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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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