Spring powered Air cane?

[ptdunk]

Just saw an article by John Atkins in feb 1993 Airgunner which shows some Spring powered Air cane's that were made by Lanes Bros in the 1890's.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

One uses the handle as a lever, the other is a twist grip.

Both apparently tested by Sporting Goods Review in 1897 with reportedly similar power to a Gem.

Have any of these types of Air cane ever been encountered?
I'd love to see one.

Cheers,
Matt

[Binners]

Never seen or heard of one.

[Unframed Dave]

I've got a few, but never seen one of those.

Dave

[Garvin]

I've got a few, but never seen one of those.

Dave

Never seen or heard of one existing. You have to doubt they were ever made in quantity. I'm not surprised as the whole point of them I assume was as a personal defence weapon whereas the spring one must have presented little threat to an adversary - except by beating him over the head with it!

[ptdunk]

Never seen or heard of one existing. You have to doubt they were ever made in quantity. I'm not surprised as the whole point of them I assume was as a personal defence weapon whereas the spring one must have presented little threat to an adversary - except by beating him over the head with it!

The article did say they were ill conceived, coming as they did at the end of the period at which Air Canes were popular.
According to John A’s article, the handle cocking version was available from 1897, and then Lanes introduced the twist cocking version in 1899, with similar good reviews from Sporting goods review at the time. You twisted the handle 4times to cock the mechanism.

I agree though, the power can’t have been all that. But a quick distracting shot, followed by a stout clonk on the noggin would have done the trick.

I bet there’s a couple out there somewhere….

Cheers,
Matt

[Vic Thompson]

I've not seen the article or indeed any of the items described in it, but possibly they were intended for use as a "Gallery item" or maybe an "indoor practice item" so that anyone using an Air Cane "on the street for real" could make their one shot count and enormously improve the effectiveness of their being able to protect themselves.

Vic Thompson.

[ptdunk]

I've not seen the article or indeed any of the items described in it, but possibly they were intended for use as a "Gallery item" or maybe an "indoor practice item" so that anyone using an Air Cane "on the street for real" could make their one shot count and enormously improve the effectiveness of their being able to protect themselves.

Vic Thompson.

That makes sense, you wouldn't want to shoot a full power one indoors very often.

Here's the full article, includes the earlier attempt to make the twist grip Frank Clarke pistol:

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Cheers,
Matt

[ccdjg]

I have often wanted to have a go at making one of these spring air canes, as the cocking systems are fascinating. What has always stopped me has been the fact that ownership of a newly made one, even of very low power, would be illegal under current law. I quote from the Government Guide on Firearms Law:

Rules 2 and 3 of the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 provide that an air weapon is specially dangerous where:

it is “capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, kinetic energy in excess, in the case of an air pistol of 6ft lbs or, in the case of an air weapon other than an air pistol, 12ft lbs” (unless it is designed for use only when submerged in water); or
it is disguised as another object.

I assume that an original antique example would be OK to own, as long as you didn't shoot it.

[Jerry Cornelius]

I have often wanted to have a go at making one of these spring air canes, as the cocking systems are fascinating. What has always stopped me has been the fact that ownership of a newly made one, even of very low power, would be illegal under current law. I quote from the Government Guide on Firearms Law:

Rules 2 and 3 of the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 provide that an air weapon is specially dangerous where:

it is “capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, kinetic energy in excess, in the case of an air pistol of 6ft lbs or, in the case of an air weapon other than an air pistol, 12ft lbs” (unless it is designed for use only when submerged in water); or
it is disguised as another object.

I assume that an original antique example would be OK to own, as long as you didn't shoot it.

Interesting point

I suppose you could devise the mechanism, provided you didn’t also dress it into a cane.

Perhaps a cane shaped object that had some other finish and was marked “air cane” might be on the right side of the law?

As for power and self defence, I thought the general opinion now was these were all novelty items and not intended for self defence or any other sort of live shooting? I’m not familiar with Victorian firearms legislation, but Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson never seem to have any difficulty popping a revolver into their pockets when needed: if that is a true reflection of the situation it’s hard to see why the Victorian zombie hunter would want an aircane

By the way I don’t think Frank Clarke’s teasmade referred to in the article above can go unremarked: John, we need a replica made !!

[Farsight]

Unfortunately the private ownership of tea-making apparatus disguised as a clock is illegal in this country as it could ,in the wrong hands ,be used as a weapon of self defence. If you come across one in your attic please hand it in for destruction at a police station. If you can find one.

Atb
Mark