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

[edbear2]

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?

You are 100% edging on to the spectrum about this now mate...First it's "I don't care" and now, after you have tapped out 14 or thereabouts posts of 100's of words and arguments, you are trying to set me up hopefully so you can no doubt gleefully discount any opinions I have.

I have put my reasons for that particular gun, (as have others), not sure why I am being singled out.

Give your head a wobble.....

As with the gat, they could all be either home made or prototypes ......as you well know, but what else do they look like, plus impossible to tell without detailed photos as per on the "gat" which show how pants the thing is inside.

The whole point of my reasoning is also the original gun look nowt like a GAT, especially in the grips / frame bit., and the "similar" trigger is anything but, the whole supposition being on the threads etc. and the barrel, and a whole lot of wishful thinking about why so and so was done, and the reason, to (now matter how you dismiss it) suit your narrative, just have a read back!

It's a classic case as Guy mentioned of wanting or wishing (IMHO).

Now......If put the production versions against any of those three and they look as different as the "gat" does, ie nowt like it........then I might revise my opinion a bit.


Cant' believe I am still commenting on this!


ATB, ED

[keith66]

To be honest all three of those look home made to me, unless they have supporting documentation such as patent applications or similar, or if they have other good provenance.
Reminds me of an air rifle i saw a few years back in Terry robbs shop, It was a underlever springer with tubular magazine feed to an auto loading tap.
Like nothing i have ever seen but obviously of extremely high quality beautifully made & perfectly blued. No name or anything.
Home made? who knows, it was obviously built by a very skilled clever bloke. There were a lot of guys like that about & still are!

[ccdjg]

You are 100% edging on to the spectrum about this now mate...First it's "I don't care" and now, after you have tapped out 14 or thereabouts posts of 100's of words and arguments, you are trying to set me up hopefully so you can no doubt gleefully discount any opinions I have.

I have put my reasons for that particular gun, (as have others), not sure why I am being singled out.

Give your head a wobble.....

As with the gat, they could all be either home made or prototypes ......as you well know, but what else do they look like?

The whole point of my reasoning is the original gun look nowt like a GAT, especially in the grips / frame bit., and the "similar" trigger is anything but, the whole supposition being on the threads etc. and the barrel, and a whole lot of wishful thinking about why so and so was done, and the reason, to (now matter how you dismiss it) suit your narrative, just have a read back!

It's a classic case as Guy mentioned of wanting or wishing (IMHO).

Now......If put the production versions against any of those three and they look as different as the "gat" does, ie nowt like it........then I might revise my opinion a bit.


Cant' believe I am still commenting on this, but remember.......you changed it from a discussion to a personal level.


ATB, ED

Nothing personal intended Ed. I am just challenging you and any forum member to a little quiz about these three guns just for a bit of fun. I would be interested in anyone's take on these. Had I not had 'inside' information I would have probably guessed wrong with one or two of them.

I just want to make the point that when researching unknown airguns we should always keep an open mind. Go on - have go.

Cheers,
John

[ggggr]

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 cannot view the pics bigger on the links John.
I was just thinking that ANY home made gun is a prototype really? It doesnt mean it has to go into production. Look at Geds drop in conversions and his twin cylinder Relum----Are they prototypes or does there have to be the intention to make more?

My thoughts on the 3 pistols. The corrosion on the bottom of the cylinder on the first one makes my think it is a cylinder from a rifle and the corrosion is from a damp stock. Bsa Cadets are prone to this. That tap/ release thing looks crude but some work involved in making it. The frame looks a different age to the cylinder also it doesnt look very substantial--so without having it in my hands to look at / check threads etc (assuming British wont use Metric) it looks home made to me.
No2 is so ugly I cannot imagine anyone making it and with the barrel and the body being made in one Id say it is quite hard to make even though it is crude. It maybe a red (yellow) herring, but that yellow paint and just a foresight --------maybe a faiground gun?

No3 --again corrosion on the cylinder and that posi screw is a later addition. Knowing the thread of the screw might help. It just reminds me of something and I cannot think what---so without even checking the pictures again, Id just say a prototype.

Now if I hadnt have looked at the pictures, I would have said that all 3 were prototypes as if they were all home made, it sort of proves that tinkerers HAVE been knocking things out for 100 + years.

I think if you give some of these things to someone like Ed to have a look at, he would have a good idea how they were made.

How many times have people been told that someone has an "Old rifle" for them and it turns out to be a rusty B2?

I will go back to what Ive said before "People want to believe"



Ps when you look at the Mahely----that is built in such a way that it looks "home made"

[Garvin]

I'm sure the 'want to believe' thing is generally true about anything unknown that they own... but in John's case I would make an exception and expect he'd be as happy to see this gat proved to be homemade as a prototype. As we all know, John's an academic of many decades' standing - as well as being the world's foremost expert in all things spring air pistol - and like every scientist takes the 'prove it's not true first' approach as the best route to estimating authenticity.

There's nothing like holding the disputed gun in your hands, as I know from my Walther 'LP52'. I doubted it's authenticity until I looked at it 'in the flesh'. Now I'm still not sure but think on balance it's genuine and not a fake.

[trajectory]

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?

Okay, my thoughts on the three if them.

First one, A, skinny weak, grip frame assuming the springs moderately strong I wouldnt think it would be robust for much use & it is only attached on the rhs of the trigger but across its width at the rear, & a weak point at the front. Trigger only supported from one side, not good. No provision for a trigger guard. Not a practical concept for a general commercial design. So is this pointing to a test bed for something? I reckon so. The cylinder looks Webleyish but there no cast frame, no slot for trigger/sear, so is it a Webley type tube with front & rear caps. Part hidden breach end looks a bit like Webley barrel rest/ air transfer block. But no stirrup catch. So what could it be with what looks like a shrouded barrel ( does that shroud show a Webley type linkage screw going through it?) with a large screw lump at the breach. My guess a workshop mock up to have a look at the viability of a barrel lock/ tap loading/ air transfer set up. No real attempt to make it durable, safe, useable.....no grip fixing provision so my guess experimental test bed. Manufacturer or home made.........manufacturer. I think if I'd gone to that amount of effort in making it at home I'd want to use it afterwards & have a beefier frame, through pin the trigger, put a guard on it. So if it's a test bed I think it's pointing to a manufacturers.


B, my, goodness knows looks a bit Pope/Bedford like in some respects with a cocking mechanism that is pretty short, so low mechanical advantage. Also looks to have been designed by someone with shares in a sticking plaster company. Probably an individual's enthusiastic attempt at making something for their own use. But.......

C, no idea how it works......pop out? Is that a loading plunger at the rear? Top lever cocking? Looks pretty solid, a bit Hubertus like in some respects in appearance. Looks quite solid, bit Haenel like. Star point screw could be a replacement, but if its mix n match maybe that points to non manufacturer, but that amount of effort to get that far in making something makes me think it's a replacement screw, seems as if at least one might be as replacement. . Maybe the guard itself is a replacement for some reason, maybe not.I think a manufacturer might gave inletted the guard...?.maybe not. Guess that C is homemade.

Well that's my quick thoughts without seeing them for real. Maybe you could PM the answers to me, I wont let on, I'm curious to know a bit about them.

[micky2]

Well if if any of them was for sale on a dealers table, l would be buying all 3 of them as home made. but number 3 does have a Bussey look about it where the barrel joins the air cylinder which would make me think maybe a prototype of some sort. or just someone doing their own copy of one. with their own slant on it. but what has been said before, unless there is any cast iron provenance. we will never know for sure. in the end it is all down to opinions.

[harvey_s]

I'm not sure there is any actual research here beyond a flight of imagination.
It might be nice to think it's a prototype, but the 'evidence' largely boils down to some standard threads mainly dictated by size than a design criteria - and even those just of easily could have been plagiarised.

[mrto]

I agree, a 'genuine' prototype I think would be far closer in design to the final production gun, cast grip frame and shrouded springs etc. I suppose the discussed gun could indeed indeed be a prototype pop out pistol, but not for the Gat!

Why anyone ever bothered to even make them at all has long mystified me!

[ccdjg]

Thank to all those who stuck their neck on the line and had a stab at the quiz. The answers are: all three guns are true commercial prototypes, made by well-known skilled engineers, and they were all made with commercialization in mind.

Gun (A). This was a prototype (one of at least 7) made by Lincoln Jeffries Junior in about 1925, and was made for his over-lever pistol patent: British Patent No. 250,351(1925) and No. 254,640 (1926). Unfortunately it was never commercialised.




I removed the grip plates in the original picture, as they were from the Lincoln Jeffries Scout and might have given the game away. This is how the pistol looks with the grips in place.







The pistol is clearly marked: LINCOLN JEFFRIES PROV. PAT, and it also has the serial number 7 stamped near the breech closure. You can find out more about it towards the end of post 1 in this thread: https://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread...ncoln+jeffries



Gun (B) This BB repeater spring pistol prototype was made by William S. Wells, senior design consultant to Daisy Mfg, in the USA. It came from the Daisy development workshop archives, with full documentation, and its current owner kindly shared its details with me. William Wells designed numerous prototypes for Daisy, although they were usually pneumatics rather than spring operated guns.



Gun (C) was made by Andrew Laszlo, inventor of the iconic Hy-Score pistol, and was one of several prototypes he made in the course of developing his Hy-Score. After his demise, all his prototypes were transferred to Dr Robert Beeman who became their custodian. Robert Beeman then generously shared pictures of the collection with me.





This pistol is interesting in that it does not resemble the final Hy-Score in any obvious way, which demonstrates clearly that just because a pistol does not look like its final incarnation does not prove that it is not a prototype, as has been suggested. Note that the cocking link is missing.

Closer examination of this pistol reveals that Andrew Laszlo had taken on board the concentric barrel concept, with the piston being drawn forwards, as in the Hy-Score, and was exploring over-lever cocking and one type of breech closure.





It is interesting to note that he was a skilled engineer, but obviously was quite happy to cut corners where it did not really matter, as exemplified by the crude trigger guard, and the cross-head screw in the grip , which is not a replacement as Robert Beeman archived the prototypes as received and made no changes to them.

It is also worth pointing out that none of Lazlo’s prototypes are marked, so lack of markings on a mystery pistol does not mean that it is not a prototype.



The main point I wanted to make from this quiz is that, when it comes to mystery airguns, you cannot judge a book by its cover. A mystery pistol with no markings cannot be dismissed as just another home-made lash-up simply because some aspects of its construction do not conform to professional machining standards. You need to look more deeply into it, and ask such questions as Why was it made? Was the maker more interested in experimentation than looks? Does the gun have any features in common with a commercial gun? Of course, until definitive documentation turns up, you can never be 100% sure, but at least you can have an intelligent guess at the level of possibility.
The only time you can be 100% sure a mystery gun is a home-made job is if it contains parts cannibalised from airguns made by more than one manufacturer, OR if it looks something like this:





.

[edbear2]

On the Hyscore summary;

"It is interesting to note that he was a skilled engineer, but obviously was quite happy to cut corners where it did not really matter, as exemplified by the crude trigger guard"

Looks like a normal Hyscore trigger guard to me, pretty pants bit of bent tin



He obviously liked that bit at least!

On the Hyscore P/Type .......is it a phillips screw (not posi) by the way on close examination,as can't see from the photo.

As obviously Phillips are used (amongst on other things) widely in engineering, for example on engine cases (Japanese) and by many motor builders including General Motors (since 1936 ).

Also one of the standard drives in Aviation (NAS series), so are far from a bodge / cut corner if this type, despite looking less "gunny" than slotted jobbies.


It almost looks like it has writing on it (the cross head in the Hyscore photo) just as say NAS 7400 10/32's (random length plucked from memory) and others of this ilk do, but it might also be a trick of the light.

Can you make the pics bigger / have a dekko?

The coding is not industry std. but a quick way to determine grip length / thread size, different makers mark the heads in different ways, but below is an example.....


https://catalog.monroeaerospace.com/...s-1/nas7403-18








ATB, Ed

[Garvin]

Gun (B) This BB repeater spring pistol prototype was made by William S. Wells, senior design consultant to Daisy Mfg, in the USA. It came from the Daisy development workshop archives, with full documentation, and its current owner kindly shared its details with me. William Wells designed numerous prototypes for Daisy, although they were usually pneumatics rather than spring operated guns


God it's fugly! I suppose Wells knew that if Daisy ever made it, it would be using pressed steel.

Other Daisy spring prototypes here:

https://forum.vintageairgunsgallery....ols/#post-1862

[micky2]

I should have got the LJ one. has l have an original patent specification for it.

[Powderfinger]

Fascinating to see those prototypes. Especially the Hy Score. It changed so radically before being put into production.

[greenwayjames]

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.