describing the Newest Improvements in Fire-Arms,” refers to William Greener Sr., and not his son William Wellington Greener. WW Greener became a staunch supporter of the pin-fire breech-loader, while his father remained a fierce opponent. In the book referred to above, Greener wrote the following harsh words about the pin-fire:
‘Practice’ was unhelpful by not naming whose breech-loader he was using. However, he does mention William Moore, who would soon be producing breech-loaders himself. Here is one of his, a second- or third-quality gun, made around 1860 or so, using the pattern based on Beatus Beringer’s design. The barrel rib is signed “W. M. & Co,” as are the lock plates. Though cryptic today, at the time, everyone knew the Moore name, as William Moore was one of London and Birmingham's most highly regarded makers.
Originally a stocker for Joseph Manton, in 1829 William Moore set up his own stock-making business in Birmingham and became a gunmaker shortly after. In 1836, the name of the firm changed to William Moore & Co., and Moore also entered into several partnerships in addition to operating his own business. In 1838, he partnered with William Harris, forming the firm of Moore & Harris at 35 Loveday Street. In 1847, Moore partnered with William Patrick Grey and operated as Wm. Moore & Grey. In 1854, William Moore & Co. moved to 43 Old Bond Street, London, and Moore and Grey began trading from this address under the name William Moore & Grey. Guns marked Wm Moore & Co were mainly export-quality guns with a different serial number range. In 1861, Frederick Beesley, a name that would become famous later, was apprenticed to William Moore & Co. William Moore may have died in 1864. The fame of the William Moore name was such that it subsequently appeared on low-quality Belgian guns to dupe buyers into believing they were purchasing a recognized name. What is confusing is that real Moore guns might be signed William Moore, Wm Moore & Co, Moore & Harris, William Moore & Grey, William Moore, Grey & Co., or, as this gun, W. M. & Co.
Next, on to the 1859 trial.
“Sir,— I have just been reading Mr Greener’s new work on gunnery. In the chapter which he devotes to breech-loading guns, made upon the principle of the “French crutch-gun,” he condemns them so entirely, that, taking for granted his opinions are formed only from the result of practice with that weapon, no reasonable person would think of procuring one, or if he had done so, of attempting to use it. Some of the statements, however, are so contrary to my experience of that description of gun, that I am induced to think the whole chapter is founded upon theories, the greater portion of which will not be borne out when reduced to practice.”
“Among the many assertions that the gun is wrong in its principle and construction, and deficient when in use, only one word of praise is awarded it, viz., that “it certainly can be loaded more rapidly.” This, however, according to Mr Greener, is no actual benefit, “as guns can already be charged more quickly than is necessary;” and as for firing a greater number of rounds without being cleaned, Mr Greener says that it is a mistake, as he can already “fire a muzzle-loader one hundred times without wiping out, and a breech-loader can do no more;” in addition to which, a breech-loader requires more powder, and will then put 25 per cent. less pellets on a plate than a muzzle-loader.”
“To test this I have been at some little trouble, and borrowed from my friends a gun each of the following makers – W. Greener, W. Moore, Purdey, C. Lancaster, S. and C. Smith – bores 11, 14, 13, 12, 14. I fired each gun until I could no longer get the powder to explode, nor did I put one away until I had tried all ordinary means of getting the powder into the nipple-hole. The five guns fired unitedly from one barrel each 186 shots, an average of 37 1/3 each; they put on to the iron plate, 15,348 pellets, or 82 ½ each shot. Then I tried my breech-loader (size for No. 12 cartridge). Out of one barrel of that I fired in succession 186 shots, which placed upon the plate 16,068 pellets – an average of 91. At the end of the 186 shots there were no more signs of the breech-loader requiring to be cleaned out before again firing than there were after the first shot; and I see no limit to the number of times it could be discharged.”
“The gun has now stood twenty-four hours without cleaning, and the inside of the barrel is still bright and clear. During the whole time the inside of the barrel did not foul, nor in one single instance was any rod or anything put down from the muzzle required to extract the case of the exploded cartridge; even the hook had seldom to be used, and my fingers would alone have sufficed every time, had I discarded a few cartridges that, from their defective make, improperly fitted the barrel. On taking out the breeches of the muzzle-loading barrels all were exceedingly foul, and the communication hole stopped up with a perfectly hard substance. Each gun was charged with 3 drachms powder, 1 ¼ oz. shot, greased edged wads; distance from plate, 40 yards. Mr Greener says that — Owing to the enlargement of the bore to admit the case of the cartridge, the shot is started in a larger space than that which it afterwards has to travel; and to say that the case fills up the enlarged part is absurd, as anyone who knows the force of gunpowder must also know the paper “intervening between the charge and the sides of the barrel would be condensed at the moment of explosion to one-fourth its original thickness.” (If it is so, the said paper is wonderfully elastic, as when taken out of the barrel it is the same thickness as before putting it in; and I have some thousands of exploded cartridges that present no difference in their appearance to those not used, excepting a little discolouration in the inside.) “At what cost of force is this effected?” asks Mr Greener; and replies, “Thirty per cent. would be a shrewd guess.” From this shrewd guess are deduced the following facts: —Thirty per cent. of the whole charge cannot be thrown away with no more result than the mere wasting of powder. Iron and its combinations are as certainly limited in their duration as is human life itself. Every bar of iron is capable of resisting a certain amount of pressure, every successive strain in its fibres deteriorating it more rapidly. This being the case, how much more rapidly must a breech-loader be destroyed when thirty per cent. of the charge is always absorbed in the cavity alone. The fact is so self-evident, no experiment is required to demonstrate it. To an argument founded upon a guess and demonstrated by no experiment, the natural reply is — Perhaps it is not so. Experiment, however, proves it is not so.”
“Mr Greener also says that the recoil must necessarily be far greater, and commiserates the unfortunate user on the wretched state his shoulder will be in after sustaining the shock of repeatedly firing it. I need only point to 186 shots fired in succession from my shoulder, and to assure him it became neither black nor blue, nor did I experience any unpleasant recoil. I had no apparatus for testing the exact recoil of each; but taking the effect on the shoulder as the criterion, the breech-loader, after firing any number of shots, has far less recoil than a muzzle-loader after the latter has been fired a dozen times.”
“I fear I am trespassing too much upon your space. I think, however, that no description of gun should be set aside merely by theories; and I am persuaded that most of those advanced in the chapter I have quoted from, relative to this kind of breech-loader, will, if attempted to be demonstrated by experiment, prove far from correct.
Practice.”
The reference to Greener and to his book, the full title being “Gunnery in 1858: Being A Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms; explaining the Principles of the Science of Gunnery, and Describing the Newest Improvements in Fire-Arms,” refers to William Greener Sr., and not his son William Wellington Greener. WW Greener became a staunch supporter of the pin-fire breech-loader, while his father remained a fierce opponent. In the book referred to above, Greener wrote the following harsh words about the pin-fire:
“The French system of breech-loading fire-arms is a specious pretence, the supposed advantages of which have been loudly boasted of; but none of these advantages have as yet been established by its most strenuous advocates. How it is that the British sportsman has become the dupe of certain men who set themselves up for reputable gunmakers I know not. It is certain, however, that by these acts they have forfeited all claim to the confidence of their too confiding customers, and that they never could have tested the shooting properties of their guns. With regard to the safety of these guns, they display an utter want of the most ordinary judgment; and this is abundant proof that they considered neither their safety, nor (what is also of importance) the economy of the whole arrangement, as regards their manufacture or their use.”
‘Practice’ was unhelpful by not naming whose breech-loader he was using. However, he does mention William Moore, who would soon be producing breech-loaders himself. Here is one of his, a second- or third-quality gun, made around 1860 or so, using the pattern based on Beatus Beringer’s design. The barrel rib is signed “W. M. & Co,” as are the lock plates. Though cryptic today, at the time, everyone knew the Moore name, as William Moore was one of London and Birmingham's most highly regarded makers.
Originally a stocker for Joseph Manton, in 1829 William Moore set up his own stock-making business in Birmingham and became a gunmaker shortly after. In 1836, the name of the firm changed to William Moore & Co., and Moore also entered into several partnerships in addition to operating his own business. In 1838, he partnered with William Harris, forming the firm of Moore & Harris at 35 Loveday Street. In 1847, Moore partnered with William Patrick Grey and operated as Wm. Moore & Grey. In 1854, William Moore & Co. moved to 43 Old Bond Street, London, and Moore and Grey began trading from this address under the name William Moore & Grey. Guns marked Wm Moore & Co were mainly export-quality guns with a different serial number range. In 1861, Frederick Beesley, a name that would become famous later, was apprenticed to William Moore & Co. William Moore may have died in 1864. The fame of the William Moore name was such that it subsequently appeared on low-quality Belgian guns to dupe buyers into believing they were purchasing a recognized name. What is confusing is that real Moore guns might be signed William Moore, Wm Moore & Co, Moore & Harris, William Moore & Grey, William Moore, Grey & Co., or, as this gun, W. M. & Co.
Next, on to the 1859 trial.
If you’re wondering why on Earth I’m spending so much time on The Field trials, it’s because they were instrumental in the development of the British game gun, right up to the ones we shoot today. Think about it. If some revolutionary new type of gun were to emerge today, who would you believe as to its merits? The ones who put it out on the market, helped by their PR departments? The YouTubers quietly paid to promote it? Celebrities? Fanboys who see an opportunity for self-promotion? Someone with a lot of spare money for a new toy? Eventually, you might see some honest reviews from people putting it to use in ways similar to your own. Or by persons who see past the hype and hoopla. But figuring out who to trust takes time, and a new gun purchase can be a significant investment. It certainly was in the 1850s, when a new gun might cost a year’s rent, if not your entire annual wages. (If you were one of those, chances are, shooting would not be your sport; you were probably polishing the silverware for someone for whom it was.) The three Field trials of the 1850s and 1860s were the crucible that resulted in the breech-loading game gun that shot modern loads and patterned well. The refinements of the 20th and 21st centuries are precisely that—refinements. The sea change in British gunmaking and the development of the modern game gun occurred as a result of the public trials.
The muzzle-loader versus breech-loader debate in 1850s Britain was huge, if you were a ‘lover of the trigger,’ as sportsmen were sometimes called. France and other parts of the Continent had already determined that breech-loaders, imperfect as they were at that time, signalled the future. By the time of the Great Exhibition in London in 1851, French gunmaking had almost entirely adopted the breech-loading principle, but Britain was a harder nut to crack, with entrenched belief in the muzzle-loader’s superiority. “And did you say the new invention was French…?”
Before the 1858 trial, several proponents of the breech-loader seemed resigned to a bad result, perhaps from knowing the teething problems of the new invention. A lack of standardized chamber measurements and inconsistent quality control in available cartridge cases certainly did not help. Yet, despite the loss at Ashburnham Park, proponents of the breech-loader (and the pin-fire system in particular) did not give up, making the point that the advantages of the breech-loader shone through in real-world use, regardless of the results on paper targets. For this reason, and expectation that the cartridge case problems would soon be resolved, The Field saw fit to host a second trial, in which both the guns and the trial process could be improved.
The trials were as objective as could be, and the Editor of The Field, John Henry Walsh, was studiously non-partisan in his approach, sincerely giving both sides the scope needed for a real comparison. The neutrality of Walsh in this affair is noteworthy, considering he had lost part of a hand through a loading incident with a muzzle-loader, and could immediately see the safety advantage of the breech-loader. In the 16 April 1859 issue of The Field, the correspondent 'G. Jeffries' asks: “We must have further proof of the claims to an invention than the mere assertion of an individual, before placing any reliance upon it.” This was likely a popular sentiment, which furthered the initiative to hold a second trial. The Editorial in that issue outlined the conditions and improvements from the earlier trial. All guns to again be double-barrelled, and there would be only three classes (12-, 14- and 16-bore). One important improvement was to use 30-inch circular targets, instead of the smaller ovals, to best compare patterns. At the center of each circle would be a 12-inch target consisting of 40 sheets of brown paper (the same paper used in the 1858 trial) at the 40-yard mark, and 20 sheets at the 60-yard mark, to measure penetration (a proxy for pellet energy, or hitting power). The shot not to exceed 1 ¼ oz., and all would be No. 6 shot. The charge of powder not to exceed three drachms for the breech-loaders, and 2 ¾ drachms for the muzzle-loaders (the 16-bore class would shoot 1/4 drachm less powder, and the shot load would be limited to no more than 1 1/8 oz.).
In the 2 July 1859 issue of The Field, Walsh published the following editorial, providing a justification for conducting an objective trial of every type of breech-loading guns available to sportsmen, including Needham needle-fire guns and Lancaster’s breech-loader, free from the biased promotion by the trade:
Here is a gun from one of those “Continental makers abroad… rarely to be met with,” a 16-bore built on the Colleye System, retailed by August Gottlieb Schüler of Suhl, Germany. The action (and quite likely the whole gun) is by Maximilien Nicolas Colleye of Liège, Belgium. The Colleye System is a single-bite, pivoted underlever, hinge action which, when unopened, has a strong resemblance to the Bastin action (however, the barrels rotate on a hinge pin, they don't slide forward). Maximilien Nicolas Colleye (also spelled Coleye or Coley, and who also traded as Colleye Fils) was a gunmaker/actioner located in Hoignée-Cheratte, Liège, in business from 1850 to 1865. He was the son of the well-known gunmaker and inventor Henri Joseph Colleye.
Next, the results of the 1859 trial, held at Hornsey Wood House, London, on the 4th and 5th of July, 1859.
The muzzle-loader versus breech-loader debate in 1850s Britain was huge, if you were a ‘lover of the trigger,’ as sportsmen were sometimes called. France and other parts of the Continent had already determined that breech-loaders, imperfect as they were at that time, signalled the future. By the time of the Great Exhibition in London in 1851, French gunmaking had almost entirely adopted the breech-loading principle, but Britain was a harder nut to crack, with entrenched belief in the muzzle-loader’s superiority. “And did you say the new invention was French…?”
Before the 1858 trial, several proponents of the breech-loader seemed resigned to a bad result, perhaps from knowing the teething problems of the new invention. A lack of standardized chamber measurements and inconsistent quality control in available cartridge cases certainly did not help. Yet, despite the loss at Ashburnham Park, proponents of the breech-loader (and the pin-fire system in particular) did not give up, making the point that the advantages of the breech-loader shone through in real-world use, regardless of the results on paper targets. For this reason, and expectation that the cartridge case problems would soon be resolved, The Field saw fit to host a second trial, in which both the guns and the trial process could be improved.
The trials were as objective as could be, and the Editor of The Field, John Henry Walsh, was studiously non-partisan in his approach, sincerely giving both sides the scope needed for a real comparison. The neutrality of Walsh in this affair is noteworthy, considering he had lost part of a hand through a loading incident with a muzzle-loader, and could immediately see the safety advantage of the breech-loader. In the 16 April 1859 issue of The Field, the correspondent 'G. Jeffries' asks: “We must have further proof of the claims to an invention than the mere assertion of an individual, before placing any reliance upon it.” This was likely a popular sentiment, which furthered the initiative to hold a second trial. The Editorial in that issue outlined the conditions and improvements from the earlier trial. All guns to again be double-barrelled, and there would be only three classes (12-, 14- and 16-bore). One important improvement was to use 30-inch circular targets, instead of the smaller ovals, to best compare patterns. At the center of each circle would be a 12-inch target consisting of 40 sheets of brown paper (the same paper used in the 1858 trial) at the 40-yard mark, and 20 sheets at the 60-yard mark, to measure penetration (a proxy for pellet energy, or hitting power). The shot not to exceed 1 ¼ oz., and all would be No. 6 shot. The charge of powder not to exceed three drachms for the breech-loaders, and 2 ¾ drachms for the muzzle-loaders (the 16-bore class would shoot 1/4 drachm less powder, and the shot load would be limited to no more than 1 1/8 oz.).
In the 2 July 1859 issue of The Field, Walsh published the following editorial, providing a justification for conducting an objective trial of every type of breech-loading guns available to sportsmen, including Needham needle-fire guns and Lancaster’s breech-loader, free from the biased promotion by the trade:
“We have been in the habit of recommending our readers at an earlier period than the present to give their orders to their gunmakers without delay. Even when not pressed for time, a gun can scarcely be built under two months, if it is to be executed at all its details in the most finished style. Superior workmen are not to be hurried out of their routine, and it will be found that by the time a gun has passed through all the numerous hands employed in getting it up, from six to ten weeks will have elapsed. Hence it is that disappointment is so often experienced when less than that time is given for the execution of an order, and hence we have annually cautioned our friends against the delay. This year, however, many of our readers may have thought it better to postpone their decisions until the conclusion of the trial, which is fixed for next week, and which we hope will be of great service as a guide in the choice of a gun for sporting purposes. For want of something of this kind, the Lefaucheaux gun, [sic] which has suddenly come into general use in England, had lain dormant for twenty years, though it was well known to our principal gunmakers, who for some reason or other rejected it as not to be compared with the ordinary percussion gun.”
“Most sportsmen are not in a position to judge for themselves, without purchasing every novelty which is offered; but as this would entail an enormous expense, as a matter of course it is not adopted. Failing this, the practice is to ask the opinion of the gunmaker usually employed by the individual seeking information; and thus it happens that upon the fiat of the trade depends the acceptance or rejection of any novelty in firearms. Now, everyone who has had much experience among gunmakers knows that there is jealousy among them beyond that connected with the money-making part of the business, and quite on par with the odium musicum which has led to so many bitter quarrels between the various signors and signoras of the orchestra and foot-lights. The consequence is, that, as a rule, the public are obliged to see through prejudiced eyes, unless they can have an opportunity such as we hope to afford them in the approaching gun trial. We have conversed with a numbers of practical sportsmen during the present year who have never even had a breech-loader in their hands, and who have not the least idea of the many different forms in which the loading at the breech is carried out. They may readily examine Lefaucheaux’s [sic] gun, which is now sold by most gunmakers throughout Great Britain, but those made by Needham and Lancaster in England, and by the various Continental makers abroad, are rarely to be met with, because they are patented by their proprietors, who confide the profitable sale of them to themselves and their agents. Now, on the one hand, it is not to be wondered at that the inventors should seek to reimburse themselves for their outlay during the time that the Patent Laws permit it; nor, on the other, is it contrary to our experience of human nature that “the trade” should wish to get all they can out of the guns they are enabled to sell. But there is a third party to be consulted, whose interest it is to obtain the best gun for their purpose, regardless of the individual who may get the fair trade profit upon it. To serve them is our sole object; and we believe we are doing this most efficiently by taking them out of the state of ignorance in which they are otherwise kept, and enabling them to observe for themselves what are the principles and performances of the novelties of the day in the gun trade, and by comparing these with the standard which is well known to every sportsman – the muzzle-loading percussion gun.”
Here is a gun from one of those “Continental makers abroad… rarely to be met with,” a 16-bore built on the Colleye System, retailed by August Gottlieb Schüler of Suhl, Germany. The action (and quite likely the whole gun) is by Maximilien Nicolas Colleye of Liège, Belgium. The Colleye System is a single-bite, pivoted underlever, hinge action which, when unopened, has a strong resemblance to the Bastin action (however, the barrels rotate on a hinge pin, they don't slide forward). Maximilien Nicolas Colleye (also spelled Coleye or Coley, and who also traded as Colleye Fils) was a gunmaker/actioner located in Hoignée-Cheratte, Liège, in business from 1850 to 1865. He was the son of the well-known gunmaker and inventor Henri Joseph Colleye.
Next, the results of the 1859 trial, held at Hornsey Wood House, London, on the 4th and 5th of July, 1859.
In thinking about the Field trials, I can't help but let my thoughts wander. If there were the possibility of an entirely objective and publicized trial today, what gun features or beliefs would you want tested?
There is so much online chatter about different brands of chokes, different brands of cartridges, different steels used in gun barrels, wood vs. synthetic, shot-charge FPS, steel/lead/substitute performance, lengths of forcing cones, barrel length, gauge selection, etc, etc, etc. Wouldn’t it be interesting to actually test all of this? Over/unders are the guns of choice for certain clay sports, but do they pattern better than side-by-sides? Exactly how much softer do gas-operated guns shoot versus short- and long-recoil actions? How much recoil is too much, and is heavy recoil a clue to blown patterns? There are plenty of unchallenged assumptions or ‘givens’ in shooting, and we somehow accept these with little pushback against what advertisers, fanboys, and paid shills tell us is true. There are, of course, honest and sincere reviewers out there who share with us the benefit of their experience (despite occasional accusations of promoting fudd-lore, if their opinions differ from the ‘mainstream’). The trick is telling them apart.
So, what would you want to see?
This kind of question might be better placed in the General Discussion forum, but there is a link to British guns. At least the Victorians were willing to put shotgun types to the test, in the key areas of pattern, hitting power, and recoil, and to other concerns such as safety, maintenance, and cost-per-shot, amongst others. They also did the same for rifles (but that is for another day, and perhaps another forum).
The 1859 Field trial was held beside the Hornsey Wood House on the 4th and 5th of July, 1859, results to follow.
Painting of Hornsey Wood House (Hornsey Wood Tavern) by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd (1792 – 1864). Note the observation gallery on the roof. In 1866, the Hornsey Wood Tavern was demolished, and the tea gardens, lake and recreational facilities were replaced by Finsbury Park.
From the collections at Bruce Castle Museum & Archive, London.
There is so much online chatter about different brands of chokes, different brands of cartridges, different steels used in gun barrels, wood vs. synthetic, shot-charge FPS, steel/lead/substitute performance, lengths of forcing cones, barrel length, gauge selection, etc, etc, etc. Wouldn’t it be interesting to actually test all of this? Over/unders are the guns of choice for certain clay sports, but do they pattern better than side-by-sides? Exactly how much softer do gas-operated guns shoot versus short- and long-recoil actions? How much recoil is too much, and is heavy recoil a clue to blown patterns? There are plenty of unchallenged assumptions or ‘givens’ in shooting, and we somehow accept these with little pushback against what advertisers, fanboys, and paid shills tell us is true. There are, of course, honest and sincere reviewers out there who share with us the benefit of their experience (despite occasional accusations of promoting fudd-lore, if their opinions differ from the ‘mainstream’). The trick is telling them apart.
So, what would you want to see?
This kind of question might be better placed in the General Discussion forum, but there is a link to British guns. At least the Victorians were willing to put shotgun types to the test, in the key areas of pattern, hitting power, and recoil, and to other concerns such as safety, maintenance, and cost-per-shot, amongst others. They also did the same for rifles (but that is for another day, and perhaps another forum).
The 1859 Field trial was held beside the Hornsey Wood House on the 4th and 5th of July, 1859, results to follow.
Painting of Hornsey Wood House (Hornsey Wood Tavern) by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd (1792 – 1864). Note the observation gallery on the roof. In 1866, the Hornsey Wood Tavern was demolished, and the tea gardens, lake and recreational facilities were replaced by Finsbury Park.
From the collections at Bruce Castle Museum & Archive, London.
