The Journal of the

Historical Breechloading
Smallarms Association

Volume 4, No. 4
ISSN: 0305-0440

© 2012 The Historical Breechloading Smallarms Association, BCM HBSA, London WC1N 3XX

The cover picture are: Original diagramme of proposed modification of .43 Spanish rifle
to Reformado from El Ministerio de Defensa De Espana and Remington Rolling-Block
rifle by Guy West.

Layout and Artwork

David Butterworth
Tel 020 8816 8472, [email protected]
www.davidbutterworth.co.uk

Print
Print Impressions Ltd.
Unit 18 West Station Industrial Estate
Maldon Essex CM9 6TW
Tel 016 2192 8083
Historical Breechloading
Smallarms Association
Volume 4, Number 4 December 2012

Patron: Commander The Lord Cottesloe KStJ JP Royal Navy (Retd)

President: C H Roads Council

Vice-Presidents Emeritus G D Geear Chairman: D Stimpson

F J Wilkinson
J F Hallam Council: A O Edwards
D Franklin-Johnson
Vice-Presidents: D J Penn D Frohnwieser
M Seed K J Hocking
M Hodgins
General Secretary: C Smith H Hood
Treasurer: A J Cattermole M Kanarek
Membership Registrar: C Reid S Taylor
Report Editor: N A Harlow
Journal Editor: S P Barrett
Editorial Board: I Patrick, D Thombs
and D J Williams

Contents

Gunmaking by Machinery
Birth of the consumer society Peter Smithurst 2

Skin Deep: An investigation into protective

surface coatings on firearms Suzanne J. Dalewicz-Kitto 8

The internet and firearms research with

reference to the .43 Spanish Remington
Rolling-Block and its ammunition David A. Thombs & Stephen P. Barrett 14

A “Poli-Chambered Gun” and

James Thomson’s Patent of 1814
by Graeme J. Rimer Derek Stimpson 24

1
 Gunmaking by Machinery
Birth of the consumer society
by
Peter Smithurst

F
or centuries, gunmaking corresponded to the fondly by introducing standardized weapons with standardized
imagined romantic idea of the craftsman in his parts. [author’s italics] 1
workshop meticulously crafting something by hand. He appointed Honoré le Blanc to undertake that
However, as with all else where production depends on task in respect of the manufacture of muskets. Le Blanc
the skill of the individual worker, in the absence of those had been apprenticed in the gunmaking trade. By the
skills, production grinds to a halt, unless it is replaced by age of 27 he was a master armourer at the Charleville
an alternative. And this is what happened, pioneering manufactory when he was transferred to St. Etienne to
mechanised mass production with standardised parts in become controlleur of gun lock making. For someone so
the process. The way in which this came about is due young to be given such responsibility speaks highly of
certainly to one, and arguably to two events. his personal qualities and technical ability. This ability,
The story begins in France in the middle years of whilst principally applied to achieving a particular goal,
the 18th century. General Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de was also directed to such things as experimenting with
Gribeauval (Figure 1), hailed as one of Europe’s most able new ways of tempering steel and forging gun barrels as
military engineers, became Director of Artillery and in well as making presentation muskets for officers.
this capacity was able to determine policy and exercise In 1777 le Blanc designed the new French military
control over the design, manufacture and quality, not just musket and, in 1786, Gribeauval made funds available
of large guns but smallarms as well. Apart from his quest for the establishment of an armoury at Vincennes to
to improve the standards of the army and its equipment, manufacture muskets with interchangeable parts.
he also sought to bring some rationality to military stores However, the death of Gribeauval in 1789, shortly followed
by the French Revolution, brought le Blanc’s patronage to
an end. Le Blanc had however achieved the goal of making
each of the lock’s components identical in size and form
so that they could just be dropped into place, without
the need for individual final adjustment with fine files
(Figure 2). Unfortunately the methods by which he was
able to achieve this remain unknown.
But the project foundered not only because of the death
of Gribeauval and the coming of the French revolution; the
gunmakers of France realised their livelihood was at stake
if le Blanc’s work went any further and they rioted. So,
end of part 1.
Part 2 unfolded in America shortly after that
time. In some senses it was precipitated by The War of
Independence. Once the new United States of America
had stabilised, Thomas Jefferson was sent to Paris as its
representative. He saw le Blanc’s work and was able to
attest to this new “interchangeability” of components and
was so impressed that he sent samples of the muskets back
to the United States.
Having gained independence, the United States wanted
Figure 1. General Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval. to keep it and to ensure that, it needed an army. One of

2
 internal views of the same locks – the major difference is the lack of any
assembly marks/numbers on le Blanc’s lock (bottom)

Jefferson’s comrades in government, Alexander Hamilton,

first Secretary of the Treasury (Figure 3), had put the
matter very succinctly in his report on manufactures:

“Not only the wealth, but the independence and security

of a country, appear to be materially connected with the
prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to
those great objects, ought to endeavour to possess within
itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the
means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defence.” 2

When it came to defence, the United States was in a

difficult position. Hitherto, most of its arms, in the form
of privately owned firearms, had been imported from
Britain. The only military firearms were, of course,
those in the hands of the British Army. Firearms
supplies from Britain were no longer possible, and to
produce sufficient to equip an army, a corresponding
army of craftsmen would be required, and this was
an army America could not muster. As Eli Whitney
noted, gunmaking was “a species of skill which is not
possessed in this country to any considerable extent”. 3
However, another of Hamilton’s observations is
decidedly prophetic:

Figure 2. Top; Standard French Model 1777 Musket Lock. “If there be anything in a remark often to be met with,
Bottom; Le Blanc’s Model 1777 musket lock (Royal Armouries XII.201 namely, that there is, in the genius of the people of this
and XII.2031 respectively) country, a peculiar aptitude for mechanic improvements, it

3
 in France became the holy grail of gunmaking in the
United States. Hamilton’s faith in that “peculiar aptitude for
mechanic improvements” was harnessed to create machines
as a replacement for craftsmen in the manufacture
of firearms. It was the birth of a second industrial
revolution which eventually was to reach into almost
every corner of society.
The French 1777 musket, in effect, became the
standard American musket and in 1798 when Eli Whitney
contracted to manufacture 10,000 of them over a period
of two years, the first step on the pathway of mechanised
gunmaking was taken. This was an extremely ambitious
and optimistic venture on the part of Whitney. Although
he had already established himself as an inventor through
his cotton gin, patented four years earlier, his attempts to
manufacture it do not seem to have met with resounding
success. At least one author believes that whilst Whitney
had never manufactured arms before, this contract was
entered into simply to save himself from financial ruin
over the litigation surrounding the manufacture his cotton
gin.5 The bold nature of Whitney’s venture is highlighted
by the fact that even the Springfield Armory, the United
States major manufactory, could not equal his proposed
output. Before long, he was claiming to have manufactured
muskets with interchangeable parts. 3 However, despite
this claim being perpetuated in engineering history as
a genuine accomplishment, it was, in fact, discounted
even at the time 6 and has been further discredited in
Figure 3. Alexander Hamilton
more recent years.7,8 The contract was not completed
until 1809, nine years after the appointed time, and
would operate as a forcible reason for giving opportunities the muskets produced were described as being of
to the exercise of that species of talent, by the propagation “wretched quality”.9,10 The so-called interchangeability
of manufactures.” 4 was demonstrated to a group of influential persons
including President Elect, Thomas Jefferson, in 1801. It
An alternative to the hand-crafted gun had to be found. consisted of nothing more than the ability to substitute
In this respect Jefferson’s report from Paris came at an 10 different complete locks in the same musket. It did
optimum time, and what had been a curtailed experiment not apply to the lock components themselves.11 This

Figure 4. A Colt Navy ’51 “Crystal Palace” model displayed at the 1851 Exhibition at the Crystal Palace.

4
 Figure 5. The Model 1841 “Mississippi” Rifle by Robbins and Lawrence as exhibited at the Great Exhibition (Royal Armouries XII.430).

must have been a disappointing episode to Jefferson Both companies excited great interest at the 1851
especially who had submitted the original report on Le Exhibition but when the new Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle
Blanc’s achievements, and fell far short of the concept of Musket came into existence, it was to Robbins & Lawrence
interchangeability which was held even at that time. (Figure 6) that the government turned when it came to
Nevertheless, Whitney’s contributions cannot be equipping the new factory at Enfield for its manufacture.
dismissed. In his observation that “…machinery moved Part of their contract to equip Enfield was to
by water, adopted to this business, would greatly diminish the manufacture 20,000 P ‘53’s and this led to their undoing!
labour and facilitate the manufacture of this article. Machines In brief, a drought meant that the sawmills preparing the
for forging, rolling, floating, boring, grinding, polishing etc. black walnut for the stocks could not function; the blank
may be used to advantage”,12 he displays a grasp of what was stocks were therefore delayed; Robbins & Lawrence could
to become the mainstay of interchangeable manufacture. not maintain supply of arms to Britain and defaulted on
During the next fifty years, that technology made the contract; the British government’s agents in the US
remarkable progress and, as far as the rest of the world foreclosed on them which led them into liquidation. But
was concerned made its debut at the Great Exhibition they had already left their mark. Their P ‘53’s were the
in 1851. only ones permitted to have a name other than “Tower” or
Its great proponents were two very different companies. “Enfield” on them – in this case “Windsor” (Figure 7).
One was owned by the great showman and entrepreneur,
Samuel Colt, whose stand was festooned with revolvers
of all kinds (Figure 4). The other stand contained just six
rifles, made by Robbins & Lawrence (Figure 5).
Whereas Colt made great play of the fact that his
guns were made by machinery, they were not, contrary
to popular opinion, truly interchangeable at that time.
But in their factory in the tiny town of Windsor in remote
Vermont, Robbins & Lawrence had achieved that Holy
Grail; their rifles were fully interchangeable.

Figure 7. A Windsor P’53 (Royal

Armouries XII.1628).

However, Robbins & Lawrence had left their mark in

other ways – from the firearms historian’s point of view, it
was with that company that Benjamin Tyler Henry’s work
there that ultimately led to the Volcanic pistol, then the
Henry Rifle and eventually the Winchester ‘66 rifle and
its offspring – the “guns that won the West”! Robbins &
Lawrence also perfected the manufacture of, and ran the
factory in Hartford that produced, Sharps rifles. In the
Windsor factory the first turret lathe and universal milling
machine were conceived – both vitally important in the
history of manufacturing. They also left their mark in
one further way. The machines they had already supplied
to Enfield became the patterns which were copied by
Greenwood & Batley in Leeds and, in effect, provided
the foundation of G & B’s remarkable rise to fame as an
international supplier of gunmaking equipment and plant
right through to the 1960’s.
There were two important features of “The American
System of Manufacture” as it came to be known. One was
Figure 6. The Robbins & Lawrence building today (below) and circa 1855 the tenet “one machine for one job”.
(above) – home of The American Precision Museum If we take the Enfield Pattern ’53 rifle, it has (depending

5
upon which version we choose) around 63 components,
and these required in their manufacture 719 separate
machining operations which were carried out by 680
machines (for example Figure 8), enabling production of
1,200 rifles per week. Such an operation involved a very
large capital outlay beyond the means of the traditional
contractors – only the government could afford to do it.
Production got underway in 1857 and by the year ending
March 1858, 26,739 rifles were manufactured and a new
era in gunmaking in Europe was underway.

Figure 8. An original Enfield stock turning machine at the American

Precision Museum.

The second feature was the reliance placed on gauges

(Figure 9) to check both size and form of a component.
This was much faster than usual measuring processes
which, when it came to complex shapes like the tumbler –
referred to by le Blanc as “the brain of the lock” – ordinary
measurement was nigh impossible.
Both the use of dedicated machines, followed by gauges
for checking components, greatly speeded up manufacture
and reduced cost. Not only that, the uniformity of
components also speeded up assembly and made repair

Figure 9. Gauges used in the manufacture of Enfield Pattern ’53 rifles (all
gauges are Royal Armouries, PR.10142).

6
much simpler. These factors were of primary significance Before a century had passed, what had begun as a
in what was to follow. quest to develop a mechanical alternative to the craftsman
Such methods applied to the manufacture of firearms for the manufacture of firearms had stimulated a new
became known in America as “armory practice” but it industrial, social and cultural revolution – the consumer
was quickly realised that the same technology could society.
also be applied to the manufacture of other “engineered”
goods. One of the earliest to adopt this method was Aaron 1. Bradley, J. (1990) Guns for the Tsar. Northern Illinois University
Dennison who, in 1850, founded the Waltham Watch Press, p29.

Company and thus laid the foundations of the American

2. Hamilton, A. (1827) Report on Manufactures, 1791, Philadelphia 6th
watch and clock industry. From being the province of Edn., p46.
the wealthy and functioning almost as status symbols,
the “dollar watch” meant that now nearly every home 3. Singer, C.J., Holmyard, E.J., Hall, A. and Williams, T.I. (1958) History
could have one. The American watch industry grew of Technology, Vol. IV, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p437.
and outstripped even that of Switzerland and effectively
4. Hamilton, A. op cit; p22.
destroyed Britain’s watch industries in Coventry and
Prescott (Figure 10).
5. Smith, M.R. (1979) Eli Whitney and the American System of
Manufacture. In: Pursell, C.W. Jr ed. Technology in America: A History
of Individuals and Ideas. Washington D.C.: Voice of America, p50.

6. Hicks, Major J.E. (1946) Notes on United States Ordnance, Vol. 1

Small Arms, 1776-1946, New York, Mount Vernon. p19.

7. Battison, E. (1966; revised 1984) “Eli Whitney and the Milling

Machine”, Smithsonian Journal of History, Vol 1, pp 9 – 34.

8. Gordon, R. B. (1988) “Who turned the mechanical ideal into mechanical

reality”, Technology and Culture, Vol 29, No 4, pp 744 – 778.

Figure 10. An ironic reminder of the growth of the American watch industry 9. Hounshell, D. (1984) From the American System to Mass Production
and its decline in Britain – an American Elgin watch bought in Coventry. 1800 – 1932, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and
London, p32.
Another eager practitioner around the same time
was Isaac Singer who produced what was probably the 10. Green, C. M. (1956) Eli Whitney and the birth of American
first commercially successful sewing machine. He also Technology, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, p50.
added another feature, the invention of the “instalment
purchase plan”, which greatly expanded his market by 11. Hounshell, D. (1984) From the American System to Mass Production
1800 – 1932, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and
making sewing machines accessible to almost every home.
London, p31.
Even gunmakers began to see a wider potential. After
the American civil war when the demand for guns fell, 12. Mirsky, J. and A. Nevins A. (1952) The world of Eli Whitney, Macmillan,
companies such as Remington began to diversify, in New York, p138.
this case producing the first commercially successful
typewriter. Other products fell under its spell. Even
as Colt was establishing his London factory another All images copyright; Trustees of Royal Armouries.
American, Alfred Hobbs, who gained fame at the Crystal
Palace Exhibition for picking Bramah’s “unpickable” lock,
was establishing his London factory to produce door
locks using the same technology. A few decades later,
Henry Ford adapted the system to the production of the
affordable motor car.

7
 Skin Deep: An investigation into
protective surface coatings on
firearms
by Suzanne J. Dalewicz-Kitto
Conservation Manager, Conservation Department, Royal Armouries,
Armouries Drive, Leeds LS10 1LT, UK,
[email protected]

Introduction

Why surface coatings are required

P
rotective surface coatings have been used on firearms From examining the collection at the Royal Armouries
throughout their history. From keeping a working and the National Museums Liverpool, many coatings
arsenal in good working order to preserving an have been used in the past but many can fail. Failings
antique collection, people have tried to hold back the can be caused by the inappropriate use of a coating; for
tireless march of decay. The most effective method example, no semi-protective coating should have a glass
to reduce deterioration is preventive conservation i.e. transitional temperature below 40˚C.9 If it is too low the
reducing the causes of decay.1,2 These causes include; pests, coating will remain soft and therefore attract dust, which
pollutants, incorrect temperature and relative humidity3 acts as an abrasive causing damage to surfaces. It will
which is a measure of the percentage saturation of the air lead to soiling and also become hydrophilic, attracting
by water.4 ‘Environmental stability is the key to successful moisture that in turn may cause corrosion. If the glass
preventive conservation’, 5 however, the external museum transitional temperature is too high the coating may
environment is often rich in impurities that can attack a crack leaving the coating in a heterogeneous condition,
collection. Contaminants may also come from within the and therefore no longer able to maintain its protective
museum such as from visitors, construction, the artefacts property.10 Coatings may also fail due to ageing; a major
themselves. Material testing, via accelerated aging of factor in which is light. It can cause the polymers in the
a material using metal coupons, can help us to avoid coating to decompose and to volatize, again leaving the
pollution from showcase manufacture materials, however, coating in a heterogeneous condition,11 In addition, as the
a protective coating may still be required if the object is to coating decomposes it can cause: darkening leading to
be handled, or the object is to be placed in close proximity loss of surface detail; non-reversibility so the coating can
with another object made from a material that will release no longer be removed; moving parts to become fixed; or
unwanted contaminants into the atmosphere, such as the coating may release acid and directly attack the object
certain plastics, felt, silk, wood etc. and others around it (Figure 1).
The majority of firearms are composite, not just with
wooden stocks but sometimes with bone inlays, plastic
grips etc. If one part of a composite piece deteriorates, it
can attack other materials, for example as metal corrodes
it will create acidity that will attack and break down the
organic components.6 The quality of the environment
“…will determine whether an object will survive for
centuries, decades, or merely a few years”,7 so a physical
barrier is required between the object and pollutants.
Although the building itself will act as a ‘physical envelope’,
a vital barrier between the outside world and a safe
environment,7 it is rarely enough. We can create further
barriers using clean filtered air with a defined relative
humidity,8 although thematic approaches to displays may
make specific environmental conditioning difficult. Further
barriers include well-sealed showcases, but for metals we
have the option of a final barrier; a protective coating. Figure 1: Moving parts of a firearm fixed due to application of a coating.

8
 An interesting case discovered at the Royal Armouries
was that of a cellulose acetate revolver grip that had UK
been coated in grease. Normal deterioration of cellulose British Museum; Imperial War Museum; National
acetate would give a smell of vinegar,12 however in this Maritime Museum; Victoria and Albert Museum;
case it was more “vomit” like. A white powder was Glasgow Museums
present on the grip, which was identified by FTIR (Fourier
Transmission Infra red) analysis to be decanoic acid.13 Europe
Decanoic acid is part of the plasticizer component and this Palace Armoury, Valetta, Malta; Royal Army Museum,
fitted the smell. It is likely that the grease encouraged Brussels, Belgium
the migration of the plasticizer component to the surface
and thus accelerated the deterioration of the plastic that India
in turn caused accelerated corrosion of the attached iron Jodhpor Fort
screw (Figure 2). If a different protective coating had been
chosen this object may not have suffered such irreversible USA
damage. Springfield Armory National Historic Site; Colonial
Figure 2: Corrosion of
Williamsburg
an iron screw caused
by the deterioration Australia
of cellulose acetate. Australian War memorial
(Harrington
& Richardson • Historic Coatings
single grip
– Lanolin
post 1940, No
accession
– Turpentine
number) – Linseed Oil

Many firearms are meant to have a coating added. • Waxes

This can be to lubricate moving parts or to protect a – Renaissance Micro-Crystalline Wax (pre-
surface from corrosion. Such surfaces are usually keyed mixed)
purposely to take this coating, such as shown by a French – Micro-Crystalline Wax (WA05)
sporting rifle in Figure 3. For such specific and also more – Johnson’s Paste Wax
general protective purposes, the British military have – Staples Wax
their own range of oils and lubricants and these are still – Bowling Alley Wax
in use within many museums with a military connection.
However, by custom and practice a wide range of other • Gun oils
coatings are also in use but without data to guide choice – BrunOx Oil
in specific situations. – Youngs 303, Oil
– Rangoon Oil
– Pendletons gun oil
– Other Oils
– 3inOne Oil
– Supertrol 001
– WD 40
– MOD range
– G403
– OX24
– PX4
Figure 3: French sporting rifle with metal surface keyed to take a coating. Table 1. Preservative coatings used by the 11 centres which provided
answers to the questionnaire.
Aims of the investigation
The aim of the study was the investigation of the merits Each product underwent two material tests based
of different products used in the conservation of firearms. on a Getty version of the Oddy Test.14 This provides
The long term effects on metals, and on organic materials information both on how protective each product is, and
in composite object that might also come in contact with also on any deleterious effect it may have on the surfaces
coatings, were subject to experimental study. to which it is applied.
From a questionnaire sent to museums asking which The experiments were carried out with a glass flask
products were used, it was clear there were different with a lid, inside which was placed a second glass jar. All
approaches to the treatment of firearms (Table 1). Thus, the glassware was washed and degreased thoroughly before
one military armourer used military-provided oils and use. Coupons of silver, copper, lead and mild steel were
lubricants; gunsmiths used a range of gun oils and sprays, surface cleaned with a glass bristle brush to remove oxides
and a conservator used various waxes and oils. From the and then degreased in acetone (Figure 4). The coupons were
questionnaire, a list of materials for investigation was bent so that they could be placed over the edge of the inner
made which included waxes, historic coatings, gun oils, glass jar, taking care that no coupons came into contact with
other oils and the MoD (Ministry of Defence, UK) range. each other, and were left at 60°C for one month (Figure 5).

9
 Results
The results are shown in Tables 2-5 and Figure 7. For
waxes it is of interest that although Renaissance Micro-
crystalline wax worked well, the WA05 version which
has to be mixed by hand works better than the pre-mixed
product. Although turpentine and linseed oil are not
usually applied directly to metal, it was decided to test
them as they can come into contact with metal in their
application on a wooden stock. Linseed oil caused heavy
corrosion of the coupons for lead and mild steel, and would
not be recommended even in this indirect use. It also
showed evidence of thermal deterioration and therefore
would alter its properties over time. Turpentine covered
Figure 4: A coupon being prepared for testing.
Material Silver Copper Iron Lead

Renaissance P P P P P U P U
Microcrystalline (pre-mixed)

Renaissance P P P P P T P P
Microcrystalline WA05

Johnson’s paste P U P P P P P U

Staples Wax P U P P T U U U

Butchers Bowling Alley Wax P U U

Table 2. Results for wax on metal coupons, after one month exposure.
Left columns = protection afforded in a polluted atmosphere; right columns
= effect of products on uncoated metal coupons. P= Good for permanent
Figure 5: Material testing jars placed in the incubator.
use. T = Temporary use e.g. 6 months U = unsuitable for use.
In the experiments to assess protective effect, each
metal coupon was coated with one of the products being Material Silver Copper Iron Lead
tested and a 5% salt solution with acetic acid to pH 315
was placed in the outer jar in order to mimic a polluted Lanolin P P P P P P P U

atmosphere. In the experiment, to assess the potential Turpentine U U U U U U U U

for a damaging effect, uncoated coupons were exposed to
2mls of each product in the inner jar, with 2ml deionised Boiled Linseed Oil P P P T P P U U
water placed in the external jar. The jars were incubated at Table 3. Results for Historic coatings after one month’s exposure to metal
60°C for one month. coupons. Left columns = protection afforded in a polluted atmosphere;
Testing was also considered on the effects of the right columns = effect of products on uncoated metal coupons.
protective products on materials such as leather straps P= Good for permanent use. T = Temporary use e.g. 6 months
U = unsuitable for use.
and textile linings of armour as well as wooden stocks
on firearms since these coatings have potential close
Material Silver Copper Iron Lead
proximity to such materials. For this purpose unbleached
cotton and silk, were chosen to give a basic understanding BrunOx Oil 1.75 P P P P P P P U
of any effects on organic materials. Strips of the cotton
and silk were taken and saturated in the product Youngs 303 Oil P P P P P P P U

being tested. A strip of each was left in its natural Rangoon Oil P U P P P T P U
state to act as a control. One set of saturated strips
with controls was left on a windowsill to determine 3inOne Oil P P P T P P P U
the effects of light damage, a second set including Supertrol 001 P P P P U U U U
controls was placed in the oven at 60°C and a third set
with controls was left in a dark cool place (Figure 6). WD40 P P T P T P T T
The strips were assessed after one month’s exposure.
G403 Grease P P P P U U P U

OX24 Synthetic Oil P P T P P U U U

PX4 Synthetic Preservative P P P P P P P U

Pendleton Gun Oil P P P P P U P P

Table 4. Results for Oils and MoD range after one month’s exposure
to metal coupons. Left columns = protection afforded in a polluted
atmosphere; right columns = effect of products on uncoated metal
coupons. P= Good for permanent use. T = Temporary use e.g. 6 months
Figure 6: Textile samples left in bright light to assess photolytic degradation. U = unsuitable for use.

10
Figure 7: Material test results for boiled linseed oil.

the coupons in a light surface corrosion, but as it is only

used indirectly, it generally would be fit for purpose. For
the oils and MoD range the biggest surprise was the lack
of protection provided to metals by WD40; this is probably
due to evaporation and probably explains the positive
results gained on the thermal and photolytic tests.
The cotton and silk strips showed no difference in
their susceptibility to the different preservative products.
A number of the products suffered either thermal or
photolytic degradation (Table 5; Figure 8). Failure in one
such category however may not be important depending on
the use made of the product. For example lanolin, whilst
deteriorating in light, remains stable under prolonged
exposure to heat and since it is used on the interior of
mechanisms, this failure in light should not be a problem.

Material Suitability with organics

Figure 8: The effects of coatings on cotton after one month.
Renaissance Microcrystalline P
be impaired; however this has been disputed.16 Also, the
Staples wax P
results of the thermal and photolytic degradation tests may
WD 40 P be skewed by the progressive evaporation of certain of the
coatings being tested. In addition, in Horrie’s opinion: “It
Pendleton gun oil P
should be expected that all coatings will be damaged and
G403 P replaced periodically”.17
How long a coating lasts will depend on the
Rangoon Oil P
environment it is in and how it is handled. For example
OX24 P Renaissance Micro-Crystalline wax passes all the tests
and was found to still offer protection to armour after ten
BrunOx Oil P
years’ display in the Royal Armouries Hall of Steel. This is
3inOne Oil T an eight-storey staircase following a hollow inner octagon
with 2586 pieces of arms and armour displayed on both
Supertrol 001 U sides and with an exterior outer octagon, made entirely
Lanolin U U from glass from the first floor upwards. The environment
is relatively unconditioned and temperatures can reach
Boiled Linseed Oil U 40°C and the relative humidity 63%.18
Youngs 303 Oil U
Dust analysis carried out by McCrone Scientific Ltd,
revealed the main components of dust in the museum
Table 5. Effect of preservative products on cotton and silk strips after one
were dead skin with resin, paint flakes and fibres.19 The
month’s exposure to thermal and photolytic degradation.
build-up of dust had caused some corrosion to the objects
P= Good for permanent use. T = Temporary use e.g. 6 months
U = unsuitable for use. on display, but was considered light given the objects
had been displayed for over 10 years. In extremely dusty
Conclusion conditions, however, Renaissance Micro-Crystalline wax
These tests have provided a greater understanding can fail. In 2001 the Royal Armouries conducted tests on
of the materials used to care for firearms, and have led mild steel with different coatings of B72, Micro-Crystalline
to a change in working practice at the Royal Armouries. wax and nitro-cellulose lacquer. These tests were carried
WD40 has now been replaced by BrunOx oil, and 3inOne out in the extreme environment of Malta, which suffers
is considered no longer ideal as a lubricant. However the high levels of humidity, temperatures, pollution and
experimental findings with the above coatings should salt. A set of coupons was left in a case and another was
be considered within the limitations of the study. This left in the open gallery. After six months the waxed and
version of the Oddy test placed all the coupons in a single lacquered coupons in the showcases showed no corrosion;
flask for reasons of time, space and reduced equipment however, outside the cases the Renaissance waxed coupon
costs. According to Fenn, since the metals will compete failed (Figures 9,10). Part of the efficiency of a coating can
for the gases, the sensitivity of the test might therefore be affected by the cleanliness of the surface to which it

11
 base materials of cotton and silk in these tests, further
investigations are required.
This is a continuing project. The author would be
pleased to hear from anyone with further suggestions of
materials to test or indeed the results of any evaluations
that have been made.

Figure 9: Mild Steel coupons coated with, (left to right) untreated, Paraloid
B72, Renaissance Micro-crystalline wax kept in a showcase.

Figure 11: Mild steel untreated coupon.

Figure 10: Mild Steel coupons coated with, (left to right) untreated, Paraloid
B72, Renaissance Micro-crystalline wax kept in the gallery. Figure 12: Mild steel coupon treated with cold Renaissance Micro-
crystalline wax.
is being applied and also how it is applied. For example
Emma Schmuecker, a conservator at the Royal Armouries,
carried out tests again using Renaissance Micro-Crystalline
wax. She coated a mild steel coupon with wax applied cold
and then coated a second coupon with the wax applied hot.
After three months in an uncontrolled environment the
difference in efficient protection was startling, indicating
that a hot wax application is far superior to the cold wax
application in providing protection (Figures 11-13).20
In addition to the above it must also be considered that
while a wax coating may offer increased protection, it will
not lubricate moving parts. As we have seen a material
such as Lanolin, which is mixed with oil to prevent it
running out of the mechanism, may fail in light but since
its use is internal and therefore in the dark, it may be still
a suitable choice.
Finally we must be mindful of the other materials with
which the coatings may come into contact. In the above
Figure 13: Mild steel coupon treated with hot Renaissance Micro-crystalline wax.
tests we have seen the unwanted staining that may occur
and although no structural changes were observed to the

12
Acknowledgements
With many thanks to Alison Draper and Emma 8. Williams, M. (1994) Fresh-air climate conditioning at the Arthur M.
Sackler Museum. In: Knell, S. (ed.) Care of Collections. London and
Schmuecker, Royal Armouries, John Henshaw, MoD
New York: Routledge, p.107.
Pattern Room and Jack Truscott, private gunsmith for
their support, generous sharing of knowledge and 9. Horie, C.V. (1987) Materials for Conservation. London: Butterworth
discussions. To Rose Lees, Icon Heritage Lottery (reprinted 1990), p.16.
Intern, for her assistance in preparing samples.
To the museums listed in Table 1 for their sharing 10. Horie, C.V. (1987) Materials for Conservation. London: Butterworth
details of their arms and armour treatments. (reprinted 1990), p.18.

All illustrations are copyright of the Royal Armouries,

11. Kenjo, T. (1988) Scientific Approaches to traditional Lacquer Art. In:
Leeds. Brommelle, N.S. and Smith, P. (eds) Urushi. Proceedings of the
Urushi study group. June 10-27, 1985 Tokyo. Marina del Rey: Getty
Unpublished sources of information Conservation Institute, pp.155-162. ISBN 0-89236-096-8.

• Royal Armouries. Environmental Monitoring Records, Monitor 17, 12. Williamson, C. J. (1999) Identification of plastics. In: Quye, A, and
(Leeds: Royal Armouries, 2006). Williamson, C. (eds.) Plastics. Collecting and Conserving. Edinburgh:
NMS Publishing Limited, p.67.
• Royal Armouries. Concentric Ring Corrosion Report, (Leeds: Royal
Armouries, 1995), p.3. 13. Kitto, S (2004). Plastics in arms and armour in the Royal Armouries
collection. Arms and Armour Journal. vol.1, pt.2, 189-203.
• Schmuecker, E. Historical Iron: Stabilisation and Appearance. Royal
College of Art, Victoria & Albert Museum MA Conservation thesis 2004 14. Green, L.R. and Thickett, D. (1995). Testing Materials for use in the
storage and display of antiquities – A revised methodology, in Studies
References in Conservation 40. London: International Institute for Conservation,
pp.145-152.
1. Williams, S.L. (1997) Preventive conservation: the evolution of a
museum ethic. In: Edson, G. (ed.) Museum Ethics, ed. London: 15. ASTM Standard G85 series (The American Society for Testing
Routledge, p.199. Material). www.astm.org

2. Ward, Philip. (1986) The Nature of Conservation. A Race Against 16. Fenn, J (1995). Secret sabotage; Reassessing museum plastics in
Time. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. p.14. display and storage. In: Resins; Ancient and Modern, pre-prints of
the SSCR’s Resins Conference held in Aberdeen. Edinburgh: Scottish
3. Costain, Charles G. (1994) Framework for preservation of museum Society for Conservation & Restoration, pp. 38-41.
collections. Canadian Conservation Institute newsletter Ottawa: ISBN: 0952-6415-OX
Canadian Conservation Institute
17. Horie, C.V. (1987) Materials for Conservation. London: Butterworth
4. Thomson, G. (1990) The Museum Environment. 2nd ed. London: (reprinted 1990), p.78.
Butterworth-Heinemann, p.68.
18. Royal Armouries. Environmental Monitoring Records, Monitor 17,
5. Museums and Galleries Commission. (1994) Managing Your Museum (Leeds: Royal Armouries, 2006). Unpublished.
Environment. London: Museums and Galleries Commission, p.6.
19. Royal Armouries. Concentric Ring Corrosion Report, (Leeds: Royal
6. Horie, C.V. (1992) Conservation and storage: leather objects. Armouries, 1995), p.3. Unpublished.
In: Thomson, J.M.A. (ed.) Manual of Curatorship: A Guide to Museum
Practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworths, p.342. 20. Schmuecker, E. (2004) Historical Iron: Stabilisation and Appearance.
MA Thesis. Royal College of Arts. London. Unpublished.
7. Museums and Galleries Commission. (1994) Managing Your Museum
Environment. London: Museums and Galleries Commission, p.2.

13
 The internet and firearms research
with reference to the .43 Spanish
Remington Rolling-Block
and its ammunition
by
David A Thombs and Stephen P Barrett

Abstract

T
he paper examines the role of the Internet as a has appeared in book and magazine articles in the
source in firearms research and uses as an example English language has lacked attributable sources and
the .43 Spanish Remington Rolling Block and its the reliability of some of it could not be tested even at
ammunition. The advantages and disadvantages of the the time it appeared.
Internet are illustrated and two contradictory theories
are analysed. The Reformado cartridge development is The observations made nearly sixty years ago and others
traced and a new hypothesis is proposed regarding the made more recently, illustrate the problems of research
conversion of the rifles to the Reformado cartridge. Tips in our chosen field. The main difference today is that
on the effective use of the Internet are given. the amount of poor quality material has significantly
increased. The search for primary sources is a major
Introduction problem. In particular in the case of military weapons
It was noted in the HBSA journal 1 that Edward McShane, much of the data is not available in the public arena and
writing in 1949 stated 2 : often the same unreferenced passage is repeated verbatim
by even the most prestigious of authors. The Internet
… a considerable amount of second-rate material has offers many advantages to the modern researcher but also
been published on problems of ballistics, and even releases a torrent of problems.
the search for the origin of a useful idea would entail To illustrate the opportunities and problems which the
much winnowing. Internet can provide, we have chosen as an example the .43
Spanish Remington Rolling Block rifle.
Stephen Sambrook writing about the Vickers Luger in the
HBSA Journal 3 noted that: Background
The subject of this paper is a .43 Spanish Remington rifle
... the historiography of the topic, is itself highly (Figure 1) which is a well-worn 3rd contract Remington
interesting and worthy of careful study. Much of what manufactured rifle with the RV and crown stamp

Figure 1. The well-worn 3rd contract Remington-manufactured No.1-model Rolling Block rifle (Remington model 71) in .43 Spanish calibre found to have
disappointing accuracy. Replacement cleaning rod and rear sling swivel courtesy of Kenn Womack.

14
for Recomposicion Vascongada described in Layman 4 This gives a Stability Factor, s, of 2.7 which is well over
as substandard and refurbished at the Vascongada the accepted minimum of 2.0 required to ensure a stable
Arsenal. However, Layman i,5 maintains that the latest bullet. However as Miller noted in Part 2 of his work:
information indicates that RV stands for Reglamento
Voluntario, the Cuban Volunteers, during the Spanish ... At transonic and subsonic velocities, things get
American War. A chamber cast confirmed the calibre to much worse because those non-linear aerodynamic
be .43 Spanish (11.15 x 57R Remington Spanish), with a coefficients (mostly the Magnus moment) induce
long gap (leade, throat or freebore) of 0.885” before the dynamic instability. Unfortunately there are very
start of the rifling. Reloaded ammunition duplicating little experimental aerodynamic data of any kind in
the service round as closely as possible resulted in large the transonic region (700-1300 ft/sec) for any bullets,
groups and elongated bullet holes on the target. The especially the round, blunt, or elliptical nose bullets
questions to be answered were: used by black powder shooters. Therefore, calculating
the actual yawing motion is seldom possible.
Why is the rifle exhibiting the external ballistic ... For black powder velocities, the twist rule
characteristics observed? does predict quite well the actual twists used in
19th century guns using the “safe” s=2.0. However,
What can be done to improve the accuracy of the because of the nasty dynamic stability problems in
rifle? the transonic region, which can sometimes be cured
with faster twists (higher stability factors), many black
Was the observed behaviour typical of the military powder shooters now recommend stability factors of
Spanish Rolling block? 2.5-3.0 to estimate their twists. Even higher s values
may be needed.
Discussion
Why is the rifle exhibiting the external The Spanish Remington Rolling Bock was a mid-
ballistic characteristics observed? 19th century design and therefore, since it predated
External ballistics is a very complex science and is Greenhill’s work, the twist rate can only have been based
subject to much ill informed comment and discussion. This on limited experimental studies. It would therefore
is a serious problem when dealing with material obtained seem likely that little can be done to improve the
from the internet, in particular on Discussion Forums. The bullet stability problem.
qualifications and experience of the authors are mostly
not known and only in very few cases are sources cited. What can be done to improve the accuracy
In the case of bullet stability, little experimental work of the rifle?
was performed before 1879, when Sir George Greenhill One characteristic of the rifle remains to be examined - the
published the results of work carried out while he was very long leade from the front of the chamber to the start
Professor of Mathematics at the Royal Military Academy, of the rifling. A long leade is claimed to reduce pressure,
Woolwich 6. Over the years many authors have modified e.g. Weatherby used a long leade on all rifles chambered
Greenhill’s Formula, to little useful effect. In addition the for their proprietary magnum cartridges. However, high
internet has many sites which display a complete lack of pressure is unlikely to be a problem in the case of this rifle.
knowledge of even the basic principles of the subject and The usual reason cited for a long leade on black powder
are based on hearsay, prejudice and guesswork. A notable military rifles is to allow loading of cartridges in a badly
exception is Don Miller’s work on the subject over many fouled rifle.Wide manufacturing tolerances for both the
years, which has resulted in a number of papers updating leade, chamber and the ammunition could also cause
Greenhill’s work and provides a very practical approach to problems. Assuming the leade is larger than the bullet
calculating bullet stability factors. In particular a paper in diameter, this could result in tipping of the bullet before
the HBSA Journal 7 and three papers published in Precision it enters the bore, causing an unbalanced bullet, hence
Shooting provide, in detail, all the information needed to reducing accuracy and increasing bullet instability.
calculate bullet stability and twist rates 8,9,10 . Searching the internet revealed a relevant article on
Applying the Miller equations to the Remington The Society of Remington Revolver Shooters web site 11.
Spanish Rolling-block requires the following data: Dykstra found that seating the bullets to just engrave on
the rifling resulted in good accuracy. The overall length
Calibre - 11.10 mm of the round was 82.5 mm compared with the length of
Bullet Weight - 25.0 grams the standard military round of 74.3 mm. This confirmed
Bullet Length - 28.05 mm observations made with the subject rifle. This practice
Muzzle Velocity - 400 m/sec would not have been practicable for military use.
Rifling Twist - 50.8 cm
Was the observed behaviour typical of
Spanish Rolling Block rifles?
i. George J. Layman is the foremost authority on the military Remington
The Spanish Rolling-block can be found in two calibres,
Rolling-block and has published two books on the subject. In the Preface
firstly the .43 Spanish (11.15 x 57R Remington Spanish)
to his latest book he describes the Rolling-block as “one of my life long
intimate love affairs, with what I feel was the world’s greatest single-shot
and secondly the .43 Spanish Reformado (11.4 X 57R
military rifle”. He has owned 1,200 Rolling-blocks and examined twice Reformado), (Figure 2). The designation of both cartridges
as many more. But he admits that even after 40 years of research, “new is very variable, the Reformado is sometimes referred to
challenges keep popping up”. as 11.5 and both cartridges can be designated as 58mm

15
 that the entire order be chambered in Spain’s own
.43 Reformado caliber, which was a straight-cased
.454-inch diameter cartridge developed by them
specifically for the new Remington rifle. The 11mm or
.43 Reformado most likely was the first metal-jacketed
cartridge as its 396-grain bullet was comprised of
a brass jacket backed by 74 grains of blackpowder,
and it attained a muzzle velocity of 1,280 feet per
second. Remington designers, however, engineered
an improved bottleneck cartridge that utilized a 375-
grain bullet and 78 grains of blackpowder to reach a
Figure 2. Dimensions of the .43 Spanish and Reformado cartridges. muzzle velocity of 1,380fps, but it bullet was pure lead
minus a metal jacket. After some difficult persuasion,
long. The history of the rifle is open to some dispute and the Spanish were sold on Remington’s innovative
two conflicting histories can be found. Barnes 12 states the cartridge and the entire Spanish order was for the new
following: 11.15 x 58R Spanish Remington cartridge. The Spanish
were satisfied, but in order to nationalize their feelings,
The 11.5 X 57Rmm Spanish Reformado ... This the entire previous lot of 10,000 .58 Berdan rolling
was the original centerfire, Berdan primed Spanish block rifles was converted and rechambered to the
military cartridge. It was adopted about 1867 and .43 Reformado cartridge. Spain’s 1869 purchase of the
used in early Rolling-block rifles manufactured by Remington rolling block set a precedence that caused
Remington for the Spanish government. It was also the so-called Spanish Model to be catalogued in its
used in some Berdan and Snider conversions of the own sobriquet in future Remington sales listings and
Spanish muzzleloader. Over a million rounds of advertisements. The No. 1 Remington rolling block
this ammunition and many Rolling-block rifles were rifle in .43 Spanish Remington caliber (11.15x58R)
captured by American troops in Cuba during the accounted for more than one half of all military rolling
Spanish-American war. It was replaced by the 11.15 block sales between 1869 and 1885. The Spanish Model
Spanish Remington cartridge in 1871. Although this was a big hit, especially with those countries in Latin
cartridge is listed as .43 calibre, the bullet has a base America whose cultural relationship with Spain was
band that is actually 0.454 inch in diameter. The bullet at times close, due to their linguistic similarities, thus
is brass covered and has a 10 degree bevelled base. In the following Hispanic nations also made purchases of
the tropical climate of Cuba, the brass covered bullets the Spanish model.
often turned green with verdigris and were thought
to be “poisoned” bullets by American troops.. Rim 1871-1873 - Colombia - 6,800
and base diameter and case length are almost identical 1871-1874 - Chile - 12,000
to the 11.15 Spanish Remington and cases could be 1871-1874 - Cuba - 10,000
made by expanding and trimming 11.15 cases. 1871-1874 - Puerto Rico - 5,000
1872 - Dominican Republic - 5,000
The Springfield Armoury Museum has two Spanish 1879 - Argentina - 75,000
Rolling-blocks in its collection. One is probably identified Unknown - Venezuela - Unknown
incorrectly as chambered in 11mm Mauser calibre 13. Unknown - Brazil
Springfield incorrectly attributes the following to Layman:
This version of events is repeated verbatim, on many
In 1866, Spain purchased 10,000 rolling block rifles Internet sites.
which were merely an overrun of .58 Berdan chambered To paraphrase Layman 14, the second version of events
conversions of Civil War vintage .58 muzzleloaders is as follows:
utilizing the Remington rolling block action once
intended for U.S. military assessment. With the order Spain began a search for a new breech-loader in
of these test pieces at hand, Spanish military ordnance 1867-68. First delivery of 10,000 Remington Rolling-
officials subjected the guns to a most rigorous and blocks in .43 Spanish was made to the Spanish Army
abusive series of climatic tests (e.g., leaving the guns in in Cuba in 1869. A further set of trials in 1869 and
saltwater for extended period and extreme humidity the Remington was again selected and a contract for
testing). As Spain still retained possessions in such 50,000 rifles placed in 1871. Further contracts were
near-tropical climates as Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the placed, making in total 90,000 rifles. In addition
Philippines, appraising the rolling block’s ability to to the central government, cities and departments
stand up to their rigorous climates was paramount throughout Spain placed contracts for rifles, possibly
prior to official acceptance of this new firearm. After giving a grand total supplied by Remington of 125,000
attaining highly satisfactory results in its overall rifles. Domestic production of the rolling-block began
rating, the Spanish decided to push for the rolling in 1869 or 1870 at the National Armoury at Oviedo
block’s official adoption. In 1869, the first large order and total production was 350,000 rifles. The rifle
was placed for 85,000 rifles and 10,000 carbines. was known as the Remington Model 71. Spain was
For some months prior to the actual production not satisfied with the performance of the .43 Spanish
haggling took place with the Spanish who demanded cartridge and in the 1880s Lieutenant Colonel Luis

16
 Freire ii y Gongora and Captain Jose Brull y Seoane The Freire - Brull notebooks - These are the actual
redesigned the cartridge from bottle-necked to straight notebooks kept by Spanish Officers, Lt. Col. Freire and
case, with a larger diameter bullet, from 11.15 to 11.32- Capt. Brull on the development of the .43 Reformado
11.46. The new cartridge was approved in April cartridge. Thirty years ago they were in the possession
1889. The only change made to the rifle was to ream of a collector in New England who allowed the author
the chamber to accept the new cartridge. The rifle to read them and take notes from them. Unfortunately
was known as the Remington M71/89. All existing their present whereabouts are unknown.
rolling-block rifles were rechambered to the new
cartridges. This included American made rifles from Freire and Brull published a “Ballistic Study” paper in
the 1868-73 contracts. Spanish manufactured rifles 1885 18 which made a number of important observations.
have a letter R stamped over the chamber. American Infantry tactics during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78,
made rifles have FB stamped over the chamber. demonstrated a requirement for longer range, improved
The rolling-block was replaced by the 7mm Spanish accuracy and better penetration. Development in other
Mauser in 1893. The obsolete rolling-blocks were nations rifles were examined and the best rifle in service
relegated to militia forces or use by friendly tribes. at the time was judged to be the Martini-Henry but
the ammunition was found to be too heavy and the
Bastida 15, writing in Spanish, in “The catalogue of the Arms recoil excessive. They also noted the move in Britain to
Collection of the Californians Grenadiers”, confirmed most reduce the calibre of the Martin-Henry to .40. In 1883
of Layman but also provides further information. The Professor Freidrich Hebler gave a series of lectures at
first 10,000 rifles were converted .58 calibre Springfield the Toledo Shooting School and did comparative test of
muzzleloaders, confirmed in private communication the M1871 rifle and a Vetterli rifle fitted with a barrel of
between Bastida and Jack Heath of the Remington his own design. The results were decisively in favour of
Museum. They were referred to in the 1877 Remington the Vetterli. Taking results from ballistic studies such
catalogue as the Springfield Model and chambered in as Bashforth and Whitworth in England and Siacci in
14mm Berdan. Even before the final adoption of the Italy relating to artillery, they adapted the theory, with
model, and because of the urgent need for rifles for the difficulty, to small arms and defined the ideal rifle /
Army Overseas, Spain placed new orders, this time in .43 cartridge combination as 10mm iii. Freire and Brull looked
Remington. Although the figures differ somewhat from at the M1871 Rolling-block rifle and found major problems
one author to another, the U.S. firm exporting 95,000 in range, accuracy and penetration, mainly because of
units in 1869, 10,000 more between 1871 and 1874 that are deformation of the lead bullet in the long leade. Because
billed directly to Puerto Rico , and an equal number in of financial constraints, Spain could not afford to develop
the same period, which are billed directly to Cuba. He a new 10mm rifle and they proposed rechambering the
also noted that when the Model 1871/89 was introduced, M1871 to a new cartridge. This required the chamber
in addition to reaming the chamber of the M871 to accept to be reamed, removing the bottleneck portion of the
the Reformado cartridge, a front and rear volley sight was .43 Spanish chamber, the breech end of the barrel to be
added to extend the range to 1200 metres. shortened by 15mm, and the chamber shortened to 49mm.
Clearly the two versions are very different, but which, 29 and 27.5 gram bullets were shown with a brass jacket,
if either, is correct? Searching the internet unsurprisingly an 11mm bore sized cylindrical portion, and a 11.4mm
revealed very little useful information, except on a site diameter 6mm long driving band at the rear of the bullet,
dealing with the 1898 Spanish American War in Porto which engaged the start of the rifling. This followed
Rico 16. The site contained new information on the M1871 best artillery shell designs of the day. The bullet also
and M1871/89 rifles. The author invited readers to contact had a small boat-tail and a shallow hollow base. The
him for further information on items of interest. The author modifications are shown in Figure 3 which also shows a
was contacted and replied rapidly with further details of proposal for a butt magazine. The paper also provided
the two rifles, including references to primary source detailed costing for the conversion.
Real Ordens (Royal Order) dealing with the acceptance In 1888 19 they published a paper showing a comparison
of the Reformado cartridge in 1889. Clearly the Layman/ between the M1871 and the proposed Reformado rifle.
Bastida version is correct and the Reformado cartridge The comparison covered the following aspects:
was introduced because of the poor performance of the
.43 Spanish. The information supplied also quoted from Muzzle velocity.
the specification adopted by the Oviedo factory in 1882. Accuracy at 50, 200, 400, 1000 and 1200 metres.
The calibre of the rifle was quoted as 11.0 +/- 0.1mm which Penetration at 50 metres and other ranges if possible.
would seem to be a very large tolerance. The primary Recoil.
source for this data could not be located and the tolerance Bore fouling.
specification could not be validated. Bore wear.
Angles of elevation.
Development of the Reformado cartridge. Maximum ordinates of trajectory.
Clearly the research carried out by Lieutenant Colonel Determination of danger zones.
Luis Freire y Gongora and Captain Jose Brull y Seoane is
of major importance. Layman 17 states that:
iii. This was just around the time that smokeless propellants came into use
in the Lebel in 1886, which changed the ballistic models completely and
ii. In the literature the name is found with two spellings, Freire and Freyre. resulted shortly after in the adoption by Spain of the 7mm Mauser.

17
Figure 3. Original diagramme of proposed modification of .43 Spanish rifle to Reformado.

They went to considerable trouble to test the cartridge noted that the problem with the .43 Spanish rifles was the
and reduce the number of variables, such as weighing “small dead space” i.e. freebore in front of the projectile,
the blackpowder on a laboratory balance for each round resulting in a shock when the bullet hit the rifling,
and using a machine rest. The results showed the reducing velocity and range. The jacketed bullet and
Reformado, especially with the 29 gram bullet, to be vastly redesigned case were claimed to reduce this problem and
superior to the .43 Spanish For example, with regard to to give better external ballistic characteristics, increased
accuracy, comparison targets shown at Figure 4 illustrate velocity and range. (This resulted in the addition of the
the startling difference in group sizes at all ranges. Thirty 1200 metre volley sight to the M1871/89). It is interesting
shots were fired on each target and the Reformado is the to note that the bullet mentioned in this paper is 25 gram,
lower target in each case. Freire and Brull noted the lack which was not tested in the trials but was the weight
of accuracy of the M1871 rifle at all ranges, exemplified by adopted by the Real Ordens below. He also goes on to
the results at 50 metres where only 22 out of 30 shots hit discuss the humanitarian aspects of the new jacketed
the 0.7 by 0.5 metre target. It is not clear from this paper bullet compared with the previous lead bullet.
whether the 49mm case and short chamber or the 57mm Iriarte 21 noted that dimensions of the Reformado
case found in production cartridges was used. cartridge which were published by a Circular of the
Some secondary sources are available, in particular General Directorate of Artillery July 5, 1889 were incorrect.
Arjona 20 writing in the Military Health Journal in 1891, The bullet diameter was specified as 11.04 to 11.05 mm

Figure 4. Extract from Freire and Brull’s report on comparison of the accuracy of the .43 Spanish and Reformado cartridges.

18
and the length as 28.05 to 29.00 mm. This was corrected Final acceptance came with the Royal Order of April 13,
on January 15, 1890 by another circular issued by the 1889 24:
General Inspectorate of Artillery, correcting the errors
and specifying a bullet diameter of 11.40 to 11.50 mm and Dear Sirs.: In view of the expedient instruction by
length of 28.50 to 29.00 mm. It is not known whether these the General Directorate of Artillery, in relation to
errors were “typos” or genuine engineering errors. the change of the regulation rifle model 1871, and its
Bastida 22 describes two Oviedo rifles, believed to new cartridge with brass jacketed bullet, proposed
have been used in the Freire - Brull experiments, the by the officials of Artillery Lieutenant Colonel Don
first with “maximum chamber” engraved on the barrel, Luis Friere and Gongorrra and commandant captain
the second with “minimum chamber”. Interestingly the Don Jose Brull and Seoane, both at the Military
one marked “maximum chamber”, shows signs of high Explosives Factory in Seville bearing in mind the
pressure but will not chamber the Reformado cartridge. exhaustive and detailed tests carried out over a long
The formal order for the Reformado cartridge period of experimentation, have proven the worth of
conversion can be found in the Real Ordens of 1889 iv. It was the modification and cartridge through tests of large
accepted in principle by Royal Order of February 12, 1889 23: and small scale as many for the bodies of commissions
and technical faculties of many different bodies of
Dear Sir: In view of the instruction given by the armed forces; considering the small cost of the
that commission about the modification to the modification, which can be applied to all existing arms,
regulation arm, Remington 1871 proposed by the as well as parts of the existing cartridge, resulting in
Lieutenant Colonel of Artillery Don Luis Friere and an infantry rifle that is competitive with rifles of the
commandant, captain Don Jose Brull; Considering same calibre and system of other armies, as a result
that we accept in principle the modification while of the thorough study that its importance demanded
limiting the weight of the bullet to 25 grams and whereupon it must be equipped to the army, and in
the powder charge to 5, means that this can only be the name of the King (God save him) and in his name
carried out on rifles fabricated after the year 1876 the Queen regent of the realm, in accordance with the
for the use of those in the armed forces, without information of the Combined Commission of Small
prejudicing the continuation of studies into the Arms and the recommendation of the Director General
adoption of this new weapon, the King (God save of Artillery have fully approved the modification
him) and in his name, the Queen regent of the realm, so proposed by Lieutenant Colonel Don Luis Friere
the accordance with that which the commission has and Gongorrra and commandant captain Don Jose
told us and that which was proposed by the Director Brull and Seoane to the regulation rifle Model 1871,
General of Artillery have resolved to do the following: declaring regulation the rifles so transformed, the
cartridge with the twenty-five gram brass jacketed
1. That Lieutenant Colonel Friere and Captain Brull bullet, charged with four and three quarter grams of
are invited to present, in as short a time as powder and a lubricating wad.
possible, a new cartridge as previously described. It is also the will of His Majesty that the
opportune orders of the Directorate of Artillery for the
2. That 1000 cartridges are made, of which 100 shall modification of the arms and ammunition be carried
have a felt wad, another 100 of card wads, both out, and also the manufacture of sights in accordance
in the highest position possible and of one piece with the data provided by the Mixed Commission
construction, and the remaining 800 with lubricant. proceed to the change the arms in those terms and as
laid down by the Royal Decree of the 6th of march 1885
3. That for the purposes of the Chief and (C. L. núm. 101) concerning the provision of arms and
Captain six new regulations rifles for the new munitions of the new system.
cartridge are made by the Military Explosives By Royal decree we inform you all for your
Factory, as well as two loose barrels able to knowledge and action. God save you all for many
measure pressure with the crusher apparatus. years

4. That the rifles and cartridges are placed Madrid 13th April 1889.
at the disposal of the commission for trials,
and will also graduate the sights whose It is interesting to note that the powder charge was
form and dimensions will be so determined. reduced from 5.0 to 4.75 grams between February and
April, coinciding with the pressure testing which occurred
By Royal Decree we inform you all for your knowledge between February and April 1889.
and action. God save you all for many years Since a Royal Order could not be found for the
conversion of Remington manufactured rifles, and
Madrid 12th February 1889 since all US manufactured rifles were made before
1876, it must therefore be tentatively concluded that
iv. The Spanish Ministry of Defence has a splendid web site (Biblioteca the American contract, Remington manufactured rifles
Virtual De Defensa) which provides the user with a digital collection of
were not officially converted to the Reformado cartridge
material kept in their archives, libraries and museums . This collection and Oviedo rifles manufactured before 1876 were also
consists of a diverse document types such as manuscripts, prints, not converted. This is not to say that rifles were
engravings, videotapes, photographs, etc. not rechambered to other calibres on a non-official

19
basis, some of which may have been for the Reformado The 1903 supplement to the 1902 catalogue shows 7,800
cartridge, especially in Cuba. rifles still for sale, not refinished at $3.00 each and
1,000,000 cartridges for sale. Also listed are an unspecified
Observed numbers of .43 Spanish and number of Spanish made rifles, rusted trophy guns
Reformado rifles $2.50 each... “We can also furnish the captured Spanish
Layman maintains that all existing rolling-blocks were ball cartridges for these guns at $1.50 per hundred”.
converted, including the American contract rifles, to the The 1927 catalogue listed two types of rifle:
Reformado cartridge. However, observations indicate
firstly that very few Reformado rifles are ever seen and 4,000 captured Spanish Remington Breech Loading
secondly that American contract rifles for sale or in rifles in .43 calibre centre fire, with bayonets, sold
collections far outnumber the Oviedo produced rifles, even to us by the US Government as “Captured Spanish
though four times as many rifles were made at Oviedo. Arms”. Sold As is - Poor, Price $1.95 eachvii.
After the defeat of the Spanish in the Spanish
American War of 1898, the US Government shipped back 1,000 Spanish Remington Breech Loading rifles .43
to the USA massive quantities of captured War Materiel, calibre made in Europe for use with the brass covered
90% of which was acquired by Francis Bannermanv at lead ball, styled as the Spanish Reformado cartridge,
public auction 26,27. This included 20 million rounds Relics only, Price $1.95 each.
of 7mm Mauser ammunition and tens of thousands of
Spanish Mauser rifles. He also acquired Spanish Rolling- In five places ammunition is listed:
blocks and ammunition. The Bannerman Catalogues of
Military Goods are a gold mine of datavi and have much Total of 3 million rounds of captured Spanish lead ball
relevant information regarding the Spanish Rolling-block. cartridges intended for use in the Remington rifles. In
(However, like all catalogues the information must be good serviceable order. Price depending on condition
treated with caution and verified from other sources). from $1.45 to $1.75 per hundred.
The 1902 catalogue lists:
Total of 1.5 million rounds Spanish Remington brass
10,000 captured Spanish Remington Breech Loading covered lead ball cartridges made for use in European
rifles in .43 calibre centre fire purchased at New made Spanish Remington rifles classified by the
York Arsenal Sale Sept 21 1900 ... captured from the Spanish as Reformado cartridges, the brass covered
Spanish Army at Santiago, Cuba, July 1898... It shoots bullet giving longer range. Price depending on
what is called a “bottle-neck” cartridge with a .43 condition from $1.75 to $2.20 per hundred.
calibre bullet... Our price for the rifle, refinished, like
new, is $3.95. One interesting snippet can be found on page 248 of the
1927 catalogue in the uniforms section:
2 million captured Spanish .43 calibre lead ball
cartridges. Intended for use in the Remington rifles. We shipped from Havana to our European Agent over
Price $18.00 per thousand. 5 million rounds of ammunition and over 11,000 rifles
in December 1898.
Over 2 million captured Spanish brass covered ball
cartridges.. only small number reserved, destroying Bannerman’s Agents in Europe included Adolf Frank
the balance for the value of lead and brass Valuable of Germany and Jules Pire of Belgium 28. The Adolf
relics. Price $18.00 per thousand. Frank Export Catalogue (ALFA catalogue)29 of 1911 lists
2,000 American Original rifles, Cal 11/43mm Spanish.
Interestingly, it also lists 800 Spanish Remington carbines,
v. Francis Bannerman (1851-1918 was born in Scotland and built up
made from the rifles, which may raise some doubts about
a massive arms business, mainly by buying surplus war materiel. In
the authenticity of some US manufactured .43 Spanish
1900, because of storage problem in New York City for his massive
ammunition holding be bought Pollepel Island 50 miles upstream from
carbines. The 1899 Pire catalogue 30 also lists the Spanish
New York on the Hudson River and built Bannerman’s Castle, a mock Remington in .43 Spanish but also offers for sale the rifle
Scottish Castle and store. By the 1950s the company was in decline and converted to 11mm Beaumont.
Bannerman hired Val Forgett, founder of Service Armament and Navy It is therefore clear that the captured rifles were
Arms to deactivate the live artillery ammunition, some of which dated either US manufactured rifles in .43 Spanish or Spanish
back to the Civil War. Bill Edwards, editor of Guns Magazine wrote in the
manufactured rifles converted to the .43 Reformado
January 1959 issue about the visit he made with Forgett and finding one
cartridge. Examples of US manufactured rifles converted
inch gatling gun ammunition in their original boxes, so corroded they
disintegrated on picking them up and a dozen gatling guns smashed to the .43 Reformado cartridge are very elusive. Mike
beyond repair for the brass their actions would yield. Carrick 31 has one example, described by him below:

vi. The 1927 catalogue also lists WW1 items and illustrates very well how
Spanish military rolling block rifle made by Remington
times have changed. On the same page are listed a captured German Arms. cal. 11.4 x 57R Reformado. Three barrel bands
Machine gun - Spandau model, price $100 and US Army trench knives,
held with springs in stock, barrel is 35.1. 2-line
Price $5.00 each.. The trench knives have the following restriction in
upper case bold -
“PLEASE NOTE THAT RESTRICTIONS REGARDING DANGEROUS
WEAPONS APPLIES TO THE SALE OF THESE TRENCH KNIVES. WE MUST vii. For comparison, on the same page, are listed new.50 calibre US
HAVE PERMIT FROM YOUR CHIEF OF POLICE WITH YOUR ORDER”. Government Rolling-block rifles at $9.50 each.

20
 Remington address on tang, the oldest style marking, Despite far more rifles being produced in Spain
prior to 1872. Peep hole in rear sight. Extractor screw than in the USA, many more US produced rifles are seen
in receiver. The rear swivel has patent marks and than Spanish. Layman 35 notes that some may still be in
date Feb 11th 1868. Interesting proof mark (squiggle) storage in Cuba. The authors are unable to comment on
on left side of barrel near receiver. Top of the barrel this point.
is stamped: 520 US. Left side of receiver is marked
102 over 13. Right side or buttstock is stamped 1550 Observations on the use of the Internet
or 1530 Left side of buttstock is stamped: 100109 The authors will not comment on broader methodological
within a box, and 10002. This gun was sold to me as research issues but merely on the use of the internet.
a captured gun from Cuba in the Spanish-American The internet is a very valuable resource for firearms
War. It was also confirmed that the barrel over the research but the volume of worthless information is
chamber was not stamped “R” or “FB”. enormous and the same care must be taken as with any
non-archival, non-refereed source. Poor information
A chamber cast was also kindly provided which shows a can be difficult to filter out in some cases. In all
very loose Reformado chamber, approximately 0.25mm cases the credibility of the author must be considered,
larger in diameter than the Reformado cartridge. level of expertise ascertained and the target audience
Discussion forums on the Internet often show people established. In addition references, if given, can be
claiming to own a US manufactured Reformado checked and bias in the material established. Any
chambered rifle, but very few have taken a chamber cast. organisation affiliation claimed can also be checked.
The usual method recommended to determine the calibre The date of the information is often important and if old
is to try a dummy Reformado cartridge in the rifle. If it may have been superseded by later information.
won’t enter the chamber fully, then it’s .43 Spanish, if it A key way of confirming that the information
enters fully then it’s .43 Reformado. However, this can is accurate, up to date, reliable and appropriate is to
be very misleading since as mentioned earlier, chambers triangulate – that is, to check the information with
of the period were often oversize and can now be very recognised academic sources, such as research journals.
worn. It must also be noted that the conversion to the .43 However, it must be remembered that some information
Reformado involved reaming out the chamber by a very on the internet has all the signs of being academically
small amount at the neck of the cartridge. respectable, but is in fact misleading, inaccurate or an
C a lvo 32 shows a “A l z a del Fu si l outright hoax.
Remington norteamericano reformada”. H. J. Google Scholar can be used to ensure that the material
Meruelo 33 , Juan Calvo’s friend and translator comes from an academic source but it is wise to use
st ates in a pr ivate com mu n icat ion t hat: several search engines to get maximum coverage. Also
the advanced search facility on most search engines allows
... regarding Spanish Remington Rolling block rifle much more refined queries than the standard search. The
sights as illustrated in the 3rd volume of his 1977 ability to contact the author via a web site and ask for
publication on Plate 15, where he compares the further information can provide useful information.
standard Remington sight on Spanish contract 1871 Access to major libraries is facilitated by the Internet.
rifles with the one he called “reformado”; the Most librarians are keen to help and often speak English.
“Alza del fusil Remington Norteamericano” (North In the case of this paper, The British Library, Spanish
American Remington rifle’s rear sight) and what Parliament Library, Spanish National Library and the
he called the “Alza reformada del fusil Remington Spanish Ministry of Defence Library all provided very
Norteamericano” (North American Remington useful information.
rifle’s reformed rear sight), were taken from two Automatic translation can prove useful but in many
different specimens of American made rolling blocks cases the style of language used proves to be a major
when he noticed the two different types of rear problem. In the case of this paper archaic technical
sight, one bearing the original sight, and the other Spanish was a problem for all of the translation engines.
one exhibiting some characteristics of the original However, trying to find someone able to translate these
American sight and also some of the Spanish made types of document can also be a problem.
M1871 sights, and this second one he concluded to
be a hybrid modification or “reforma” made in Spain Conclusions
utilizing American and Spanish parts. This study reaches the following conclusions concerning
He does not recall if he made the observation the .43 Spanish and Reformado rifles, and the use of the
in a rebuilt or in a completely original rifle, and, was Internet in researching historic firearms.
never able to document the date of this “reforma”. The M71 Spanish Rolling-block suffered from very
The above discussed rear sight modification was poor accuracy, which was the direct cause of the creation
not related to the change in cartridge to the 71/89 of the M71/89 Reformado rifle, with much improved
Freire-Brull modified case and load but simply part accuracy.
of a refurbishing process. It is tentatively suggested that American contract,
Remington manufactured rifles were not officially
The other major source of rolling-blocks was Sam converted to the Reformado cartridge and Oviedo rifles
Cummings of Interarms, who acquired over 100,000 manufactured before 1876 were also not converted. In the
Rolling blocks in the 1950s from arsenals in Europe and main, only rifles of Spanish origin are chambered for the
South America 34. Reformado cartridge.

21
 The chambers of .43 Spanish and Reformado rifles References
now encountered may show individual variation, and so 1. D. A. Thombs, External ballistics – A historical viewpoint, Part 1,
the use of a dummy Reformado cartridge to determine 1500-1914, HBSA Journal, 47-56, 2007.
chamber type may not be foolproof.
With respect to the starting point of the study, namely 2. E. J. McShane, J. L. Kelley, and F. V. Reno, Exterior Ballistics,
University of Denver Press, 1953.
the poor accuracy of an individual rifle, it is evident
that the loading obsolete cartridges, in particular for old 3. S. C. Sambrook, The Vickers Luger Pistol, HBSA Journal. 47-62, 2009.
military rifles can be difficult. Various factors contribute
to this. Reliance is made on specifications published in 4. G. Layman, The All New Collector’s guide to Remington Rolling Block
modern manuals which are not themselves immediately Military Rifles of the World, Andrew Mowbray, 2010.
taken from original data and leave the reloader uncertain
5. Private communication Layman / Barrett.
he is imitating the original cartridge. As exemplified by the
.43 Spanish cartridge, it may also be that the original was
6. A. G. Greenhill, On the Rotation Required for the Stability of an
in any case suboptimal, and would require modification Elongated Projectile, Minutes Proc. Royal Artillery Inst., X (#7),
to achieve acceptable accuracy – as the Spanish themselves 577–593, 1879.
concluded 125 years ago.
The internet can be a useful research tool if the same 7. D. G. Miller, Rifling Twists of Nineteenth Century Military
skill sets are applied to it as any other research source. Breechloaders as Estimated by a New Improved Twist Rule,
HBSA Journal, 39-46, 2007
The researcher must distinguish bona fide research and
original data from opinion and commentary, whilst 8. D. G. Miller, The New Twist Rule, Part 1:Tests Against Experimental
recognizing that although the latter can be misleading, it Data, Precision Shooting, 73-78, February 2008.
can sometimes point to useful avenues of investigation.
9. D. G. Miller, The New Twist Rule, Part 2: Examples, Questions and
Opportunities for further research and open Other Estimation Methods, Precision Shooting, 81-86, March 2008.
questions
10. D. G. Miller, The New Twist Rule, Part 3: The Basis for a Generalized
The missing Freire - Brull notebooks may provide a major
Greenhill’s Rule, Precision Shooting, 70-72, April 2008.
research source on the development of the Reformado
cartridge and clarify why the Reformado cartridge 11. C. A. Dykstra, Trials with a Spanish Rolling Block,
length increased from 49mm to 57mm. The reason for http://www.scorrs.org/articles/spanish43.htm.
the disparity in observed numbers between US and
Spanish produced rifles and between .43 Spanish and 12. F. C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 12th Edition,
Gun Digest Books, 2009.
Reformado chambered rifles is unclear and information
on Cuban rifle depositories may throw some light on the
13. http://ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.exe?IDCFile=/spring/
question. Data exist about the accuracy of contemporary DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=14539,DATABASE=objects.
military rifles from modern and historical testing
but little has been done to correlate these data in a 14. Ibid.
systematic manner.
The authors would be pleased to hear from anyone with 15. M. A. P. Bastida, Catálogo razonado de la colección de armas de los
Granaderos californios, December 2006,
further information. (e-mail [email protected]).
http://www.tertulialavara.es/catalogogranaderos.pdf.

Acknowledgements 16. http://home.coqui.net/sarrasin/maus.htm#anchor516725.

Mike Carrick for invaluable information, chamber casts
and never failing help. 17. Ibid.

Chris Reid for major efforts translating archaic technical

18. L. Freire & J. Brull, Estudio Balistico sobre el Armamento de Infanteria,
Spanish. Memorial de Artilleria, Serie 3, Tomo 12, 161-214, Madrid, 1885.
Carlos Garcia-Minguillan, British Library
19. L. Freire & J. Brull, Experiencias con Fusil Md 1871 Reforma, Memorial
Biblioteca del Congreso de los Diputados
de Artilleria, Serie 3, Tomo 17, 254-285 Madrid, 1888.
La Biblioteca National De Espana
20. M. R. Arjona, Nota Balistico- Medica sobre El Fusil Remington
Luis Iriarte
Reformado Freire-Brull Model 1871-89, Revista De Sanidad Militar,
Jonathan Ferguson and Adam Hyman, Royal Armouries, Madrid, August 1891.
Leeds
21. Private communication, Iriarte / Thombs.
Richard Hughes
Heather Dawson, London School of Economics Library 22. Ibid.
El Ministerio de Defensa De Espana
23. Diario Official del Ministeio de la Guerra, 14 February 1889.

Figure 2 ECRA/ECDV, Francis Latoir, Jean Renard, Jordi 24. Diario Official del Ministeio de la Guerra, 17 April 1889..
Camerón Vinaixa.
25. Ibid.
Figure 3 El Ministerio de Defensa De Espana.
Figure 4 El Ministerio de Defensa De Espana. 26. Bannerman Catalogue of Military Goods - 1902, Cornell Publications,

22
27. Bannerman Catalogue of Military Goods - 1927, DBI Books Inc, 1980, Don had an early interest in rifle shooting and
ballistics. In one of his seminal papers on twist rules
28. Private communication, Carrick / Thombs,
in Precision Shooting Magazine of February 2008, he
described how his interest developed:
29. Ibid,

30. Ibid, “Once upon a time, even though we were starving

students, my bride of two years let me buy an 1867
31. Ibid. Danish Rolling Block. Although advertised as a .45-70,
it was actually the Danish 11.7 mm (.462 caliber) with a
32. J L Calvo, Armamento reglamentario y auxiliar del ejército español:
twist of one turn in 29 inches. The .45-70 Government’s
Modelos portatiles de retracarga : 1855-1922, Volume 3, Barcelona,
1977.
faster 22 inch twist stabilizes its 500 grain (gr.) bullet.
Would this 500 gr. bullet be stable in the 11.7 mm? If
33. Private communication, Meruelo/ Thombs. not, what shorter and lighter bullet would be stable in
its 29 inch twist? A simple rule for estimating rifling
34. W. B. Edwards, America’s Biggest Arms Merchant, twist or stability factor can answer.”
Guns Magazine, June 1956.

Soon after moving to Livermore Don became interested

35. Ibid.
in local politics and was appointed to the Livermore City
Planning Commission in 1964. He was elected to the City
In Memoriam Council in 1968 and 1972 where he served for eight years,
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr Donald including one of the terms as Mayor.
Gabriel Miller, 29 October 1927 - 3 February 2012 Don was a gifted amateur musician who played the
In early 2007 I was placed in contact with Don piano and harpsichord, and composed ragtime music. He
Miller by Clifford Bryant, the former editor of the was a founding member of Del Valle Fine Arts, serving
HBSA Journal. Don had contributed a paper on rifling on its board and as its representative to the Cultural Arts
twists of nineteenth-century military breechloaders to Council for almost 50 years. He was an active fund-
the same issue of the HBSA Journal as my paper on the raiser and supporter of the efforts to build the Bankhead
history of Internal Ballistics. We both recognised each Theatre. He was an active member of Congregation Beth
other as kindred spirits, with similar backgrounds, and Emek, where he and his wife Miriam were among the
this resulted in a series of emails which I found both original members.
informative and which sparked a large number of new Don is survived by his wife of 62 years, Miriam
ideas. Don kindly agreed to provide very constructive Cohen Miller, two daughters, Nancy and Lynne and two
critical reviews of my two papers on external ballistics grandchildren, Elena and Lucio Franco, all of them living
and even agreed to draft a section covering one aspect of in the Washington, DC area.
external ballistics I had managed to miss entirely. Don had planned a number of papers which would
Dr. Donald Gabriel Miller died of cancer at the age of have been of enormous interest to those interested in
84 on February 3, 2012 at Livermore, California. Don was the history of ballistics. In an email to me, he stated the
born and raised in Oakland, CA, the son of Nathan Harry following:
Miller, the chief deputy District Attorney to Earl Warren
in Alameda County, and Edith Levy Miller Balaban. He “I have collected technical biography material for some
graduated with a B.S. in Chemistry from U.C. Berkeley time, starting 20 years ago. I wrote up some of this
in 1949, and received his Ph.D. from the University of stuff about Siacci, Bashforth, Mayevski, and Didion on
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in 1952 with a thesis on the a page or less, but it is in Livermore as handwritten
statistical thermodynamics of rubber. He then secured pages. The idea was to do a series of articles, similar
a post-doctoral fellowship at the Brookhaven National to my one on Greenhill, which would include Siacci,
Laboratory in New York. Don returned to California to Bashforth, Mayevski, Charbonnier, etc.
work as a research chemist for the rest of his career of over Perhaps you and I could collaborate on an article
50 years at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. on Bashforth? What do you think? I already have part
He also spent time at universities and laboratories in of the material, and you have easier access to the rest.
France‚ Italy‚ Germany‚ Australia‚ and Spain‚ Wisconsin We come to DC to see our children and grandchildren
and Texas. In 1960-61‚ he was awarded a prestigious 3 or 4 times a year. I suppose I could come to Cambridge
Fulbright Teaching Fellowship at the Universite de Lille after one of these DC visits and work on?”
and the Faculties Catholique in Lille‚ France. Don was
the author of 174 published papers covering physical Clifford Bryant had agreed to publish the first of the
chemistry, ballistics and the history of science. papers on Francesco Siacci but sadly it was not be.
DT

23
 A “Poli-Chambered Gun” and
James Thomson’s Patent of 1814
by Graeme J. Rimer

by Derek Stimpson

Introduction

I
n the early 1800’s, and indeed even long before that,
the need for a multi shot, or repeating firearm was
evident. The move to breechloader was highlighted
by this need. As is often the case in human affairs the
primary reason was for military purposes, but sporting
multi shots would also be well received. Above all they
would make money for their inventors.
Various systems were looked at and tried and there
is one very rare, indeed unique, example, the Thomson
Rifle, owned by The Worshipful Company of Gunmakers
and kept on display in the Proof House. James Thomson,
a merchant of Colebrook Terrace, Islington, patented his
design and this may be one of the few examples that
exist of a Patentees original trial firearm.
The article by Graeme Rimer was first published
in 1990 in the Journal of the Arms & Armour Society
and we thank Graeme Rimer and the Arms & Armour
Society for their kind permission to re-publish.
The Gunmakers Company has has recently published
a note in its newsletter “Lock Stock & Barrel“ about this
rare piece and republication now of the complete article is
also to complement that.
Graeme Rimer joined the curatorial staff of the Royal
Armouries as a Museum Assistant at the Tower of London
in 1975. He remained with the museum for the rest of his
career, occupying gradually more senior curatorial posts,
including Keeper of Firearms, Head of Collections, and
finally Academic Director. He left the Royal Armouries in A “POLI-CHAMBERED GUN” AND JAMES
February 2012. He is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries
THOMSON’S PATENT OF 1814
of London, a Freeman of the Worshipful Company of
by Graeme J. Rimer
Gunmakers of London, and a member of the Arms &

I
Armour Society and the Society of Archer-Antiquaries. n December 1987 the author was part of a small group
In 2008, in recognition of his contribution to the study of from the Royal Armouries which visited the Proof
arms and armour he was appointed a Visiting Professor House of the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers
to the University of Huddersfield, and is now a member in Commercial Road, London. Having been given an
of that university’s Arms & Armour Research Institute. excellent tour of the operations of the Proof House by the
He remains associated with the Royal Armouries as a Proof Master we were invited into the Company’s Court
Curator Emeritus. He is now developing his clientele as a Room, where over tea we were shown a most interesting
Consultant on Arms and Armour. He can be contacted on multi-chambered repeating flintlock rifle, about which,
[email protected]. Some of the photographs apparently, little was known (see Figure 1).
have been updated, where possible, for clarity. The rifle was chiefly remarkable because of its very
Derek Stimpson Chairman HBSA unusual breech mechanism, and the construction of its lock

24
1. The repeating flintlock rifle in the Proof House.

(see Figure 2), but it was also puzzling because although section iron block slightly greater than one third of the
it was of good quality and had areas of well-executed circumference of a circle. It pivots about a hole in the end
engraved decoration it had no single identifying feature; it of a tongue projecting from its back face, and in its front
had no signature on its lock or barrel, and no proofmarks. face are nine chambers, arranged radially, whose mouths
It was evidently of English manufacture and the shape of project as short cylinders cut with a rapid-pitch ten-start
various components, as well as the nature of the panels of male thread. On the left side is a series of small circular
engraved decoration, suggested a date somewhere in the blind holes to enable a spring catch to hold each chamber
second decade of the nineteenth century. in line with the barrel; and on the right side is, firstly,
an inlaid platinum band pierced with nine touch-holes,
and secondly a series of nine ratchet notches to allow
this breech piece to be moved by a lever the distance of
one chamber at a time. Careful X-ray examination of the
breech piece showed that it appears, with the exception
of the ratchet extension piece, to have been made from
a single piece of metal. This represents a remarkable
achievement on the maker’s part in his accuracy of thread
cutting and positioning of the chambers, locating holes,
ratchet grooves, and touch-holes.

2. The lock and breech mechanism of the rifle in the Proof House.

Highly intrigued by this most unusual and previously

unknown rifle, and convinced that a patent for such
an odd design must have existed, the author searched
through the copies of patents held in the archives of the
Royal Armouries, working back from 1820. A patent
was indeed discovered, that of James Thomson, number
3784, of the 9th of March 1814. This is an unusually
full and extensive patent, which will be discussed in
detail later in this article. One surprising feature of the
patent was that its drawings almost exactly match the
constructional features of the rifle in the Gunmakers’
Company, suggesting that this piece may in fact have
3. The breech piece of the Thomson 4. The left side of the breech piece,
been the designer’s original. As work on this article rifle. This view shows the right side showing the holes in which the spring
progressed this supposition became gradually more with the touch holes and the elevating catch engages.
strongly confirmed, and as the information which follows ratchet notches, and the form of the
will show, this rifle may now be regarded as one of threaded chamber mouths.
very few examples of a patentee’s original trial firearm
surviving from the early nineteenth century. The breech piece is set centrally in the stock, pivoting
on a larger than usual sidenail. Because of its bulk the
Examination of the rifle breech piece takes up space normally occupied on a
Thanks to the great kindness of Major D. H. L. Back, flintlock gun by its lock components, so in Thomson’s
then Upper Warden and later Master of the Gunmakers’ design all the lock mechanism is mounted on the outside
Company, who made representation to the Court of the of the lockplate, enclosed by a very carefully made iron
Company on the author’s behalf, it was possible for the cover plate (see Figure 5). The lockplate is flat and inlaid
rifle to be taken to the Royal Armouries where a full flush into the stock, which further weakens this area,
dismantling, examination and recording of this piece indeed in the pan area and lower rear part of the lock the
could be carried out. stock has had to be cut away entirely (see Figure 6). To try
The central feature of the rifle is its breech piece (see to offset the dramatic weakening of the stock in this area
Figures 3 and 4). This is a substantial curved rectangular- the lockplate is carried forward in a long curved limb,

25
5. The lock mechanism with the cover plate removed.

but instead of devising some suitably robust fastening of

this end of the lockplate, the designer simply had a small
flush-fitting bun-nut recessed into the lockplate, screwing
on to a minute thread formed on the end of the rearmost
barrel slide.
The cock is similar in form to those of Henry Nock’s
‘screwless’ enclosed locks, and has a similar stop beneath
the lower jaw where it strikes the fence. It has a curious
C-shaped throat hole. It pivots on a short stud projecting
from the lockplate, the outer end of which is supported
by the cover plate. A cocking piece, that is; a strip of iron
pivoted to the top of the rear of the cock, passing through
a small staple on the lockplate, and ending in an upturned
knurled grip, is fitted. More mention of this will be made
later. Also on the left side of the cock are two small holes 7. The nearside of the cock, showing the upper of two small holes in the
in the throat (see Figure 7). These were originally to attach throat, and of the priming magazine frizzle showing a small redundant
a link bar to the frizzle, again more on this feature later. screw. These would have allowed the fitting of a link bar.

The small sear acts directly upon half-cock and full-cock

notches cut in the base of the cock, and is operated by a
long strip of iron which is both trigger and breech-piece
operating lever.

8. The priming magazine frizzle. Note the tap valve and on the underside
6. The breech area of the stock. the two holes separated by a semi-circular fence.

The pan is of fairly conventional ‘waterproof’ form, conventional. The frizzle itself, however, has a tubular
but is pierced through to the centre of its base by a square magazine built within it for priming powder (see Figure 8).
aperture from the rear of the fence. This hole is now filled A manually-operated rotary valve in the form of a
by a claw-shaped piece of iron fixed in place by a screw. cylindrical rod, cut with a rectangular cavity, delivered a
The original purpose of this hole may be explained by the measured amount of powder from the magazine through
patent which will be discussed later. two holes in the underside of the frizzle, and thus into the
The mainspring and frizzle spring are both quite pan. A small screw on the edge of the frizzle adjacent to

26
the breech piece suggests that the frizzle was originally sliding catch engaging
attached to the cock by a link bar (see Figure 7). This on the cover’s forward
magazine was filled by removing its cylindrical screw cap. end and mounted on
The magazine’s rear face is pierced with a ‘safety-valve’ an iron plate forming a
hole originally filled by a bung designed to be blown out if ‘pineapple’ finial.
the contents of the magazine accidentally exploded. The plain fore-end
Although it has several unconventional features the extends to the muzzle
stock is of classic English form for the period. It has and is in two parts.
an iron buttplate, the tang engraved with a globe, sheet At approximately one-
music, a quiver and flags, and on the left side the butt third of the barrel’s
has a raised cheekrest. The lobe of the pistol grip is length from the breech
made of a separate piece of wood carefully added to the the stock divides
stock, and the wrist is chequered. Behind the breech is vertically, each part
an unusually large scutcheon; an irregular octagonal iron separated from the
plate with ‘wheat-ear’ border engraving and held in place other by an iron plate,
by two woodscrews. The stock is unusually deep in the the edges of which have
breech area to accommodate the breech piece and the wheat-ear engraving.
oddly shaped lockplate. The carved lockflat and sideflat The greater part of the
areas are otherwise of characteristic English form with a fore-end is attached
well-shaped ‘teat’ at the rear. The sideflat is fitted with only to the barrel, by
an elegant but sham open iron sideplate. This is held three flat slides and
in place by a short woodscrew at each end and is quite 10. A firer’s-eye view of the breech by the screw of the
area of the rifle when preparing to fire.
separate from the iron cup washer for the true sidenail forward sling swivel.
Note the offset peep-sight on the left.
which acts as the breech piece pivot pin (see Figure 9). There is no provision
Further forward on the sideflat is a simple rocking catch, for a fore-end cap, and a simple (possibly replacement)
intended to be operated by the left thumb, which holds brass-tipped ramrod is retained by three plain iron
the breech piece in position in preparation for firing ramrod pipes. The barrel is attached to the rear portion
each chamber. At the forward end of the sideflat is the of the fore-end only by two fiat slides; one near the joint
flat slide which not only retains the barrel but also the in the fore-end and the other the one also securing the
forward end of the lockplate. lockplate. This means that the entire weight of the barrel
is supported by the drastically weakened breech area of
the stock and that there is no permanent joint between
the barrel and the breech mechanism.
The straight octagonal browned iron barrel is the
only part of the rifle which appears not to have been
specially made for this patent model. It is surprising
that it shows virtually no trace of taper or flare in either
direction, and yet it has clearly been re-used unaltered
from its original shape.
It was originally fitted with a foresight and a
backsight dovetailed across the top flat, these grooves
now having been carefully filled. On the underside
four staples for barrel pins have been removed and their
grooves filled in a similar manner when the five new
9. The sideflat showing the sham sideplate. Note on the left the spring
flat slide loops and that for the sling swivel were fitted.
catch for the breech piece.
A fifth barrel pin loop’s groove is half cut away and left
On the left of the upper surface of the stock, adjacent unfilled by alteration of the breech end of the barrel.
to the slot for the pivoting tongue of the breech piece, This alteration was the cutting of a length of rapid-pitch
is a small heart-shaped iron peep sight mounted on a ten-start thread, identical to but longer than those on
threaded rod screwed into a small iron block let into the the chamber mouths. The breech face was also made
stock. The sight must be offset to the left since after the slightly concave to mate better with the convex faces
first round the breech piece rises and would otherwise of the chambers in an attempt to improve the gas seal.
totally obscure a central line of sight (see Figure 10). Fitted over this length of thread is an iron tube (called
There is no triggerguard, since the trigger lever must by the patentee rather quaintly a “coupling box”) within
work in both an upward and downward direction. Instead which is a similar female thread. This device, when
a short curved iron guard projects downwards from rotated half a turn to the left by its peg handle, ran back
beneath the wrist, preventing the firer’s hand slipping onto the threads of any adjacent chamber and locked
onto the otherwise vulnerable trigger lever. The forward breech and barrel together. The surviving “coupling
end of the iron strap from which this guard is formed box” is probably a restoration.
has a hinge, to which an engraved cast brass cover for As with the backsight the foresight had to be offset
the breech piece is attached. This cover was designed to to the left, and is a heart-shaped open notch iron sight
protect the unfired chambers which project beneath the on a threaded rod passing through a staple on the left
stock. The cover is held in the closed position by a simple of the muzzle.

27
Some dimensions and weights of by burnt powder, which would aggravate the stiffness of
Thomson’s rifle the operation of the breech piece and coupling box and
Overall length 511/2 in. (130.8 cm) render the feeble trigger/breech piece lever even more
Total weight 91b. 12 oz. (4.42kg) unequal to its task. Probably the greatest inconvenience
Length of barrel 31 in. (78.7 cm) however would lie in the very real possibility that while
Calibre .360 in. (9.1 mm) moving the breech piece to the next unfired chamber
Rifling 6 deep narrow grooves, the ratchet pawl on the operating lever would become
right-hand twist disengaged while the spring catch was also being held.
Weight of barrel 4 lb. 2 oz. (1.87kg) This would allow the breech piece to fall back to the
Weight of breech piece 1lb. l0 oz. (0.73kg) first chamber, and since the chambers are not numbered
Number of chambers 9 locating the last fired and next live chamber could be a
Diameter of chambers .370 in. (9.4 mm) dangerous and time consuming operation.
Depth of chambers 1/2 in. (3.8 cm)

The Patent
Operating and firing Thomson’s rifle The unique characteristics of the rifle described above
This rifle is most notable for combining some parts of made its identification as that covered by James Thomson’s
considerable strength and weight with others which are patent. No. 3784 of the 9th of March, 1814, comparatively
small and feeble. Its heavy breech piece is intended to simple.1 That patent however, is unusually large and
be moved by a thin and flexible trigger lever supported shows that Thomson, a “Merchant” of Colebrooke Terrace,
by a slender headless screw. Indeed a number of screws Islington, London, was actively engaged in the invention
used in the lock seem to owe more to clockmaking of a number of firearms-related mechanisms. The parts of
than gunmaking. The not insubstantial barrel, too, is this patent dealing with other flintlocks help greatly in our
supported only by a short length of stock Which at the understanding of some of the unexplained features on the
very point it should be at its strongest has been greatly surviving rifle, and shed light too on other matters which
weakened by being cut away to make room for the breech will occur later in this story.
and lock mechanisms. The patent’s text runs to eighteen pages and is
This rifle would seem to be the only surviving accompanied by a total of thirty-six drawings on eight
example of a repeating firearm of James Thomson’s patent. sheets. Thomson sought to protect not only his “single
If we consider the problems with which it would have barrelled and poli-chambered gun”, which forms the first
faced a potential sporting or military user it is not perhaps part of the text and the first nine drawings, but also his
difficult to see why. designs for: frizzles or ‘hammers’’ equipped with priming
Firstly the nine chambers would have been loaded magazines, waterproof and airtight pans using special
with powder and ball, probably by bringing the breech sealing washers, waterproof pan covers, a lock which on
piece to the fully elevated position since only then are all cocking automatically closed the frizzle and primed the
the chamber mouths exposed. By pressing the latch on pan, locks with shutters to close off the vent to protect the
the lockflat and by pulling outwards the forward end of main charge from moisture, a gun-flint protector, several
the trigger-breech piece operating lever using the knob methods of breech loading, and lastly a design for a
provided the breech piece could then (by employing a restricted-breech musket intended to reduce loading time.
third hand?) be lowered to bring the topmost chamber We will see that pursuing and protecting his priming
in line with the barrel. The coupling box would then be magazines and the vent cut-off designs would cause
turned to lock the barrel and breech piece together. Thomson much distress in later years.
Having filled the priming magazine with suitable When comparing the surviving rifle with the relevant
powder, brought the lock to half-cock position and closed illustrations in the patent one is immediately struck by the
the pan, rotating the tap or valve in the frizzle would number of small details common to both and which, for
deposit a measured amount of powder in the pan. Having patent drawings, would not normally be necessary. In Fig. 1
brought the lock to full cock the rifle could be fired by of the patent, for example (see Figure 11), the rather odd
squeezing the trigger in the usual way. shape of the ring of the trigger is faithfully reproduced, and
A second round would be fired by: bringing the
lock to half-cock, closing the frizzle over the pan, and
operating the priming tap valve. The coupling box would
be rotated to the right to free the breech piece. Downward
and slightly sideways pressure would be brought onto the
trigger/breech piece lever while the spring catch on the
left of the stock is opened by the left thumb. As the breech
piece, thus released, rises the spring catch is released and
engages in the locking hole for the next loaded chamber.
Pressure on the trigger/breech piece lever may then be
released and the coupling box locked over the chamber
mouth. The remaining seven rounds would be fired in the
same way.
The problems which one may easily envisage in this list
of operations would inevitably include the fouling of the
breech chamber mouths, coupling box and adjacent parts 11. Fig. 1 from Thomson’s patent.

28
the unusual form of the lockplate, the large scutcheon and
the presence of chequering on the wrist are all carefully
shown. In Fig. 2 (see Figure 12) the sideplate, which we
now know to be a purely decorative and quite useless
feature, is again included. At the time of the discovery of
the patent it seemed likely that the illustrations relating to
the “poli-chambered gun” had been made directly from
the then already existing rifle, and were not impressions
of what a weapon made under this patent might look like.
In pursuing the story of Thomson and his designs further
pictorial and written evidence was discovered which
confirmed this view, evidence which will be examined
in the following sections of this article. Certainly in all 14. Sheet 3 of Thomson’s patent illustrations (Figs. 17 to 23); an
other respects the design and the method of operation of automatically-priming lock.
the mechanism described in the patent are as they are on
the existing rifle. This includes the design of the frizzle priming powder. The important features of this design are,
with integral priming powder magazine, the drawings for most notably, the long cocking bar attached to the cock, a
which are Figs. 4 to 7 (see Figure 13). Much more of this bar (Fig. 18) linking the cock and frizzle, and a hole in the
part of the patent will be discussed later. base of the pan for a vertically-operating stud attached to
a rocking bar operated by the movement of the cock. The
priming magazine frizzle is of a different design to that in
the earlier figures and on the surviving rifle; it had a spring-
loaded piston valve inside, the end of which projected
through a hole and down into the pan and the stud on
the rocking bar rose to force the frizzle magazine’s piston
upwards, allowing a small quantity of powder to fall into
the pan. The unfortunate firer was then expected to pull
12. Fig. 2 from Thomson’s patent. the trigger and hope that the valve had closed properly so
that on firing the flash from the pan would not set off the
contents of the priming magazine.
Looking again at the surviving rifle it seems that
Thomson must have used it as a test-bed for some of
these ideas. As we have already seen, the cocking bar
illustrated in his second lock design (Fig. 17) is present
although not shown in the patent illustrations of the poli-
chambered gun, the screw holes are present which would
have allowed a link bar to be attached to the type shown in
Fig. 18 (see Figure 7) although he apparently tried this
using the manually-operated tap-valve variety of magazine
frizzen rather than the automatic piston-valve type. Lastly
the now blanked-off hole in the base of the pan may well
have been for a rocking bar or other device to operate one
of his automatic priming magazines.

The acquisition of Thomson’s rifle by the

Gunmakers Company
After “discovering” the patent just described the author
contacted the Proof Master to tell him of this discovery
and to ask if it would be possible to study the weapon
further with a view to possible publication. At the Proof
Master’s suggestion the author contacted Major David
Back who very kindly and gently explained that the
13. Figs. 4 to 7 of Thomson’s patent; his design for a priming magazine
“hammer”.
weapon had in fact been known to him for some time as
Thomson’s design, and suggested that for the full story
The surviving rifle and the related patent illustrations I might care to consult the Minutes of the Court of the
are not quite identical however. Most obviously the rifle Gunmakers Company.2
has a cocking bar attached to the spur of the cock, and there Under “Matters Arising” in the Minutes of the Court
are screw holes in the cock and frizzle and a filled hole in of the 11th June 1959 is the following entry:
the base of the pan which require explanation. The solution
seems to lie within the third sheet of illustrations (Figs. 17 “Mr W. Keith Neal reported that he had been
to 23, Figure 14). Here Thomson describes a conventionally approached by Canon Thomson of Kenilworth, who
constructed lock, which, on cocking, automatically closes had produced to Mr Neat a very interesting gun
the frizzle over the pan and deposits a measured charge of invented by Canon Thomson’s grandfather, with a

29
 view to finding a permanent resting place for it.
Mr Neal then produced the gun with the original
drawings thereof for inspection by the Court and
briefly explained its workings ...”

At this time the Gunmakers Company was evidently

considering building up a collection of historic firearms.
The Clerk of the Court was “instructed to get in touch
with Canon Thomson to ascertain on what conditions he
was prepared to part with the gun”, and that he should
“place the matter on the Agenda for the next Court”. In
the Minutes of the Court of the 10th of September 1959 3 it
was reported by Mr W. Keith Neal that Canon Thomson
had been offered, and accepted, the sum of £25 for the 16. An original drawing of the surviving “poli-chambered” rifle, and the
gun. The Clerk was asked to confirm whether or not the breech piece.
“various diagrams and documents” were an agreed part of bottom drawing. These may represent an early design by
this purchase, and at the Court of the 15th October 19594 Thomson for this repeating breech mechanism.
he was able to report that “he had heard from the Rev. Another sheet (Figure 16) represents the fully developed
Canon Thomson confirming that all the drawings and breech mechanism and lock, and would indeed appear to
other date were included in the sale”. be one of the original drawings from which the final
At the time of the author’s first visits to the Proof versions for the patent later engraved for the published
House the drawings mentioned were not in evidence, but, edition were taken. The characteristic decorative features
in April 1989, they were located thanks to the kind efforts already noted on the surviving rifle and in the patent are
of Major Back, who after securing the full agreement of the present, and it has the “Fig. 1” and the numerous indicator
Court of the Company has now lodged them on indefinite letters by which the operation of the mechanism is
loan in the archives of the Royal Armouries. described, all of which are also in the patent. Interestingly
The papers concerned proved to be an immensely Thomson has inserted a comment: “The Works of the Lock
interesting and possibly unique group of documents to be on the outside of the Plate that they may not be in the
relating to the preliminary thoughts and more developed way of the Chambers—”
ideas of an early nineteenth century firearms designer. A very small but possibly significant difference between
They consist of four large double-sided sheets of notes this drawing and that in the patent is that the small eye for
and a total of twenty sheets of annotated drawings, all of the attachment of a cocking piece to the spur of the cock
which relate to Thomsons patent of 1814. By comparing is present. One has the impression when studying these
the handwriting on these papers with that on documents, drawings that they were prepared by a competent artist
to be discussed later, which survive in the Public Record who was not involved with the designing of the mechanism.
Office, it was firmly established that these notes had in He simply drew what he saw, which was then, usually
fact been written by James Thomson. rather unsubtly, amended by Thomson. In this instance
Regrettably space will not permit the reproduction of one suspects that the attaching eye was drawn as part of the
all these documents here, but showing at least those most “test-bed” rifle, the cocking bar having been removed, but
pertinent to the surviving rifle and other major parts of that Thomson had this detail removed from the engraving
Thomson’s patent may still indicate the importance of this of the patent illustrations in order that it could be shown
group of papers. on his alternative automatically-priming lock. The bottom
The first (see Figure 15) is a group of four well-executed right-hand corner of this sheet shows the breech piece as on
watercolour sketches of a typical late eighteenth century the surviving rifle, with a note from Thomson saying that
English duelling pistol with its lock removed. (This sheet the shape of the chambers (i.e. with hemispherical bases)
is now much damaged at its edges having been the largest should be indicated by dotted lines. They are so rendered
in the roll of papers.) On the third illustration from the in the patent illustrations. A small sketch of Fig. 8—the
bottom a design has been roughly sketched on in ink of a spring catch to secure the breech piece—is roughly executed
six-chambered breech piece of a type similar to that in the in ink, apparently by Thomson.
surviving rifle. An even sketchier version appears in the A third sheet (Figure 17) shows the nearside of the
breech area of the rifle. Here the decorative sideplate,
the spring catch securing the breech piece, the coupling
box, the oddly-shaped trigger ring and other features
of the surviving rifle are clearly shown, together with a
suggestion of the chequering of the wrist. In this drawing,
however, the cocking bar is clearly shown attached to the
cock. The drawing is labelled “Fig. 2”. as in the patent, but
in the final engraved version the cocking bar is omitted.
The good quality of these drawings, where they
relate to items which eventually formed part of the
15. The bottom two of four watercolour sketches of a duelling pistol with its patent illustrations, can sometimes make the mechanism
lock removed. They have additional rough sketches of Thomson’s breech being discussed more easily understood than in the later
piece design. engraved published version. Two sheets in particular

30
 lock with a vertically-sliding touch-hole cover operated
by a rocking bar worked by the movement of the cock. A
fourth sketch shows a simpler alternative design where the
cover is moved up and down simply by the movement of
the mainspring, and the last figure is a very simple sketch,
probably by Thomson, of a cover for a gun flint to prevent
accidental discharge. The layout and content of this sheet
is strikingly similar to that in the later published patent
but again is more easily understood.
The last drawing which space may allow to be
illustrated is a small sheet (Figure 20) forming the contents
of Figs. 36A, B, C and D of the patent (sheet 8). Here
Thomson was concerned with reducing the time taken to
load the common military musket by introducing a conical
17. An original drawing of the nearside of the breech area of the “poli- constriction In the breech. A musket ball dropped into the
chambered” rifle. barrel would fall down the bore and jam into this tapered
section, thus eliminating the time taken in ramming the
charge. In drawings A and B Thomson suggested how a
breech of this type might be made, while in C and D he
showed how he felt an existing musket could be altered
by placing a separate tapered tubular piece of metal in
the breech and fixing it in place with three screws. This
“invention” will be further discussed later.
Several of the remaining sheets of drawings have
working sketches which deal with the design of waterproof

18. Original drawings for Thomson’s design for an automatically-priming

lock.

20. Original drawings for Thomson’s two designs for constricted breeches
to reduce the loading time of service muskets.

and airtight pans and with breech mechanisms which did

appear in the final patent specification. There are others
however showing various types of breech action and
Thomson’s ideas for the design of powder flasks which
19. Original drawings for Thomson’s designs for vertically sliding touch-
although briefly mentioned in the text of the patent were
hole covers. Figs. 24 to 26 use a rocking bar, that in Fig. 27 is operated not illustrated. Interestingly most of these drawings are
simply by the movement of the mainspring. without any comments from Thomson, suggesting that
he had decided he would not pursue them further when
achieve this. The first of these (Figure 18) covers Figs. 17 applying for his patent.
to 23 (patent sheet 3); the automatically-priming lock and Efforts to locate the original patent specification roll now
its components. Here the cocking bar is illustrated as it almost certainly within the Public Record Office’s holdings
appears in the patent, the working parts of the rocking at Chancery Lane have so far proved unsuccessful. When
bar and stud working through the base of the pan, and this is located it is hoped to prove that at least some of these
the internal parts of the priming magazine, are more carefully prepared drawings were improved and altered
easily understood. Indeed in a number of small details at Thomson’s direction and it is these which were enrolled
the engraver has apparently misunderstood the drawings with the patent in 1814. The printed patent published in
and either rendered the parts incorrectly or left them 1854, is inevitably not an entirely reliable source.
out altogether. The second of these two sheets (Figure Examination of the four double-sided sheets
19) refers to Figs. 24 to 28, (patent sheet 4). Here the first of manuscript notes which accompany the drawings
three sketches, rather less well executed than the previous suggests that they were possibly drafts for part of a patent
drawings, show two external and one internal view of a specification, largely covering the design of powder flasks

31
 the Board of Ordnance; two bundles containing a total
of more than forty documents.5 There is too little space
here to reproduce them all but one feels that in fairness to
Thomson a number should be quoted as fully as possible
in order to properly record the treatment he received at the
hands of the Board.
The correspondence begins with the following letter
from Thomson to the Earl of Mulgrave, Master General of
the Ordnance:
No. 8 Colebrooke Terrace
Islington 26th November 1833
My Lord.
In consequence of a communication from my
friend William Hunter. Esq., who has done me the
favour to mention to your Lordship the improvements
which I have made on Fire-Arms. I beg leave to
request your Lordships permission to submit my Plan
to the Board of Works at Woolwich—
Conformably to your Lordship’s suggestion to Mr
Hunter. I have this day applied to the Board stating
the objects of my plan and my wishes that it may be
inspected & reported upon to the Honourable Board
of Ordnance.
My improvements are-
First—A single barrel’d Gun or Pistol (riffled [sic]
or plain) which with common gunpowder can readily
be discharged Nine times in one minute:
Secondly—a Lock for fire Arms, so constructed
as to prevent the priming & loading—from being
wetted—& can at a small expense, be added to any
Lock—
21. A page of Thomson’s manuscript notes, describing and illustrating a The Articles are ready for inspection, & if your
design for a powder flask with a similar tap-valve to that of his priming- Lordship will condescend to look at them. I will wait
magazine frizzle.
upon your Lordship at any time you may do me the
using Thomson’s various methods of safety cut-off and honour to appoint—
measuring similar to those in this priming magazine I have the honour to be
frizzles (see Figure 21). Indeed he makes very brief My Lord—
mention of powder flasks in the preamble to his patent: your Lordship’s—
most obedient and
“My Invention consists in constructing fire-arms to be very humble servant
primed, loaded and discharged expeditiously: also in James Thomson
securing the powder of the priming and charge from
moisture, and in guarding against accidents, from fire- As with almost all this correspondence a note was made
arms and powder flasks by my improvements on the on the reverse of the original letter recording the action
mode in which the same are to be made, constructed, ordered. In this case the Earl “declined to pronounce any
and effected”. opinion” on the inventions and said that the matter should
be referred to a Committee of Officers.
Thomson, however makes no further mention of powder A Committee was duly formed, and its report follows.
flasks, and none are illustrated in his patent, thus the It is important to note that by the time these officers
surviving drawings and notes are a unique insight into gathered to consider Thomsons inventions he had added a
what he was proposing. third item; the priming magazine frizzle.
Lastly, amongst the manuscript notes are two rough
ink sketches for two types of breechloading mechanisms, Present
with draft texts for his designs for constricted musket General Farrington
breeches. Sadly no part of these pages of notes contains Lieut. General Lawson
a draft text as it finally appeared in the published Lieut. General Stephens
patent. Major General Douglas
Major General Wellington Woolwich
James Thomson and the Board of Ordnance Lieut. Colonel Millar 21st December 1813
Thomson evidently believed that his various designs might
find application in British military service. The Public Sirs,
Record Office at Kew now contains the surviving parts of Be pleased to inform His Lordship the Master General
the correspondence which passed between Thomson and that I convened the Committee named in the Margin

32
[i.e. above] to take into Consideration the inventions in former Reports They do not think Mr Thomson’s
of Mr Thompson [sic] agreeable to your letter of the Contrivance deserving Encouragement.
30th Ult. I have the honour to be
Mr Thomson attended and stated to the Sir
Committee that he had two separate improvements Your most obedient
on the Common Musquet to submit to their humble Servant
consideration. The first was an alteration in the (signed) A. Farrington
hammer of the Musquet Lock by which he proposes General
that the Soldier should prime at the time he Cocks
his peice. This hammer is constructed with a Chamber The first improvement, a priming magazine
at the back of it to contain about 20 primings each “hammer” or frizzle might well have been of considerable
priming is delivered into the Pan by the turning of military interest. Britain was still at war with France
a small Cylindrical grooved Pin and so contrived at this time and any method to increase the speed of
as to prevent the possibility of any communication loading the service musket could have been an important
at the Prime of firing with the Powder in the development. The sliding cover for the touch hole was
Chamber—[i.e. that in the priming magazine] dismissed without much comment. The third invention
The Second improvement proposed by Mr seen by the Committee was almost certainly the “poli-
Thomson is also on the Musquets lock and consists chambered” rifle now in the Gunmakers Company
in applying a small slip of Metal which slides up and and sadly their damning (but it must be said entirely
down in front of the touch hole so as completely to understandable) comments are almost the last we hear of
cover it when the peice is at half Cock to prevent any this remarkable weapon.
moisture getting into the Charge and removed when We do not know the exact date of this first trial, but
discharged this is very ingeniously contrived by apparently immediately after it, aware of the views of the
the Slip of Metal being attached to the Main Spring Committee and before their report was sent to the Board
which acts upon it by the altering of its relative of Ordnance, Thomson wrote to the Board. He said he
position without any additional mechanism. had been before the Committee and now asked that; “As
The Committee having formed a very favourable it may be necessary to make further experiments on my
opinion of Mr Thomson’s first contrivance from it Invention I have to request that the Board of Ordnance
simplicity and ingenuity had a lock fitted up by him may be pleased to grant me an Order for 200 or 300 rounds
which was repeatedly fired quick by a soldier at the of Musquet Ball Cartridges (which I will thankfully Pay
end of 13 Rounds it appeared that the Pin which for) that my trials may be made with regular Ammunition
delivered the priming into the Pan [from expansion) to meet the recommendations of the Committee”.
could no longer be turned with the Finger and The Board was clearly not impressed by Thomson’s
Thumb: at a Second Trial when 21 Rounds were “Contrivance”, and late in December 1813 wrote turning
fired the same objection occurred even in a greater down his request, saying that they did “not think it
Degree as it then required the Assistance of a Small advisable that any further experiments should be made”.
Wrench to turn the Pin in every other respect the Clearly Thomson was not to be so easily put off.
Contrivance answered to the satisfaction of the In February 1814 he wrote suggesting that the Board’s
Committee and altho when the Pin becomes jammed opinion of his inventions was formed “from some
the Lock can still used in the Common Way, yet as misapprehension of the Report, which concludes by
the Main Point of the Contrivance is the priming stating the Riffle-gun [sic, i.e. the “poli-chambered” rifle]
when and as often as required and that with the “not deserving of encouragement”. He suggested that the
Rapidity of quick firing the Committee have to Board had not fully taken into account the Committee’s
report that Mr Thomson entirely failed in the object view on the lock with the priming magazine frizzle,
of his invention. which, after admitting that it jammed badly in the trial
With respect to the Second Contrivance giving “In every other respect the contrivance answered to
every credit to Mr Thomson for his ingenuity did not the satisfaction of the Committee”. Perhaps not
think it worthy of a Trial as the closing of the Touch surprisingly Thomson chose to ignore the Committee’s
hole appeared a Refinement inapplicable to the Public final comment on this device; “that Mr Thomson entirely
Service. failed in the object of his invention”, a comment the
Mr Thomson stated to the Committee a third Board would have been bound to act upon.
invention of his which consists of a mode of loading Thomson seems to have accepted the Committee’s
a Rifle at the breach by nine Chambers working on a verdict upon his poli-chambered rifle, and of it no more is
common Centre which when all loaded are brought heard. For the time being too he did not question further
in succession and attached to the Common Barrel their disinterest in the lock with the touchhole cover, but
these are primed and fired on the same Principle he assured the Board that he could solve the jamming
as in his first invention (before stated) but with problem of the priming magazine and asked again for two
more mechanism. This Invention the Committee hundred ball cartridges. He wrote to the Board again on
observe is, although showing much Contrivance 1st April 1814, having earlier been granted permission
much more complicated than several that have been to purchase two hundred cartridges, saying that he
brought before Them for the Same purpose, and as had made improvements to his “gun hammer” and that
they see many decisive Objections to this Mode of “the result is complete success having remedied the
loading fire Arms which have often been expressed impediment experienced at Woolwich, & having fired

33
a Musquet (quick firing), 44 rounds at the 24th round and sent his pattern to the Board on the 27th of April. In
the Barrel become so much heated that I considered I his covering letter he said he thought that as the pattern
could not with safety proceed; after an interval of a “may be thought rather too small for a musquet Lock,
few minutes I fired 20 more rounds and experienced no I have also sent one in the forged state, which I am of
inconveniency whatever from the hammer ... I have made opinion is about the proper size for a Musquet”. Having
a like experiment with a Pistol, of 20 rounds with the like received his patterns the Board ordered on the 27th April
success ...”. Thomson offered his improved “hammer” for “that Twelve Locks ... be set up into Musquets in the Royal
further trial, and on the 4th of April the Board ordered Manufactory for Experiments”.
the original Committee to reconvene, test the device In the Royal Armouries collections is what is almost
and report as soon as possible. Here is the Committee’s certainly one of these twelve muskets (Inventory number
report: XII.685, see Figure 22). It is an India Pattern musket fitted
with a lock of New Land Pattern type although larger
Present than standard in order to fit the original India Pattern
General Farrington lock aperture. It has a ring-necked cock and engraving,
Lieut. General Lawson however, of India Pattern type. The magazine frizzle is
Lieut. General Stephens very well made, with a simple screw plug at the top for
Maj. General Douglas filling and a robust tap valve which rotates only half
Maj. General Cuppage a turn. It has the improvements made by Thomson; of
Maj. General Wellington Woolwich having two diverging holes to deliver the powder into
Lieut Colonel Millar 18th April 1814 the pan, and a small semi-circular fence between them to
deflect vent gas away from the tap valve (see Figure 23),
Sir, which are referred patent illustrations and on the priming
I have the honor to acquaint you for the information magazine of the poli-chambered rifle.
of His Lordship the Master General, and Hon ble Board,
that I assembled the Committee named in the Margin
[i.e. above] and resumed the consideration of Mr
Thomson’s improvements on the Hammer of Musquet
locks; agreeable to your letter of the 4th inst.
Mr Thomson attended and explained that the
alteration he had made since he last submitted his
Invention to the examination of the Committee,
consisted in dividing the aperture in the bottom of the
Hammer where the powder passes into the pan, into
two parts, which division rather projects downwards
and prevents to the explosion acting so violently
against the pin, and clogging it. 22. A military trial musket with Thomson’s patent priming magazine
The Committee made a soldier fire this Musquet “hammer”. (Royal Armouries, H.M. Tower of London, No. XII.685.)
twenty rounds fast as on service, when it appeared
in every way to answer the object proposed, as On the 14th of June 1814 Thomson wrote to the Board
the priming pin remained perfectly loose and as saying that he understood that the twelve muskets were
easily turned, as when the experiment commenced, “in great forwardness and will probably be completed in
neither did there appear any tendency in the fire to a few days”. He then asked if he might have either his
communicate with the chamber [i.e. the magazine] original musket, which was left with the Committee of
even when the cap was intentionally left off. Officers at Woolwich at their request or one of the twelve
It appearing to the Committee that Mr Thomson in preparation, in order that he might add to it “for the
has succeeded in the object of his contrivance by inspection of the Board (his) improvements on the Barrels
the alteration he has now made, and which has done of Musquets, whereby they are to be loaded in half the time
away the objections stated in the former report. The requisite on their present construction”. This was almost
Committee therefore beg to recommend a proportion certainly a reference to the constricted-breech design
of these priming Hammers may be prepared and Thomson included in his patent As Mr H. L. Blackmore
applied to the arms of some Rifle or other Corps for has stated,6 the Board had already considered a variety
experiment as may be thought advisable. of similar ideas and only in 1813 had finally rejected after
I have the honor to be extensive trial a virtually identical method put forward
Sir by Major V. Gardner. In fact an order was made “that Mr
Yours most obedient Thomson’s Request be complied with, and that the Musquet
humble Servant be delivered accordingly”. Later correspondence will show,
A. Farrington however, that the musket was probably not returned, and
General certainly we hear no more of Thomson’s musket barrel
“improvement”. Thomson’s letter of the 14th June also
On the strength of this report the Board decided to contains his first reference to the costs incurred by him in
have twelve muskets fitted with locks with Thomson’s preparing his inventions. In asking the Board for either
magazine frizzle, and on 22nd April they wrote to ask his original or one of the new muskets he says that he had
Thomson to produce a pattern. He responded promptly “been induced to make this application from acconomy

34
 23. The underside of the priming chamber was filled previous to the Soldiers receiving
magazine “hammer” of the musket in the Order to prime & load.
Figure 22, showing the two powder D. Pack
holes divided by a semicircular fence.
M. General
[sic]— having already been
at a very heavy expense The following are among the principle objections
...” We will discover more which far outweigh the advantages.
later of Thomson’s financial 1st It is presumed that a Powder Horn would be
problems in dealing with the necessary to be added to the Accoutrements of the
Board. Soldier to prevent the Destruction of a Cartridge at each
On the 5th of August Charge of the priming Chamber. The Cork intended
Thomson wrote again to the to protect the Powder in the Chamber frequently falls
Board asking to attend the proposed out in going through the Motions of the Firelock, and
military trial of the twelve muskets. The of course on numerous occasions upon Service could
Board, however, did not reply to Thomson not be replaced.
but ordered that the Commander in Chief 2 nd The Priming is not well delivered unless the
(the Duke of York) should be “acquainted Musquet is held in a Horizontal Position at the turning
t h a t there are Twelve Musquets in the Tower set up of the priming key, and with common blank Cartridge
with Musquet Locks invented by Mr Thomson; in case His Powder seldom or never deposits sufficient priming,
Royal Highness should wish any trial to be made with and even with ball Cartridge Powder which is of finer
them by the Guards or any other Regt.” grain soon clogs the Passage leading to the Pan and
Between August and October 1814 there is polite impeded the revolution of the priming key.
exchange of correspondence between the Board of 3rd The face of the Hammer, which from constant
Ordnance and Horse Guards (the office of the Commander use must often require repair, is not of sufficient
in Chief) seeking the C. in C.’s view on whether or not substance to be refaced. In one Instance the first
a troop trial would be sanctioned.7 Requests made by fifteen rounds that were ever fired from the firelock,
Thomson to be kept informed of progress and asking to the flint penetrated through the hammer laying the
be present at any trial apparently went unheeded. On chamber open and the lock consequently became
the 22nd of October a letter from Horse Guards to the useless.
Board stated “that the Commander in Chief has been 4th The destruction of Flints from the Force
pleased to approve of the Twelve Musquets... being issued necessary to throwback the Hammer is found to be in
for trial to Certain Regiments in the Kent District and the Proportion of Six rendered useless for one in the
I am accordingly to request that these Musquets may old lock.
be forwarded to Canterbury, addressed to the care of 5th The Cock is too short consequently does not
Maj. General Pack, Commanding the Kent District who strike the Hammer so as to throw open the Pan with
will receive the necessary instructions in regard to their effect
distribution”. 6th Mr James Thompson’s Lock rendered the
The trial of the twelve muskets took place during already heavy firelock three Ounces and one Quarter
November 1814, and on the 30th of that month a further heavier than the one now in use, the lock of which
letter, enclosing the trial report, was sent from Horse from its Simplicity compared to Mr Thompsons is far
Guards to the Board. In it the writer, Lt. Gen. Calvert was preferable in the hands of a Soldier.
commanded by the C. in C. “to observe that under the
Circumstances, therein stated. His Royal Highness does (signed) W. Gordon Macgregor
not consider the Alteration proposed by Mr Thompson Lt Col 2d Batt n 9 th Foot
[sic] expedient—”. The report of this trial was endorsed
by Major General Pack, who said in a covering letter that In an attempt to assess the validity of some of the
the “remarks I think are very judicious.... I was present comments made in this report the author was fortunate
at the trial... and fully concur in the justness of the in being able to carefully examine the Thomson trial
Observations”. musket in the Royal Armouries. Objection 1 of the report
is not easily understood since on the surviving trial
Remarks arising from the Trial with twelve stand of musket there is no safety hole as on the poli-chambered
Arms M r James Thompson’s new invented Musquet rifle’s frizzle. Objection 2 was fully sustained; firstly that
Lock by the 2d Batt n 9th Foot. inevitably priming powder will not be delivered to the pan
Canterbury 27th Nov 1814 except when the musket is held horizontally, and secondly
that the amount delivered is very small. It was found after
The following are the advantages that present several tests, too, using fairly fine grained black powder,
themselves. that in fact the magazine contained only enough powder
1st That priming in the dark, and in wet weather it for about twelve primings. Objection 4. the destruction of
possesses advantages over the Lock now in use. flints at a great rate, may well have been due to the mass
2nd That in firing twenty rounds it will exceed the of the magazine frizzle: It was found that the Thomson
common mode by two rounds.* [Presumably meaning frizzle weighed 5 ounces (145g) empty, and 5 1/4 ounces
it could fire off two more rounds in a given time.] (150g) when filled with powder. The weight of a standard
*[MARGIN NOTE] not certainly unless the priming New Land Pattern frizzle is 2 ounces (60g). It seems likely

35
that the extra force upon the flint in having to propel such second ‘Memorial’, on the 27th of November, addressed
a heavy frizzle may well have accounted for the high rate to the Duke of Wellington, then Master General of the
of flint consumption. Ordnance. Thomson explained in detail the story of his
For reasons of their own, not recorded, the Board invention and his dealings with the Board up to that time,
had not invited Thomson to the trial. Having received recognising that the Duke “was not in Office at the date
the report above, however, they ordered that he should of the transactions alluded to”. Thomson begged “that
be informed of the result. A short and rather abrupt this case may be reconsidered” and explained that the
note to Thomson told him officially of the trial and that “excuse of so long a space of time having elapsed without
“the alteration which [he] proposed in the lock is not renewed applications to your honourable Board is that
considered expedient”. your Memorialist has ever since been on the Continent for
Sometime after the end of 1814 Thomson became the benefit of his health, and in so precarious a situation
ill, and the next piece of correspondence, bearing the as to have been advised not to harass or perplex his mind
address of his brother Samuel Thomson, at 57 Red Cross by any pecuniary pursuits—”
Street. Cripplegate, is a “Memorial”—a statement of Apparently an unsuccessful attempt was made by
Thomson’s case so far. lt is dated the 17th of March, 1817. the Board in May 1818 to locate the twelve trial muskets,
and addressed to the Master General and the Board of presumably with the intention of sending the locks to
Ordnance. This document is too long to be quoted in full Thomson. They wrote to Lt Col. William Macgregor, who
here, but its substance was to remind the Board of the had commanded the 9th Foot at the time of the trial, but
amount of time, effort and financial expense Thomson received no answer. The surviving documents then leap
had incurred, he believed at the Board’s wish. Having a full six years, to November 1824. They reopen with
been encouraged by the successful second trial Thomson what is apparently an internal Board of Ordnance report;
furnished the requested patterns and then attended an account of the “Case of Mr Thomson J., 27 Nov 1824-
the Royal Manufactory at Lewisham to superintend the 226”. The document number 226 is significant; it is the
production of the twelve trial locks. He said that the received letter code of the 1818 “Memorial” by Thomson
Board’s interest in his inventions had encouraged him to to the Duke of Wellington, which strongly suggests that
apply for and obtain his patent, and regretted that not in fact no action on this matter had been taken in the
only had he not been invited to attend the troop trials intervening years. In response to this report however, on
but that he had heard nothing further on the matter from the 3rd of December 1824 the Board wrote again to Lt. Col.
the Board. He ended by saying that his expenditures Macgregor, asking for a reply to their letter to him of the
had totalled over five hundred pounds and asked that 11th May 1818.
“if his said inventions is [sic] deemed not to be advisable By this time it was over ten years since the troop trial
for his Majesty’s service that his case may be taken into had taken place, and Lt. Col. Macgregor had retired on half
consideration and such compensation granted as your pay. He made two replies, however, to the Board’s second
honourable Board may deem to be meet”. request for information on the possible whereabouts of
On the 13th of June the Board replied asking Thomson the twelve trial muskets. Macgregor’s first letter, dated
to “state the particulars and amount the Expenses” which the 2nd of January, 1825, explained that he could only
he had incurred, which must have offered him a ray of speak from memory, not having access to the regimental
hope. No copy of the account Thomson sent survives, records, but that he remembered that the trials findings
unfortunately, but we know from later correspondence were unfavourable, and that when the 2nd Battalion
that it was in excess of four hundred pounds. The Board’s 9th Foot, (which carried out the trial) was reduced in
response was brief and uncompromising. The Secretary December 1815 the muskets were deposited in the depot
of the Board was “directed in reply to acquaint you, the of the 1st Battalion. On the 25th of March he wrote again
board not having authorised you to incur any Expense to the Board, suggesting then that the muskets might have
on the above objects and your Inventions not being been lodged in the depot of the 1st Battalion, or perhaps
judged applicable to the King’s Service, the board cannot deposited in the Ordnance stores at Chatham. Contacting
afford you any remuneration or relief. Thomson’s reply, the 1st Battalion 9th Foot, and consulting the storekeepers
sent from Brighton on the 5th of July 1817, expressed his records at Chatham for the relevant period should, he said,
“disappointment and surprise”. It appeared to him “most “ascertain how they were disposed of.
extraordinary” that the Board should ask for an account if The Board duly wrote to the Officer Commanding the
it had no intention of making any payment. He reminded 9th Foot on the 28th March and after some delay, caused by
the Board again of this work on the twelve trial locks and the fact that the regiment was then stationed in Grenada,
asked for them to be given over to him, even if he had to Lt. Col. David Campbell replied, on the 28th of May.
cover the cost of materials and labour they had required He sent endorsed copies, extracted from the regimental
“for undoubtedly the Board can have no right to avail itself records, of two pages from the Chatham storekeepers
of [his] time and talents or Invention secured to [him] by accounts, which confirmed that on the 15th of November
his Majesty’s Letters Patent”. 1815 the twelve Thomson muskets were received into store
Thomson seems to have received no favourable at Chatham from Mr Samuel Reeves, Quarter Master of
response from the Board, and thus takes up the matter the 2nd Battalion, 9th Foot. On contacting the stores at
again in March 1818, on return from a sojourn on the Chatham the Board were told in a reply by the Storekeeper
continent for the benefit of his and Mrs Thomson’s health, and Deputy Storekeeper that “upon examination into
with a note to the Board reminding them of his previous the Armouries at this Depot, we find that the twelve
correspondence. Again this apparently had no effect, Muskets, in question, as described, remain here in good
and in an attempt to obtain some satisfaction he wrote a Condition”.

36
 While the Board was conducting these investigations, of a patent by Egg to protect this design, which, as is
and probably in response to the report on the “Case evident from these illustrations, was a clear infringement
of Mr Thomson” of November 1824, it instructed the of Thomson’s rocking-lever design (although he in fact
Hon. Fitzroy Somerset, military’ secretary to the Duke submitted the simpler mainspring-operated cover at the
of Wellington, to write to him in December. This 1813 trial). Thomson was clearly incensed not only that the
letter stated again that the Committee which originally Committee of Field Officers which had rejected his sliding
considered his inventions could not recommend their touch-hole cover as a “refinement inapplicable to the
adoption for British service. This letter, however, went Public Service” should only three years later recommend
on to say that the “Committee having observed that the the military trial of an identical feature, but also that Egg
hope of obtaining remuneration (for the expenses of the should have the effrontery to publish the results of the
apparatus which you submitted for their examination Committee’s deliberations (Figure 26). In fact twenty-five
and trial in 1813 and 1814) was the motive of your sending India Pattern and twenty-five New Land Pattern muskets
the description of your Invention on the present occasion were altered to this design, but because this necessitated a
I am directed by the Master General to acquaint you dovetailed groove being cut vertically through the barrel
that he cannot order any remunerants of your Expenses by the touch-hole the resultant weakness caused several
incurred on the Account”. trial muskets to burst at the breech and the tests were
We know that for some years by this time Thomson abandoned.8
had been in poor health. Two and a half years, however,
were to elapse before he apparently felt able to take
up the challenge of his case again. In July 1827 he
had gathered sufficient strength to send from his home
at ”aux Batignolles, Rue St Louis, Paris” a seven-page
counterblast upon the Board and its conduct, in which
he almost crackled with rage. He began by copying in
full the Fitzroy Somerset letter above, to which he had
apparently made a reply which unfortunately does not
survive. He refers the Board to this reply in which he
apparently said in no uncertain terms what he thought of
their conduct as officers which was “so different from that
which [he] had experienced from the Committee under
General Farrington, [whose] demeanour was respectful
affable and polite . . .” He continues by then challenging
the Board on the matter of a trial carried out in 1816
of a sliding touch-hole cover for muskets offered by
Joseph Egg. What is probably the trial musket concerned
survives in the Royal Armouries collection (Inventory
number XII.693, see Figures 24 and 25). There is no record

26. Front page of the copy published by Joseph Egg of the report by the
Committee of Field Officers in 1816, endorsing his “Waterproof Gun”.
(PRO. W044/635.)

In his attack upon the Board, however, Thomson

evidently took no satisfaction from this. More than ten
24. The lock of Joseph Egg’s “Patent” musket, with a sliding vent cover. years after the event it still rankled. He said that he was
(Royal Armouries, H.M. Tower of London, No. Xll.693.) sure that the Board would recognise the “piracy” of his
patent and he thought it extraordinary that they had
apparently chosen to ignore “the trick which had been
practised upon them and fraud upon [himself] by Mr Egg”.
In not considering his invention at the earlier trial but
showing considerable enthusiasm at Egg’s version of the
same idea he asks if this is not perhaps due to negligence,
a blunder, or even vested interest within the membership
of the Committee. “If so”, he asks “is it either candid
or honourable”, or is it surprising that he “should be
indignant at the subject being quashed by a side-wind—or
that [I] should not be satisfied at your Committee charging
25. Interior of the Egg “Patent” musket, showing the rocking lever which me with practising a manoeuvre such as I despise [i.e. in
moved the touch hole cover. asking for coverage of some of his expenses] — whereas

37
my conduct was open and irreproachable”. He closes the the Locks having my priming-magazine Hammer
broadside; “I am Gentlemen, (tho considering that I have being finished attached to Musquets. I accidentally
not been handsomely used). Respectfully, Your most heard that it was intended that there should be a trial
obedient and very humble Servant”. by Soldiers, & I applied to H. R. H. the Commander
Thomson’s correspondence with the Board is not in Chief for permission to be present & begging to
entirely complete, and we cannot at this distance in be informed of the time & place to which I received
time from the events be sure exactly why Tomson took no answer or heard anything further on the Subject
so long to make his last efforts to extract a satisfactory untill I received R. H. Crew’s Letter dated 2 nd Decem r
solution from the Board. It seems, however, that very 1814 stating that the alteration which I had prepared
shortly after his vitriolic letter to the Board he sent was not considered expedient: soon after this I got
a second even longer but more concilatory statement into a bad state of health which disqualified me
of his case. He had received a letter from the Board from attending to business, & continued so till at
saying that they had located the twelve trial muskets at length in 1817 I determined on going the Continent,
Chatham, and had ordered that the locks be removed & previously to my setting off under date 17th March
and given to him. He only, they said, had to apply to 1817 Memorialised your Board (Vide No. 4.) stating
the Ordnance Storekeeper at Chatham. The letter was that my expenses had exceeded Five Hundred Pounds
dated the 17th of August 1825, but for some reason its &c &c in answer thereto is R. H. Crew’s Letter date
delivery was greatly delayed. In July 1827 Thomson 13th June 1817 (No. 5.) desiring that I would state the
wrote from Paris, again as in earlier communications particulars & amount of Expences incurred which I
copying back to the Board their last letter, which he accordingly did amounting to £410.2.1 exclusive of
had only recently received from them. What followed my personal Expences on various journies to at &
was a full account, as seen by Thomson, of the events returning from Woolwich Lewisham &c &c &c. The
surrounding his submission of firearms inventions to answer thereto is R. H. Crew’s Letter date 27 June
the Board. Because it contains a number of pieces of 1817 (No. 6.) at which I was more astonished than
information not fully explained in the other surviving can find Words to express my feelings. Whereon
documents, and because it is the last sig nificant with that defference which is due to your honble
communication from Thomson it follows in full: Board, yet I hope that I may without trespassing,
suggest that after what had occurred, having claimed
Rue St Louis N° 1. aux Batignolles remuneration being desired to furnish the particulars
pres Paris July 1827 of my expences which doubtless is an admission of
Sir there being something due to me, what must I think
The Letter of which the above is a copy has lately of the observation that “the Board had not authorised
been transmitted to me, & I presume came from your me to incur any expence”. Is it possible that I could
honble Board in consequence of my letter to R. H. Crew perform what was required of me without expence—I
Esqr [i.e. Secretary to the Board] dated 16th March 1818 entrust the honble Board to attend to dates, of the
(a Copy of that application is herewith No. 7) when period of my inventions being submitted Dec r 1813,
offering to pay for the materials & workmanship, but an improvement on the musquet Lock was of no
till now never got any answer; at that period when small importance mine was sanctioned approved
there was eleven years of my Patent unexpired they of and even deemed meritious. the most effectual
were of infinite value to me in comparison of what mode of securing its use from the enemy was by
they are at present when one year only of it remains; his Majesty’s Patent prohibiting the Article from
It is a long period to have been suspense [sic] & I being manufactured by any other than His Majesty’s
had given up all hopes of a reply thereto—also had establishments; for I am not or ever was a Gunmaker:
abandoned my expectations of compensation, though I do not mean to infer that I had not a view to being
considering myself justly intitled remuneration, & rewarded. I avow on the contrary that I expected
which I trust your honble Board will yet grant. On it—Such being the Case a Patent was applied for &
reconsidering my Case, which I am about to state with obtained at a great expence having been opposed by
all possible brevity—& to occasion no trouble wch it is a gunmaker at Birmingham who it was proved had no
in my power to avoid I shall herewith send Copies of pretensions—My Patent is enrolled in His Majesty’s
the Documents to which I refer—Viz. No. 1 is a Copy high Court of Chancery 4th July 1814 where it can be
of a Report from the Committee of Colonels & Field referred to.
Officers at Woolwich dated the 23d December 1813, In the interval of my experiments at Woolwich
stating their active approbation of my inventions on of my inventions & their being tried by Troops of the
the musquets Hammer—with one objection thereto— line (Viz. from Decem r 1813 to Decem r 1814), the War
No. 2 is a Copy of a Letter from R. H. Crew Esq r had ceased & “the alterations which I had prepared
dated the 22 nd April stating that I had done away the in the musket Lock was not considered expedient”
objection made by the 1814, Committee Decem r that notwithstanding that it had been approved of as is
the Board had decided upon submitting to trial twelve reported 21st Dec r 1813 & 22d April 1814-
priming Hammers on the principle suggested by me Without meaning any disrespect I have no
and desiring me to produce a Pattern thereof, which hesitation in asserting that I do believe that my
I did accordingly & was instructed to superintend improvements will yet be adopted tho I hope there
the manufacturing to be done at Lewisham. I did may not be occasion for them in my time being 64
from time to time attend there, for that purpose & years of age & infirm, nevertheless I would purposely

38
 visit England to be present at a trial of them & would Small Gun Office Tower
be highly gratified by it being ordered to take place l5th Nov r 1827
and permission granted to me to attend— Sir
I will not dispair of being yet deemed entitled to Adverting to the Minutes of the Board dated the
some compensation of my Case being reconsidered— 8th of October 1827 on the Application of Mr Samuel
I am respectfully Thomson Brother of Mr James Thomson requesting
Sir. Your most obedient that Twelve Musquets and Locks which were in Store
humble Servant at Chatham might be delivered unto him (which paper
James Thomson I did not see until this Morning). In answer thereto
permit me to state for the Information of the Honble
Among the points of special interest is Thomson’s Board that on the 27th of April 1814, The Board were
reference to the eleven remaining years of the patent. pleased to direct that Twelve Musquets of the India
When the patent was granted on the 9th of March 1814 Pattern should be made in the Royal Manufactory
its protection was to last for the then standard period with Magazine Hammers, the Pattern of which Hammers
of fourteen years.9 Thomson later refers to the fact that was proposed by Mr James Thomson, that these Musquets
he was “not or ever was a Gunmaker”, the only positive were completed entirely at the expense of the Office, and
proof we have that he did not himself made the rifle forwarded to Canterbury to the care of Major General
now in the Gunmakers Company, but that he had a now Pack, (I believe for Experiment) and were sent from
sadly unrecorded gunmaker produce it for him. The Canterbury to the Stores at Chatham, where they have
same craftsman may have produced the patterns for the ever since remained until a few Days back when they
priming magazine “hammer’ Thomson supplied to the arrived at the Tower and that the Locks have been taken
Board in 1814. When applying for his patent Thomson off the Arms, and delivered to Mr Thomson; Permit me
says he was opposed by a “Birmingham gunmaker”. further to state that as these Locks were made entirely
Unfortunately despite extensive searches through the at the expense of the Office and are marked with the
records for this period of cases heard in the High Court King’s Marks, and are the entire property of His Majesty,
of Chancery in London no trace of this case has yet been that they ought not to remain as private Property in the
found, and we therefore do not know the identity of his Hands of an Individual, but that they should be again
opponent.10 Finally it is remarkable to find that even in returned into Store with the exception of the Hammers
1827 Thomson was still hoping either that his invention only, which he might be permitted to retain, they being of
might yet be adopted for service, or that he might receive no value, though made at the expense of the Office.
some form of compensation. I have the Honor to be
Thomson was to be disappointed again. The Board Sir
replied to this submission that they had nothing to add Your most obedient
to their letter of the 17th of August 1825 (in which he was humble Servant
told that he might have the locks from Chatham). A last Jonathan Bellis
recorded letter from Thomson, of the 13th of August 1827.
begging the Board to take up the offer of a trial with him Bellis’s submission was duly considered at a meeting of
present, was again predictably abruptly answered—that the Board on the 21st of November 1827. The full account
“the Board do not consider it necessary to make any of their deliberations appears in the minutes of this
further trial of the Musquet Locks of [his] invention”. meeting,11 but the substance is more succinctly given in a
It seems that after this Thomson may have felt unable to cramped margin note written on Bellis’s report:
carry on the struggle himself. Instead his brother Samuel,
who was still living in Red Cross Street Cripplegate, 21 November 1827
wrote to the Board in October 1827 to ask for the name of Inform M r Sam l Thomson in answer to his letter
the Storekeeper at Chatham in order that he might apply of the 9 th Instant that, on further consideration of
for the twelve musket locks on his brother’s behalf. The the question and on a review of the correspondence
Board however ordered that the locks should be sent from respecting these Locks, it is found they were made
Chatham to the Tower, where Robert Porrett, Chief Clerk at the expence of this Department (the pattern of the
under the Principal Storekeeper, was to deliver them to Hammer having been proposed by M r James Thomson)
Samuel Thomson. & that, as they are marked with the Kings Marks, any
After about six weeks, during which time Samuel Individual in whose possession they might be found
wrote again asking what was happening, Porrett wrote would be liable to prosecution.
to the Board to explain the delay. His letter, dated the Under these circumstance therefore the Board
15th of November, explained that the locks had not been have thought proper to cancell their order for the
received at the Tower from Chatham until the 10th of delivery of these Locks to his Brother But they will
that month, and that they would have been delivered to order the Hammers to be given up should be think
Samuel Thomson that day “had it not been for very strong proper to require them, or will direct payment to be
objections made by the Master Furbisher who requested made to him of the Sum of £5 which they consider to
that it might not take place until he had reported to the be a sufficient remuneration for his trouble—.
Board certain reasons for their retention”.
On the same date the Master Furbisher, Jonathan Bellis, No response by either Samuel or James Thomson survives.
sent his report from the Tower to the Secretary of the This is perhaps fortunate; one suspects that it might well
Board: have been unprintable.

39
Acknowledgements Notes
The author would like to express his sincere thanks 1. The patent was granted by George III on the 9th of
to the following individuals and institutions for their March 1814, the specification, with coloured drawings,
assistance to him in the preparation of this article. To was submitted on the 1st of July, and the patent was
the members of the Court of the Gunmakers Company finally enrolled on the 11th of July, 1814.
for their kind permission for the author to examine 2. Guildhall Library, MS 5220/24. p. 112.
Thomson’s poli-chambered rifle and to publish this 3. Guildhall Library, MS 5220/24. p. 119.
article, and also for allowing the Royal Armouries to 4. Guildhall Library, MS 5220/24. p. 126.
borrow Thomson’s original drawings. To Major David 5. PRO, Kew, W044/635, bundles 870 and 871.
Back for his kindness in approaching the Court of the 6. H. L. Blackmore, British Military Firearms 1650-1850.
Gunmakers Company to allow access to the Thomson London, 1961, pp. 247-8, and “Gardner’s Musket 1811”.
rifle, and for locating the original drawings and making JAAS. Vol. I, No. 3, September 1953, pp. 35-33.
them available for this study. To Mr Robert Pitcher, 7. Copies of letters out from the Commander in Chief
Proof Master, and his staff at the Proof House, for are contained in WO3/210 (PRO, Kew) under the dates
their patience and forbearance in allowing the author quoted.
access to the rifle. To Mr Howard Blackmore for 8. For an account of this trial see H. L. Blackmore, op.
his considerable help and advice, particularly on the cit., pp. 155-156.
location of the surviving documents. To the staff of the 9. For the original patent roll. (i.e. the Royal Letters
Public Record Office both at Kew and Chancery Lane, Patent from George III), see PRO. Chancery Lane:
and of the Guildhall Library, for their invaluable help C66/447.
always willingly given. 10. Extensive searches have been made in the indexes
Lastly to a number of people within the Royal in the PRO Chancery Lane, and of the legal Decrees
Armouries: Brian Gilmour for his x-ray examinations of and Orders relating to cases heard in the High Court
several parts of the poli-chambered rifle, Jeremy Hall of Chancery from mid 1813 to mid 1814. So far no
and John Penna for their help with the photography, case with James Thomson (regardless of spelling
Angus Konstam for his help in the preparation of the variations) as either the plaintiff or the defendant has
patent drawings, and Denise Ferry and Julie Walker for been found.
preparing the typescript. 11. The Minutes of the Board of Ordnance for this meeting
may be found in W047/1395. p. 11. 610 (PRO. Kew).

40