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

[evert]

The use of 2BA and 4BA screws can be explained by looking at your average Mk3/4 Meteor.

[Jerry Cornelius]

I think we’re all missing the most important part of this thread:

with my book re-write at the printers

Exciting.

[ccdjg]

OK, now for some facts.

(Remember we are talking spring air pistols here, I don’t pretend to know a great deal about air rifles or PCP pistols). Our current state of knowledge of unmarked, fully functional British-made springer pistols made over the last 150 years boils down to just 11 examples. These are summarized in the following collage. This has been put together using information culled from years of research, involving access to numerous collections, magazine articles, books, auction catalogues, patent data bases etc. If anyone knows of a documented example not on this list I would be over the moon to hear about it, as they turn up so rarely (about one every 15 years on average, it seems).



Of these 10 pistols, three are definitely crude home-made jobs, two are almost certainly assignable to a maker (Bussey and Greener), and the rest are interesting subjects for discussion.

What is noteworthy is that of all these pistols that enthusiasts have chosen to make, only one is a pop-out pistol. Presumably all the time and effort needed to produce a working pistol is not something that the average amateur machinist would want to waste on what is little more than a toy. However, things would be different if there was a strong financial motivation in making such a pop-out prototype. Given the obvious age of the pistol, T.J. Harrington then comes to mind. Then when one takes into account the similarities between his first commercial Gat and the mystery pistol, I think one must admit that there is a at least a grain of possibility that he made it.

[Jerry Cornelius]

Good god what was the creator of middle row far right thinking?

[micky2]

I think that the thing here is, that most of these pistols will have some sort of resemblance to production pistols. so it is easy to jump to the conclusion that they could be some sort of prototypes, as with the case of my Britannia l bought of a dealer who had put it up as a prototype?. l bought it as what l thought was someone who just wanted to make a similar rifle just because he could. a case which we will probably never be able to prove. but it does make for a good discussion. l just love them and admire the thought and skill that as gone into making them by whoever.

[ccdjg]

Good god what was the creator of middle row far right thinking?

Sorry Jerry. You will have to wait for the book (not for very long though!)

Cheers,
John

[silva]

OK, now for some facts.

(Remember we are talking spring air pistols here, I don’t pretend to know a great deal about air rifles or PCP pistols). Our current state of knowledge of unmarked, fully functional British-made springer pistols made over the last 150 years boils down to just 11 examples. These are summarized in the following collage. This has been put together using information culled from years of research, involving access to numerous collections, magazine articles, books, auction catalogues, patent data bases etc. If anyone knows of a documented example not on this list I would be over the moon to hear about it, as they turn up so rarely (about one every 15 years on average, it seems).



Of these 10 pistols, three are definitely crude home-made jobs, two are almost certainly assignable to a maker (Bussey and Greener), and the rest are interesting subjects for discussion.

What is noteworthy is that of all these pistols that enthusiasts have chosen to make, only one is a pop-out pistol. Presumably all the time and effort needed to produce a working pistol is not something that the average amateur machinist would want to waste on what is little more than a toy. However, things would be different if there was a strong financial motivation in making such a pop-out prototype. Given the obvious age of the pistol, T.J. Harrington then comes to mind. Then when one takes into account the similarities between his first commercial Gat and the mystery pistol, I think one must admit that there is a at least a grain of possibility that he made it.

Was Harrington already an established light engineering works or manufacturer in the timeframe you think the pistol was maufacturered. It says auto specialists on the old adverts. Its a long shot, but maybe if any original catalogues or patents survive, there will be parts from other products in the range, that have been repurposed into the pistol. The chequered grips possibly, or the barrel end plug. Was it purchased from the region of the Harrington works. Is there any possibilty of establishing where the pistol came from prior to your ownership. Did it come on the market after the death of the inventor, who apparently only passed away in relatively recent times.

[evert]

..... Given the obvious age of the pistol, T.J. Harrington then comes to mind. Then when one takes into account the similarities between his first commercial Gat and the mystery pistol, I think one must admit that there is a at least a grain of possibility that he made it.

How can you be that sure about the age? A damp cellar or shed combined with an unfinished steel surface will rust quite fast.
With all respect, without knowing the real history of the pistol, the most likely explanation is usually not the most exiting one.

[ccdjg]

Was Harrington already an established light engineering works or manufacturer in the timeframe you think the pistol was maufacturered. It says auto specialists on the old adverts. Its a long shot, but maybe if any original catalogues or patents survive, there will be parts from other products in the range, that have been repurposed into the pistol. The chequered grips possibly, or the barrel end plug. Was it purchased from the region of the Harrington works. Is there any possibilty of establishing where the pistol came from prior to your ownership. Did it come on the market after the death of the inventor, who apparently only passed away in relatively recent times.

Some interesting thoughts there.

There is not a lot known about the manufacturing range of T.J.Harrington & Son in the 1930's, and it has been described as a 'blacksmith' or 'light engineering' business. It was set up by T.J.Harrington, the father of James Harrington, in about 1920, and James (the inventor of the Gat) joined the business in 1935 at the age of 23. After he eventually took over the business from his father, it continued to be called 'T.J.Harrington & Son Ltd.' until it was taken over by the American company S/R Industries in 2020. James Harrington died in 1996.The only adverts for the company, including early ones mentioning automotive parts, all date from the post-war period. None are known for the pre-war period, when the first Gat was produced.


Unfortunately I can only trace the history of the pistol back to the dealer I bought it off about 4 years ago. He was of the opinion that it was a 'student-made' item. I have no idea when it first appeared in collecting circles or if it only appeared after J.H's death in 1996.

[ccdjg]

How can you be that sure about the age? A damp cellar or shed combined with an unfinished steel surface will rust quite fast.
With all respect, without knowing the real history of the pistol, the most likely explanation is usually not the most exiting one.

Of course, I cannot be 100% sure about the age of the pistol, no one could, but I have handled and restored a large number of antique and vintage pistols over the years, and you get an instinct for these things. Generally, once you have removed loose rust and surface dirt, the finish of a recent gun that has undergone accelerated rusting looks very different from a very old gun that has undergone slow corrosion. You also get clues from what lies under grip plates and screw heads. Also in the case of this mystery pistol, the brass grip plates were black and weren't even suspected to be brass by me or the previous owner until I was a bit too enthusiastic with the steel wool cleaning and saw the yellow gleam underneath. It takes a long time for brass to get into that state.

My own personal opinion when I bought the gun was that it had about a 90% probability of being an amateur project gun. Then when I managed to get a pre-war Gat and do some close comparisons my opinion changed to it having more like a 60% probability that it was a James Harrington Gat prototype. In other words, although the evidence is inconclusive and there are convincing arguments on both sides, if I was a gambling man I would back the Gat explanation first, but I would certainly not put much money on it.

I gather that you are 100% sure that it is not a Harrington product?

[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.