Girardoni inuenit et fecit

[DT Fletcher]

Maybe it was a prototype made in a larger calibre that took the makers fancy but when production began this was reduced in favour of a bit more velocity. I was shown one by Bate of London in .46” calibre which seems to be a popular size of copies. Thanks for the information.

In a sense, you are right. The original Girardoni was a mess in that it was unreliable in the field. There was a follow-on model to the original Girardoni designed by professor Nemetz. It is this Nemetz model that is seen so much of today. The Nemetz was produced in England, or at least it's parts were, and it was widely distributed, including the air rifle carried by Meriwether Lewis. These "G" marked Girardoni's often seen are of the Nemetz design.

Just about everything written by Bob Beeman on this subject, I've been saying for years, is wrong. Mostly a product of confirmation bias in that Beeman wanted to prove that the air rifle he owned was a legit Girardoni and, of course, carried by M. Lewis. This "Girardoni invent et fecit" example, if we can confirm it, would be the ultimate proof of my contention that Beeman is in error.

[greenwayjames]

In a sense, you are right. The original Girardoni was a mess in that it was unreliable in the field. There was a follow-on model to the original Girardoni designed by professor Nemetz. It is this Nemetz model that is seen so much of today. The Nemetz was produced in England, or at least it's parts were, and it was widely distributed, including the air rifle carried by Meriwether Lewis. These "G" marked Girardoni's often seen are of the Nemetz design.

Just about everything written by Bob Beeman on this subject, I've been saying for years, is wrong. Mostly a product of confirmation bias in that Beeman wanted to prove that the air rifle he owned was a legit Girardoni and, of course, carried by M. Lewis. This "Girardoni invent et fecit" example, if we can confirm it, would be the ultimate proof of my contention that Beeman is in error.

Thanks for the information. I find the subject fascinating. I was shown and read an article many years ago about Merriweather Lewis himself, his life and death, rather than the expedition. It may have been in Readers Digest. He was a very interesting character. The bulk of the article concerned his death. It laid out a conspiracy theory that he was murdered by unknown “government forces” and went into detail about the circumstances. It was illustrated with a portrait of M. Lewis in the article. The other illustration was of more interest. It was of an air rifle. Before the expedition he owned and used this air rifle himself. It was a ball reservoir rifle with an unusual trip mechanism on top of the action. The mechanism, I was told by the owner of the article , was similar to that used by Lukens on his butt reservoir rifles. Lukens and Lewis’s connections regarding the town clock, I seem to remember, were mentioned so its fair to assume that Lewis might have had the air rifle made for him by Lukens. He was definitely an airgun enthusiast.

[DT Fletcher]

Thanks for the information. I find the subject fascinating. I was shown and read an article many years ago about Merriweather Lewis himself, his life and death, rather than the expedition. It may have been in Readers Digest. He was a very interesting character. The bulk of the article concerned his death. It laid out a conspiracy theory that he was murdered by unknown “government forces” and went into detail about the circumstances. It was illustrated with a portrait of M. Lewis in the article. The other illustration was of more interest. It was of an air rifle. Before the expedition he owned and used this air rifle himself. It was a ball reservoir rifle with an unusual trip mechanism on top of the action. The mechanism, I was told by the owner of the article , was similar to that used by Lukens on his butt reservoir rifles. Lukens and Lewis’s connections regarding the town clock, I seem to remember, were mentioned so its fair to assume that Lewis might have had the air rifle made for him by Lukens. He was definitely an airgun enthusiast.

Yes. I've read the same article. No. That is not the original Lewis air rifle. Everything changed with publication of "A Journey through the West: Thomas Rodney's 1803 Journal from Delaware to the Mississippi Territory" Here's a review: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals...ew/11775/17257

From Rodney's journal, it is absolutely clear that Lewis is operating a Girandoni type airgun. This was the premier air rifle available in the world at the time. They were made in abundance, as was Lewis's, in London. The airguns made by Lukens pale in comparison. For a wonderful example, see the Staudenmayer in the Milwaukee Public Museum. This Staudenmayer is exactly the same as that seen in Baker/Currie Austrian Military Air Rifle M-1780. Of course, what Baker/Currie do not understand is that the gun they examined and reported so well is the product of English manufacturing, so, their title is a bit off. However, the gun was designed in Austria by professor Nemetz and was used by the Austrians.

So, bottom line, Lukens is out of the running.

[greenwayjames]

Yes. I've read the same article. No. That is not the original Lewis air rifle. Everything changed with publication of "A Journey through the West: Thomas Rodney's 1803 Journal from Delaware to the Mississippi Territory" Here's a review: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals...ew/11775/17257

From Rodney's journal, it is absolutely clear that Lewis is operating a Girandoni type airgun. This was the premier air rifle available in the world at the time. They were made in abundance, as was Lewis's, in London. The airguns made by Lukens pale in comparison. For a wonderful example, see the Staudenmayer in the Milwaukee Public Museum. This Staudenmayer is exactly the same as that seen in Baker/Currie Austrian Military Air Rifle M-1780. Of course, what Baker/Currie do not understand is that the gun they examined and reported so well is the product of English manufacturing, so, their title is a bit off. However, the gun was designed in Austria by professor Nemetz and was used by the Austrians.

So, bottom line, Lukens is out of the running.

With respect you have misunderstood what I posted. I was referring to Meriweathers owning an air rifle before the expedition and that likely to be a Lukens. Thanks for the references, I will be a busy bee

[DT Fletcher]

With respect you have misunderstood what I posted. I was referring to Meriweathers owning an air rifle before the expedition and that likely to be a Lukens. Thanks for the references, I will be a busy bee

Okay.

Meriwether was a wealthy young man and could certainly have indulged in airguns prior to the expedition. Most likely, he would have acquired airguns imported from England. From what we've seen, airgun manufacturing in America was extremely limited and took place later in the 1800s. England was producing large quantities of excellent airguns on the basic Austrian butt reservoir system from about 1796 on. The combination of modern mass production and British command of the trade routes is why we see the same basic English 11mm Girandoni type around the world.

In addition to the Rodney evidence, there is the information (from Michael Carrick, as I recall) that shows Lukens didn't open his shop until well after the expedition.

If you are really interested in the subject of Lewis's air rifle, you owe it to yourself to visit the Staudnemayer at Milwaukie Public, although I sort of doubt that it's on display. I had the opportunity of seeing it up close during the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial and the Smithsonian's traveling exhibit which visited Portland. The Rodney journals had just been published so they knew what they wanted, the Staudenmayer was one of the few possible candidates. The first impression of the Staudenmayer is dramatic to the eye: it's entirely black. Black as night over every single bit. Which, when you think about it, would be exactly what we should expect from any gun that has been carried every day for years straight. It was also very common for military weapons to be blackened in the field, we also know from the journals that all of the guns on the expedition early on rusted. So, we should expect a gun that is heavily weathered. The Staudenmeyer appears to be exactly the same design as seen in Baker/Currie. I stood by the gun for the entire time of my visit (how long you could stay in the exhibit was timed) and after some time realized that the rear sight was missing. The empty space where the sight belonged was as black as the rest of the gun, so, not a recent event.

My conclusion is:
1) this gun has the legit looks of a weapon that has been hand carried in the field everyday for years. I have seen no other Girandoni with the same weathered looks.
2) the missing rear sight matches the account in Lewis's journal about the rear sight suddenly, on it's own accord, going missing. Well, it went missing again.
3) The Staudenmeyer is the Girandoni with the earliest known history of being the US. This gun was among the original collection donated prior to 1900.
4) best candidate to be the original Meriwether Lewis air rifle.

Note: other than for the Staudenmayer marking, there is no substantial difference between Beeman's air rifle and the Staudenmayer. On the point of what type of airgun Lewis had, there is complete agreement.

[Geezer]

I can't contribute any wisdom or knowledge to this thread, but it is fascinating to read. Thanks, guys.

[DT Fletcher]

Invent et Fecit

Been taking a look at the latin phrase, Invent et Fecit, found on this Girardoni that we found in a German museum.

The meaning is unambiguous; Invent et Fecit means this item was itself manufactured by the inventor.

Doing a search, what predominates are watches, with a Swiss maker, Journe, leading the pack. In this modern usage, it means that all of the parts used in construction of the watch were also made by the same company as designed/invented the watch.

There has also been usage of this phrase in gun making. In particular Joseph Manton (perhaps the most famous London gun maker circa 1800). His guns are also marked Invent et Fecit. See this example http://www.flintlockcollection.net/joseph-manton/

One thing about the original Girandoni made for the Austrian army that everyone should be able to agree upon: the Model 1780 military repeaters were hand-built by the inventor himself - this point is made absolutely clear in Haller.

Over the years, I've maintained that Eldon Wolff was undeniably correct when he wrote that no undisputed examples of the original Girandoni have been found. As we all know, some modern researchers came to the conclusion that the often seen 11mm Girandoni as described by Baker/Currie were original Girandoni made and that this was what Meriwether Lewis carried. Where they were right is that, yes, the air rifle carried by M. Lewis was more likely than not the same as described by Baker/Currie. The only mistake was in pronouncing that these were also original Austrian Military weapons hand-built by the inventor, Girandoni. They weren't. They were made in England or at least the parts were. Looking over these 11mm Girandoni arms, it seems perfectly clear that they are products of modern technology of the industrial revolution, i.e. they are not hand-built.

With the discovery of this "Girardoni Invent et Fecit" 1.4cm air rifle, that we now have a prime candidate for an undisputed original Girardoni made Girandoni.

I'm by no means ready to make any sort of declaration on this airgun. We've waited long enough for a proper candidate so there's no need to rush. The first thing is to confirm the large caliber, but, even that doesn't go all the way. We know that some 1500 original Invent et Fecit Girardoni military model 1780 were made. We've found one, there has to be more. And now with the id tag of "Invent et Fecit" it should be possible to conduct a pretty good search. Before we would have to look and ask about any and every Girandoni type, now there's a simple and direct question.

If more Invent et Fecit Girardoni can be found, then Wolff's contention of no undisputed examples of the Girandoni military model 1780 can finally be closed.

[DT Fletcher]

I can't contribute any wisdom or knowledge to this thread, but it is fascinating to read. Thanks, guys.

For some background history see my reference British Pneumatics 1750-1850. https://flic.kr/s/aHsjB58yhj

Other important references are Wolff's Air Guns and Airgun Batteries. Hoff's airguns and other pneumatic weapons is also invaluable. Most everything else can be questionable.

I'm always happy to chat away on the history of these old big bore pneumatics. If your interest is specifically with Meriwether Lewis I can chat away on that, too.

Note that I have some disagreements with Beeman et al. For the most part, I try to ignore that and go on with my own work. But, if you have any questions, I'd be pleased to answer them....

[greenwayjames]

In a sense, you are right. The original Girardoni was a mess in that it was unreliable in the field. There was a follow-on model to the original Girardoni designed by professor Nemetz. It is this Nemetz model that is seen so much of today. The Nemetz was produced in England, or at least it's parts were, and it was widely distributed, including the air rifle carried by Meriwether Lewis. These "G" marked Girardoni's often seen are of the Nemetz design.

Just about everything written by Bob Beeman on this subject, I've been saying for years, is wrong. Mostly a product of confirmation bias in that Beeman wanted to prove that the air rifle he owned was a legit Girardoni and, of course, carried by M. Lewis. This "Girardoni invent et fecit" example, if we can confirm it, would be the ultimate proof of my contention that Beeman is in error.

Assumptions and simple maths. It would seem reasonable to assume that the “English” copies of the military Girandoni are of similar proportions to keep the overall look. If this wasn’t the case then why bother to make them look similar. They could have just put the same mechanism in one of their own design air rifles. The tubular ball magazines on the side of the rifles being the same length, for appearance sake, the accepted military calibre of .51” Girandoni had a stated capacity of 20 and Lewis and Clarkes had 22 as described by Rodney when shown it. Why? A good guess would be that the Lewis and Clarke rifle was a civilian copy of the Girandoni which are usually of smaller calibre.
20 .51” balls in a row equal 10.2”.
22 .46” balls in a row equal 10.12”.
Probably just a load of balls but the thought occurred to me as I was having a good long soak in the bath. What do you think?

[DT Fletcher]

Assumptions and simple maths. It would seem reasonable to assume that the “English” copies of the military Girandoni are of similar proportions to keep the overall look. If this wasn’t the case then why bother to make them look similar. They could have just put the same mechanism in one of their own design air rifles. The tubular ball magazines on the side of the rifles being the same length, for appearance sake, the accepted military calibre of .51” Girandoni had a stated capacity of 20 and Lewis and Clarkes had 22 as described by Rodney when shown it. Why? A good guess would be that the Lewis and Clarke rifle was a civilian copy of the Girandoni which are usually of smaller calibre.
20 .51” balls in a row equal 10.2”.
22 .46” balls in a row equal 10.12”.
Probably just a load of balls but the thought occurred to me as I was having a good long soak in the bath. What do you think?

I've never been a fan of any of the magazine capacity arguments. Also, for the most part, I do not accept any civilian vs military distinction; at least not as described by Beeman.

The original Inuit et Fecit Girardoni, model 1780, was the larger caliber from original documentation and reports. This seems to have been confirmed by our one example of an original. And, yes, of course this was a military weapon. However, there is absolutely no information to support the (Beeman) contention that Girardoni ever produced any air guns for the civilian market.

The 2nd model Girandoni is based on the circa 1786 Nemetz design which is the smaller caliber. These were manufactured in England and, although I've written that they are English made copies of the Girandoni, they are more an original Austrian design that, for one reason or another, was produced in England. How this transfer of advanced Austrian airgun technology happened is not documented. My guess is that since the earliest examples of Girandoni types being produced in England (the earliest I aware of are circa 1795 Bates) comes around 1795. Just before this time, Mr. Austrian Airgun expert, FM Karl Mack, was in charge of the First Coalition war against Revolutionary France and he even made a trip to London circa 1794. My guess is that Mack transferred the technology.

This 2nd (Nemetz) model is the predominant model we see today. The exact same model was produced for Austrian military needs (the "G" guns) and for non military means. So, there really is no distinction between the military and civilian versions, other than some of the civilian guns have well known English gun makers names on them, like Staudenmeyer. Otherwise, these are all the same gun.

Note also that Austrian interest and use of the airgun did not go away until well into mid century. The airgun was still on the materials list for defensive fortress sieges in 1860. The last combat report we have of the Austrians using the Girandoni was 1809 in a defensive siege of a fortress. One of the key reasons was that the Austrians appreciated that an airgun could be used in confined and explosive environments found in fortresses: it's called the Underground War. None of this info is currently available outside of the original German texts. I've researched this and have translations which will be available when I get the book done. But, the entire Underground War aspect to the airgun is fascinating. It's the direct reason for one of the first implementations of the airgun in war circa 1750.

While I'm at it, the reason for the Austrian interest in a repeating weapon comes from fighting their traditional enemy: the Turks. The Turkish would typically attack in an unorganized mass and just rush the enemy with overwhelming numbers. In that type of fighting, rapid fire was essential. When it came time to fight the French, the rapid fire issue went away. The Austrian Army wanted nothing to do with any of these rapid fire weapons. Against the French, in the first couple of years, the airgun was only used during sieges by specialized Tyrollean Sharpshooters in the front trenches to pick off any Frenchman they could spot on the ramparts.

[greenwayjames]

I don’t know anything about magazine capacity arguments. It was just an idea that went through my head yesterday. You state as a fact that the 2nd model Girandonis were made in England. That seems rather odd. What is it based on? I would be interested to know more. This subject is beginning to fascinate me but at the same time there seems to be a lot of confusion. I should pay more attention as t said in my school reports.

[DT Fletcher]

I don’t know anything about magazine capacity arguments. It was just an idea that went through my head yesterday. You state as a fact that the 2nd model Girandonis were made in England. That seems rather odd. What is it based on? I would be interested to know more. This subject is beginning to fascinate me but at the same time there seems to be a lot of confusion. I should pay more attention as t said in my school reports.

When looking at the 2nd model Girandoni (the gun described in Baker/Currie, which is also the Nemetz model) we are faced with a fascinating situation: a whole bunch of guns with all having the exact same features down to some of the smallest details. We have the "G" stamped models, we have the exact same guns with no markings at all (like Beeman's own) and we have models marked with the names of known English gun makers (eg Staudenmeyer, Mortimer) we also have some examples that carry European maker's names (Theile.) How can this be explained? The answer comes in that these guns are products of the English Industrial Revolution. The parts were produced by a specialist manufacturer with modern production machinery, likely in Birmingham, and sold to gunmakers who then produced the finished airgun.

Why did this production have to occur in England? Could the production have occurred in Vienna as stated by Beeman? The answer here comes from history. The timeframe of production of the 2nd model Girandoni was 1795-1815. What was going on? The Napoleonic wars. One of the big drivers of the Napoleonic wars was immense size of English production of small manufactured goods (things like airguns) combined with the English control of shipping trade routes. At this same time, Austria manufacturing lagged far back and would not see anything like modern industrial production until after the wars. Austria simply was not in the business of exporting manufactured goods to the rest of the world. During the wars, Austria received large quantities of English produced firearms.

Plus, there is zero chance that an English gunmaker like Staudenmayer or Mortimer would ever have used Austrian produced parts in their airguns.


Up till now, the missing piece of the story has been the lack of any example of what could legitimately be called a true undisputed Girandoni. I've always been hopeful that a good candidate would show up, but, never in the world expected something as dramatic as finding a gun inscribed in latin to the effect "I Girardoni invented this and I made it"