Britannia

[Lakey]

So what you are saying is that if BSA had produced the Britannia with its marketing and resources the UK would be shooting Britannias into the 1920-40s? I just don’t think that’s true? The Lincoln Jeffries design was just too good and cost effective to be denied. BSA by that decision may have made other companies very competitive?

At the end of the day BSA ultimately backed the right design, however that is possibly more to do with "right place, right time" than the actual design of the gun. Lincoln Jeffries pitched his gun to BSA at a time when they were experiencing a lull in the military business they were used to, and BSA were scratching around for things to do. If Messer's Bonehill, had pitched their design to BSA at the same time - well who knows where we would be now? Bonehills would have benefited from all of BSA's knowhow, and maybe Mr Lincoln Jeffries would have fallen by the wayside. We can only speculate. Bear in mind BSA had no prior experience of the airgun trade.

We look at the Britannia now ( with all the benefits of hindsight, and still consider it a genius bit of clever design. so that has to tell you it was a good innovative design back in the day. A good one is just as accurate as the BSA in my opinion.

[Dutch]

From a business perspective, I think it is a mix of the aspects mentioned. One aspect however we might have overlooked is that engineering/production was dominated by patents, in this era of inventions and breakthroughs. The way to go for a producer would have been not much different than today (bit more hands on, crude maybe), identify potential markets, segments, customers/needs & competition before making any decisions. Then calculate expected ROI for every option before making serious investments with patent & design royalties as important components.

Although the Britannia design might have been a solid contender in the trials for a new potential BSA air rifle, the patents & design demands of its holders (Cox's & Bonehill?) might have simply been too substantial compared to LJ's. The moment LJ visited BSA in 1904 it is not more than common business sense that they must have considered alternative designs (afterwards or before) like the local Britannia etc. Knowing that the market for air rifles was there, they must have simply made business cases for all alternatives with LJ's design as a winning alternative (all aspects included).

[45flint]

From a business perspective, I think it is a mix of the aspects mentioned. One aspect however we might have overlooked is that engineering/production was dominated by patents, in this era of inventions and breakthroughs. The way to go for a producer would have been not much different than today (bit more hands on, crude maybe), identify potential markets, segments, customers/needs & competition before making any decisions. Then calculate expected ROI for every option before making serious investments with patent & design royalties as important components.

Although the Britannia design might have been a solid contender in the trials for a new potential BSA air rifle, the patents & design demands of its holders (Cox's & Bonehill?) might have simply been too substantial compared to LJ's. The moment LJ visited BSA in 1904 it is not more than common business sense that they must have considered alternative designs (afterwards or before) like the local Britannia etc. Knowing that the market for air rifles was there, they must have simply made business cases for all alternatives with LJ's design as a winning alternative (all aspects included).

Agree

[micky2]

From a business perspective, I think it is a mix of the aspects mentioned. One aspect however we might have overlooked is that engineering/production was dominated by patents, in this era of inventions and breakthroughs. The way to go for a producer would have been not much different than today (bit more hands on, crude maybe), identify potential markets, segments, customers/needs & competition before making any decisions. Then calculate expected ROI for every option before making serious investments with patent & design royalties as important components.

Although the Britannia design might have been a solid contender in the trials for a new potential BSA air rifle, the patents & design demands of its holders (Cox's & Bonehill?) might have simply been too substantial compared to LJ's. The moment LJ visited BSA in 1904 it is not more than common business sense that they must have considered alternative designs (afterwards or before) like the local Britannia etc. Knowing that the market for air rifles was there, they must have simply made business cases for all alternatives with LJ's design as a winning alternative (all aspects included).

As you say Zuke, l have been saying this for years. we has collectors tend to look at things to deeply. for a company like BSA and Webley ect it was just from a business profit point of view.