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

[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

[Powderfinger]

Prototypes get made. The quality of them must vary from crude initial concepts to finely finished pre production items. Some must get binned, some must get kept and some must get snaffled. Where do they go to?

[keith66]

For what its worth i reckon it could be an engineering student or apprentices piece, Young people used to make all kind of things back when we actually used to make stuff & learnt to. Hobbyists made stuff & still do. In the end unless its got documentation we will never know who made it.

[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

[ccdjg]

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.

Thanks Matt. Your comment about being able to alter the spring power and at the same time investigate the effects of sear/trigger changes is an interesting point and it prompted me to try it out for myself.

This is the pistol with the three springs removed. These are nicely finished and are a precise fit both within the chamber and around the barrel. I am pretty sure this use of multiple springs was deliberate, and not a case of grabbing some springs that were handy.





If you remove one spring, the slack is easily taken up by the muzzle nut, as the muzzle has been given a longer threaded section than normal. This reduces the power a fair bit and makes cocking noticeably easier, but it still puts out slugs at a reasonable velocity.




This is the gun with the three springs in.




Adjusting screw (A) alters the angle the sear head makes with the piston and you can vary the trigger pull from heavy to a risky hair trigger. Adjusting screw (B) also helps make the trigger pull lighter or heavier, but in a different way. You could have a lot of fun trying out all the options, with two and three main springs. This reminds me very much of the sort of thing Gerald Cardew would do.

Whoever made this gun and whatever his reason for making it, I don’t somehow see it as “just something knocked up for a youngster by a father at work” as Ed suggested.

[ggggr]

John--I think the guns is home made for someones son or grandson. (I still dont know why anyone would want to spend time on a pop out )

The 3 springs and the hidden trigger adjusters make me think that the gun was made "Adjustable" for a child. Leave one of the 3 springs out and set the trigger------then as the child got bigger, stronger , safer, the 3rd spring could be added and the trigger adjusted again.

I think there is a THING of wanting to believe in prototypes and "rair" guns.
Ive probably only seen/ stripped 250 guns in my life, but I've seen variations in very common guns. Some were due to cost saving and some were to remedy a problem or to use old bits. Early Webley Falcons didnt have the grub screw that stops the trigger block turning, so they added a 4ba screw that was (I think) the barrel plunger grub screw from a Webley Junior rifle). Im sure somebody many years ago has probably done this mod on a BSA Cadet or Major-----although I've never seen one.

Anyhow---you have got us all thinking
I'd love to see, come across, buy some of these things. Its interesting to see how people solved problems.
Ive seen guns that an engineer has fixed in a not so simple way, as they had the skill sets. People with lesser skills would have found a simpler way.

[edbear2]

John--I think the guns is home made for someones son or grandson. (I still dont know why anyone would want to spend time on a pop out )

The 3 springs and the hidden trigger adjusters make me think that the gun was made "Adjustable" for a child. Leave one of the 3 springs out and set the trigger------then as the child got bigger, stronger , safer, the 3rd spring could be added and the trigger adjusted again.

I think there is a THING of wanting to believe in prototypes and "rair" guns.


Ive probably only seen/ stripped 250 guns in my life, but I've seen variations in very common guns. Some were due to cost saving and some were to remedy a problem or to use old bits. Early Webley Falcons didnt have the grub screw that stops the trigger block turning, so they added a 4ba screw that was (I think) the barrel plunger grub screw from a Webley Junior rifle). Im sure somebody many years ago has probably done this mod on a BSA Cadet or Major-----although I've never seen on.

Anyhow---you have got us all thinking
I'd love to see, come across, buy some of these things. Its interesting to see how people solved problems.
Ive seen guns that an engineer has fixed in a not so simple way, as they had the skill sets. People with lesser skills would have found a simpler way.

I inwardly smirked at the JA quote about the grips (made in all seriousness I presume) actually;

"Not comfortable for prolonged use but fine for use on a prototype pistol knocking about on a workbench".

I mean, it's starting to sound like being in an art gallery

Only one way to solve this, let's put it to the vote!

ATB, Ed

[junglie]

Got to agree with Grrr they are totally crap, my first airgun ,but nearly put me off them for life ,like the RO71 i got after it....lol,I must have been a glutton for punishment.

[trajectory]

Intriguing....

Couple of questions please just to get an idea about its construction & my apologies if I've missed an explanation if it's already been given.

In the first picture of the mystery pistol showing the lhs there appears to be the ends of two stock plate fixing screws showing. This led me to assume the fixing screws passed through the rhs stock plate, presumably with their heads tight on the outside of it. However in another picture with the lhs stock plate removed it appears that two screw heads are visible in the inside of the ths stock plate. So, how do the stock plates attach to each side? Obviously I've missed understanding something but it's easier to ask what's what rather than me try to assume what's what.

Next the frame construction. There are a copious number of screw heads around the frame so can I ask if the frame is made of three layers cut out & 'laminated' together. If so that might be an indication of less machining........possibly? Does it make it more likely to be a bench made item rather than the frame being milled out or was thinner gauge plate used as it was available, expedient?

The next question relates to the frame too. There appears to be a protrusion on the frame where the thread of trigger adjuster 'b' runs through. Now the protrusion on the frame makes it look as if the maker always intended something for that area, but then if they, did then realised they didn't have enough meat in the central lamination ( if indeed that's the way it's made) or couldn't get a drill & tap into the closed frame. So does it look like the outer frame plates were designed to support the what looks like a separate threaded block or is it a repair or subsequent modification. How's the threaded block for adjuster 'b' fitted or fixed to the frame? Maybe I've not expressed this very well but hopefully it gives you an idea as to what I am asking.

Last one, how's the frame attached to the cylinder please?

Its interesting reading all the thoughts on this, I can see points from both sides....

[ccdjg]

Got to agree with Grrr they are totally crap, my first airgun ,but nearly put me. Omnly off them for life ,like the RO71 i got after it....lol,I must have been a glutton for punishment.

I also totally agree with Guy when he says " I still dont know why anyone would want to spend time on a pop out".

That is the point, who would bother? Except perhaps a certain James Harrington, who went on to make his fortune churning out huge numbers of the things.

[micky2]

This is the thing l like about what, l class as home made airguns. is the mystery that surounds them. as to who made them and the reason why. some of them very well made with a lot of engineering skill, not that l have any. others that are not. l just try to think what was going on in their minds at the time. was they made just for pleasure to use at home. or for taking to a arms maker in the hope they might wont to produce it and get a fee for it.we also have to take into account that not all of these people who made them could afford to buy a new gun.so thought they could make one at work useing works tools. to their own design. it is for us to ponder as to if they where prototypes or not.

[ccdjg]

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?