Could this be a prototype for the T.J.Harrington Gat?

[micky2]

When l first bought the said pistol that we are talking about. off a dealer in 2004 l bought it as what, l class as a home made pistol by a good engineer. l then sold it to another dealer in 2016. l still think it is a home made one. but l can understand why you might think it could be prototype by Harrington.

[Powderfinger]

50:50 to me. Homemades and factory foreigners get made. As EdBear says, they can be of first class quality and hobbyists make anything. But prototypes do get made and many of them must survive in company lockers or get taken home by inventors or staff or rescued from the skip. The timescale of acquiring this example in 2018 is not inconsistent with the passing away of James Harrington and disposal of his possessions and his company's contents. He lived into the era when there was more interest in vintage guns and their history. There must be family members, friends and staff still living. Hopefully, more information will come to light.

[ccdjg]

micky2
When l first bought the said pistol that we are talking about. off a dealer in 2004 l bought it as what, l class as a home made pistol by a good engineer. l then sold it to another dealer in 2016. l still think it is a home made one. but l can understand why you might think it could be prototype by Harrington.




Many thanks for the information. It pushes the provenance a little bit further back.

I think what eventually tipped the balance for me was when I found that the barrel/piston assemblies of the two pistols were perfectly interchangeable, right down to the 5/16 BSF muzzle nut. I have never encountered this thread on any other pop-out pistol.

John Atkins, in his recent article also pictures the 5/16 BSF Gat muzzle thread, and he has found that at a fairly late stage in the Gat's history the thread was changed. John also thinks that there is some mileage in a possible link between the mystery pistol and the Gat.

I know one can discount the interchangeabilty of the barrel/piston units by assuming that some amateur was meticulously copying an original Gat. But this then begs the question, if he wanted such a close copy, why the major external cosmetic difference between the two pistols?

Also why the two concealed trigger/ sear adjusting screws, only accessible by taking it apart? I can't somehow see an amateur going to all the trouble to fit these unless he had some serious fettling in mind. And who is the most likely person to be fettling a pop-out many years ago?

[edbear2]

Ergo my BB gun is a Stirling protype because the magazine will fit an original

And the trigger group / grips will fit a Webley!

I suppose no-one will ever know is the truth, every reason that it can be proposed as a prototype can easily be the polar opposite, ie. the adjustment screws'

Could be because who ever did the linkage found it did not work, so a quicker way of cobbling up something rather than making a new trigger / sear was to chuck a couple of screws in there. The fact that they can't be adjusted (say like a Webley) from the outside or easily screams amateur / hobby to me.

It's not like it is a match trigger that needs a perfect let off etc. just has to hang on to, then release the piston, the front screw adusts the travel, and the back the weight I suppose.

The two trigger units have zero in common in my eyes actually looking again, as I said there are only so many ideas one can deploy in that space.

Anyhow, I am out of ideas, the thought it was a prototype is zero on my personal radar due to the many reasons listed and the fact that more is dissimilar than similar, ie. the whole premise is fixated on barrel size and style,.

I happily admit to knowing almost nowt about the various pop outs so had a butchers, and blimey it actually looks more Lovena or Briton even, there are tons of the things to get ideas from to copy!

https://mkguns.co.uk/


ATB, ED

[ccdjg]

I fully appreciate your instincts on this, but I can't let some of your assertions go by without a bit of response. Remember, I have no axe to grind and have no vested interest trying to bump up the value, or trying to gain some kudos. I am purely a researcher and just want to present the facts, for and against, so that people can weigh up probabilities. After all, it would be a shame if a genuine piece of airgun history was tossed in the rubbish bin because it didn't conform to preconceived ideas and wasn't discussed openly and thoroughly.

So your first comment : because who ever did the linkage found it did not work, so a quicker way of cobbling up something rather than making a new trigger / sear was to chuck a couple of screws in there.

If I were an amateur making a rough and ready pop-out pistol, then drilling and threading the trigger to take an adjusting screw, then welding a piece onto the grip frame, drilling it out and threading it so that the sear spring pressure could be varied at will, seems a pretty meticulous way of correcting a poor release action. The sort of person you suggest cobbled the gun together would be more likely to take a hammer to the sear. Just as effective and a lot quicker

Your second comment: The fact that they can't be adjusted (say like a Webley) from the outside or easily screams amature to me.

If you were making a gun for practical shooting, you would want the trigger adjuster to be externally accessible. If you want the gun only for optimising the design, then once you have obtained the necessary satisfactory adjustments, you would not want these changed while you carry out further development work, so keeping the adjusters inside makes more sense.

Also, why would a cobbled amateur gun need a sear spring tension adjuster? Somebody put a lot of thought into this gun and wasn't bothered what it looked like on the outside.

[ggggr]

Ive no axe to grind either John, but Im more inclined to agree with Ed's way of thinking. Sometimes mechanical things and development can be quite rough and crude. Ed probably know about this from earlier F1 days. 30 years ago, I think they were still strapping planks to the undersides of the cars as something to do with drag and down force?

I'd agree with what Ed says about the sear aduster screw. That is a basic fix that someone would attempt to save making a new sear if it wasnt holding. I wouldnt like to guess about the one on the trigger. Maybe that was originally fitted?
Why are the adjusters inside the housing? If you were making a gun that only you were going to use, you wouldnt need to hide the adjusters, but would want to be able to get to them for easy adjustment.

I still think a prototype would have simple wooden grips on rather than those metal plates. When I first saw pictures of the gun (on here years ago?) I thought it was a home made one, because of the plates.

Also, that probe still reminds me of a jet holder. Would you make something like that when something simpler to make could be used on a prototype?

Reguarding the barrel threads being 5/16 BSF (just wondering) are they BSF or BSB (brass) ------I know both are 26tpi but not sure of the difference. (WHOOPS---Getting my threads mixed up BSC is 26tpi not BSF)
I know that BSA used BSF on the piston rod on the Cadets and Majors.

Is that trigger shaped where is is brown or is it just corrosion?

I guess we will never know about the gun but it is a nice thing to own.


Just thinking----------Why would you have the trigger adjusters inside? Maybe a skilled person did make the gun for their son or grandson and set the trigger to a level that they considered safe?

[ccdjg]

Ive no axe to grind either John, but Im more inclined to agree with Ed's way of thinking. Sometimes mechanical things and development can be quite rough and crude. Ed probably know about this from earlier F1 days. 30 years ago, I think they were still strapping planks to the undersides of the cars as something to do with drag and down force?

I'd agree with what Ed says about the sear aduster screw. That is a basic fix that someone would attempt to save making a new sear if it wasnt holding. I wouldnt like to guess about the one on the trigger. Maybe that was originally fitted?
Why are the adjusters inside the housing? If you were making a gun that only you were going to use, you wouldnt need to hide the adjusters, but would want to be able to get to them for easy adjustment.

I still think a prototype would have simple wooden grips on rather than those metal plates. When I first saw pictures of the gun (on here years ago?) I thought it was a home made one, because of the plates.

Also, that probe still reminds me of a jet holder. Would you make something like that when something simpler to make could be used on a prototype?

Reguarding the barrel threads being 5/16 BSF (just wondering) are they BSF or BSB (brass) ------I know both are 26tpi but not sure of the difference.
I know that BSA used BSF on the piston rod on the Cadets and Majors.

Is that trigger shaped where is is brown or is it just corrosion?

I guess we will never know about the gun but it is a nice thing to own.


Just thinking----------Why would you have the trigger adjusters inside? Maybe a skilled person did make the gun for their son or grandson and set the trigger to a level that they considered safe?

https://i.imgur.com/WxftSdFl.jpg




Hi Guy,

Thanks for your welcome comments.

I think I answered your question already about the location of the adjuster screws, as putting them inside the grip is precisely what someone would do if they were not intending to use the gun, but it would be sensible if it was a prototype and the maker was only interested in experimenting and refining the trigger mechanism.

Concerning the 5/16 BSF muzzle thread, it is definitely BSF and not BSB, as the former has 22 tpi and the latter has 26 tpi.

As you say, the probe does look like a jet holder, but that does not mean to say that the maker used one for expediency. I am 100% sure he made it himself as the thread is 5/16 BSF, the same as the muzzle nut. What is the chance he found a jet holder lying around just the right size and with the same thread? Interestingly, the female breech plug idea turned up several years later in Argentina, with the Lucifer pop-out pistol of the 1970’s. I think the maker of the mystery pistol was a true inventor, ready to try out new ideas, and he did a good job making that plug, better than the commercial Lucifer plug shown below.




With regards to the grip plates, one interpretation about these was expressed by John Atkins, and I quote from him:
“I was very interested in your (very likely correct, I believe) theory about the mystery pistol with possible GAT connections. Some similarities seem too close to be coincidental. The fixed pivot pin to sear and muzzle nut threads, etc. I'd not realised the stock-sides were made of brass, thinking from photos., it was some sort of pale bakelite type sheet material. Not comfortable for prolonged use but fine for use on a prototype pistol knocking about on a workbench. I'm glad you found this pistol - otherwise it would not have been so carefully analysed.”

To answer your trigger question, the trigger is nicely shaped, and in fact the trigger and sear are as nicely finished as those on the real Gat.


Having heard all the comments as to why the mystery pistol is very unlikely to be a James Harrington prototype, I would like to turn things round, and ask you what you think a prototype of his ought to look like? I am curious

Cheers,
John

[Garvin]

It occurs to me, reading this thread, that there may only be few nerdy types out there relative to the general population who would make a gun like this for the hell of it but those that do exist probably populate a BBS like this - ie. giving the mistaken impression that the number who would devote their undoubted talents to a wildly inaccurate gun like the GAT are many...

[ptdunk]

Well you got what you wanted John, this is certainly an interesting discussion.

Obviously without any documentation or markings we will never know, but personally I think that you have given more reasons for it to be a possible Harrington Gat prototype than those simply dismissing the idea.

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

Just because there are no markings or documentation doesn't mean it wasn't made by T.J.Harrington

Along with the fine level of trigger adjustment I think the spring being in three well finished sections is a strong sign of an intention to experiment with different setups, and in fact if the power was to be changed with different spring section combinations then the trigger weight would have to be changed accordingly to give a safe amount of sear engagement in relation to the strength of the spring. Not something that someone just making a project gun would probably consider...
Maybe having to remove the sideplates to adjust the trigger meant that the user could get a visual impression of sear engagement etc. while adjusting the trigger, which may have been more useful for experimentation than simply adjusting the trigger blindly from the outside? Just an idea.

It's difficult when we see what we want to see, and it can be a bit delusional to jump to convenient conclusions about an airguns unknown history or connections to well known later models....I don't think that is the case here though.
You've earned the right to make a judgement on the rough age of the patina, and if it does predate your pre war Gat then the similarities are too much of a coincidence, and if it's post war and after the Gat was introduced then why would anyone bother painstakingly copying a cheap existing pistol? (Aero roofracks aside)

All we can do when investigating unknown origins of these old airguns with no provenance is build a case for a probable explanation, with evidence where possible, and then conclude a percentage of probability that we wish to believe.
Personally given everything you've put forward I think your 60% probability of it being a prototype is perfectly reasonable, it's not as if you're saying that it definitely is the case. That would be as unreasonable as someone saying that it definitely isn't.


Cheers,
Matt

[edbear2]

It occurs to me, reading this thread, that there may only be few nerdy types out there relative to the general population who would make a gun like this for the hell of it but those that do exist probably populate a BBS like this - ie. giving the mistaken impression that the number who would devote their undoubted talents to a wildly inaccurate gun like the GAT are many...

I wish someone would put up the copy from the Hilliers book section about home made air guns!......It was mentioned in there how home made stuff is encountered, enough of them kicking about for it to be included in his book for the purposes of valuation.

Also these days there are literally 100's of videos and plans online on places like Youtube etc., 1000's of folks around the World are knocking up home made PCP's and springers as I write this, God help future researchers!

But anyway as per wot Keith said.....

Back in the early part, to say three quarters through the 20th cent. (so say 1910-1977), literally millions of Brits worked in engineering and could rattle up a pistol like this (if they wanted) , also at school by the age of 14, millions of children could do the same.


If like me, you are of both the former types, you tend to see things differently than folk who often have no idea how stuff is made, I think that explains my point of view, as well as points I have made here and on say the "airgun engineering" thread, where "machining" was being discussed and described about what were actually forged /cast parts which got their "complicated shapes" due to the skill of a pattern maker for sure, but then were banged out in their 100's / 1000's, not lovingly fettled by hand.

I still reckon the sear being the wrong shape and a fix idea being a runner, a "Oh bugga, let's see" and a quick fix wazzing a screw in, it's hardly a few mins work...


Also the fact that people in engineering have form for making items at work that either tie in with their interests, or as gifts maybe to their offspring.

Most kids in the pre plastic and mass produced era, if their fathers were wood or metalworkers, would attect to this, we even had Lee Enfields made by my dad's mate with gate bolts screwed on, and box carts made by another dad, perfectly normal in those (late 50's-mid 60's) days.

Maybe it was just something knocked up for a youngster by a father at work!

ATB, ED