Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74

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

  1. #1
    ccdjg is online now Airgun Alchemist, Collector and Scribe
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    2,039

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

    A while ago I showed the following unusual push barrel pistol on the forum (https://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread...-barrel+pistol). Tongue-in-cheek I tentatively suggested it could possibly be a prototype for the Harrington Gat. Having recently picked up a pre-war Gat, also pictured below, and now being at a loose end with my book re-write at the printers, I decided it was time to look into this possibility a bit more closely.







    The mystery pistol is definitely British as it is based largely on imperial sizes and threads. It is constructed entirely of steel, with the exception the brass barrel and brass grip plates. The natural patina of the steel (the pistol was never blued) is indicative of considerable age, dating to at least the pre-war period, and could easily be of the same era as the first-version Gat .

    T.J.Harrington developed his alloy Gat towards the end of the 1930’s, and evidently believed he had introduced enough novelty into the design to apply for a patent (although no patent appears to have ever been granted). Thus he would have made development prototypes, and these would certainly have been made in steel before committing to zinc alloy casting. So could the mystery pistol be one of his surviving prototypes?


    Having dismantled the pistol and the pre-war Gat, and comparing them closely, these are my observations that support the idea:


    1. The pistol has all the hallmarks of something that was made for experimentation and development, rather than something that was made to be a prized possession for actually shooting. Thus:

    • The crude utilitarian appearance doesn’t gel with the time, effort and expert machining that has obviously gone into making it. The grip plates are too thin to make for comfortable grip, and the rear sight is rudimentary. It was never blued.
    • The structure is obviously designed to be easily taken apart.
    • There are built-in adjusters for both the trigger and the sear, something not found on other push- barrel pistols. These can only be accessed by dismantling the gun, and so were most probably used to optimize the geometry of the sear/trigger assembly.
    • The main spring consists of three smaller (professionally finished) springs, so that the power can be modified by adding or removing one of them.


    2. The pistol frame disassembles in a manner very similar to the pre-war Gat, and uses the same type of screw ((4BA) :







    3. The barrel OD and muzzle nut threads are identical, with a 5/16ʺ BSF thread. This thread size is unique to the Gat, and no other commercial British push-barrel pistols used such a thread.






    4. There are distinct similarities between the sear arrangements of the two pistols, notably (a) the use of a pivot pin that rotates with the sear rather than one that remains static with the sear rotating about it, and (b) the positioning of the sear spring within the grip.







    The close similarities between dimensions and threads used on the two pistols, which are not shared by other push-barrel pistols from the same era, are summarized in the following table.






    Are these points enough to raise its status as a Gat prototype from a slight possibility to a reasonable probability? Or am I reading too much into this?

    Your comments would be very welcome!

  2. #2
    edbear2 Guest
    Could it not just be a home / homer at work made effort also?

    You would think a prototype might have some mark of some sort, and be a bit better made, especially the trigger / sear area which really look home / very average school metalwork level and not smith / skilled made.

    ATB, Ed

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    2,768
    Quote Originally Posted by edbear2 View Post
    Could it not just be a home / homer at work made effort also?

    You would think a prototype might have some mark of some sort, and be a bit better made, especially the trigger / sear area which really look home / very average school metalwork level and not smith / skilled made.

    ATB, Ed
    Thats what I'm thinking too. Home made project by someone who had access to a Gat they copy.
    The adjustability in the trigger/sear could just be to get the gun working easily without having to alter the parts.

    I've been thinking about making something like this for years....
    Too many airguns!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    City of London
    Posts
    9,735
    Another thing in favour of it being a genuine prototype GAT is why would anyone bother making it when GATs are/were so cheap and, let's face it, for all the effort making it, you weren't exactly producing something with stellar fit-for-purpose performance?!
    Vintage Airguns Gallery
    ..Above link posted with permission from Gareth W-B
    In British slang an anorak is a person who has a very strong interest in niche subjects.

  5. #5
    edbear2 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvin View Post
    Another thing in favour of it being a genuine prototype GAT is why would anyone bother making it when GATs are/were so cheap and, let's face it, for all the effort making it, you weren't exactly producing something with stellar fit-for-purpose performance?!
    Or the polar opposite, someone looked inside a Gat / pop out and just fancied making one of their own so it was "theirs"

    I did exactly the same when 16 years old, copied a Barnett type crossbow as a combined metalwork/woodwork school project spent ages making all the rocking sears /trigger /prod (leafspring) and 3 piece laminated stock!

    Truth is no-one will ever know, but as someone who has seen all sorts of stuff made at various factories by all sorts of folk who spent bleedin' weeks fettling away during breaks and quiet times to make something they could have bought cheaply***, trust me I reckon it's a home made job!

    *** one notorious guy I worked with was a brilliant engineer and mechanic, and was in F1 from the time of Jackie Stewart, he cound never "waste time" as he called it, so always was making stuff / fixing stuff /improving stuff, especially during the Winter months as was not a newspaper reader or canteen banter type.

    He had a pretty basic strimmer and used to get annoyed at the cap thing getting damaged, so spent days forming one from Titanium!

    One another occasion he made some roof bars for his the car from a defunct stock of highh tensile tube, forming it into an aero oval section to reduce drag (on a 15 year old Peugeot estate!), all made from 4130 steel and took dozens of hours of work.

    Both totally pointless but kept him happy, and I could recount dozens more similar tales from my 50 years of seeing this (and doing it myself!).

    ATB, Ed

  6. #6
    ccdjg is online now Airgun Alchemist, Collector and Scribe
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    2,039
    All interesting observations. Purely in the interests of stirring up a bit of discussion on here (things have been too quiet lately), I will make the counter-arguments:

    POINT 1:

    "Home made project by someone who had access to a Gat they copy."

    "Or the polar opposite, someone looked inside a Gat / pop out and just fancied making one of their own so it was "theirs"

    I disagree with this idea, as the pistol (IMHO) dates more from the 1930's than 1950's. So when this was made, the Harrington Gat would not have been around long to copy (the pre-war Gat was only available briefly ca. 1939). Look at the patina to see its obvious age:




    Another factor is the design of the breech plug (pictured below). The use of one with a female fitting is unique for pop-out pistols, so if someone was trying to make a copy of the Gat, they were introducing quite a bit of their own ingenuity. I think it much more likely that this was a Harrington concept that was later dropped when he finalised his design, perhaps because it involved more machining costs than a conventional breech plug.

    POINT 2

    Could it not just be a home / homer at work made effort also?
    You would think a prototype might have some mark of some sort, and be a bit better made, especially the trigger / sear area which really look home / very average school metalwork level and not smith / skilled made.


    When I look at the pistol closely, yes there are aspects of the build that suggest expediency over finesse, but you have to remember that T.J. Harrington was not your Webley or BSA company, but was a one-man band. If he was in a hurry to get a money-making pistol to the market, why would he not cut a few corners?

    Having said that, there are other aspects of the gun that do show professional expertise, like the quality of the brazing throughout, as exemplified by the front sight below, the quality of the machining on the brass grip plates, and the attention to detail with the breech plug:


    Last edited by ccdjg; 21-10-2022 at 01:48 PM.

  7. #7
    edbear2 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ccdjg View Post
    All interesting observations. Purely in the interests of stirring up a bit of discussion on here (things have been too quiet lately), I will make the counter-arguments:

    POINT 1:

    "Home made project by someone who had access to a Gat they copy."

    "Or the polar opposite, someone looked inside a Gat / pop out and just fancied making one of their own so it was "theirs"

    I disagree with this idea, as the pistol (IMHO) dates more from the 1930's than 1950's. So when this was made, the Harrington Gat would not have been around long to copy (the pre-war Gat was only available briefly ca. 1939). Look at the patina to see its obvious age:




    Another factor is the design of the breech plug (pictured below). The use of one with a female fitting is unique for pop-out pistols, so if someone was trying to make a copy of the Gat, they were introducing quite a bit of their own ingenuity. I think it much more likely that this was a Harrington concept that was later dropped when he finalised his design, perhaps because it involved more machining costs than a conventional breech plug.

    POINT 2

    Could it not just be a home / homer at work made effort also?
    You would think a prototype might have some mark of some sort, and be a bit better made, especially the trigger / sear area which really look home / very average school metalwork level and not smith / skilled made.


    When I look at the pistol closely, yes there are aspects of the build that suggest expediency over finesse, but you have to remember that T.J. Harrington was not your Webley or BSA company, but was a one-man band. If he was in a hurry to get a money-making pistol to the market, why would he not cut a few corners?

    Having said that, there are other aspects of the gun that do show professional expertise, like the quality of the brazing throughout, as exemplified by the front sight below, the quality of the machining on the brass grip plates, and the attention to detail with the breech plug:


    Do you really think those grips were made for the gun, or "re-purposed" from other grip plate / machine plate / machine cover / car footplate / bus platform etc. old random metal stock?

    They look roll impressed or cast even actually, not machined in fact.........I can and do order similar stuff thesedays in 8x4 feet sheets in various thicknesses (Rimex and the like).

    We had all this "machining" before recently with folk waxing lyrical over cast componants, very fine and well done, but not machined parts.

    Patina and ovious age......Okey dokey I get that, but I have seen BSA's from 1905 that look new, and 1970's Mercuries that look like Civil War muskets, pitting depth and metal condition cannot determine age, simple as that I would venture.


    The end plug could have been off something else, but does have quite a coarse thread for a greaser / machine oil dripper cap, which it reminded of as soon as I saw it, like the ones on old Ward lathes (picture is a random type to give idea).




    The brazing "skill" is the norm for any person who is a factory worker who did it as part of their job, my mum could have done it even (true she was AID during the war and showed me how to weld).

    The machined bits as you say are tidy, but who is to say it was all done by one bloke?

    If a "homer" and not using re-purposed bits as described then a trip to a mate in the machine shop may have happened to do the bits the maker could not do, just like me helping countless guys over the years at work with countless projects and vice versa.

    Your whole argument seems to be because it looks older than 1939 then it must be "gen" when who knows what was in the mind of the person who made it and the style they wanted etc. It could easily be 50's or 60's even, or indeed 1930's but inspired by an earlier / period pop out and just by pure chance ended up with some GAT type ides.

    There are only so many ways to release a piston with a certain amount of room, firearm history is littered with nicked ideas / "inventors" who copied folk who never got any credit, one off and unknowns.Who is to say the GAT geezer saw this home made job and copied THAT!

    I have only answered the question posed and "comments would be appreciated" from my career where I have worked in various aspects of engineering /machine shops / factories since 1973 and seen and done all I have described.

    My opinion is it's a home made weapon, like countless others out there, and the origins are impossible to determine despite a few possibly random similarities.

    I can't help what I think and have described various reasons what I base that opinion on, sorry if it's not what you want it to be.

    ATB, ED
    Last edited by edbear2; 21-10-2022 at 05:53 PM.

  8. #8
    ccdjg is online now Airgun Alchemist, Collector and Scribe
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    2,039
    Many thanks for your comments. Fair points all, That's what I wanted - a bit of controversy to spice things up.

    I actually believe we will never be sure one way or the other, so it will stay in my collection as an interesting talking point. As for "it not being what I want it to be", I actually don't want it to be anything. It is what it is.

    Cheers,
    John

  9. #9
    edbear2 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ccdjg View Post
    Many thanks for your comments. Fair points all, That's what I wanted - a bit of controversy to spice things up.

    I actually believe we will never be sure one way or the other, so it will stay in my collection as an interesting talking point. As for "it not being what I want it to be", I actually don't want it to be anything. It is what it is.

    Cheers,
    John
    Fair play mate, It's a real pain actually when a few strokes with an engraver pen or letter punches inside at the time would have been of great help to any future person doing research.

    But of course then it would be a load of folks saying "Is that engraving / etching / stamping original?".....as per the Haenel thread etc.

    ATB, Ed

  10. #10
    harvey_s's Avatar
    harvey_s is offline Lost love child of David Niven and Victoria Beckham
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norwich
    Posts
    9,319
    Quote Originally Posted by ccdjg View Post
    Are these points enough to raise its status as a Gat prototype from a slight possibility to a reasonable probability? Or am I reading too much into this?

    Your comments would be very welcome!
    With the greatest respect there is no provenance to suggest it's status is anything more than a homemade project apart from a few similarities that may or may not have been copied from an original.

    It could equally even be a competitor's prototype...?

    Without any provenance, I don't see its status being anything other than an interesting curiosity.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    3,635
    James Harrington lived a long life and died relatively recently. I have read a press interview with him. He was a colourful and creative character to say the least. Did he leave any written account of his work?
    Last edited by Powderfinger; 23-10-2022 at 05:57 AM. Reason: TJ

  12. #12
    ccdjg is online now Airgun Alchemist, Collector and Scribe
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by harvey_s View Post
    With the greatest respect there is no provenance to suggest it's status is anything more than a homemade project apart from a few similarities that may or may not have been copied from an original.

    It could equally even be a competitor's prototype...?

    Without any provenance, I don't see its status being anything other than an interesting curiosity.
    I agree perfectly with your last point.

    However, I am always surprised by the general feeling among collectors that there was a plethora of amateurs out there making their own prototypes, and creating confusion. I have been collecting and researching air pistols now for 45 years, and I can count on one hand the number of unidentifiable British-made pistols that have come to light in all those years. So on the very rare occasions that they turn up I don't think we can just shrug them off as 'just another cobbled together project'. We need to seriously ask the question, what motivated the creation of the gun?
    Last edited by ccdjg; 21-10-2022 at 09:11 PM.

  13. #13
    micky2 is offline The collector formerly known as micky
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    boston
    Posts
    2,137
    When l owned this pistol. l bought it as a home made one. l just thought it seemed a lot of work to be a protype of any kind. but l liked the construction of it and the thought that had gone into making it. l also have a few other what l class as home made guns, which l admire the skill and the thought of coming up with ldears of making an airgun. just my take on it, we will never for sure.

  14. #14
    ggggr's Avatar
    ggggr is offline part time super hero and seeker of justice
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Flintshire Ch6 sort of near bagillt
    Posts
    2,318
    I think as Ed has pointed out, it is possible for someone to make one of these. With some of these things you have found John, it is/was quite possible for a skilled engineer to make them. You have made guns from scratch! from patents you have found and have made a much neater job than most of them. If the guns you had made, were "prototypes", they would probably be lot rougher than they are. Look at that Slant gripped Webley modification you have.

    A skilled worker could turn out most of the rough "prototypes" you have found.
    People will tinker. You make guns. That bloke Grant Stace? in New Zealand makes guns. There is the bloke who has made tiny springers. I know someone who has made tiny pre charged rifles. In the 100years + of airpistols, dont you think some other skilled people will have made or improved things? AND dont you think some will have survived?

    Being honest, pop outs are totally crap, with the firing cycle and the barrel and sleeve being able to move means they are not accurate at all. Plus the screw in probe gets on your nerves after a few shots. Im saying this from the point of view that why would anyone with the skills even bother to try to improve one? As Ed has said, some people are just like that (Loved the roof rack thing Ed ) . Maybe someone wanted to make the gun for his son or grandson. Those grips are pretty snazzy------but surely if you were doing a prototype, you would just put a plain wooden set on?

    A few things make me think it is a home made job. Like Ed, that probe does look like it is off something else---------like a jet holder or jet off a carburettor.
    Also, I believe BA thread is common in model building? I tend to tap things to 2 or 4ba if Im messing with something with dodgy threads. Also Bsf is common I think in model building and would have been in engineering years ago. I think the trigger is an attempt to improve a standard trigger to get a shorter pull, but I cannot see someone intending to put an adjustable trigger on a cheap budget gun like a GAT.

    Sometimes we cannot find out about even more recent things, whether something was a prototype, whether a part was actually fitted to a gun or an after market or home made modification, so in over 100 years, what chance do we really have?

    I like seeing some of these things no matter what they are.

    Did Milbro ever make a .22 Calibre G4 pistol? A mate has one. His metalwork teacher did the barrel for him---back in the days when things like that happened.

    You look at some other things like the Voere? And just wonder what was going on in someones mind.

    Keep turning them up John.
    Last edited by ggggr; 22-10-2022 at 08:12 AM.
    Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"

  15. #15
    edbear2 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ccdjg View Post
    I agree perfectly with your last point.

    However, I am always surprised by the general feeling among collectors that there was a plethora of amateurs out there making their own prototypes, and creating confusion. I have been collecting and researching air pistols now for 45 years, and I can count on one hand the number of unidentifiable British-made pistols that have come to light in all those years. So on the very rare occasions that they turn up I don't think we can just shrug them off as 'just another cobbled together project'. We need to seriously ask the question, what motivated the creation of the gun?
    Even Dennis Hillier had one in his green book I recall, and commented on how "home made airguns" often turn up , and fetch either good or poor prices depending on the skill /quality of execution, I recall it was a rifle based on a MK3 that was featured , but I don't have a copy to hand, maybe someone could put up the text.

    "Seriously ask the question" and "motivation" are as I explained earlier, I have made a couple myself from scratch, starting at school with cannons of course, then a airline fed bb SMG based on an Owen gun with a Stirling mag hiding a feed hopper and feed system a bit like a spray gun pick up.

    Don't even know where that is now, made it in circa 1985 at work for breaktime plinking with workmates.

    Just idling away time usually surrounded by the facilities that make such projects easy to do in my case. It's what folk do I would say for various reasons, mine being just because I could and had the time and equipment to do it quite quickly as worked in engineering.

    As Guy righty says loads of folk have made all sorts, like the metalwork teacher who did the Lee Enfield / BSA "Milpats", or someone who put a brass .25 rifled barrel into a BSA standard owned (a while ago) by a guy near Stroud I bought a Airsporter MK1 off.

    What on earth was the point of the latter?....It could not be confused for a real .25 as the wrong period, and the work was noticable at the crown, That was a serious bit of time and lining up etc. to get that done, and someone did it just because they could, or fancied a .25, a pointless exercise to 90% of shooters or collectors I would venture, but someone made the effort.

    I knew a guy where I worked in the 1980's who was very skilled (he did action filing for Accuracy International) who made a perfect replica of a Gibson Mastertone Banjo, all sorts of other stuff but was a keen shooter, one one occasion I saw him patiently at the bandsaw sawing slowly through a lump of alloy steel.

    This took a few tea breaks, he had bought an Urberti SAA and decided he liked the look of the Colt Bisley, so then spent weeks and weeks making a new drop style hammer, new grip frame, new grips, you name it, until it was 100% correct.

    All colour cased or whatever, new front blade, whole gun to white and re-done......He could have bought a real one with the weeks and weeks of faffing about

    That's out there probably causing confusion too! as maybe in 100 years a couple of my BSA efforts might be, although all the numbers of mine are out there online, in previous these little projects history normally died with the creator.

    So if anyone has seen a air fed SMG with Premier grips and triggerguard, a sten MK1 like tubular stock, and a curved Stirling mag topped with a brass plate and BB feed, then it's not a prototype, It's just something knocked up to shoot the piles of tin cans discarded by the soft drinks transport hub once located in the Brooklands industrial park after they had a forlift mishap



    ATB, Ed
    Last edited by edbear2; 23-10-2022 at 11:24 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •