A mystery pistol masterpiece of design - but who made it?

[Garvin]

I put all the above, plus John's original reaction here:

https://forum.vintageairgunsgallery....bsa/#post-7342

FWIW, it's pure speculation but I think Richard's post above may have it right - that rather than necessarily an attempt to pass off an amateur fake as genuine, it may have really been made by BSA designers and at some point labeled by someone who knew that (and who perhaps also wanted to sell it at a price that reflected its true origins).

PS, John am I right in understanding that the trigger guard is also the trigger spring? If so, I find this truly revolutionary. So when you pull the trigger, you are also bending the guard and the resistance provided by the trigger/sear on the piston rod bent is only part of the resistance you feel when you fire the gun?

[Jerry Cornelius]

.

What do you collectors think? A previously unknown BSA prototype, or are the instincts of John and Mark Knibbs right, and it is a fake? We will probably never know definitively, but I would be interested to hear others’ opinions.

I struggle to think a company like BSA could prototype an air pistol and there be no surviving written record at all, although of course you could never be sure. The fact that none of the design innovations appear on other bsas might also be a point against.

If it was suggested that a BSA designer or engineer produced something as a personal project, and perhaps marked it with the company logo almost tongue in cheek, that might be more possible?

If it is right though that the markings are a little unprofessional, can we revisit if we are sure beyond doubt it is British? They make all sorts of funny firearms in India, for example, or so I am told.

It’s a very interesting item no doubt

[ccdjg]

I struggle to think a company like BSA could prototype an air pistol and there be no surviving written record at all, although of course you could never be sure. The fact that none of the design innovations appear on other bsas might also be a point against.

If it was suggested that a BSA designer or engineer produced something as a personal project, and perhaps marked it with the company logo almost tongue in cheek, that might be more possible?

If it is right though that the markings are a little unprofessional, can we revisit if we are sure beyond doubt it is British? They make all sorts of funny firearms in India, for example, or so I am told.

It’s a very interesting item no doubt

Thanks for your thoughts Jerry. All valid points. These are my thoughts:

1. The question of 'surviving records' is one that often crops up. In my experience, the smaller companies, like Frank Clarke, Edwin Anson, Lincoln Jeffries, etc. never have any surviving official company records, and we always have to rely on anecdotal information from former employees, or patents, to be aware of any workshop experimental prototypes that never made it into production. The larger companies, like BSA and Webley did keep more formal records, but again these were either records of Board Meetings etc., or records for development and manufacture of guns that were already in production, or intended for production.
By way of example, there are no known official records of the Webley Whiting pistol, yet a prototype has survived and we only know its identity from Whiting's 1910 patent. There are no reported BSA company records for the experimental George Norman air pistol, yet we know it existed from its 1910 patent. We know from an ex-employee that Greener made around 50 examples of a backstrap air pistol around 1908, but there are no company records or patents.

While John Knibbs may have extensive BSA records of production and pre-production air rifles, I doubt there are any surviving records of workshop experimental designs, as these probably did not much further than being written up in workshop notebooks. So in my opinion, the lack of company records for a specific prototype is not good evidence that it was not made by that company.

2. I am convinced that the pistol was made in Britain for the following reasons: (a) its appearance is typical of British designs of the period - where cosmetic appeal is sacrificed in favour of efficiency. (b) The pistol was discovered in this country and appeared to have not been fired for a very, very long time. (c) The cylinder OD is imperial ( 1.00 inches); (c) the two grip screws that hold the whole thing together are 3BA.

3. I agree, the fixing of the sprung trigger guard to the sear is a safety issue. I think that this design feature was most likely introduced as it was the only way you could fix the trigger guard in place. (This not a problem when the trigger guard is the cocking lever). Despite its safety issue, it is a clever solution to a design problem.


It also struck me that the whole pistol was overthought, and then I remembered someone else who had overthought an air pistol. None other than George Norman, chief designer for BSA in ca. 1910 -1930. His was the first British design for a concentric barrel air pistol (even pre-dating Edwin Anson by several years), which was patented in 1910. This pistol was full of innovative ideas, like a concentric barrel, sliding cylinder, grip cocking using a steel ribbon round a drum to replace a cocking lever. So innovative in fact that it could never have been a commercial success. It is interesting to compare the Norman pistol with the mystery pistol:

[Powderfinger]

If it was faked to appear to be an official BSA then the questions I ask are why did someone fake it and how much money did they make from.faking it? Big money from.collectable air pistols has only been made during the past couple of decades and even the most collectable air pistols do not command much money compared to other arts or collectables, maybe the price of a decent second hand car at best. Not worth making such a brilliant fake for that money? If it had been made to raise as much money as possible then it would surely have been put up in a prestigious auction not left to corrode for decades.
I tend to think it is a genuine BSA project. It looks a little like experimental BSA cartridge pistols of the 1920s. Maybe dates to late 1920s but BSA realised that Webley had cornered the air pistol market.

[ogilkes]

Wow! Talk about surprises. Surely its a BSA prototype, that explains the poor quality markings?

[greenwayjames]

Just a thought but if it were actually stamped on thin wall with BSA markings it would have damaged the cylinder internally. That may be why it was engraved. I was told by someone that knows that BSA employed two highly skilled toolmakers working in a seperate department up until the 1980's whose job was was to make working prototypes for testing and evaluation. The design department had their ideas put into metal by these skilled chappies. The man with all the ideas was a certain Mr Roger Wacrow who had been involved in the design of the BESAL light machine gun patented back in 1943. He was in charge of the design of air rifles and pistols after WW2 the last being the 240 Magnum before retiring in the early 1980's. He was about to return part time after this but unfortunately was diagnosed with cancer. Judging by what I was told by someone that had dealings with him before he retired the thoughts that went into this pistol smack of his clever handiwork.

[Garvin]

TI think that this design feature was most likely introduced as it was the only way you could fix the trigger guard in place. (This not a problem when the trigger guard is the cocking lever). Despite its safety issue, it is a clever solution to a design problem.

It occurs to me that given the skill used in casting the cocking lever, the designer could fairly easily have shaped it to be the trigger guard as well, like on the Lincoln. The fact he didn't, perhaps means he was respecting the Lincoln patent in a way the Tell 2 designer did not. This is consistent with the pistol being both British-made and by someone designing with a view to future commercial production.

[trajectory]

In my opinion this is one of the most interesting & intrigueing threads for a goodly while. There are many good points raised & although we may not know for certain, at the moment any rate, whose design this is or who made it makes for a fascinating read.
Garvins point about the trigger guard spring & cocking lever arrangement being such that they might not infringe other patents seems valid to me.
Was it a BSA prototype? I really don't know but if it was then I wonder why it never went into production. Even if it wasn't BSA who oversaw the design & the making of this example I still wonder why it didn't get marketed. Was the competition too well established, did the outbreak of WW2 effect it, was it deemed too tricky to make, would the manufacturing cost be too high & consequently the selling price be too high too?
As an aside I know not all speculative ideas/items get patented, there are various reasons & sometimes it's because it attracts attention to what a company is looking at. Not saying this is the case with this but maybe it's a possibility. Either way it's a bit of a shame this didn't get into production, I'd have been on the look out for one if it did. Such a neat design, cleverly thought out, I really like it & am quite taken with it.

[Jerry Cornelius]

.
Garvins point about the trigger guard spring & cocking lever arrangement being such that they might not infringe other patents seems valid to me.

Yes, I agree that was a good point, and might tend to support a view that it was born in a factory somewhere in the UK

I guess we’ll never know but it’s certainly a very interesting item.

[ccdjg]

Yes, I agree that was a good point, and might tend to support a view that it was born in a factory somewhere in the UK

I guess we’ll never know but it’s certainly a very interesting item.

Yes, Danny's point fits with the pistol being made pre-war, when the 1925 Tell 2 patent was still active. We know that after the war the Tell 2 patent was no longer relevant, as evidenced by the appearance of the Acvoke and Thunderbolt Junior, heavily pinching the Tell 2 design with impunity.

I have been giving more thought about who, in the 1920-30’s period was best placed to come up with the design of this mystery pistol. If you think about it, only two gunmakers in the UK up to the outbreak of World War 2 had ever considered a concentric pistol design: George Norman at BSA and Edwin Anson. Similarly, only three gunmakers in the UK had ever favoured a cocking method based on a hinged grip - George Norman, Edwin Anson and Lincoln Jeffries. So up pops a pistol from the pre-war period, incorporating both of these features, plus some ingenious new design concepts, very professionally made, and perhaps dubiously marked as made by BSA. We can discount Lincoln Jeffries, as he was an avid patenter, and would have certainly have patented this design if it had been his. I know I am biased and would love it to be a BSA prototype, but I can’t help thinking that the balance of probabilities are with it being BSA in origin.



Nothing really to do with this, but I found a bit of interesting history about George Norman. He joined BSA in 1896, and progressed from assistant engineer to chief engineer by about 1910. He was named inventor or co-inventor on all the pre-war BSA airgun patents, and on virtually all their firearms patents, and he had a particular penchant for designing repeating weapons and cartridge loading systems. He designed the BSA version of the Thompson machine gun, and was directly involved with the development of the Lee Enfield rifles. Then I found this brief account, as part of a discussion of the Mark III Lee Enfield:

“When such a famous weapon as the Mark III with all its
associations goes out of production, there is an inevitable
feeling of regret. In such affection was the model held at
Small Heath that after the last gun had been dispatched
in December, 1943, it was decided to hold a “farewell”
dinner for those members of the staff and workers who had
been closely associated with its production over a number
of years. Among those who attended was Mr. George
Norman, a former works manager who, although 85, was
retained in a consultative capacity and used to visit the
works once a week. He had joined B.S.A. in 1896 and had
been connected with the first Mark I Lee Enfield in 1904
as well as the Mark III in World War No. 1. During dinner
he told story after story of the “good old days”. And as if
with the passing of the gun he had fathered so lovingly his
life’s work had been completed, Mr. Norman went home
that night to die peacefully in his chair.”

What a lovely way to go!

[basa]

In my opinion this is one of the most interesting & intrigueing threads for a goodly while. There are many good points raised & although we may not know for certain, at the moment any rate, whose design this is or who made it makes for a fascinating read.
Garvins point about the trigger guard spring & cocking lever arrangement being such that they might not infringe other patents seems valid to me.
Was it a BSA prototype? I really don't know but if it was then I wonder why it never went into production. Even if it wasn't BSA who oversaw the design & the making of this example I still wonder why it didn't get marketed. Was the competition too well established, did the outbreak of WW2 effect it, was it deemed too tricky to make, would the manufacturing cost be too high & consequently the selling price be too high too?
As an aside I know not all speculative ideas/items get patented, there are various reasons & sometimes it's because it attracts attention to what a company is looking at. Not saying this is the case with this but maybe it's a possibility. Either way it's a bit of a shame this didn't get into production, I'd have been on the look out for one if it did. Such a neat design, cleverly thought out, I really like it & am quite taken with it.

Me too.

[trajectory]

I've just been looking over this thread again & a question about the lettering came to mind.

In the text its mentioned that the main body tube is 1" diameter & I wondered if BSA, if indeed it can be attributed to them would have been able to acid etch it ir not. The reason I ask is that I dont know how the process was done on their rifles. Were there templates stencils for the acid etching that were specific to the cylinder diameters of the rifles they made at the time & hence explain why they couldn't use them on this non production size tube? As it's a thin wall tube stamping would have been likely or at least possibly cause some distortion of the tube with adverse effects if it was over the compression space ahead of the piston. Maybe they could accept some deformation of the tube that the compressed spring occupied but not where the piston passed over, but maybe they didn't want to stamp it as they knew the risk to the tube & it wouldnt be a good engineering solution to properly identifying the pistol. If, & it is if, etching & stamping were out of the question then what else was there to hand that they could easily use but an engraver of some sort or another, maybe the pentograph was the best option? Would it have been easier than making an etching screen (?), or press rollering the lettering on a non standard tube?

Just wish somebody would take up the idea again & make them, but I know they won't & even if they did they'd only sell a few & the price would be the same as a decent secondhand car, but it seems such a neat design not to have gone into production. Many other prototypes or drawings you see you can look at & go "ah, but" & see something that could be bettered or simplified but this has ticked just about all of the right boxes to make it, in my opinion, a useable, practical & good little air pistol.

[ggggr]

John--how is the body of the breech set up held onto the cylinder? Is it and the outside of the cylinder threaded or is it silver soldered or something else?

How old do you think the gun is?

Do you think it has been made from scratch or some bits modified from an existing gun?

I was looking at the piston and wondered if that came out of a conventional pistol and then it was reversed so the sear hole was at the front--------and a threaded insert made for the piston head-------------with the original head (which would be at the back now, cut off). I dont know of any guns with a piston like that in a small diameter. You mentioned a bore of about 22mm. I think that is just a fraction bigger than a Webley Junior / Diana 22 rifle.
I also wondered if the housing containing the detant was originally a breech block
There are some very nice touches with the gun and it does look like somebody put a lot of thought into it.

What are the dimensions / weight of the gun?
Thanks

[Jerry Cornelius]

.
PS, John am I right in understanding that the trigger guard is also the trigger spring? If so, I find this truly revolutionary. So when you pull the trigger, you are also bending the guard and the resistance provided by the trigger/sear on the piston rod bent is only part of the resistance you feel when you fire the gun?

Come to think of it, I have an issue with this. If I have understood the design correctly, the trigger guard acts directly on the sear. Initially I thought that was very neat, on reflection I think it’s conceptually flawed from a safety angle.

Also although I like the separate cocking lever, from a manufacturing point of view the design of all other pistols of this type that use the trigger guard is surely better.

The air guide holes at the rear of the piston are also unnecessary. In fact isn’t that whole part unnecessary, save perhaps to eliminate dead volume

Although I still agree a lot of thought went into this parts of it now seem overthought

[ccdjg]

John--how is the body of the breech set up held onto the cylinder? Is it and the outside of the cylinder threaded or is it silver soldered or something else?

How old do you think the gun is?

Do you think it has been made from scratch or some bits modified from an existing gun?

I was looking at the piston and wondered if that came out of a conventional pistol and then it was reversed so the sear hole was at the front--------and a threaded insert made for the piston head-------------with the original head (which would be at the back now, cut off). I dont know of any guns with a piston like that in a small diameter. You mentioned a bore of about 22mm. I think that is just a fraction bigger than a Webley Junior / Diana 22 rifle.
I also wondered if the housing containing the detant was originally a breech block
There are some very nice touches with the gun and it does look like somebody put a lot of thought into it.

What are the dimensions / weight of the gun?
Thanks

To answer your questions as best I can Guy:

1. I am pretty sure it dates to the mid-late 1920's, just possibly into the 1930's. I base this on the patina, the type of bluing where it has survived, which is of the rust bluing type typically found on guns like the Highest Possible, Titans, Certus, Parker etc. of the period. Also I think that the gun would have been made shortly after the concentric Highest Possible and Tell 2 were patented in 1922 and 1925 respectively, and was probably inspired by one or both of these.

2. Definitely not made up from parts of other guns. To get this gun to assemble and disassemble so easily, and to function flawlessly, must have taken a lot of design refinement, and to find bits of other guns that would fit together so perfectly would be a miracle.

3.The piston looks much better made (and thicker walled ) than most pistons I have seen, and I do not think it was an adaptation. I think the threaded piston head may have been introduced for experimental purposes, as it would make it very simple to make and try out different types of head/seal arrangements while keeping the same piston body.

4. The housing containing the detent is simplicity personified - just a drilled and milled block of steel. There would be no need to adapt a breech block from some other gun.

5. The gun is 220mm long, barrel 190 mm, and weight 963 grams (very similar to the Webley Senior).

6. The breech housing is a separate annular steel piece that is fitted over the cylinder and appears to be very neatly brazed in place. (I think I can just make out a brass layer).

Cheers,
John