Jump to content

Thomas Bland and Sons hammer shotgun


Kon
 Share

Recommended Posts

well whatever the outcome i still think it is a nice looking gun...............and i luuuuuve sideplates that are not full up with rose an scroll decor et al...........plain and simple is loverly with a name.............less is more.......

still like the hammer definition..........bet that will look loverly when it is cleaned up and barrel done...chequering re-cut/cleaned..woodwork cleaned....like the strong looking grain on it as well.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ditchman said:

well whatever the outcome i still think it is a nice looking gun...............and i luuuuuve sideplates that are not full up with rose an scroll decor et al...........plain and simple is loverly with a name.............less is more.......

still like the hammer definition..........bet that will look loverly when it is cleaned up and barrel done...chequering re-cut/cleaned..woodwork cleaned....like the strong looking grain on it as well.......

Well... Indeed it's a nice hammergun, I m looking forward to see it after a careful restoration. For its history, I might never discover it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I have searched the listings (Guntrader as it is easy to filter by maker) and found 4 guns where (I think) I can reliably read the name as engraved from the photos and also list the serial number.  The lowest s/n was 14661 which if Brown is right is just pre 1900, one 168xx which again seems around 1900-1910 - and the others are around 183xx to 189xx.  These (from Brown) would date to 1940 to 1965.  One is T. Bland & Sons (168xx) - all the others are Thomas Bland & Sons.  None "Son" in the single.  Nothing is proved, but I do wonder if the Son/Sons change is reliable?

Incidentally, Brown lists S (Samuel) Wright and Sons as having been a trade supplier who supplied Thomas Bland (as well as many other well known names).  Wright's records list serial numbers from 1936 (s/n 512) to 1968 (s/n 6052) - so your number doesn't fit there - but it does confirm Bland's were 'buying in' as did very many well known names.

Thanks for all your  academic work! I may never discover the real history of the shotgun if I don't get an official answer from the records holder. Since there are other similar T. Blond and Sons with SN above 1900, and based of what you quote from Brown, it's a possible assumption that some of T. Bland shotguns are a some kind a trade result and got a SN 21xxx up to 24xxx. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I can’t answer that. I spotted a reference to Bland in the index, and turning to the page - it was a list of various ‘names’ to whom Wright supplied ‘guns’.  There were a number of well known names including Bland’s.

 

15 hours ago, ditchman said:

when you say buying in........does that mean they bought in functional guns ....is it termed "in the white".?.that were then "finished off by the resident gunsmith.........or varying degrees there of ?

Bought in usually meant a gun bought from another maker , often cheaper guns to be sold under the Bland name .These would be fully finished and ready for sale .Many gunmakers did this as a means of putting a basic priced gun on the selves to complement their range . It worked both ways as they may have had orders for guns that were of a much higher quality than their norm ,that there workshops were not set up to make . These may have been barrelled actions that they finished or complete guns .

This was before the Trade Descriptions Act so the seller claimed to be the maker . This was common acres the whole of the trade with many provincial " gunmakers" buying from the Birmingham Trade . Companies like The Midland Gun Co and Webley and Scott made many thousands of guns that bore the names of others on leaving the factory .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A hammer gun is very unlikely to have been made by a London gunmaker later than WW1. There was still a market for them as some people preferred the safety of a hammer but usually gamekeepers. I think that gun is much older than you believe, and has been rebarreled / sleeved and nitro proofed. A london made gun but its got Birmingham proof marks.

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

A hammer gun is very unlikely to have been made by a London gunmaker later than WW1. There was still a market for them as some people preferred the safety of a hammer but usually gamekeepers. I think that gun is much older than you believe, and has been rebarreled / sleeved and nitro proofed. A london made gun but its got Birmingham proof marks.

if it were "sleeved"...........wouldnt that word be stamped under the barrells ?..and if it were the  gunmakers name would have to be erased from the rib on the barrel ?...unless if it was sleeved by the original maker ?

Edited by ditchman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I think that gun is much older than you believe, and has been rebarreled / sleeved and nitro proofed. A london made gun but its got Birmingham proof marks.

The numbers on the barrels (actual tubes, see photo posted by Kon on Satyurday at 18:28) match the rest of the gun (which doesn't rule out re-barrelling, but many makers issued new barrels with new numbers), and if sleeved, that should definitely show on the proof marks.  It is possible that the "Sleeved" stamp is unseen in the photos, but unlikely.

Bland started in Birmingham and retained premises in Birmingham (41-43 Whittall Street) until post WW1 when they closed in Birmingham.  It is therefore likely that many Bland guns will have originally been built and proved in Birmingham.  They had both London (opened 1872) and Liverpool (opened 1880s) premises.  (Sources, Boothroyd and Brown books)

I have an open mind, but tend to the view (mainly due to the serial number not being in the accepted 'Bland range') that it was a gun retailed by Bland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gunman said:

 

Bought in usually meant a gun bought from another maker , often cheaper guns to be sold under the Bland name .These would be fully finished and ready for sale .Many gunmakers did this as a means of putting a basic priced gun on the selves to complement their range . It worked both ways as they may have had orders for guns that were of a much higher quality than their norm ,that there workshops were not set up to make . These may have been barrelled actions that they finished or complete guns .

This was before the Trade Descriptions Act so the seller claimed to be the maker . This was common acres the whole of the trade with many provincial " gunmakers" buying from the Birmingham Trade . Companies like The Midland Gun Co and Webley and Scott made many thousands of guns that bore the names of others on leaving the factory .

 Indeed this was common not only in England but in Italy Belgium, Spain and Germany. I have a linsley bros hammer shotgun, most propably made by W&S

3 hours ago, Vince Green said:

A hammer gun is very unlikely to have been made by a London gunmaker later than WW1. There was still a market for them as some people preferred the safety of a hammer but usually gamekeepers. I think that gun is much older than you believe, and has been rebarreled / sleeved and nitro proofed. A london made gun but its got Birmingham proof marks.

Barrel has matching numbers though and the gun is not marked "sleeved" 

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The numbers on the barrels (actual tubes, see photo posted by Kon on Satyurday at 18:28) match the rest of the gun (which doesn't rule out re-barrelling, but many makers issued new barrels with new numbers), and if sleeved, that should definitely show on the proof marks.  It is possible that the "Sleeved" stamp is unseen in the photos, but unlikely.

Bland started in Birmingham and retained premises in Birmingham (41-43 Whittall Street) until post WW1 when they closed in Birmingham.  It is therefore likely that many Bland guns will have originally been built and proved in Birmingham.  They had both London (opened 1872) and Liverpool (opened 1880s) premises.  (Sources, Boothroyd and Brown books)

I have an open mind, but tend to the view (mainly due to the serial number not being in the accepted 'Bland range') that it was a gun retailed by Bland.

No "sleeved" proof marks on shotgun.  It would be a revelation for all of us to find out about the Blands out of Bland range!!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vince Green said:

A hammer gun is very unlikely to have been made by a London gunmaker later than WW1. There was still a market for them as some people preferred the safety of a hammer but usually gamekeepers. I think that gun is much older than you believe, and has been rebarreled / sleeved and nitro proofed. A london made gun but its got Birmingham proof marks.

It has one set of Birmingham proof marks on the barrels and action .So why would you think it has been re barrelled or sleeved ? If it had it would have had more marks showing .

That aside even in  day's past it would not have been worth doing  either  as it is a very basic gun .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

check your hammer springs .....one looks slacker than the other....just unscrew the shroud and the pin and spring will slip out....you can use a biro spring...perfectly good enough:good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In support of the point about guns being made for others I bought a hammergun by W Richards of Liverpool. It was though very clearly a William Powell lift up top lever in all respects. Richards did not have their records for this particular gun as they were destroyed. When I stripped it down there was a different set of numbers inside the lock plates. I put these to Powell’s who checked their records. These said “made for Mr W Richards” clearly proving the point although many would claim they never made guns for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dave at kelton said:

In support of the point about guns being made for others I bought a hammergun by W Richards of Liverpool. It was though very clearly a William Powell lift up top lever in all respects. Richards did not have their records for this particular gun as they were destroyed. When I stripped it down there was a different set of numbers inside the lock plates. I put these to Powell’s who checked their records. These said “made for Mr W Richards” clearly proving the point although many would claim they never made guns for others.

Fletcher ,Bland, Churchill . Westley, Dickson ,Lang , Atkin , Grant  ,Lancaster, Evans ,Army and Navy , Holland , Cogswell Chubb , Linsley .

Just a few of the names on guns leaving Webley and Scott's factory .either as barrelled actions , guns in the white or fully finished .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/07/2021 at 13:08, JohnfromUK said:

The numbers on the barrels (actual tubes, see photo posted by Kon on Satyurday at 18:28) match the rest of the gun (which doesn't rule out re-barrelling, but many makers issued new barrels with new numbers), and if sleeved, that should definitely show on the proof marks.  It is possible that the "Sleeved" stamp is unseen in the photos, but unlikely.

Bland started in Birmingham and retained premises in Birmingham (41-43 Whittall Street) until post WW1 when they closed in Birmingham.  It is therefore likely that many Bland guns will have originally been built and proved in Birmingham.  They had both London (opened 1872) and Liverpool (opened 1880s) premises.  (Sources, Boothroyd and Brown books)

I have an open mind, but tend to the view (mainly due to the serial number not being in the accepted 'Bland range') that it was a gun retailed by Bland.

Uptade

Just striped the paint.... Twist Damascus revealed!! 

On 06/07/2021 at 13:08, JohnfromUK said:

The numbers on the barrels (actual tubes, see photo posted by Kon on Satyurday at 18:28) match the rest of the gun (which doesn't rule out re-barrelling, but many makers issued new barrels with new numbers), and if sleeved, that should definitely show on the proof marks.  It is possible that the "Sleeved" stamp is unseen in the photos, but unlikely.

Bland started in Birmingham and retained premises in Birmingham (41-43 Whittall Street) until post WW1 when they closed in Birmingham.  It is therefore likely that many Bland guns will have originally been built and proved in Birmingham.  They had both London (opened 1872) and Liverpool (opened 1880s) premises.  (Sources, Boothroyd and Brown books)

I have an open mind, but tend to the view (mainly due to the serial number not being in the accepted 'Bland range') that it was a gun retailed by Bland.

No "sleeved" proof marks on shotgun.  It would be a revelation for all of us to find out about the Blands out of Bland range!!!! 

IMG_20210707_184023.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/07/2021 at 14:49, Kon said:

Hi there, just purchased a Thomas Bland and sons 12g hammergun. Can anybody help with dating the shotgun and find out its model (if any). 

Details

As far as I know the plural (son vs sons) begun at 1936. From the proof marks I can tell that is a pre 1954 shotgun so I narrowed the date between 1936 - 1954 (if I am right). The name T. Bland and sons appears on both sides of the action and on the top of the rib (no address). The serial number is 25697. The Birmingham proof marks on the barrels are the crowned BP NP and BV. Nitro proof also written. Left barrel marked "choke". Both barrels marked with 12c in a rombhus. Also on both barrels an indication of 1 1/8oz found. Right barrel marked bore size 13/1 left barrel marked 12. On the action's flat the is a capital B in a rombhus. 

Thank you!

IMG_20210703_101505.jpg

IMG_20210703_102855.jpg

IMG_20210703_101657.jpg

Uptade after stripping paint. Twist Damascus barrels revealed 

On 06/07/2021 at 13:08, JohnfromUK said:

The numbers on the barrels (actual tubes, see photo posted by Kon on Satyurday at 18:28) match the rest of the gun (which doesn't rule out re-barrelling, but many makers issued new barrels with new numbers), and if sleeved, that should definitely show on the proof marks.  It is possible that the "Sleeved" stamp is unseen in the photos, but unlikely.

Bland started in Birmingham and retained premises in Birmingham (41-43 Whittall Street) until post WW1 when they closed in Birmingham.  It is therefore likely that many Bland guns will have originally been built and proved in Birmingham.  They had both London (opened 1872) and Liverpool (opened 1880s) premises.  (Sources, Boothroyd and Brown books)

I have an open mind, but tend to the view (mainly due to the serial number not being in the accepted 'Bland range') that it was a gun retailed by Bland.

Uptade

Just striped the paint.... Twist Damascus revealed!! 

On 06/07/2021 at 13:08, JohnfromUK said:

The numbers on the barrels (actual tubes, see photo posted by Kon on Satyurday at 18:28) match the rest of the gun (which doesn't rule out re-barrelling, but many makers issued new barrels with new numbers), and if sleeved, that should definitely show on the proof marks.  It is possible that the "Sleeved" stamp is unseen in the photos, but unlikely.

Bland started in Birmingham and retained premises in Birmingham (41-43 Whittall Street) until post WW1 when they closed in Birmingham.  It is therefore likely that many Bland guns will have originally been built and proved in Birmingham.  They had both London (opened 1872) and Liverpool (opened 1880s) premises.  (Sources, Boothroyd and Brown books)

I have an open mind, but tend to the view (mainly due to the serial number not being in the accepted 'Bland range') that it was a gun retailed by Bland.

No "sleeved" proof marks on shotgun.  It would be a revelation for all of us to find out about the Blands out of Bland range!!!! 

IMG_20210707_183948.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kon said:

Twist Damascus revealed!!

I am not unduly surprised.  I have an old hammer gun (a W&C Scott badged as Maleham) - which has been sleeved (before my time) - and you can still see the figure in the breech section in the right light - despite it now being blued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/07/2021 at 12:37, Vince Green said:

A hammer gun is very unlikely to have been made by a London gunmaker later than WW1. There was still a market for them as some people preferred the safety of a hammer but usually gamekeepers. I think that gun is much older than you believe, and has been rebarreled / sleeved and nitro proofed. A london made gun but its got Birmingham proof marks.

Uptade. Twist Damascus revealed after stripping old blueing and paint

IMG_20210707_183948.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kon said:

Uptade. Twist Damascus revealed after stripping old blueing and paint

IMG_20210707_183948.jpg

They look like laminate rather than damascus but it certainly dates the gun as being a whole lot older than you first thought and they are the original barrels right enough. They would have been browned rather than blued originally 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...