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

[ccdjg]

The use of the term prototype is a bit open. There may be the concept by the inventor and truly homemade in his, or her, workshop. This may look nothing like the eventual production item and just simply made to see if a development works. The inventor may have little or no machinery or the skills to use them. Thats why so many look really crude and unfinished. The inventor then touts it around to find a potential firm willing to take it on. If he is lucky the following happens.
More prototypes are made of a more professional nature by the interested party to evaluate the invention. Those are then developed into the pre production variety of prototype. These are usually made by a manufacturer in house for testing purposes, sorting out gremlins, making changes to suit mass production and to demonstrate to the trade at exhibitions etc prior to launch. Usually no more than 10 or 12 examples are made and are usually recognised as genuine factory prototypes.

Good point, when is a prototype not a prototype? I suppose you could say that if it has all the main structural features of the final commercial product, it is a prototype, and if it still lacks key features, then it is an experimental prototype. So in the Hy-Score development story, pistol (C) would be an experimental prototype and (D) would be a prototype for the final Hy-Score (minus the breech cap unfortunately.)

[harvey_s]

Good point, when is a prototype not a prototype? I suppose you could say that if it has all the main structural features of the final commercial product, it is a prototype, and if it still lacks key features, then it is an experimental prototype. So in the Hy-Score development story, pistol (C) would be an experimental prototype and (D) would be a prototype for the final Hy-Score (minus the breech cap unfortunately.)

A prototype is only that when it has been made by the original producer or designer and it's manufacture pre-dates the finished article.
In this case neither has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

[ccdjg]

A prototype is only that when it has been made by the original producer or designer and it's manufacture pre-dates the finished article.
In this case neither has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Very true.

[edbear2]

The use of the term prototype is a bit open. There may be the concept by the inventor and truly homemade in his, or her, workshop. This may look nothing like the eventual production item and just simply made to see if a development works. The inventor may have little or no machinery or the skills to use them. Thats why so many look really crude and unfinished. The inventor then touts it around to find a potential firm willing to take it on. If he is lucky the following happens.
More prototypes are made of a more professional nature by the interested party to evaluate the invention. Those are then developed into the pre production variety of prototype. These are usually made by a manufacturer in house for testing purposes, sorting out gremlins, making changes to suit mass production and to demonstrate to the trade at exhibitions etc prior to launch. Usually no more than 10 or 12 examples are made and are usually recognised as genuine factory prototypes.

Any update on my Hyscore trigger guard / grip screws reply/ ideas as up thread a bit? (post no. 56).

ATB, ED

[ccdjg]

Any update on my Hyscore trigger guard / grip screws repy/ ideas as up thread a bit? (post no. 56).

ATB, ED

Well Ed, I would say it is a Philips screw, and Andrew Laszlo obviously liked to use them as there is one on this other prototype.




Unfortunately the pictures Robert Beeman sent me were fairly low resolution, so I couldn't make out if it was writing or just scratches on the screw head when I blew the picture up.

The trigger guard on the commercial Hy-Score is machine pressed and has a curved cross section. As far as the prototypes go, the trigger guards look like a quick bending of some strip steel in a vice.

[edbear2]

Well Ed, I would say it is a Philips screw, and Andrew Laszlo obviously liked to use them as there is one on this other prototype.




Unfortunately the pictures Robert Beeman sent me were fairly low resolution, so I couldn't make out if it was writing or just scratches on the screw head when I blew the picture up.

The trigger guard on the commercial Hy-Score is machine pressed and has a curved cross section. As far as the prototypes go, the trigger guards look like a quick bending of some strip steel in a vice.

Just goes to show how hard photos can be to interpret sometimes , When you tilt the gun a bit it shows the curve, yet in dead on they look very flat, agree about the quick bending though!

(still think they look toy town though!..check out the raised C/S screw to front).




ATB, ED

[silva]

Just a thought, but from the grip shape, there is a nod to an earlier pre war "Brittania" air pistol retailed by Frank Clarke. Don't suppose you have one to disassemble, to see if there is any similarities in the trigger mechanism, perhaps the use of the vee spring ? Cheaper non precision air pistols, maybe because they were generally sold for children and needed to look as exciting as possible, often seem to loosely follow real pistol appearance, in their design. By the later 1930's, the more modern semi automatic cartridge pistol designs had flat bottomed grips, the rounded bird head style grips had gone out of fashion. It would have been a fair bit of extra work making those rounded grips on your pistol, if they weren't intended on the final design.

[Epicyclic]

Just a thought, but from the grip shape, there is a nod to an earlier pre war "Brittania" air pistol retailed by Frank Clarke. Don't suppose you have one to disassemble, to see if there is any similarities in the trigger mechanism, perhaps the use of the vee spring ? Cheaper non precision air pistols, maybe because they were generally sold for children and needed to look as exciting as possible, often seem to loosely follow real pistol appearance, in their design. By the later 1930's, the more modern semi automatic cartridge pistol designs had flat bottomed grips, the rounded bird head style grips had gone out of fashion. It would have been a fair bit of extra work making those rounded grips on your pistol, if they weren't intended on the final design.

Interesting thoughts about the Frank Clarke 'Britannia' Morgan and yes, I'm with you on all the curvey stuff.
There are two slab sides to fashion and the internal laminate spacer- though this appears not so accurately formed,- not forgetting the work on the grip plates. All pretty well thought out and proportioned after the internal mechanism was 'created'. Or possibly 'in tandem'...keep reading.
I believe that the extra work in the styling gives us the best clues as to its provenance, as opposed to the examination of the principles of operation.
I contest your assertion that the creator had no wish to be proud of his (or her!) work, John.

Like Silva (above), I see the 'extra' here which grows on me the more I look and let my thoughts turn.

The pop-out is going to work, what could be under scrutiny is the matter of proportion- it has to fit in the hand!- and probably a small one.
I return to my contention that what could be a subject of experiment is the trigger position and associated linkage and my question about the efficacy of this carefully and rigidly designed jig to provide scope for investigative flexibility, remains.
When designing guns, you have to 'split' your thought processes, designing from the 'inside -out' and the 'outside-in'. I refer to the harmonising of mechanical requirements and human ergonomics. It has to both work and fit in other words.
You can't let one 'run away' without bearing the other in mind and a large amout of fluid thinking is needed so to not 'go down rabbit holes'. More the case with pistol design than long arms as it has to A.fit in the hand and B. not be too dimensionally small inside so as to create component weaknesses.
John Bowkett used to make his prototypes in Pistol form then scale them up to Long-arm size for this very reason. You can go one way, but not the other.
( here I pause to express wonder and admiration for esteemed mechanical wristwatch and clock designers!)

Returning to the subject and with reference to the above, I think there is evidence of cohesive thought in the execution.
Design of internals harmonising with ergonomic requirement and topped off with some undoubted flourishes of form.
The latter is always a bonus to the designer as the hard work is done, it works and fits and lastly allows scope for a few individualising touches which grant its appearance defining characteristics by which it becomes popularly identified and cherished.

I see signs of that here.

The art is to be able to visualise much or even all of this from the start, think of David from a block of marble.
One and the same thing in many ways. What is under discussion here is directly related in artistry even in the finest examples of the art being superior in having measurable function in addition to aesthetic form.

[ccdjg]

Just a thought, but from the grip shape, there is a nod to an earlier pre war "Brittania" air pistol retailed by Frank Clarke. Don't suppose you have one to disassemble, to see if there is any similarities in the trigger mechanism, perhaps the use of the vee spring ? Cheaper non precision air pistols, maybe because they were generally sold for children and needed to look as exciting as possible, often seem to loosely follow real pistol appearance, in their design. By the later 1930's, the more modern semi automatic cartridge pistol designs had flat bottomed grips, the rounded bird head style grips had gone out of fashion. It would have been a fair bit of extra work making those rounded grips on your pistol, if they weren't intended on the final design.

Richard's thoughts on the unappreciated artistry that went into making the pistol are interesting, but perhaps somewhat subjective, so rather than be drawn into a discussion about this I thought I would just try to answer the question asked by Silva. I did photograph the Britannia internals, but when taking it, it occurred to me that people might like to see what the mechanisms of other (British) pop-out pistols of the period look like, so I have a put together a photo collage. However, this thread has now used up its quota of 12 pictures, and I cannot show it, so I have started a new thread to include it. All the pistols shown in the collage disassemble by removing one half of the grip from the other half, the latter being permanently fixed to the cylinder.

[edbear2]

Interesting thoughts about the Frank Clarke 'Britannia' Morgan and yes, I'm with you on all the curvey stuff.
There are two slab sides to fashion and the internal laminate spacer- though this appears not so accurately formed,- not forgetting the work on the grip plates. All pretty well thought out and proportioned after the internal mechanism was 'created'. Or possibly 'in tandem'...keep reading.
I believe that the extra work in the styling gives us the best clues as to its provenance, as opposed to the examination of the principles of operation.
I contest your assertion that the creator had no wish to be proud of his (or her!) work, John.

Like Silva (above), I see the 'extra' here which grows on me the more I look and let my thoughts turn.

The pop-out is going to work, what could be under scrutiny is the matter of proportion- it has to fit in the hand!- and probably a small one.
I return to my contention that what could be a subject of experiment is the trigger position and associated linkage and my question about the efficacy of this carefully and rigidly designed jig to provide scope for investigative flexibility, remains.
When designing guns, you have to 'split' your thought processes, designing from the 'inside -out' and the 'outside-in'. I refer to the harmonising of mechanical requirements and human ergonomics. It has to both work and fit in other words.
You can't let one 'run away' without bearing the other in mind and a large amout of fluid thinking is needed so to not 'go down rabbit holes'. More the case with pistol design than long arms as it has to A.fit in the hand and B. not be too dimensionally small inside so as to create component weaknesses.
John Bowkett used to make his prototypes in Pistol form then scale them up to Long-arm size for this very reason. You can go one way, but not the other.
( here I pause to express wonder and admiration for esteemed mechanical wristwatch and clock designers!)

Returning to the subject and with reference to the above, I think there is evidence of cohesive thought in the execution.
Design of internals harmonising with ergonomic requirement and topped off with some undoubted flourishes of form.
The latter is always a bonus to the designer as the hard work is done, it works and fits and lastly allows scope for a few individualising touches which grant its appearance defining characteristics by which it becomes popularly identified and cherished.

I see signs of that here.

The art is to be able to visualise much or even all of this from the start, think of David from a block of marble.
One and the same thing in many ways. What is under discussion here is directly related in artistry even in the finest examples of the art being superior in having measurable function in addition to aesthetic form.

"Not so accurately formed"

That's putting it mildly.........The threads look like they are almost breaking though they are so far out, and the whole "laminated spacer" thing looks like the maker had just come back from the pub.

If you (or the maker) had shaped the backplates as a template, you would imagine (as I would have done if making this) the maker would have simply used a bit of square steel stock off the rack, like keyway steel but maybe something even softer.

Then gas torch / flame, a few odd things about (bit of bar in a vice) to help bend the strip over, the work of mins to make a perfect match....This part almost looks (like the sear / trigger) to have been made by someone else than the top half.

Maybe that's it!... a collaboration?

Ie. very average Metalworker gets turner mate to make the hard parts he can't do.......Or turner who is average at filing and bending makes the top half O.K. then struggles with the rest.

Honestly, hand on heart, the grips / sideplates / sear and trigger are 12 -14 year old Comprehensive School metalwork lesson level in terms of workmanship, If you Google 1970's CSE metalwork projects for example;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/anachr...7600381375918/

And lots images online of projects and more made by school kids such as myself in those days of all the standard set starter projects of that era (chisel / adj spanner / tap wrench / filed square to fit in a square hole) that every person who did metalwork could choose from.

Many going for the square hole as seemingly easier than the sheet metal / riveting / filing teeth / threaded collar on the adj spanner, but actually a right old game to pull off perfectly!

Great 1970's study of a metalwork class;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/newcas...es/4081339626/

We had 2 mills, about 6 boxfords and even a basic foundry set up at Deer Park (Cirencester) in circa 1969-72


Anyhow, I digress....


This will be my final comment on these threads, I simply can't compete with the ever increasing flowery lingo being bandied about I am afraid, I feel like I have wandered into the Tate Modern or summat, and not a discussion about a few bits of (badly as above) bent metal and a couple of tea breaks worth of spinning up on a Lathe.






ATB, ED

[ggggr]

Home made or Prototype? Real or Fake?
I just read this none airgun article on the Beeb ------------- and it gives an idea of how experts can have differing views on things and history.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63636641

[ccdjg]

We should be thankful things are never 100% cut and dried or there would never be anything to argue about. What a boring prospect!

[harvey_s]

I am a bit surprised how some enthusiasts immediately discount an unknown gun, with apparently 100% certainty, that it is homemade and not a serious prototype, based purely on its appearance and first impressions. So I would like to put this skill to the test, and challenge Ed to tell me which of the following (if any) are true prototypes and which (if any) are homemade jobs. And like with any good exam paper, can you give your reasoning?

I think rather being than being surprised, you have actually neatly demonstrated the crucial difference in that the prototypes shown in your 'quiz' all have provenance...

Whereas the original pistol has none and any opinions offered here don't add any validity to it's notional origins.

Any opinion offered is just that really...

[ccdjg]

Any opinion offered is just that really...

I couldn't agree more. But if this pistol had come with impeccable provenance, the thread would been very short-lived. A bit of controversy does spice things up a bit.

Cheers,
John