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

[DrGunn]

Great to see that cleaned up, it’s come up very nicely!
There are some fascinating and very novel design features in that pistol and your photos show them very clearly. I particularly like the breach design, it looks very intricate but on closer inspection probably isn’t as difficult to make as it first appears - an ingenious bit of design.

It has undoubtedly been designed and made by a very competent engineer with a good understanding of air guns and an inventive mind. The engineering is not beyond the ability of a competent amateur machinist but the design details suggests someone with a good understanding of firearm mass production. This would seem consistent with it being a prototype from one of the established manufacturers.

[magicesperanto]

I have to agree with the title, truly a masterpiece of design, I want one!

For what it's worth, my wild guess, a prototype designed and built by a company that never made an air pistol, but was well known for its firearms.

[ccdjg]

Thanks everyone for the very interesting replies. Now for the big reveal - this shows the markings on top of the cylinder:






Pretty unambiguous you might think, until you look very closely at the quality of the markings, and then realise that it is not up to the standard one would expect from any professional gunsmith.

My first impression was that the lettering was not very well acid etched, using a resist on the metal surface. However, I have also shown it to a top expert firearms engraver, who worked for a famous gun-maker, and this was what he said:

“I think the lettering is clearly done with a pantograph with a spinning cutter. ( Taylor Hobson type machine )The give- away is the ‘wobble’ on some of the letters caused by the cutter running off to one side as it ploughs through steel as opposed to a softer metal eg brass/ silver/ copper etc. these machines were used mainly for brass plaques and suchlike. I recognise the rounded bottom of the cuts and the run off is what happened when I was using one on unsuitable hard materials. The font is very basic and would have been standard brass letters or patterns set in the plate on the top.
On the BSA example, the lettering is quite deep and the problems show up. Most manufacturers of this period had a basic panto for various jobs around the factory and were quite common for basic work.
Today, pantographs are much more sophisticated with CNC control over depth etc. and also with HSS and carbide cutters.”

I also contacted John Knibbs and his son Mark, as BSA experts, and this was the reply:

“I saw this on one of the Facebook forums and have already discussed it with Dad, we are both of the opinion that it just doesn’t ring true as being a BSA made pistol. There is nothing recorded anywhere that we can find and the whole workings of the pistol do not look anything like a BSA style or workmanship. Equally, the lettering looks to be engraved, not the usual stamp or etching used by BSA at the time? Strange pistol, but it just doesn’t seem right to be BSA.”

Realising that they had only been able to see on-line pictures of the pistol when it was in its as-found rusty state, I sent them pictures of the cleaned-up gun, pointing out the innovative features and machining quality, after two months I have yet to receive a response.

When I bought the pistol, I was also about 90 % certain that the markings were an attempt to make an unknown nondescript pistol worth a lot more than it was, and the seller seemed to agree and so I paid a very modest price for it. Now I am not so sure especially as the engraving was clearly done a long time ago, if not at the same time as the pistol was made ( the dirt, rust and underlying and patina in the markings matched the rest of the gun).

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.

[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

[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]

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?

Yes Danny, there are in effect two trigger springs, the trigger guard and the spring-loaded plunger behind the trigger, which is part of the detent unit. When the trigger is pulled you can see the trigger guard compress slightly. Strangely the trigger pull is quite light considering there are two spring pressures to overcome.

[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

[ggggr]

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

Thanks for that John. It becomes even more interesting. Hopefully you will make a rear sight to go on it soon and give it a good old plinking with.

[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.