What!?! There's another way? Now they tell me...Personally, I’d love to learn, but not through repeated failures
The allure of the British gun
- Thread starter Pinfire
- Start date
I hear you, Mr Bill, guns get heavier to carry with age, and recoil is best minimized!
In my younger days, I believed the hype about ‘hot’ magnum loads. Shooting left me with a bruised shoulder, and swollen fingers from double triggers hitting them. Now, firing 7/8oz or 1oz loads is much more pleasant, and not flinch-inducing. The Victorians knew about managing recoil, and black powder was not as punishing, even with 1 1/8oz charges. And the Victorians were damn good about killing their targets, especially in the driven shoots with remarkable bag counts. They didn’t need anything over 3 drachms of powder, unless they were shooting at geese at extended ranges. The Field trials are a good indication that they knew 3 drachms of powder resulted in killing power out to 60 yards, with manageable recoil. Stronger cartridges do not magically make up for errors in marksmanship.
Anietfeld, I hope you find a good British 2 ½” gun, one that will give you much enjoyment in the field. It is a cultural object as much as a hunting tool, with much history attached. The advantage is that short-chambered guns are highly undervalued in the Canadian market, and changing European gun laws are resulting in a lot of perfectly serviceable guns ending up on this side of the Atlantic. Yes, these guns might have already had a lifetime of hunting behind them, but that only means your children or grandchildren will wear them out, maybe. I have had quite a few British, French and Belgian doubles over the years, and I have never had any one of them malfunction or break down. If they were made properly and reasonably cared for, a used European double shouldn’t need major repairs. The exceptions are ejector mechanisms, which can be exasperating to fix when they go wrong, and broken springs, which are a rare occurrence.
Maybe someone can chime in and tell of when a boxlock action failed, but I don’t know of any.
In my younger days, I believed the hype about ‘hot’ magnum loads. Shooting left me with a bruised shoulder, and swollen fingers from double triggers hitting them. Now, firing 7/8oz or 1oz loads is much more pleasant, and not flinch-inducing. The Victorians knew about managing recoil, and black powder was not as punishing, even with 1 1/8oz charges. And the Victorians were damn good about killing their targets, especially in the driven shoots with remarkable bag counts. They didn’t need anything over 3 drachms of powder, unless they were shooting at geese at extended ranges. The Field trials are a good indication that they knew 3 drachms of powder resulted in killing power out to 60 yards, with manageable recoil. Stronger cartridges do not magically make up for errors in marksmanship.
Anietfeld, I hope you find a good British 2 ½” gun, one that will give you much enjoyment in the field. It is a cultural object as much as a hunting tool, with much history attached. The advantage is that short-chambered guns are highly undervalued in the Canadian market, and changing European gun laws are resulting in a lot of perfectly serviceable guns ending up on this side of the Atlantic. Yes, these guns might have already had a lifetime of hunting behind them, but that only means your children or grandchildren will wear them out, maybe. I have had quite a few British, French and Belgian doubles over the years, and I have never had any one of them malfunction or break down. If they were made properly and reasonably cared for, a used European double shouldn’t need major repairs. The exceptions are ejector mechanisms, which can be exasperating to fix when they go wrong, and broken springs, which are a rare occurrence.
Maybe someone can chime in and tell of when a boxlock action failed, but I don’t know of any.
Sticking to the subject of individual gun testing, I don’t think any Victorian gunmaker would sell a gun that had not been test-fired, and many gunmakers had their shooting grounds, either purchased or leased. A prospective buyer would want to try the gun before agreeing to the sale, and such shooting grounds were ideal for that. It was also ‘normal’ for richer clients to try a new gun for the shooting season, before the annual settling of accounts with the various tradesmen. A gun could be returned if deemed unsatisfactory for whatever reason. Looking at old order books, one finds clients' names crossed out and replaced, with at times the guns renumbered. Occasionally, there might be annotations in the margins about Lord So-and-So not paying his bill… the social divide being so great, there was little a gunmaker could do about it. In any case, guns were tried and tested, and it was not left to the client to chase around for a warranty representative to clean up the mess of ill-fitting parts, aberrant point-of-aim, and poorly tempered steel, post-sale. A gunmaker releasing a faulty or poorly-shooting gun would soon find their business shunned and their reputation erased.
Even being a skilled and talented gunmaker was not a guarantee of success, and many firms lasted only a year or two before closing up shop. Location was important, as well as being aware of the competition and demand. This was one of the difficulties at the beginning of the breech-loader. It might take you three months to build one, involving up-front costs for materials and manpower, only to find that it doesn’t sell. Building only on demand solves that problem, but if there is no demand because no one has seen/tried one, you are just as screwed. For almost the entirety of the 19th century, London was the largest and most populous city in the world (New York City finally surpassed London in 1925). You would think that in such a wealthy enclave, the sporting-obsessed classes would create much demand, but even successful makers could only manage to sell a handful of breech-loaders in any year, usually fewer than 10. Before the Field trials, it is believed there were fewer than 300 pin-fires in all of Britain, and many of these would have been French and Belgian in origin.
This is why the results of the 1858 and 1859 trials were so important. The trials proved the breech-loader was nearly equal to the muzzle-loader in terms of patterns and hitting power, the red line for most shooters. It meant the other advantages of the breech-loader, in terms of the ease and safety of loading/unloading, barrel cleanliness, and doing away with ramrods, powder and shot flasks, and other paraphernalia, could shine through. By the 1860 shooting season, there would have been more British-built breech-loaders in circulation, a trend that would continue. It also meant gunmakers were more likely to invest in the required tools and skills needed to build the new guns, as orders increased. From the 1860 shooting season onwards, the breech-loader was no longer an oddity and was very much part of the shooting landscape. To be sure, fans of the muzzle-loader still trumpeted its superiority, but the claims sounded hollower and less justified, increasingly so as more switched to the breech-loading principle.
There was still much to be desired as far as the breech-loader was concerned. Ammunition was still French-sourced and variable in quality (child labour was used in the factories for fitting percussion caps in each pin-fire cartridge case, and it was a frequent annoyance to sportsmen to find their gun didn’t fire because of a missing cap). Not all gunmakers understood the angular mechanics of the hammer nose hitting the cartridge pins and the need for stronger mainsprings. As these details were worked out and guns and cartridges improved, inventors could concentrate on building stronger and easier-to-operate actions. The 1860s in particular were fertile years for gun technology, giving us everything from snap actions to choke boring, even the top lever-underbolt mechanism found in almost all hinge-action guns today.
To a sportsman in 1860, with the Field trial results still in recent memory, the choice of guns was great. The pin-fire was undergoing subtle outward changes, with the most visible being the change from the forward-facing underlever to the rearward-facing one that sat over the trigger guard bow. This 'lever-over-guard' configuration is commonly called the “Jones underlever,” which is amusing because the inventor Henry Jones had nothing to do with it, other than his invention of the double-bite interrupted locking lug (the real invention, patented in 1859), which used such a lever to operate it. The lever-over-guard was used by Charles Lancaster as early as 1853, in the design he bought from the Parisian gunmaker Louis Julien Gastinne. And the rearward lever was used from the 1840s by Beatus Beringer, who was possibly the first to do so. Who was the first to use the rearward underlever on a pin-fire game gun in Britain is not so clear, but I would put my money on it being either John Blanch or Edward Michael Reilly, both of London, though we’ll probably never know. By 1856, both of these makers were competing with Joseph Lang for the London breech-loading market, and may have built some rearward-levered guns from that year onwards. There aren’t enough surviving examples to tell.
When Jones’s patent expired in late 1862, the double-screw grip became widely used because of its strength and simplicity of manufacture. With it, the lever-over-guard also flourished, at least until the more practical snap-actions appeared on the scene. While the design was commonplace, it does not mean that gunmakers couldn’t put their personal touches on them, with variety in the shape and finish of the knob. How variable? Let’s take a look. Here are 30 pin-fire under-levers, and they are not all the same.
It is not until you look at a bunch of them side-by-side that the differences become apparent. The differences could be 'house styles,' or at the client's request.
Even being a skilled and talented gunmaker was not a guarantee of success, and many firms lasted only a year or two before closing up shop. Location was important, as well as being aware of the competition and demand. This was one of the difficulties at the beginning of the breech-loader. It might take you three months to build one, involving up-front costs for materials and manpower, only to find that it doesn’t sell. Building only on demand solves that problem, but if there is no demand because no one has seen/tried one, you are just as screwed. For almost the entirety of the 19th century, London was the largest and most populous city in the world (New York City finally surpassed London in 1925). You would think that in such a wealthy enclave, the sporting-obsessed classes would create much demand, but even successful makers could only manage to sell a handful of breech-loaders in any year, usually fewer than 10. Before the Field trials, it is believed there were fewer than 300 pin-fires in all of Britain, and many of these would have been French and Belgian in origin.
This is why the results of the 1858 and 1859 trials were so important. The trials proved the breech-loader was nearly equal to the muzzle-loader in terms of patterns and hitting power, the red line for most shooters. It meant the other advantages of the breech-loader, in terms of the ease and safety of loading/unloading, barrel cleanliness, and doing away with ramrods, powder and shot flasks, and other paraphernalia, could shine through. By the 1860 shooting season, there would have been more British-built breech-loaders in circulation, a trend that would continue. It also meant gunmakers were more likely to invest in the required tools and skills needed to build the new guns, as orders increased. From the 1860 shooting season onwards, the breech-loader was no longer an oddity and was very much part of the shooting landscape. To be sure, fans of the muzzle-loader still trumpeted its superiority, but the claims sounded hollower and less justified, increasingly so as more switched to the breech-loading principle.
There was still much to be desired as far as the breech-loader was concerned. Ammunition was still French-sourced and variable in quality (child labour was used in the factories for fitting percussion caps in each pin-fire cartridge case, and it was a frequent annoyance to sportsmen to find their gun didn’t fire because of a missing cap). Not all gunmakers understood the angular mechanics of the hammer nose hitting the cartridge pins and the need for stronger mainsprings. As these details were worked out and guns and cartridges improved, inventors could concentrate on building stronger and easier-to-operate actions. The 1860s in particular were fertile years for gun technology, giving us everything from snap actions to choke boring, even the top lever-underbolt mechanism found in almost all hinge-action guns today.
To a sportsman in 1860, with the Field trial results still in recent memory, the choice of guns was great. The pin-fire was undergoing subtle outward changes, with the most visible being the change from the forward-facing underlever to the rearward-facing one that sat over the trigger guard bow. This 'lever-over-guard' configuration is commonly called the “Jones underlever,” which is amusing because the inventor Henry Jones had nothing to do with it, other than his invention of the double-bite interrupted locking lug (the real invention, patented in 1859), which used such a lever to operate it. The lever-over-guard was used by Charles Lancaster as early as 1853, in the design he bought from the Parisian gunmaker Louis Julien Gastinne. And the rearward lever was used from the 1840s by Beatus Beringer, who was possibly the first to do so. Who was the first to use the rearward underlever on a pin-fire game gun in Britain is not so clear, but I would put my money on it being either John Blanch or Edward Michael Reilly, both of London, though we’ll probably never know. By 1856, both of these makers were competing with Joseph Lang for the London breech-loading market, and may have built some rearward-levered guns from that year onwards. There aren’t enough surviving examples to tell.
When Jones’s patent expired in late 1862, the double-screw grip became widely used because of its strength and simplicity of manufacture. With it, the lever-over-guard also flourished, at least until the more practical snap-actions appeared on the scene. While the design was commonplace, it does not mean that gunmakers couldn’t put their personal touches on them, with variety in the shape and finish of the knob. How variable? Let’s take a look. Here are 30 pin-fire under-levers, and they are not all the same.
It is not until you look at a bunch of them side-by-side that the differences become apparent. The differences could be 'house styles,' or at the client's request.
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I agree, John. It is the extra effort which really makes the difference. Here is a similar-but-different version of the Bastin action, this one reversed, by John Lyell of Aberdeen (not mine, sadly, but a friend's):
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
That Lyell foreend seems to be one piece of wood - heavily inlet.
I'm just resting up after some recent exertions and having a gun day. The stay inside because it's too hot kind. Going over a new-to-me percussion gun, catching up on a couple weeks of correspondence and, of course, the Allure.
Possibly it's been years. I thought it was William Powell and son but my memory seems to work as poorly as everything else now. It was 26 inch barrels, fine damascus but nitro proof, 6lbs oddly had over 3 inch drop at the heel but fit well. Another one I've kicked my ass for selling.
I’ve been jotting down my wandering thoughts on the allure of the British gun since starting the thread last December, but I’ve been remiss in not defining what constitutes the term ‘British.’ It is worth taking a moment to ponder its application to the gunmaking world.
From a former life as a diplomat, I am sensitive to political terminology and to using precision in language. Even when immersing myself in gunmaking history, territorial politics invariably get mixed in at some point, so a clarification is in order. It might be a surprise to some that the terms United Kingdom, British Isles, British Islands, and Great Britain have entirely different meanings and are not interchangeable. Even the State of the United Kingdom and the Monarchy of the United Kingdom are separate, and include/exclude a number of lands and territories, depending on which one is used. Some sharp-eyed readers might have noticed that in this ‘British’ discussion thread, I have referenced Irish gunmakers, such as John Rigby, and the Kavanagh brothers. The island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1922, so inclusion of Irish makers in a discussion on Victorian gunmaking is, I believe, appropriate. Today, the island of Ireland is made up of the independent and sovereign Irish State, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the Sovereign State of the United Kingdom (UK), whose official name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ireland is part of the British Isles, but only Northern Ireland is part of the British Islands. The UK also includes Great Britain, which is made up of the countries of England, Scotland and Wales (Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland, hence the long official name of the UK).
Where it gets even more curious is with the Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands), which are part of the British Isles and British Islands, but not the United Kingdom. These are independent jurisdictions that belong to the crown, and not the UK (or Great Britain). Yeah, really. And then there are the British Overseas Territories, which are dependent territories of the monarchy of the United Kingdom. These include Gibraltar, the Falklands, various Caribbean territories and South Pacific islands, and the British Antarctic Territory. These dependent territories are not part of the UK State or the British Isles/Islands.
All of this to say that in discussing the allure of the British gun, I am using the term ‘British’ to mean the British Isles, encompassing the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, the island of Ireland as it was in Victorian times, and the Crown Dependencies. Within this large geographic area, there were recognizable gunmaking centres, with the most important being London and Birmingham. Other cities and regions developed their own gunmaking cachet, such as Dublin, Manchester, and Scotland as a whole. Whereas Birmingham could produce cheap junk as well as fine pieces, Dublin, Manchester, and Scottish gunmakers held a very high reputation for quality. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ‘poor’ Scottish gun.
My exposure to the complexities of the definition of ‘British’ happened as a result of acquiring a very basic-quality pin-fire gun marked “J. Hunt.” To my confusion, I couldn't find any reference to Hunt, a maker who operated in St. Helier, Jersey, in any of the usual reference works on British gunmakers. This is because these references only list those gunmakers recorded within the territory of the United Kingdom, which doesn’t include the Crown Dependencies. For gunmakers and gunsmiths operating in the Crown Dependencies, there is very little information on them – I couldn’t tell you how many of them there were.
The Channel Islands (the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, and several uninhabited islets) are located off the coast of Normandy, France, and as I mentioned above, are not considered part of the UK but are held by the monarch of the United Kingdom. Specifically, these crown dependencies are island territories that are self-governing possessions of the crown. Jersey, located just 12 nautical miles off the French coast, was part of the Duchy of Normandy, whose dukes became kings of England from 1066. After England lost Normandy in the 13th century and the ducal title surrendered to France, Jersey and the other Channel Islands remained attached to the English crown. Jersey has enjoyed self-government since the division of the Duchy of Normandy in 1204. After the Napoleonic wars, the number of English-speaking soldiers stationed on the island and the number of retired officers and English-speaking labourers who came to the islands in the 1820s led to the island gradually moving towards an English-speaking culture. The population of Jersey rose to 56,000 in 1861, mainly due to agricultural development and industries such as shipbuilding and commodities such as cider, wool, and Jersey cattle. The parish of St Helier accounted for approximately half the population of Jersey at the time, and the urban portion of the parish made up the largest town on the island (it still does).
The gunmaker P. Vincent established his business in 1833 at Royal Square, St Helier. In 1847, H. Vincent took over the business and moved to Parade, St Helier. In 1855, his sons joined the firm, and the name changed to H. Vincent & Sons. In 1863, H. Vincent was recorded at 4 Hampton Place, and it would have been around this time that John William Hunt took over the business. In 1889, Hunt was recorded as a gunmaker at 69 King Street and 26 Broad Street, and he was also armourer to the Jersey National Rifle Association. It is interesting to note that local advertisements for the firm appear in both English and French, reflecting the mix of cultures on the island. Hunt advertised pin-fire guns (fusils a aiguille) into the 1890s, long after pin-fire guns were considered obsolete in Britain, but were still popular in France.
69 King St today, Broad St in behind. (Image capture Sept 2010, ©2025 Google)
The gun is a 12-bore double-bite screw-grip rotary under-lever pin-fire sporting gun, with no serial number. The 30 1/16” damascus barrels have Birmingham proofs and the maker's marks "HB" (possibly Henry Bayliss, 1855-1869, or Henry Boot, 1867). It is a typical utilitarian pin-fire that Birmingham built in the late 1860s or 1870s. The hammer noses are crudely shaped, the top rib is marked “J. Hunt Jersey,” and the back-action locks are signed “J. Hunt.” The gun is in poor, worn-out condition, with evidence of old repairs and part replacements. A curious modification is a simple V-notch sight added between the fences, suggesting it was used at some point for shooting ball, perhaps for sealing. This feature might have been added at any time in its long period of service (and perhaps long after the pin-fire disappeared in Great Britain). It is not a handsome gun by any means, but it is interesting from a historical/geographical perspective, and a reminder that a discussion of British guns requires a definition of the term ‘British.’
From a former life as a diplomat, I am sensitive to political terminology and to using precision in language. Even when immersing myself in gunmaking history, territorial politics invariably get mixed in at some point, so a clarification is in order. It might be a surprise to some that the terms United Kingdom, British Isles, British Islands, and Great Britain have entirely different meanings and are not interchangeable. Even the State of the United Kingdom and the Monarchy of the United Kingdom are separate, and include/exclude a number of lands and territories, depending on which one is used. Some sharp-eyed readers might have noticed that in this ‘British’ discussion thread, I have referenced Irish gunmakers, such as John Rigby, and the Kavanagh brothers. The island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1922, so inclusion of Irish makers in a discussion on Victorian gunmaking is, I believe, appropriate. Today, the island of Ireland is made up of the independent and sovereign Irish State, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the Sovereign State of the United Kingdom (UK), whose official name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ireland is part of the British Isles, but only Northern Ireland is part of the British Islands. The UK also includes Great Britain, which is made up of the countries of England, Scotland and Wales (Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland, hence the long official name of the UK).
Where it gets even more curious is with the Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands), which are part of the British Isles and British Islands, but not the United Kingdom. These are independent jurisdictions that belong to the crown, and not the UK (or Great Britain). Yeah, really. And then there are the British Overseas Territories, which are dependent territories of the monarchy of the United Kingdom. These include Gibraltar, the Falklands, various Caribbean territories and South Pacific islands, and the British Antarctic Territory. These dependent territories are not part of the UK State or the British Isles/Islands.
All of this to say that in discussing the allure of the British gun, I am using the term ‘British’ to mean the British Isles, encompassing the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, the island of Ireland as it was in Victorian times, and the Crown Dependencies. Within this large geographic area, there were recognizable gunmaking centres, with the most important being London and Birmingham. Other cities and regions developed their own gunmaking cachet, such as Dublin, Manchester, and Scotland as a whole. Whereas Birmingham could produce cheap junk as well as fine pieces, Dublin, Manchester, and Scottish gunmakers held a very high reputation for quality. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ‘poor’ Scottish gun.
My exposure to the complexities of the definition of ‘British’ happened as a result of acquiring a very basic-quality pin-fire gun marked “J. Hunt.” To my confusion, I couldn't find any reference to Hunt, a maker who operated in St. Helier, Jersey, in any of the usual reference works on British gunmakers. This is because these references only list those gunmakers recorded within the territory of the United Kingdom, which doesn’t include the Crown Dependencies. For gunmakers and gunsmiths operating in the Crown Dependencies, there is very little information on them – I couldn’t tell you how many of them there were.
The Channel Islands (the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, and several uninhabited islets) are located off the coast of Normandy, France, and as I mentioned above, are not considered part of the UK but are held by the monarch of the United Kingdom. Specifically, these crown dependencies are island territories that are self-governing possessions of the crown. Jersey, located just 12 nautical miles off the French coast, was part of the Duchy of Normandy, whose dukes became kings of England from 1066. After England lost Normandy in the 13th century and the ducal title surrendered to France, Jersey and the other Channel Islands remained attached to the English crown. Jersey has enjoyed self-government since the division of the Duchy of Normandy in 1204. After the Napoleonic wars, the number of English-speaking soldiers stationed on the island and the number of retired officers and English-speaking labourers who came to the islands in the 1820s led to the island gradually moving towards an English-speaking culture. The population of Jersey rose to 56,000 in 1861, mainly due to agricultural development and industries such as shipbuilding and commodities such as cider, wool, and Jersey cattle. The parish of St Helier accounted for approximately half the population of Jersey at the time, and the urban portion of the parish made up the largest town on the island (it still does).
The gunmaker P. Vincent established his business in 1833 at Royal Square, St Helier. In 1847, H. Vincent took over the business and moved to Parade, St Helier. In 1855, his sons joined the firm, and the name changed to H. Vincent & Sons. In 1863, H. Vincent was recorded at 4 Hampton Place, and it would have been around this time that John William Hunt took over the business. In 1889, Hunt was recorded as a gunmaker at 69 King Street and 26 Broad Street, and he was also armourer to the Jersey National Rifle Association. It is interesting to note that local advertisements for the firm appear in both English and French, reflecting the mix of cultures on the island. Hunt advertised pin-fire guns (fusils a aiguille) into the 1890s, long after pin-fire guns were considered obsolete in Britain, but were still popular in France.
69 King St today, Broad St in behind. (Image capture Sept 2010, ©2025 Google)
The gun is a 12-bore double-bite screw-grip rotary under-lever pin-fire sporting gun, with no serial number. The 30 1/16” damascus barrels have Birmingham proofs and the maker's marks "HB" (possibly Henry Bayliss, 1855-1869, or Henry Boot, 1867). It is a typical utilitarian pin-fire that Birmingham built in the late 1860s or 1870s. The hammer noses are crudely shaped, the top rib is marked “J. Hunt Jersey,” and the back-action locks are signed “J. Hunt.” The gun is in poor, worn-out condition, with evidence of old repairs and part replacements. A curious modification is a simple V-notch sight added between the fences, suggesting it was used at some point for shooting ball, perhaps for sealing. This feature might have been added at any time in its long period of service (and perhaps long after the pin-fire disappeared in Great Britain). It is not a handsome gun by any means, but it is interesting from a historical/geographical perspective, and a reminder that a discussion of British guns requires a definition of the term ‘British.’
