Gun Dictionary

GUNS DICTIONARY
a guide to firearms, airguns,

inventors, patentees, manufacturers,
distributors, brand names, trademarks
and military-unit markings
JOHN WALTER
This version first published electronically in 2017 by
archiving industry
www.archivingindustry.com
Copyright © John Walter, 2001–2017
The right of John Walter to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.
All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise), without the prior written permission of the author.
Updated to 1st September 2017
PRODUCED IN GREAT BRITAIN

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: 7
Guns, gunmakers, trademarks, brand names, designers, patentees
THE RISE OF THE GUN: 13

From the earliest times to the twenty-first century
The American Civil War: 32
The Seven Weeks War: 49
Franco–Prussian and nineteenth-century colonial wars: 50
The First World War: 57
The Great Peace: 62
The Second World War: 63
The post-war era: 67
ORGANISATION AND TERMINOLOGY: 72

And a note on sources of additional information
Terminology and corporate structure: 73
Sources of information: 74
General studies: 74
Gunmakers: 74
Company histories; 74
Firearms: 77
Airguns: 77
Ammunition: 77
Key cross-references: 78
Cyphers: imperial and royal: 78
Monograms: 79
National markings: 80
NATO standard numbers: 91
Patents: 91
Trademarks: 95
INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 5

INTRODUCTION
Guns, gunmakers, trademarks, brand names, designers, patentees
This project had its roots partly in my habitual list-making, but also in the
information accumulated from links which had been forged with enthusiasts
throughout the world. The first result was ‘Airguns A–Z’, the directory-style
listing that was serialised in the ‘Airgun Scene’ column of the British periodical
Guns Review from 1984 into the early 1990s…without ever reaching ‘Z’. The
basic manuscript was then greatly expanded to include firearms and associated
topics, reappearing in 2001 as The Greenhill Dictionary of Guns and Gunmakers,
published simultaneously by Greenhill Books of London and Stackpole Books of
Mechanicsburg. Several thousand books were sold, but a declaration of ‘out of
print’ in 2006 brought progress a halt.
The 2001 book had sought to identify in a single volume as many brand
names, trademarks and gunmakers’ monograms as possible; to date the activities
of individual manufacturers from changes of corporate structure or address; to
provide brief details of selected individual guns; and, particularly, to direct the
reader to sources of detailed information.
The project initially concentrated on the machine-made breechloader at the
expense of the single shot cap-lock, which was largely due to my personal interests.
However, even if the beginning of the modern era can be defined as the patenting
of the first Colt revolver in 1836, cap-locks retained their importance for several
decades; indeed, in remote areas of Africa, or even the most distant backwaters
of the U.S.A., the scarcity of self-contained metal-case ammunition ensured the
survival of the cap-lock rifle into the twentieth century.
The days of American gunmakers steeped in the traditions of eighteenth-century
Long Rifle smiths, who could make each and every gun component, were numbered
by the advent of the machine-made sporting gun; and, by the end of the nineteenth
century, steadily improving distribution networks (railways, in particular) were
taking the products of Remington, Sharps, Winchester, Colt, Smith & Wesson,
Iver Johnson, Lefever, the Crescent Gun Company and uncounted others to the
farthest corners of the U.S.A.
The output of the largest manufacturers, numbered in hundreds of thousands,
finally undermined the need for individual craftsmanship. Consequently, the
gunmakers working in the U.S.A. prior to 1880 were originally excluded from the
dictionary unless I could prove a connection with multi-shot or breechloading
firearms. The gunmaking fraternities in Europe, however, and especially in Britain,
worked very differently from their North American counterparts prior to the First
World War. Mass production was confined largely to military establishments, and
to aggressive government supported private conglomerates such as Waffenfabrik
Mauser AG or Österreichische Waffenfabriks-Gesellschaft, whose output was more
military than sporting.
PAGE 6 : GUNS DICTIONARY

A page from a catalogue published by Waffen-Glaser
INTRODUCTION of Zürich in 1933
AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 7
The British had a particularly durable tradition of craftsmanship which had never
been entirely subordinated to the machine. This could also be said of most other
European gunmaking centres, until the unprecedented demands made by the First
World War put a premium on quantity at the expense of quality.
The claims of nineteenth-century European gunmakers to inclusion have often
been difficult to dismiss. Though many men bought components from specialist
gun-lock makers or barrel riflers, assembly and finishing were still undertaken
personally. Consequently, many provincial British gunmakers were originally
included on the grounds that multi-shot handguns or breechloading sporting guns
have been (or may still be) found with appropriate marks.
Directory entries were also biased towards Anglo-American affairs, paying
less attention to the gunmakers operating in Brescia, Eibar, Ferlach, Liége, Saint-
Étienne, Suhl or Weipert. However, an acknowledgment of the most important
European makers was still be found.
Inventors and patentees were included wherever possible, though space
limitations meant that priority usually had to be given to designs which were
exploited commercially at the expense of ‘paper projects’ (interesting though these
may have been).
Some designers achieved stupendous totals of citations, particularly in
twentieth-century days when the ‘catch all’ patents of the 1860s had given way to
the separate registry of each major component of a design. Andrew Burgess, among
the most versatile of gun designers if by no means the most successful, was granted
no fewer than 836 firearms-related patents in his career; John Browning (perhaps
the greatest of the great) received about 950, mostly for automatic weapons. Yet, in
September 1957, The Gun Report related a claim made by the otherwise overlooked
Crawford Loomis—who spent most of his working life with Remington—to have
held ‘more assignable patents than any other gun designer’.
It is, of course, impossible to include every known brand name or trademark,
or to summarise the career of every gunsmith and gun dealer. Writing in October
1970 in Shooting Times & Country Magazine, the late Gough Thomas claimed to
have information about more than four thousand British gunmakers in his files;
Gardner’s Small Arms Makers itself contains nearly 400,000 words devoted to just
one small part of the subject of guns and gunmaking; and studies of individual
gunmakers may exceed a half-million words.
Some trademarks and brand names still defy interpretation, but a special
effort has been made to unravel monograms, which, at their most complex, can
seem bafflingly obscure. The principles under which these have been analysed are
described in greater detail in the directory entries entitled ‘Monograms’, ‘National
markings’ and ‘Trademarks and brand names’.
When I began working on the guns and gunmakers project in the mid 1990s,
I rashly sought an overall ‘success rate’ of fifty per cent: a reader should have one
chance in two of finding what was sought. Once I began enlarging entries to include
product-details, even in shorthand form, content grew so rapidly that a book once
conceived as eighty thousand words exceeded 500,000 when my publisher, Lionel

Leventhal, finally called ‘time’. To put this total in context, I estimate my published
output to approach four million words, and my good friend Ian Hogg (1926–2002),
author of more than 150 books, reckoned to have written at least nine million.
Consequently, though my dictionary seeks to be genuinely ecletic, some topics
are inevitably represented in far greater detail than others. Seeking the brand name
found on a Spanish 6.35mm Browning-type pocket pistol or an American ‘Suicide
Special’ revolver will encounter greater success than a quest for descriptions of
each of the hundreds of individual patents granted to Andrew Burgess or John
Browning. And it will be easier to identify a shotgun-cartridge brand name than a
military headstamp, at least until much more work has been done.
No guide to the worldwide gunmaking industry can ever hope to be truly
comprehensive, but all projects reach the point where it is better to offer the benefits
of incomplete research than wait decades until every last piece of information has
been sifted. The arguments offered in 2001 seem to be as valid today even though,
increasingly eager to trace the origins of the guns that had been current in 1836
(by implication, with earlier origins), I began to work back in time. The material
offered here, therefore, still far from completion, reflects my progress.
But what of the changes that have been made in the last decade? One of the
most obvious has been the rise of computer-based dissemination of knowledge by
way of the internet, which, though not always entirely trustworthy, at least allows
information to be constantly updated in a way in which a traditional book cannot.
Among the most valuable websites are the many collectors’ forums and those of
the patent offices of Britain, Germany and the U.S.A., all of which offer on-line
search facilities. Though British patents can currently be accessed only back to
the 1880s and pre-1919 German patents can be found only if the patent number is
known in advance, the U.S. site (http://www.uspto.gov) allows access to all the many
millions of patents granted in the U.S.A. since 1836. Unfortunately, the marks on
U.S.-made firearms give only the date of grant, and it is still sometimes necessary
to search by name through—for example—Google Patents. This explains why I am
endeavouring to convert the guns dictionary into electronic form.
This ‘book’ obviously contains information which has not been upgraded for
more than a decade, and I hope that readers will be patient. The initial phase of
the project is simply to convert printed pages to the electronic equivalent. Most
of this is straightforward, if time-consuming and at times tedious! Parts of ‘C’ and
all of ‘H’ and ‘J’ have been lost to disk-corruption, but optical character-recognition
systems will allow the information to be recaptured in due course. Only then will a
concerted attempt be made to upgrade individual entries (‘phase two’), and, lastly,
add some illustrations (‘phase three’).
Lastly, an explanation of content. Even before the original book was published,
some expert readers—including Ian Hogg—complained that I had included too
many airguns, offering the opinion that only firearms merited the description
‘gun’. I still take the view that the term is actually a corruption of the Scandinavian
female personal name ‘Gunnhildr’, in which gunnr meant ‘war’. This may seem like
a strange interpretation (others claim that ‘gun’ is a corruption of ‘Engine’), yet the

Oxford English Dictionary notes that what was most probably a large siege engine
was given the byname Gonnhylde Gnoste, “Gunnhilda[’s] Spark”, in plainsong
dating from the time of the English king Edward II (reigned 1307–27), and also
that ‘gun’ was applied sufficiently loosely in mediæval times to allow the English
writer Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1344–1400) to link the term with the missiles thrown
by a trebuchet.
Of course, this definition could be taken to extremes: if a ‘gun’ is accepted to be
something capable of discharging any missile, pop-guns and water-pistols could be
legitimately included. A line has to be drawn somewhere and so, with an occasional
exception (where a cork-firer, for example, is derived from or the inspiration for an
airgun), ‘guns’ of this type are excluded. But it should be remarked that the work of
many firearms inventors transcended one particular genre. They included Charles
Frederick (‘Fred’) Lefever, whose many patented designs included shotguns, pop-
guns, water pistols, and BB Guns of the type pictured opposite…the incredibly
successful pump-action Daisy No. 25.
Another contentious issue has been the inclusion of accessories. Owing to their
significance, and sometimes also their indispensability, I have included sections on
ammunition, bayonets, sights, sub-calibre inserts (Einsteckläufe) if they seem to be
sufficiently important.
The 2001 book was originally to have opened with a history of ‘the gun’, but this
was dropped by my publisher when the project threatened to spiral out of control.
Some of the material has been retrieved from an old floppy disk, and the removal of
page-length constraints now allows it to be reinstated. The chapter is incomplete
in its present form, of course, as work had originally stopped at the First World
War and text thereafter is still very sketchy. However, this shortcoming was not
deemed to be significant enough to prevent inclusion. We have even been able to
add some illustrations!
Comments about the dictionary project can always be sent to my e-address
[johndouglaswalter@gmail.com], but please hold back complaints about omissions
until all the ‘first-stage’ files has been uploaded!
John Walter, 2015

An illustration from Jakob de Gheyn’s Wapenhandelinghe van Roers, Musquetten ende Spiessen,
published in the Netherlands in 1608 merely ten years before the start of the Thirty Years War. Even though
the first wheel-locks had appeared fifty years earlier, they were still regarded as the expensive toys of the
aristocracy; consequently, the two soldiers are still carrying matchlocks, a linstock and an array of cartridge
holders (right), and a powder flask and hanks of slow-match.

THE RISE OF THE GUN
From the earliest times to the twenty-first century
The origins of the military firearm stretch back to the fourteenth century (perhaps
even slightly earlier), but not until technology improved did it become a viable
weapon. The first guns were exceptionally clumsy, even after a ‘tiller’—the
forerunner of a stock—had been added to what had previously been an unsupported
barrel, once made by hammer-welding short strips of iron onto a mandrel that
could subsequently be drilled out to provide a ‘bore’. Later guns were cast in a
single piece, allowing them to be stronger and less likely to burst by unwinding
along an inadequately welded seam.
Many small guns have been retrieved from the ruins of castles and
fortifications, dating as early as the fourteenth century, but most of these were
simply diminutions of the tiller-gun. They usually have sockets in the breech-end
of the tube, and the smallness of their bore suggests that they were simply the
playthings of the nobility, or perhaps the sons of the nobility. There is no evidence
that they were made in quantity. Indeed, guns of all types were in short supply
prior to 1400. It is hard to believe that they would have had much offensive threat,
as the bores were very small and the capacity for the poor-quality gunpowder of the
day was extremely limited.
The idea of a one-hand gun remained in limbo until the invention of the →wheel-
lock, attributed to a variety of men—including Leonardo da Vinci—but almost
certainly a product of the south German clock-making industry at the beginning
of the 1500s ( a claim that it dates back to the 1440s is not generally accepted). The
clockmakers were amongst the most skilled of the earliest mechanical engineers,
used to working accurately in small scale. To function efficiently, clocks needed to
combine skill in design and great precision in the cutting of gears. It was a small
step from a clock to the ‘clockwork’ mechanism of the wheel-lock, in which a small
chain (often of only three or five links) connected a spring with a rotating wheel.
To work the lock, a small key was used to ‘span’ the mechanism by winding the
chain against the pressure of the spring onto a spindle fixed in the wheel. The other
major part of the action was a piece of iron pyrites held in the jaws of a ‘cock’ that
could be rotated until held against the serrated rim of the wheel by a small spring.
Pressure on the trigger or ‘tricker’ released the captive wheel, which was spun
by the action of the spring pulling on the chain. Sparks generated from the contact
of the pyrites and the serrated edge of the wheel cascaded into a pan of fine-grain
priming powder and, after an infinitesimal delay, the main charge of gunpowder in
the chamber also ignited.
The advent of the wheel-lock had two important effects. It not only freed the
firearm from the first, but essentially primitive method of ignition, the lighted
match or tow, but also removed the need for two-hand use by providing a self-
contained mechanism that worked automatically once released. In addition, by

involving the highly-skilled clockmakers, it ensured that the status of gunmakers
was rapidly elevated to the status that was jealously guarded for generation after
generation. The recognition of gunmakers’ guilds and the steadily increasing
output allowed the small firearm to find military use, and the increase in use
created an environment in which innovations-not always universally praised-could
be promoted.
The wheel-lock was an efficient mechanism, but had several weaknesses
judged from a military standpoint. Production was limited by the need of skilled
craftsmen and costs were correspondingly high, even though considerable numbers
of plain-looking guns were made for military service; the pyrites was comparatively
weak, often disintegrating after a few shots had been fired; and the employment
of a separate key or ‘spanner’ to wind the spindle was undesirable in combat.
Something better was needed; something that could be used time and time again
with a minimum of motion and a certainty of repetition.
The answer was the ‘flinted lock’, made in several forms. There has been much
debate about the origins of these locks, and the differences between them. The
most popular forms are the Spanish →miquelet, the Dutch/German →Snaphance,
and the →French lock or ‘flintlock’. Though the principal difference between the
snaphance and the French lock is often said to be the combination of the steel and
pan cover in one component, it seems that the first French Locks, introduced early
in the seventeenth century (allegedly by the French gunmaker Marin le Bougeoys,
Arquebusier du Roi), also had separate pan covers.
The true difference will be found in the design of the sear, which works
vertically to engage notches or ‘bents’ in the tumbler attached to the cock spindle.
In the snaphance, the sear works laterally; in addition, notably in the miquelet, the
nose of the sear projects through the lock plate to release the tail of the cock when
the trigger is pressed.
The French lock gradually attained a position of supremacy by the end of the
seventeenth century, which lasted until the advent of the percussion cap more
than a hundred years later. The principle of the lock was simple: a specially shaped
or ‘knapped’ flint, held in the jaws of a rotating cock, was brought into contact with
a rapidly-moving roughened surface so that a shower of sparks was diverted into a
panful of priming powder.
A true French-style flintlock, therefore, had the steel and the pan cover formed
as a single part, and a sear that moved vertically to intercept a tumbler fixed to
the axis-pin of the cock after it had passed through the lock plate. The dog lock,
particularly favoured in England, was simply a flintlock with a large safety catch or
‘dog’ on the outside tail of the lock plate to intercept the tail of the cock.
The flintlock offered no real economy of size compared with the preceding
wheel-lock, but had the merits of simplicity and durability. The flint was much
harder than pyrites, and gave more consistent ignition; and, excepting the
relationship between the striking point of the flint on the steel, the parts of the
flintlock were comparatively easy to make and easy to regulate. The ease with which
the new lock could be made boosted production to a point where armies could

The wheel-lock was the earliest major improvement in firearms
technology. Conceived in the first half of the sixteenth century,
its creation was due to clockmakers working in soutthern
Germany and Bohemia. Many guns, like this 13-bore pyrotechnic
pictol of c. 1580, made in Nürnberg and once in the Amalric
collection until sold at auction in 2006, were richly decorated to
reflect the rank of their aristocratic purchasers.

issue firearms universally, at the expense of the bow and the pike. The guns were
simple and sturdy, though often initially large, long-barrelled and cumbersome;
as the years passed, however, even the regulation military weapons became more
compact and better to handle.
The pre-eminence of the flintlock endured for more than two hundred years,
until the realisation that the explosive properties of a group of chemical compounds
known as the fulminates could be harnessed to provide a self-contained ignition
system. Credited to Scottish clergyman Alexander →Forsyth (though the potential
use of fulminates as an igniter had been predicted by the Frenchman Claude-Louis
Berthollet as early as 1786), the original percussion-ignition lock was patented in
England in 1807.
Known as the ‘scent bottle’, it relied on a rotating reservoir to deposit a small
amount of fulminate powder alongside a touch-hole, where it could be struck and
ignited by the hammer. The fulminate lock was difficult to make, and prone to
suffer the effects of corrosion. Experience rapidly showed that improvements could
be made, however, and the effect it had on the sporting-gun market persuaded
many enterprising gunmakers to produce alternatives: pill-locks, tube-locks, and a
variety of other proprietary designs. These were soon all swept away by the cap, a
pellet of mercuric fulminate contained within a small envelope-initially of board,
later of tin and then copper, shellacked to be waterproof.
The genesis of the cap has always been in some doubt, though the consensus is
to give the honour to John Shaw even though his claims are vigorously contested
in France in particular. The →percussion cap was the greatest step forward in
firearms technology since the introduction of the flintlock. Though the mechanics
of the cap-lock differed from the flintlock only in the substitution of a nipple for
the pan and steel, the means of ignition was far more efficient. Tests undertaken
by the French army in the 1830s suggested that the certainty of ignition improved
by a factor of six once the cap had replaced the flint. Though this superiority was
disputed by diehards, it was to be demonstrated graphically on the battlefield.
One of the most important factors in the development of the military weapon
was the introduction of breech-loading, largely unheralded in its first, often
primitive forms. Though the rudiments of breech-loading can be seen in some of
the earliest guns, in which separate cylindrical breech chambers were retained by
a wedge, ineffectual breech seals were a perpetual problem. The gas-leaks were so
bad, in fact, that the universal acceptance of breech-loading was delayed until the
nineteenth century.
A popular early method of achieving a higher density of fire was simply to load
powder charges, bullets and wads alternately into a single barrel, and then attempt
to fire each charge sequentially. This involved an often-unappreciated risk: unless
the wads sealed the system properly, these guns were prone to fire all the shots
at once and could even explode. Superimposing loads was soon seen to be risky-
as well as inefficient-and the next step was to group several single-shot barrels
together around a central axis. This led indirectly to the revolver, though the multi-
barrel block proved to be long-lived.

This English-made two-barrel flintlock pistol dates from about 1680. The barrels rotate around
a horizontal pivot, the so-called ‘turnover’ or ‘Wender’ principle, requiring two pans and two steels.
Christian Cranmer collection.
Neither the rotary barrel cluster nor a barrel-block restricted weight or size, the
best compromise being a single-barrelled gun either with multiple breech-chambers
(the revolver) or some kind of magazine. An important early step towards the
perfection of the magazine rifle was the work of the seventeenth-century Danish
gunsmith Peter →Kalthoff, which had a laterally moving breech-chamber system,
actuated by radial movement of the trigger guard, which transferred powders
and balls from the butt magazines, and the breech (much copied) offered by the
Florentine gunsmith Michele →Lorenzoni, which consisted of a large vertical
disc with peripheral chambers designed to transfer balls and powder from the
magazines into the butt to the chamber by means of a large radial charging lever.
Unsuccessful attempts were still being made to devise an efficient powder-and-ball
repeater as late as 1840; early single-shot breechloaders initially encountered much
more success.
Typical of these was the British →Ferguson rifle, with a rapid-pitch thread
which, when turned by the trigger-guard, dropped the plug to give access to the
breech. This could then be loaded with a tight-fitting ball, wadding and a suitable
powder charge, and the plug wound back to seal the breech. In March 1777,
Ferguson set sail for North America with a special unit of riflemen; unfortunately,
despite early successes, there were too few Ferguson rifles to make much impact
on contemporary warfare. Ferguson was seriously wounded at Brandywine Hill,
his men being assimilated in the regular infantry, and was later killed on King’s
Mountain in 1780; the rifle died with him.
Later British efforts centred on an adaptation of the →Crespi breech-loading
system, which had been extensively (but unsuccessfully) tested by the Austrian
army in 1770-9. Made by Durs Egg, with Hennem’s Screwless Lock, more than
thirty of these chamber-loaders were tested in 1784-8 in several differing forms.
The opinions were substantially that the rifled versions performed best and that
the spear bayonet was not advisable. However, the Board of Ordnance expressed
concern that the breech would leak badly when the chamber mouths began to
wear—as had happened with the Austrian guns—and the project was abandoned.
Unlocking was achieved by pivoting the chamber lever until it was parallel to the
barrel axis, disengaging it from its retaining slot and permitting the chamber to
be tipped upwards to receive a cartridge. A later modification, patented by the
gunsmith Sartorius c. 1800, solved some of the leakage tendencies by using an
interrupted screw to lock the sliding chamber into the breech.
Other unsuccessful British breech-loaders included Egg’s pattern of c.1788, in
which a stout pin running down through the action could be removed to set an
automatic safety and allow the chamber to be withdrawn backwards. James Wilkes’
submission in 1801, based on the Baker flintlock rifle, featured a detachable link-
retained screwed plug on the left side of the breech—hardly innovative—while
Hulme’s rifle of 1807 had a vertical disc-type breech block actuated by a lever on
the left side of the barrel.
Another old idea was to load more than one charge in a single barrel, as the
‘Roman Candle’ or Espignole had originated in mediaeval times. The difficulties

of igniting individual charges were well known: most of the earliest guns were
designed to fire the entire barrel-load of projectiles sequentially, without
attempting to stop the process until the last charge had been fired. Some are even
known in which a series of charges, loaded from the breech, were fired sequentially
by igniting the front one conventionally (usually with a flintlock) and then allowing
each successive shot to be fired with the assistance of a fuse running back through
all the projectiles and charges. The recoil of the gun must have been excessive, and
the strength of the breech mechanism may not always have been great enough to
ensure the firer’s safety. Comparatively few of these weapons survive.
Attempts were made by many inventors to provide sliding locks and a series of
touch-holes, each protected by a pivoting cover. A patent of this general class was
granted in England in 1780 (no. 12700) to a surgeon, John Aitken, who proposed
multiple touch-holes and ‘intermedia or colfings’—wads of leather or suitable
substitute—to separate each charge.
Better known was the work of Joseph →Belton of Philadelphia, who petitioned
the U.S. Congress to test his gun and had been authorised to make a hundred eight-
shot muskets on 3rd May 1777. There is no evidence that these guns were made,
as Belton eventually departed for London. There the Master General of Ordnance
granted his gun an official trial, which was undertaken at Woolwich on 28th July
1784. This particular Belton gun was a musket with a detachable 11-inch chamber
holding seven charges, operated by two triggers.
Though the Woolwich exhibition had failed to attract the interest of the army,
Belton entered into partnership with the London gunmaker William →Jover and
approached the Commissioners of the East India Company with his plans. The
submission was welcomed, as the multiple charges were believed to give cavalrymen
a great advantage in skirmishes where they were greatly outnumbered. The Company
subsequently paid Jover & Belton £2292.8s.0d for muskets and, presumably, some
pistols. Howard L. Blackmore, British Military Firearms 1650–1850, p. 249, records
that one surviving EIC musket dated 1786 also bears the number ‘124’. This and
the payment, a large sum in its day, both suggest that substantial quantities were
involved. However, very few examples are known to survive.
Multiple-charge guns were predictably far too long, clumsy, and prone to chain-
firing unless the seals between each successive charge/projectile combination were
exceptionally good. Superimposed loads, therefore, were another evolutionary
dead-end even though attempts were made from time to time to increase firepower
by combining turnover barrels and superimposed charges.
By the 1830s, within a decade of its introduction, the cap-lock had become
sturdy, effectual, and had a misfire rate one-sixth that of the flintlock. Yet progress
in firearms technology was still firmly obstructed by the negligible improvement
in ammunition. Consequently, it became a matter of importance to find a way of
improving the performance of the standard muskets without drastically changing
them. The importance of rifling had been established for some time, and the first
attempts to improve the grip between the projectile and the bore had consisted of
wrapping the former in a patch. This complicated logistics, slowed loading and led

The French model 1763 musket (top) and the
essentially similar 1766 (bottom), with a locking
ring on its socket bayonet. Gazette des Armes.

to a higher than acceptable proportion of misfires. The patched ball was replaced by
the belted ball, the raised ribs being inserted in the deep wide grooves before the
bullet was rammed into the barrel. This system was credited to Captain →Berners
of the Royal Brunswick Army. However, the British →Brunswick Rifle of 1837 was
little improved from the Baker apart from its ignition: it was still slow-firing, and
accurate only to a little over 200 yards.
The belted ball and its near-relation, the ribbed slug, was an improvement on
the patched ball; but it still required care in ensuring the belts mated satisfactorily
with the rifling. The goal then became a projectile that could be dropped down
the barrel with ease, yet which would expand to fill the rifling on firing. The
first attempts involved dropping a slightly sub-calibre projectile down the bore,
relying on gravity to distort the malleable lead sufficiently to fill the bore when
the projectile struck a ring in the breech. This was an old idea, dating back to the
Frenchman →Deschamps (1718) and briefly revived by the Gardner Nail-breech
and Nock Ring-breech in Britain (1796–9). Unfortunately, the high incidence of
cleaning rods catching on the ring caused the British to abandon the idea in 1813.
When it reappeared in the 1830s in France, a sturdy ramrod and, perhaps, a small
mallet sufficed to upset the projectile sides into the rifling. The Delvigne chamber
breech was then superseded by the →Thouvenin pillar system (à Tige) in which the
projectile was expanded over a rod protruding centrally from the breech-face.
Neither system was ideal, owing to the deformation of the projectile, but was
sufficiently advantageous to improve shooting. This was clearly evident in a French
trial in which pillar-breech rifles and standard infantry muskets were fired at
ranges varying from 200 to 1,000 paces. At the shortest range, a behatted soldier-
size target measuring 2 metres high and a half-metre broad was hit 30 per cent of
the time by the musket and 62 per cent by the rifle; at the 500-pace target (2 metres
square) the figures were 5 and 52 per cent respectively; beyond this, however, the
musket ceased to have value while the rifle recorded 42 per cent on the 800-pace
target (2 metres high, 4 metres broad) and even 23 per cent at the longest range
(target 2 metres high, 6 metres broad).
The next stage was the invention of a self-expanding bullet, utilising the power
of the propelling gases to force the comparatively malleable lead bullet into the
rifling. This improved accuracy still further, as the bullet no longer needed to be
struck onto a pillar. This significant breakthrough is generally credited to the
Frenchman Claude-Étienne →Minié though Norton and Greener in Britain both
claimed to have pre-empted him. Minié’s hollow-base bullet could be dropped down
the bore with minimal effort, its comparatively thin base-walls being expanded
into the rifling by the violent ignition of the main propellant charge: the system
worked surprisingly well, and was greatly improved by the discovery that a plug
set in the base facilitated expansion. The British used a boxwood plug, but other
armies used iron or tin.
Great strides being made in machine-tool design and mass-production
techniques permitted the expanding bullet to be issued to British line infantry in
time for the Crimean War (1853–6) and, typified by the British P/53 Enfield and U.S.

M1855 Springfield, had become widespread by the commencement of the U.S. Civil
War in 1861. Rifle-muskets could shoot with surprising accuracy at distances of up
to 1,000 yards. Tests undertaken with the standard British P/53 ‘Enfield’ infantry
rifle-musket returned a mean radius of 2.24 feet at 500 yards, 4.11 feet at 800 yards
and 8.04 feet at 1100 yards. And though the P/53 was among the best of the weapons
of its type, the small-bore cap locks were capable of even finer shooting: the British
.451-calibre Whitworth, with its special mechanically fitting projectile, recorded
the staggering mean radius of only 4.1 inches at 500 yards (a figure some modern
rifles would be hard pressed to beat) and 4.62 feet at 1400 yards, a distance at which
the P/53 had shot so wildly that shooting had ceased to be recorded during the
1857 trials. At 100 yards, the Whitworth bullet penetrated 33 half-inch elm planks
compared with only twelve for the P/53. It was, however, notoriously difficult to
keep clear of propellant fouling; in a fouled state, the Whitworth’s shooting was
not only on a par with the Enfield’s, but excessive force was required to force the
projectile down the bore.
With the widespread issue of rifle-muskets throughout European armies, as
well as in the U.S.A., battle tactics could be finally be divorced from stereotyped
geometry. Oddly, the Crimean War, the opening stages of the U.S. Civil War and
even the Seven Weeks War (at least from the Austrian viewpoint) showed no
appreciation of this.
The distribution of an effectual weapon of any sort throughout an entire
standing army presented a difficult problem for most governments, particularly
for the great colonialist countries such as Britain and France which had to find vast
numbers of guns. It is a popular fallacy, particularly in Britain, that an industrial
revolution occurred with such startling rapidity that cottage industries struggling
to make articles by the tens or hundreds transformed overnight into conglomerates
capable of making items by the million. In most industries, this was simply not
true; in the firearms industry, the gradual move towards full interchangeability of
parts took at least a hundred years.
Progress varied from country to country, depending on need and, to a large
extent, the availability of two principal commodities: capital and labour. The U.S.
firearms industry presents the best example of rapid growth, progressing from the
cottage industry base of the 1820s to an ability to satisfy the needs of the Civil War
within forty years. In Britain, conversely, the transition never really took place at
all: the gun trade in 1900 was as primitive as it had been in 1800, excepting the very
few true mass producers. Of these the Royal Small Arms Factory at →Enfield only
began to mass-produce in the mid-1850s, using a fair proportion of American-made
machine tools, BSA was not founded until 1861 and companies such as Vickers,
Sons & Maxim did not attain prominence until the end of the century.
Much of the credit is due to American entrepreneurs such as Eli Whitney,
Eliphalet Remington and Samuel Colt, who each made tremendous contributions
to the science of mass production. The importance of the differences in approach
between the U.S.A. and Britain may be gained from the experience of BSA, which
contracted to alter twenty thousand Egyptian Remington rifles from rim- to

centre-fire in the early 1870s; the BSA assembly room is on record as registering
disbelief to a man when it was discovered that the guns could be stripped, the
parts piled indiscriminately and then reassembled into working guns with almost
no handwork. Usually, the gunsmiths’ ‘crib boxes’ were full of parts that had to be
juggled until one was found to fit’. Lest it be thought that the British workmanship
was bad—it was, in fact, usually very good—the difference was that Britain was
small country with a comparatively large population; the U.S.A. was the reverse,
with vast under-populated tracts and a shortage of labour in all but some of the
north-eastern states. Consequently, the British tended towards labour-intensive
production whereas the Americans had almost no option but to mechanise.
By the early 1800s, metallic cartridges began to appear. At first, many took the
form of detachable chambers in which separate powder and ball could be loaded in
a manner redolent of the old chamber-loading cannon of the fourteenth century.
Chief among the early inventors was the Swiss Samuel →Pauly, who spent much
of his time working in Paris and London. In 1812, Pauly received a French patent
for a breech-loading gun which fired a special cardboard cartridge with a thick
metal base into which priming compound was set. The difference between this and
the earlier chamber-loading principle was largely that the Pauly cartridges were
to be discarded after firing. The Pauly rifle generally embodied a hinged breech-
block with a long lever extending backwards along the top of the wrist of the butt;
to open the gun, the lever was simply lifted upwards to expose the breech, which
withdrew the breech plunger, a cartridge inserted and the action closed. Some guns
cocked automatically, others had external hammers; a few even embodied a strange
form of hot-air ignition.
The French were particularly active; early cartridges included the centre-fire
Galy-Cazalat pattern of 1826, French Patent 3355, which contained its powder charge
in the leather or parchment case with the fulminate in a central pocket; →Pottet’s
metal-based paper cartridge of 1829 (3930) with priming pockets in the centre of
its base; and →Robert’s ‘primed shell of fusible alloy’ of 1831 (8061); Houillier’s first
crude pinfire (Patent no. 1936 of 1846); and →Lefaucheux’s detachable copper-base/
copper tube or metal head/paper tube pinfire (4839 of 1850). The development of
the pinfire has been dated back to the late 1820s, but no such design could be found
in the French patent specifications—though a number of the designs of this period
had flash-tubes in which the genesis of the pinfire is obvious.
Few of these early attempts to produce self-contained ammunition had much
military value, largely because they were either too delicate or insufficiently
powerful. A 16mm-calibre Robert-type musket, stocked in government musket
fashion, was tested extensively by the Comité de l’Artillerie but the final report,
submitted in February 1833, was unenthusiastic: though easy to load, the breech was
prone to fouling and red hot cartridge debris occasionally ignited a new cartridge
before the trigger could be pressed. The gun had a concealed underhammer, cocked
as the breech was opened by the long ring-tipped lever running—as Pauly’s had
done—back down the wrist of the butt. A special indicator protruded ahead of
the trigger guard to show that the mechanism was cocked. When the trigger was

pressed, the hammer flew upwards and ignited the cartridge by crushing the
primer tube projecting from its base; this was a different and quite inferior system
to Robert’s 1831 patent, giving countless premature ignitions during loading on
trial. Ironically, no sooner had the authorities rejected the Robert musket than its
sporting version received a gold medal at the 1834 Paris Exposition!
Next came the →Lefaucheux rifle, patented in 1827, whose dropping barrel
was controlled by a radial lever beneath the breech ahead of the trigger guard.
The reinforced paper combustible cartridge, fired by a conventional external back-
action cap-lock, could not prevent gas leakage and the gun was rejected. It later
became a very successful sporting gun, particularly when adapted for pin- and then
centre-fire metallic-case ammunition.
The French authorities in this period were quite happy to test guns, but very
reluctant to recommend anything unusual. Among the early casualties of this
attitude were the Leroy rifle, tested at Vincennes and Douai in 1831–3 but rejected
as too complicated and too weakly made; a centre-hammer gun developed by the
arsenal at Charleville in 1831–2, with a tipping breech system adapted from the
Fusil de Rempart Mle. 1831; and the 1835-vintage pivoting barrel 17.1mm-calibre Le
Page, unsuccessfully considered by Vincennes as a cavalry carbine. All of these fired
combustible cartridges with varying degrees of efficiency.
The only breech-loader to be introduced to French service in this period was
the Mle. 1831 rampart gun, whose 47-inch barrel made muzzle loading impossible.
This 21.8mm-calibre rifle featured a tipping chamber-type breech, a combustible
cartridge, and a conventional back-action sidehammer cap-lock. It fired a 640-grain
ball with up to 285 grains of black powder. The Mle. 1831 measured 66½ inches
overall and weighed about 19 pounds without its pivot.
Though the French experimented with trials rifles submitted by Plastow
(Châtellerault), Minié, Charleville arsenal and Descoutoures in 1846–53, nothing
came of any of them. They had a vertical sliding breech-block, a laterally pivoting
barrel, a side-hinged block and a vertical disc breech respectively; all fired
combustible ammunition, and, consequently, had no effect on the modern military
rifle. In 1853–4, however, a trial seems to have taken place to develop a suitable
firearm for the Corps de Cent Gardes, the imperial bodyguard, to whom show was
of more consideration than efficiency; yet Napoelon III seems to have demanded
a breech-loader for such an elite squadron. Carbines by Gastinne-Renette, Ghaye
and Arcelin (Châtellerault) appeared, plus an odd design submitted by the perfector
of the Mle. 1831 rampart gun, Capitaine d’Artillerie Treuille de Beaulieu (1809–86,
later a general).
The 13mm-calibre →Gastinne-Renette carbine featured a barrel that turned on
a vertical axis; the Belgian →Ghaye had a barrel that slid forward as the trigger-
guard lever was depressed; while the →Arcelin musketoon had an interrupted-
screw lock. Each was passed over in favour of the extraordinary →Treuille de
Beaulieu system, strange even by French ordnance standards as it fired a unique
cartridge with a long upward-projecting extractor pin and a rearward projecting
primer tube.

Dating from about 1850, this two-barrelled cap-lock
sporting rifle by Manton was found in Nepal. It is believed
to have been taken back by Jang Bahadur, the first
Nepalese premier to visit Britain, and later found its way
into the hands of his uncle Ranodip Singh.
Marcus Ray collection.

While the military authorities in Europe dithered over the adoption of improved
weapons, the American mechanic John →Hall had successfully produced a breech-
loading flintlock rifle. Eight years work had culminated in the adoption of the
system by the U.S. Army in 1819, though only in small quantities and only for special
purposes. The essence of the Hall breech was a removable chamber, carrying the
lock, which could be detached for loading. Though this permitted a tighter-fitting
bullet, and enhanced accuracy, it did so at the expense of considerable gas leakage
around the imperfectly made seat between the chamber and the bore. The Hall
system advanced through a number of designs—rifle models of 1826 and 1836,
carbines of 1833 and 1836—but was never entirely satisfactory, despite the change
to percussion ignition after 1836 and notwithstanding the improvements made in
the basic action by Henry →North in 1840. The most praiseworthy feature of the
Hall rifle was the speed with which it could be fired, tests in 1826 showing that
for each of its hundred shots the standard flintlock rifle could only fire 43 and the
musket merely 37.
On the debit side, considerable powder charges were needed in the Hall
compared with the standard muzzle-loaders even though power was appreciably
less. Trials undertaken at West Point in 1837 discovered that penetration in oak
(at a range of 100 yards) was one inch for the muzzle-loading musket, 0.93 inches
for the muzzle-loading rifle and only 0.34 inches for the percussion-ignition Hall.
A later trial showed that the muzzle velocities of the Hall-North Carbine was only
1240 feet per second compared with 1687 for the →Jenks, which fired the same
70-grain charge and had a barrel of approximately comparable length. Though
some Hall and Hall-North guns remained serviceable until the Civil War, they had
long since been declared obsolescent.
The principal challenger to the Hall system in U.S. service initially came
from the →Colt Revolver Rifles, a few of which were acquired for service during
the Second Seminole War in Florida. However, the advantages of the eight-shot
Colt-Patersons were soon seen to be outweighed by their delicate lockwork and
a distressing tendency to chain-fire. The single-shot carbine patented by William
→Jenks in the U.S.A. in May 1838 (no. 747) soon proved to be much more effectual
than either the Hall or the Colt; a hundred experimental flintlock guns were
acquired in 1839, but most were subsequently converted to percussion. Trials with
the 1st Dragoons in 1841 confirmed the Jenks’ potential, and an endurance test at
Fort Adam ceased only when the nipple split after 14,813 shots had been fired with
no obvious problems. In 1845, a Board of Officers meeting at Washington Arsenal
on behalf of the army and navy, recommended that the Jenks Carbine be adopted;
unfortunately, military opinion had so hardened as a result of the poor service
history of the Halls that nothing further was done even though some Jenks’
Carbines were converted to the →Merrill cartridge system in the late 1850s.
The cap-lock Jenks has a very distinctive sidehammer (which earned it the
sobriquet ‘Mule Ear’) and a toggle-type breech system actuated by an elongated
breech-cover pivoted at the back of the action. When the lever is raised, the lock
is broken and the breech-block withdrawn from the chamber to permit reloading.

The mechanism sealed very well, though the actuating lever, which covered the
breech, would probably have tended to deflect any such blast down and away from
the firer’s face.
The failure of Jenks’ Carbine opened the way for the dropping-block pattern
patented by Christian →Sharps in September 1848 (no. 5763). The essence of
the Sharps system was a block that slid vertically in a substantial receiver, the
combustible cartridge being ignited by a conventional sidehammer and a percussion
cap. The initial test, undertaken in 1850, was judged to be highly satisfactory; but
later trials in 1851–3 showed that the early Sharps carbines leaked gas alarmingly.
Attempts had been made to provide a platinum bush on the face of the breech-
block, but, though durable, this minimized rather than prevented leakage. In 1853,
the →Conant gas-seal was fitted in the bush aperture where, it was hoped, gas
would expand the seal against the breech and prevent any leaks. The first such seals
were improvements, but not until the modified pattern of 1859 was the problem
finally solved; by 1860, however, the Marine Corps was able to confirm that ‘all
the earlier troubles encountered’ with Sharps Carbine had been corrected. Though
only 5540 guns had been acquired prior to 1861, no fewer than 89,653 were officially
purchased by the Federal government during the Civil War.
Trials of the 1853-model Sharps’ Carbine in 1854 showed that accuracy was
poor; despite being optimistically sighted for 800 yards, 25 shots at an 8-feet square
target at 200 yards resulted in one 24 shots returning a mean vertical dispersion of
nearly 24 inches and a horizontal dispersion of almost eight. However, penetration
of 7.3 inches of pine at 30 yards showed that the Sharps was appreciably more
powerful than the Hall or the Jenks.
In Prussia, Johann Niklaus →Dreyse (1787–1867), once apprenticed to Pauly,
made the first of his needle-fire pistols in association with Kaufmann Collenbusch
after returning to Sömmerda in 1824. After patenting a percussion cap, Dreyse
turned to the problems of successfully firing a self-contained paper-cased cartridge,
the first of his designs being patented in 1828. During the early 1830s, Dreyse &
Collenbush produced some pistols in which the internal firing needle was cocked by
a backward-pointing crank-lever on the right side of the breech.
The earliest guns were muzzle-loaders but, by c. 1834, a variant of the crank-
cocking system had been developed in which the crank spindle was elongated and
hollowed to receive a short self-contained cartridge loaded through an aperture
on top of the barrel. Pistols and rifles were made on this system, though the
comparatively small size of the loading chamber restricted the efficacy of longarms
of this type; certainly, they had no military application. Though pistols on this
system were made for some years, a bolt-action needle gun had been submitted
to the Prussian War Ministry in 1836. Its mechanism consisted of a simple sliding
bolt containing the needle, its spring and a locking catch. The massive square base
of the bolt handle locked on a special bridge in the receiver. To fire these guns,
it was necessary to press down on the locking catch and then pull the catch and
needle together backwards until they locked; the bolt handle was then turned to
the left through about 30 degrees and the entire bolt drawn rearward to expose

The metallic cartridge was a leap in
firearms technology. This pin-fire
shotgun by Purdey dates from the 1860s.

the chamber. A cartridge is then inserted in the chamber, pushed home with the
thumb, the bolt closed and rotated to the right to lock the action. The closing
stroke cocked the needle and the gun was ready to fire. A total of 155 experimental
Zündnadelgewehre were purchased for large-scale troop trials in 1839 and the
‘Leichte Percussions-Gewehr M 1841’—deliberately named to hide the fact that it
was a needle-fire breechloader—was formally adopted on 4th December 1840.
Attempts to keep the Dreyse system secret were abandoned in 1855, when the
Leichte Percussions-Gewehre were renamed ‘Zündnadelgewehr M 1841’; by this
time, however, guns had been sent for trials in Britain in 1849, where despite a
high rate of fire and acceptable accuracy they had proved difficult to operate when
hot or fouled. Others had been issued for active service in Baden, Dresden and
Schleswig-Holstein in 1849.
By 1850, the 1841-pattern Dreyse was being carried by all the fusilier battalions
of the Gardekorps and three of the army corps; two grenadier battalions; the Garde-
Reserve regiments; and fusiliers of the first 32 line infantry regiments. Many of
the guns were still serving in the Germano–Danish War of 1864 and the Austro–
German or Seven Weeks War of 1866. These are described in greater detail below.
However, they all embodied the standard Dreyse action and fired the standard
oviform ball seated in a papier-mâché sabot in a stiff paper cartridge. The principal
problem afflicting the early Dreyse guns was that, because the periphery of the
bolt-head and the mouth of the chamber were rarely concentric.
Prussia was not at that time regarded as a leading industrial power, and
the guns are an adequate reflection of the comparatively poor manufacturing
standards. The problem was particularly bad on the 1849-pattern Zündnadelbüchse,
in which the conical bolt-face slid inside the chamber mouth in attempt to shorten
the clumsy action of the standard infantry rifle; however, unlike the standard M
1841, where the cone was on the chamber, this permitted gas to leak directly back
into the firer’s face. Not surprisingly, the ‘seat-breech’ was less successful than the
standard cone pattern, and the 1849 rifle remained unique apart from the two later
carbines of 1855 and 1857.
Though the much-vaunted success story of the Dreyse in the Seven Weeks
War is said to have inspired the French, the Italians and one or two of the smaller
German states to adopt comparable designs, work in France had actually started
some years previously. In 1858, Antoine Alphonse →Chassepot had submitted a
modified infantry musket in which an interrupted-screw bolt gave access to the
breech. Mindful of the problems of gas leaking from the metal-to-metal surfaces
of the breech, Chassepot included an indiarubber ‘obturating washer’ between the
bolt head and the body. The pressure generated in the chamber when the gun was
fired forced back on the bolt-head and squeezed the washer outward until it sealed
against the chamber walls to prevent blow-past.
It is believed that Chassepot had adapted his ideas from an earlier experimental
→Manceaux-Viellard cavalry carbine, tested in 1856, which had a different type of
bolt system in which a leather washer between the bolt-head and the body was
intended to achieve a similar seal. The Manceaux breech was also tested in Britain

in the late 1850s, performing well during the shooting trials, but was doomed by
the excessive complexity of its wired cartridge.
The French were well aware of the values of small calibres, even for black-powder
guns, and had experimented with a series of such guns: the British .451 Whitworth,
the 10.4mm-calibre Swiss Stutzen and a 12mm Minié rifle. Observing the lessons
of the brief struggle between Austro–Prussian and Danish forces in 1864, the
French also saw merit in the Dreyse breech design. Though the 11.5mm-calibre
muzzle-loading Carabine de la Commission de Vincennes was nearly adopted in 1865,
commonsense prevailed and work switched to the experimental Chassepots. The
previous cap-lock was replaced by an internal needle unit, the cartridge modified
so that it contained its own igniter, and encouraging trials were undertaken in
1864–5.
Testing dragged on until the growing bellicosity of Prussia, together with the
signing of a non-aggression pact between Prussian and Italy in April 1866, forced
a final decision to be taken. Consequently, all competing designs were discarded
except for the experimental Chassepot, a Chassepot with Plumerel’s improvements,
and the Favé rifle. The Plumerel adaptation consisted of a leather boot on the
bolt-head into which the cartridge was inserted, the intention being that stronger
non-combustible cartridges could be fired. These would need to be extracted
manually from the leather boot before the next one could be loaded. On trials,
this predictably proved to be very unsatisfactory and the standard Chassepot was
preferred. Invented by the aide-de-camp to Napoléon III, General →Favé’s rifle was
a Dreyse-type bolt-action with an interrupted screw lock. It fired a cartridge with a
leather base and a paper body, an extractor being provided to pull the remnants of
the base out of the chamber after firing. Its trials were spoiled by accidents which,
together with the poorly made cartridges, caused what may have been a promising
gun in other circumstances to be withdrawn.
The sudden and somewhat unexpected defeat of the Austrians in the Seven
Weeks War caused the French to redouble efforts to perfect the needle-rifle, the
11mm-calibre Fusil Chassepot des essais du Camp de Chalons passing trials well enough
in the summer of 1866 to be adopted on 30th August as the “Fusil d’Infanterie Mle.
1866” after a few minor alterations were made. By the time of the Franco–Prussian
War, therefore, the French had a needle-rifle of their own. But the self-contained
combustible cartridge proved to be incapable of further development.
The first revolving-cylinder Colts were longarms, made in Hartford in 1832 and
then in Baltimore. British Patent 6909 was granted on 22nd October 1835, to be
followed by comparable U.S. no. 136 on 25th January 1836, each claiming advantages
such as ease of loading and rapidity of fire by connecting the hammer and cylinder-
rotating pawl. In 1835, Colt founded the →Patent Arms Manufacturing Company
in Paterson, New Jersey, to make revolver-rifles—initially rejected by the U.S.
Army in 1837—alongside the first concealed-trigger →Paterson Revolvers. About
180 No.5 Holster Pistols were acquired by the government of the independent State
of Texas in 1839–41, where, though now often associated with the ‘Texas Navy’,
they were issued to the Texas Rangers. However, an incident between the Texan

and Mexican navies in 1843 provided the inspiration for the maritime battle-scene
rolled into the cylinder peripheries of many later Colts.
The Patent Arms Manufacturing Company went into liquidation in 1842.
However, admitting Texas into the Union (1846) caused friction between the
U.S.A. and Mexico, and an army commanded by General Zachary Taylor was
despatched to the Mexican border. Taylor’s men included Samuel H. Walker, who
had experienced Paterson Colts during the Seminole Wars. Walker was sent north
not only to recruit more volunteers, but also obtain more firearms. He sought out
Colt, to whom the patents had reverted, and the two men successfully refined the
Paterson Colt into a more battle-worthy weapon. A thousand-gun government
contract was negotiated in January 1847, the guns being made in the Whitneyville,
Connecticut, factory of Eli →Whitney.
Though the cumbersome 1847-vintage six-shot →Walker Colts measured more
than 15 inches overall and weighed in excess of 4.5 pounds, their efficacy soon
brought an additional order on whose strength Colt founded his own manufactory
in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1848. Here, Colt developed the first of the Model 1848
or →Dragoon Revolvers. These initially embodied some old Whitney-made parts,
but improvements were soon made: the second model featured pins between the
nipples, a roller on the hammer and a leaf-type mainspring, while the Third Model
had an improved back sight and a provision for a shoulder stock. Between 1849 and
1855, the U.S. Army purchased thousands of Dragoon revolvers.
The greatly improved Navy Colt M1851, otherwise known as the Old Model
Belt Pistol, measured 13 inches overall and weighed only 2¼ pounds. Its ‘navy’
association came simply from .36-calibre and the naval scene rolled into the
cylinder; more of the guns actually saw land service during the American Civil War
than had maritime connexions!
By the mid 1850s, therefore, the cap-lock revolver was well established in
the U.S.A. and was gradually spreading to Europe. Colt was particularly keen to
establish a foothold in the British military market, and even opened a factory in
Pimlico, London, in 1854 as a result of the successful exhibition of his revolvers
at the Great Exhibition in 1851. However, the British already had a revolver—the
→Adams, which was to plague Colt for many years. Patented in Britain in February
1851, this had superior features: its calibre was greater and the solid frame was
stronger than Colt’s open-top pattern. The Adams also had a double-action trigger,
rather than requiring thumb cocking for every shot.
The Board of Ordnance subsequently acquired guns for trials and concluded
that the Colt was preferable, but the competition was close-run and sufficient doubt
remained to permit Adams to claim victory. The advent of the Crimean War forced
the British authorities to acquire about 23,560 Navy Colts (March 1854–August
1855), and many others were purchased privately. But combat experience soon
showed that the .36-calibre bullet was a poor man-stopper, and opinion swung back
to the 38-bore (.500) and 54-bore (.442) Adams. By 1855, the Adams had been fitted
with Rigby’s and Kerr’s patent rammers. Finally, improved lockwork patented
by Lieutenant Frederick Beaumont of the Royal Engineers in February 1855 was

adopted; the improvements persuaded the Board of Ordnance to replace the Colt,
and 19,123 Beaumont-Adams revolvers were acquired between October 1855 and
the end of 1860.
THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
While European authorities dallied with capping breech-loaders and needle-guns,

attempts were being made to perfect the metal case cartridge. Though much of
the early experimentation was French, the result was the →pin-fire—one of
those dead-end developments which seem to promise much, but have no lasting
significance in firearms design. The first step towards the modern military weapon
was taken by Samuel →Morse, who presented a breech-loading carbine to the U.S.
Army in 1857. Though Morse’s cartridge was ineffectual and developed little real
power, it had an internal primer and could genuinely be called self-contained.
At this juncture in firearms history, there were two principal avenues of
research where metal-case cartridges were concerned: one which believed that
the cartridge, as in the Morse rifle and the Dreyse needle-gun, should carry its
own primer and another reliant on standard external cap-locks. While the Morse
underwent its trials and tribulations, the U.S. armed forces experimented with the
Burnside and Maynard Carbines in 1858–9. The former was patented in March
1856 (no. 14491) by Ambrose →Burnside, subsequently a renowned if erratic
army commander during the Civil War. The action is basically a dropping block
controlled by a trigger-guard lever, the unique tapered copper cartridge case being
inserted backwards into the block through the top of the frame. As the action
is closed, the protruding bullet is seated in the chamber-mouth. Ignition is by a
conventional cap-lock.
The original Burnside carbines, made by the Bristol Firearms Company of
Bristol, Rhode Island, had a separate breech-lock lever beneath the hammer and
appear to have lacked a fore-end. However, the near-success of the Burnside
system after the 1857–8 trials, in which it was given the grudging compliment of
being ‘the best of the imperfect’ systems submitted, evaporated in the absence of
government orders. Burnside was declared bankrupt, his patents and the assets of
the Bristol Firearm Company being sold. The carbine was subsequently revived by
the controllers of the patents, who, reorganised as the ‘Burnside Rifle Company’,
made many Burnside Carbines for the Federal Government during the Civil War.
Later guns have the breech-locking lever on the trigger guard. Of the Bristol-type
Burnsides, 200 were purchased in April 1856 and 709 in September 1858. Tested at
the Washington Navy Yard in 1859, the Burnside fired 500 shots without misfiring,
though 30 of the 470 aimed-fire shots missed the 8-feet square target at 500 yards.
Penetration at 30 yards proved to be 6.15 inches of pine.
Patented in the U.S.A. by Edward →Maynard in May 1856 (‘Cartridges’, no.
15141) and December 1859 (‘Breech-loading Firearms’, no. 26364), the Maynard
Carbine was an unconventional dropping-barrel gun locked by an underlever;

The Burnside was one of the most popular
breechloading carbines to see service in the
U.S. Civil War. This patent sought to drop
the breech-block clear of the frame to ease
the task of inserting a cartridge into the
chamber. U.S. Patent Office, Washington DC.

unlike the perfected Burnside, it had no fore-end. The guns were made by the
Massachusetts Arms Company and fired a conventional-looking copper-case
cartridge with a flash-hole in the base. Like Burnside’s, the Maynard design used a
cap lock. It featured a centrally-hung rather than external sidehammer.
An 1859-vintage test of the Maynard rifle suggested that it was more accurate
than the Burnside, probably on account of a more consistent bullet-seating system,
and all 250 shots at 500 yards hit the regulation target. At 1300 yards, fourteen
shots out of 43 hit and penetrated the one-inch thick 10×30-feet target; 562 shots
had been fired without cleaning or misfiring, the maximum rate of fire being
twelve per minute. Some of the cartridge cases had proved to be capable of firing a
hundred times or more without noticeably deteriorating.
In 1860, Major Colston reported to the Commissioners of Virginia Armory that,
of the four carbines with which he had had experience, the paper-cartridge firing
→Smith loaded easily when clean but became so foul after sixty shots that it could
not be loaded at all; the somewhat similar →Merrill had proved solid and gas-tight
even after 100 shots; the Burnside shot admirably, with no evidence of fouling;
and the Maynard, which Colston regarded as very powerful, shot the best of the
special cartridges. However, he also recorded that he would not recommend any
gun that did not take a conventional paper-case cartridge, owing to the difficulty
of re-loading a Burnside or Maynard Carbine if none of the special cartridges was
available.
The Civil War provided a proving ground for almost all the leading European
rifle muskets, but also proved that poorly-trained men—apt to panic in the heat
and noise of battle—were apt to ram charge after charge into their rifle-muskets as
a result of an unheard misfire. One gun recovered from the battlefield at Gettysburg
is said to have been loaded no less than 23 times. However, if the war did much to
destroy the reputation of the rifle-musket, it was also the single greatest testimony
to the efficacy of the breech-loading rifle and metallic-case cartridge. These vital
advances in technology were not always recognized at the time, largely because
the guns tended to use unique cartridges of widely differing calibre (complicating
logistics unacceptably), often with suspect ignition and poor-quality propellant.
But the lessons were clear to those who were astute enough to heed them.
In the decade preceding the war, small numbers of →Volcanic firearms had sold
commercially. Their origins lay in patents granted to Walter →Hunt of New York
in 1848–9 to protect an unpractical repeating rifle and the ‘Volition Ball’—a bullet
which, anticipating the rocket cartridges of the twentieth century, contained its
own propellant and igniter. Despite improvements made by the gunsmith Lewis
→Jennings, the entire project was then sold to Courtlandt Palmer for $100,000.
Palmer contracted for 5,000 Jennings-type rifles with Robbins & Lawrence, but the
modified rifle was a failure. By 1854, however, Horace →Smith and Daniel →Wesson
had patented an improved cartridge and a magazine pistol, and production of the
latter—plus an occasional carbine—began immediately in Norwich, Connecticut.
Unhappily, the guns were comparatively expensive, low-powered and inaccurate,
and the fulminate powder was very corrosive. In 1855, the partners sold out to

the →Volcanic Arms Company of New Haven, Connecticut; Wesson was retained
as works superintendent while Smith left, disillusioned. The original fulminate
propellant was abandoned after spontaneous ignition blew off the magazine too
frequently, and was replaced by a charger of weaker but more stable black powder.
The efficiency of the lever action and tube magazine of the Volcanic system
was masked by the eccentricities of its ammunition, despite the impressive (if
customarily fraudulent) testimonials produced by its manufacturers to support
their claims. However, after the Volcanic Arms Company had been declared
insolvent, its assets were acquired by a shirt-maker called Oliver →Winchester.
The substitution of a rimfire cartridge derived from patents granted to Smith &
Wesson in the 1850s allowed the greatly improved →Henry Rifle to be patented in
October 1860 (no. 30446). The lever-action Henry subsequently developed into the
Winchester Model 1866, but had been perfected sufficiently to see service in the
Civil War, 1731 being purchased by the Federal government in 1863–5 and perhaps
nine thousand others selling privately. The Henry was comparatively delicate for
a service weapon and as low powered as all comparable large-calibre rimfires, but
was singularly fast-firing. Tests undertaken in Switzerland with an 1866-model
Winchester, which fired the same ammunition as the Henry, indicated that even
an untrained rifleman could achieve 21 unaimed shots each minute; accuracy was
such that mean radii of 4 and 24 inches were returned at distances of 300 and 1200
paces respectively.
Statistically, though, the Henry rifle was to play an insignificant part in the
Civil War; its reputation was to be established, retrospectively, by the improved
Winchesters as they ‘tamed the West’. The Spencer repeater had a much greater
effect on hostilities. Patented by Christopher M. →Spencer in March 1860 (U.S.
no. 27393), the rimfire gun had been successfully tested in Washington Navy Yard
in 1861. Apart from an inherent weakness in the extractor, which was substituted
by an improved version eventually patented in July 1862 (U.S. no. 36062), the
rifle performed flawlessly; an order was subsequently secured from the U.S. Navy
for 700 guns and 70,000 rounds of ammunition on 22nd June 1861, and the first
shipments were made in 1862.
The principal advantages the Spencer possessed over the Henry were robust
construction and a larger bullet—.56-calibre weighing 362 grains, compared with
.44 and 216 grains. The powder charges were 34 and 25 grains respectively when
tested by the Navy in 1862. Muzzle velocity has been estimated at 900 feet per
second for the Spencer and 1125 feet per second for the Henry cartridges, giving
the former a forty per cent advantage in muzzle energy.
Unfortunately, the Army Chief of Ordnance, Brigadier-General James Ripley,
a notorious conservative, refused to countenance issue of Spencers for military
service; it took the intercession of President Lincoln personally before Ripley
would concede. The first government-order guns began to reach the troops in the
winter of 1862, though many had already been purchased privately. The earliest
authenticated use of a Spencer is generally agreed to have been by Sergeant Francis
Lombard of the 1st Massachusetts Volunteer Cavalry in the Antietam campaign in

Made in large quantities during the U.S. Civil War, the Spencer
breechloader (a carbine or a rifle) had a tube magazine in the butt.
Though the action was unsuited to long-case cartridges and had a
short period in vogue, Spencers enabled Federal soldiers to repel
attacks by Confederate units outnumbering them manyfold.

October 1862. The first ‘government guns’ were issued in time for the campaigns
of June/July 1863, as many as 3500 helping to stem the Confederate advance at
the first Battle of Gettysburg on 1st July; by the end of the war, 106,667 had been
ordered by the Federal government, though it has been estimated that only twelve
thousand rifles and about fifty thousand of the handy 39-inch long 8½-pound
carbines had reached the troops. The guns were made by the Spencer Repeating
Arms Company and also by the Burnside Rifle Company, to whom Spencer sub-
contracted 35,000 guns in June 1864 (30,496 of which were delivered by the end
of 1865).
The Spencer featured a dropping- or radial-block action, actuated by a trigger-
guard lever. When the lever was opened, the block dropped, the extractor pulled
the spent case out of the chamber and the elector threw it out of the gun; as the
lever closed, the tip of the breech-block picked up the rim of the first cartridge in the
tubular magazine running up through the butt and fed it into the chamber. Though
the external sidehammer still had to be cocked manually, the Spencer could be fired
very rapidly. And its utility was greatly increased by the introduction of Blakeslee’s
Cartridge Box (patented in November 1864), which held ten seven-round loading
tubes in a wooden block. Reloading was then simply a matter of opening the butt-
trap, withdrawing the magazine spring and cartridge elevator, and simply dropping
the cartridges straight out of the tinned sheet-metal Blakeslee loader into the butt.
Replacing the magazine spring returned the carbine to working order: the whole
cycle took a matter of seconds.
No wonder that Confederate cavalrymen, who faced Spencer-armed Federals
with little but a muzzle-loading cap-lock, referred to the repeater as ‘that damn
Yankee invention you could load on Sunday and shoot all week’. Its fire-rate was
generally reckoned at fourteen rounds per minute, without the benefit of the
Blakeslee quickloader, compared with 10–12 for the single-shot Sharps’ Carbine,
eight for the Colt Revolver Rifle (which was uniquely time consuming to load), and
only three for the rifle-musket. Loading the Spencer took about fifteen seconds; this
could be cut to merely five seconds with the assistance of the quickloader, allowing
25 unaimed rounds to be fired per minute. The only problems with the Spencer
were that the cartridges could be loaded backwards, a potentially dangerous state
of affairs that could lead to premature explosions, and that the rapid fire-rate could
expend ammunition more quickly than quartermasters could supply it!
Interestingly, there is not one authenticated incident where Confederates
managed to overcome Spencer-armed Federals, despite occasions when the
latter were outnumbered by as many as ten-to-one. However, even as late as
1865 the repeaters were still regarded scornfully by high-ranking regular officers
accustomed to single-shot muskets. The breech-loaders were generally purchased
by elite irregulars, militia and cavalry such as Berdan’s Sharp Shooters and the
Butler Brigade.
Despite suffering teething troubles, the metallic-cartridge guns had much to
offer. The certainty of ignition was infinitely better than the cap-lock, a short-
barrelled Burnside carbine tested at the Washington Navy Yard in 1859, for

example, firing 500 shots without a single misfire. The accuracy of the best guns
was also impressive, a Spencer carbine returning a mean horizontal deviation of 13
inches at 300 yards and 16.8 inches at 500 yards—roughly half the size of groups
achieved with an Enfield rifle-musket at comparable distances. Unfortunately, the
early cartridges were heavy enough to restrict how many a man could carry. As the
Spencer rifle, with a Blakeslee Quickloader system, could easily fire twenty aimed
shots a minute, six or seven times the rate of a rifle musket, it was soon reduced
to the status of a sophisticated club once ammunition ran out. In desperation,
or away from lines of communication and supply (where skirmishers and snipers
were often to be found), ammunition could always be made for a muzzle-loading
cap-lock rifle. Ironically, though many breech-loading guns had been purchased
officially, the U.S. Board of Ordnance and Fortification subsequently chose a slow-
firing ‘trapdoor’ conversion system for their rifle-muskets, condemning their
troops to poor extraction for more than two decades.
The Civil War also saw widespread use of snipers, chosen from the ranks of
professional hunters and skilled target-shooters. These men were truly elitist,
eschewing military discipline and selecting any weapon they liked. Favourites
included the heavy Wesson bench rifles, some of which weighed more than twenty
pounds, and the British-made Whitworth rifle musket. Many were even fitted with
primitive telescope sights in the quest for extra accuracy. Though the Whitworth
was beset by fouling problems, and supplies of its distinctive mechanically-fitting
hexagonal projectile were few and far between, British official tests indicated that
mean radii as small as 12 inches could be obtained at 800 yards; even at 1100 yards,
30 inches could be bettered.
The Civil War also saw unprecedented use not only of handguns in general, but
also of revolvers in particular. The 1860 or army model Colt was the most popular
revolver purchased by the Federal government, 129,730 being acquired together
with 17,010 additional .36-calibre Navy Models. Though Colts accounted for 39
per cent of the total government acquisition in 1861–6, this was only fractionally
greater than purchases of Remingtons (35 per cent).
The .44-calibre single-action six shot Remington Beals Army Revolver—made
by E. →Remington & Sons of Ilion, New York, to Fordyce →Beals’ U.S. Patent 21478
of September 1858—was a sturdy solid-frame design with Beals’ Patent Rammer,
a brass trigger guard, an octagonal barrel and a small web beneath the rammer
shaft. Unlike the later Remington army revolvers, the attaching threads are not
visible where the barrel abouts the cylinder face. The six-shot single-action .44
guns measure 13.8 inches overall, with an 8-inch five-groove barrel, and weigh 46
ounces empty. Only a couple of thousand were made (together with about 15,000
of the smaller .36-calibre navy revolvers) before being superseded by the Model
1861 Army Revolver.
The comparative lack of success of the Beals-pattern army revolver prompted
Remington to substitute a rammer patented by William Elliot in December
1861 (U.S. Patent 33932). This supposedly permitted the cylinder axis pin to be
withdrawn without releasing the rammer catch, but the cylinder catch sometimes

A Dragoon Colt of the so-called
‘Third Model’, highly ornate revolver no. 12389 dates from the early
1850s. Once part of the George R. Repaire collection (but with a
provenance that included an Indian maharajah), it was sold by
auctioneers Butterfield & Butterfield of San Francisco in April 1997.

slid forward on firing and jammed the mechanism. Excepting the rammer, the
1861-model was practically indistinguishable from the Beals type. Virtually all the
19,000 .44 M1861 Army Revolvers were purchased by the Federal Government,
survivors displaying inspectors’ initials in a cartouche on the outer surface of the
left grip. About 7500 smaller .36-calibre navy revolvers were made in the same
number sequence.
The inefficiency of the Elliott Rammer forced the substitution of a new design
patented by Samuel Remington in March 1863. The most obvious features of
the New Models were the safety notches between the nipples and the exposed
attachment threads visible where the barrel abutted the cylinder face. The army
revolvers had brass trigger guards, were about 13.75 inches overall, had five-groove
eight-inch barrels, and weighed about 46 ounces. In addition to the regular marks,
‘NEW MODEL’ will be found on the octagonal barrel. The walnut grips usually bear
cartouched army inspectors’ marks such as ‘BH’, ‘GP’ or ‘OWA’. From 1863 until 30th
June 1866, Remington supplied the Federal government with 125,314 .44-calibre
guns, practically the entire production run. Generally comparable to the 1860
army Colt, even if somewhat poorer-made, the Remington cost only $13.02 against
$17.70 for its rival. There were also about 23,000 .36-calibre but otherwise similar
Remington Navy Revolvers.
The rather odd-looking Starr revolvers accounted for only some thirteen per
cent of official purchases during the American Civil War. Based on patents granted
to →Ebenezer Townsend Starr in 1858, the original double-action revolver had
elicited impressive testimonials from government trials. The Federal government
bought small quantities of the .36-calibre version and then a larger number of the
.44 pattern; however, as the Civil War dragged on, a simplified .44-calibre single-
action appeared to accelerate production. Total procurement in the period between
New Year’s Day 1861 and 30th June 1866 amounted to 47,952.
The cap-lock revolver patented by Henry →North on 17th June 1856 (‘revolving
firearm’, U.S. no. 15144) was made by Edward →Savage and then Savage & North
of Middletown, Connecticut, until an improved version was patented jointly on
18th January 1859 (no. 22566) and 15th May 1860 (no. 28331). Both patents were
assigned to the →Savage Revolving Fire-Arms Company. The first guns had an
extraordinary ring-tipped actuating lever, which protruded from the frame below
the trigger; a spur-like protector ahead of the operating lever gave the appearance
of the number ‘8’, a term by which these cap-locks are now generally classified.
Made in several patterns, the clumsy .36-calibre six-shot revolvers were about
14 inches long, had seven-inch barrels and weighed 56oz. The U.S. Navy ordered
three hundred of them in July 1858, and a 500-gun army order soon followed.
Deliveries were painfully slow; the navy contract was not fulfilled until the end
of 1860. A very few ‘fourth-model’ guns, with a flat iron frame and an improved
1860-patent cylinder adjustor, were made in 1860–1, but total production of ‘figure
8’ Savages scarcely exceeded two thousand. The North & Savage guns were clumsy,
but incorporated some advanced features. Pulling back on the operating lever
revolved the hammer and cocked the hammer; releasing it allowed a wedge to press

the cylinder forward until the chamfered chamber mouth rode over the end of the
barrel—sealing the mechanism far more effectually against the escape of gas than
in rival designs.
The improved 1859-patent revolver, made by the Savage Revolving Fire-Arms
Company, shared the general lines of its predecessor. However, the butt-spur was
greatly reduced and the trigger guard extended back to the base of the butt. The
first sales of the new .36-calibre ‘navy’ gun were made to the Federal government in
August 1861, seven hundred for the navy and two hundred for the army. However,
these had been acquired through retailers and Savage had had little success
negotiating directly with the Ordnance Department. A 5000-gun contract was
signed in September 1861, but cancelled early in October owing to wrangling over
payment of monies to an intermediary. However, a second contract was negotiated
in mid-October, the last of five thousand guns being delivered by March 1862. The
Federal government ultimately purchased more than 11,000 Savage Navy Revolvers
from 1st January 1861 until 30th June 1866, apparently on behalf of the U.S. Navy.
The six-shot .36 ‘heart guard’ Savage & North-system revolvers were no less
clumsy than their predecessors, but shared the effectual gas-seal system and
indexed their cylinders much more precisely than their contemporaries. They were
sturdy and durable, though many inexperienced firers attempted to pull the ring-
lever and the trigger together; the lever had to be pulled to rotate the cylinder and
cock the hammer before the trigger was pressed.
The original →Whitney revolvers were inspired by the success of the Walker-
pattern Colt; they were, however, inferior designs. The perfected .36 Whitney
appeared after copies of the Colt Navy had been made and was to prove one of the
more popular revolvers to see service during the war. Safety notches appeared
between each pair of nipples shortly after production got underway, while a
modified cylinder-periphery maritime scene and a rammer-locking wedge were
substituted for the previous spring-loaded ball midway through the production
run…towards the end of which the trigger guard was enlarged and the rifling
changed from seven to five-groove. Made in the Whitney factory in New Haven,
Connecticut, the standard single-action six-shot Whitney ‘Navy’ revolver measured
13.1 inches overall, had a 7.6-inch barrel and weighed about 41 ounces. Federal
purchases amounted to 11,214 for the army, 5726 for the navy and 792 for the New
Jersey State Militia during the Civil War, though others were purchased privately
from total production approaching 33,000. According to the Statement of ordnance
and ordnance stores purchased by the Ordnance Department from January 1, 1861, to
June 30, 1866, the Whitneys cost the Federal treasury $136,690.39.
Only about 2,500 .44-calibre army revolvers were made by C.B. Hoard’s Armory
of Watertown, New York, to the design of Austin →Freeman of Binghampton, New
York State. Freeman’s U.S. Patent 37,091 was granted in December 1862 to protect
a unique cylinder axis pin/locking catch assembly, which could be pulled forward
to disengage the frame and permit the entire cylinder to be taken out of the left
side of the frame. The earliest guns have a removable side-plate; later examples
have solid frames with fixed pivot-screws for the hammer and trigger. On 8th May

The Civil War in the U.S.A. coincided with the first attempts to convert rifle-muskets into breech-loaders. This
1860-vintage Edward Maynard design, with a radial block, was typical.
1864, Hoard received a Federal government contract for five thousand revolvers,
but none were ever accepted and the contract was re-issued to Rogers & Spencer
(q.v.). Six-shot .44-calibre single action Freeman revolvers have a very distinctive
angular frame and an equally characteristic ‘hump back’ wooden grip. They were
12.5 inches overall, weighed 45 ounces and had 7½-inch barrels with six-groove
rifling.
Charles S. →Pettengill of New Haven, Connecticut, received his first revolver
patent in July 1856. As the trigger was pulled, a top-mounted cam revolved the
cylinder through the combination lever and placed the mainspring under tension.
When the cylinder had been indexed, the trigger-cam disengaged the sear from the
hammer and the gun fired. Made by Rogers & Spencer of Willowvale, New York
State, the Pettengills also embodied the combined mainspring and combination
lever patented by Thomas Austin in October 1858 (U.S. no. 21730) and were finally
simplified through a patent granted to Edward Raymond and Charles Robitaille in
July 1858. Rogers & Spencer obtained a Federal contract for 5,000 ‘Army Caliber’
(.44) Pettengills on 6th December 1861. These guns were simply enlargements
of the .34-calibre ‘navy’ model, but so many problems ensued that the U.S. Army
refused to accept any guns from the first batch.
After modifications had been made to prevent fouling jamming the cylinder
axis-pin, and the trigger patented by Henry Rogers in November 1862 had been
substituted for the original cam type, the Ordnance Department grudgingly
accepted 2,001 modified revolvers delivered between 20th October 1862 and 17th
January 1863 at a cost of $40,287.10. The odd-looking Pettengill cannot be mistaken
for a Colt, Remington, Starr or Whitney, as its cylinder is an axial extension of
the grip/frame unit. It measures about 14 inches overall, has a 7½-inch six-groove
barrel, and weighed about 48 ounces unladen. The double-action-only trigger often
exhibits a fearsome pull that discouraged accurate shooting.
A total of 1100 of the revolver patented by Benjamin →Joslyn of Worcester,
Massachusetts, in May 1858, were acquired by the Federal government during the
Civil War at a cost of $24,793. The principal claim to novelty was a ‘spring clutch’
and ratchet cylinder-rotating mechanism. The .44-calibre five-shot solid frame
single-action Joslyn has an externally-mounted sidehammer, the nose of which
is cranked to clear the cylinder axis pin entering from the rear of the frame. The
guns have a conventional three-piece rammer, measure 14.4 inches overall, have
five-groove 8-inch octagonal barrels and weigh about 49 ounces unladen. Their
first manufacturer—W.C. Freeman of Worcester, Massachusetts—contracted with
the Chief of Ordnance on 28th August 1861 to provide five hundred revolvers at
the high cost of $25 apiece. These had plate-type butt caps retained by two screws.
Freeman claimed he subsequently refused to deliver an ‘unserviceable design’
to the U.S. Army, but the first contract was terminated by the Federal government
owing to non-delivery. Freeman’s subsequent offer of revolvers was declined partly
because the asking price was too high and partly because 225 Joslyns had been
purchased from Bruff, Brother & Seaver of New York in the winter of 1861. Many
of the unsold guns subsequently passed to the Ohio state militia at the end of

1861. The Freeman-made Joslyns usually display ‘B.F. JOSLYN WORCESTER MASS.’
together with the patent date. However, Joslyn subsequently made about 2500
additional ‘Stonington’-marked guns. The first of these had iron rather than brass
trigger guards and lacked the butt-caps. After about 1400 had been made, the
Freeman-type butt cap reappeared. Of the Stonington Joslyns, about 875 were
delivered to the Federal government in 1861–2, approximately five hundred were
acquired by the Federal navy in 1862 (these have an anchor on the butt-strap or
under the barrel) and 675 more went in 1862 to—but were promptly rejected by—
the 5th Ohio Militia Cavalry.
The archaic appearance of the →Butterfield revolver, another Civil War oddity,
belies the date of manufacture. The principal novelty is that a tube of disc primers
can be inserted ahead of the trigger guard; patented by Jesse Butterfield in 1855
(U.S. no. 12124), this feeds primers one-by-one above the nipple each time the
external hammer was cocked. Butterfield believed that he had accepted a contract
for 2280 .41-calibre Army Model revolvers placed on behalf of the Ira Harris
Guard of the 5th New York Cavalry, but the Ordnance authorities cancelled the
contract on 24th June 1862. Probably no more than seven hundred guns had been
completed by Krider & Co. of Philadelphia, many subsequently finding their way to
the Confederacy. The five-shot single action Butterfield Army Model was about 13.8
inches overall, had a seven-grooved 7.1-inch barrel and weighed about 41 ounces.
The success of cap-lock revolvers persuaded many companies to copy many
of the best-known, particularly the Colts. A selection of Whitney-like guns is
also known, generally marked as the products of W.W. →Marston, The Phoenix
Armory, or the →Union or →Western Arms Companies. It has been suggested
that these were made on machinery sold by Whitney once the latter’s revolvers
had been perfected, but the differences in frame design make this unlikely; it has
also been theorised that Whitney supplied ready-engraved cylinders to Marston,
which seems possible. The nipple recesses on the Union and Western guns are
squared rather than rounded, though this could be explained by Whitney supplying
unfinished parts. Among the imports were nearly thirteen thousand Lefaucheux
pinfires, plus a few British Beaumont-Adams, French Raphaels, and Perrins with
their distinctive thick-rimmed rimfire cartridges.
The Confederate States of America had a much poorer arms industry than
the Federals, most resources being concentrated north of the Mason–Dixon Line.
However, modified Dragoon or Navy Colts were made by the Augusta Machine
Works, the Columbus Fire Arms Co.; →Dance Bros. & Park; L. Tucker & Co., its
successor →Tucker, Sherrard & Co., and then Clark Sherrard & Company. None
of these made more than a few hundred. However, →Griswold & Gunnison of
Griswoldville, Georgia, made three thousand; and →Leech & Rigdon, Leech & Co.,
and Rigdon, Ansley & Co. made about 1500 in Columbus, Greensboro and Augusta.
→Spiller & Burr of Atlanta and, later, Macon, Georgia, made about 1500 Whitney
copies in 1863–4. At the other extreme, about twenty brass-framed Remington-
Beals type revolvers were made by farmer Alfred Kapp of Sisterdale, Texas. The
revolver patented by Alexandre Le →Mat of New Orleans in October 1856, was

also popular with Confederate officers. The standard Civil War pattern—made in
France and Britain—substitutes a .67-calibre shot barrel for the cylinder-axis pin
and have a selector mounted on the hammer-nose, but a metallic-cartridge version
was patented in 1869 by Le Mat’s son, François Alexandre.
A desire to perfect a gun capable of defeating an entire attacking force was
by no means unique to recent firearms history; indeed, it had its roots in the
Orgelgeschutz or Ribaldequin of the fifteenth century. These primitive multi-barrel
guns were made in many sizes—the largest had three banks of barrels and was
some twenty feet high— but the limitations of the gunpowder of the day reduced
their efficacy considerably unless range was very short. And if the ribaldequin got
close enough to the enemy to deliver its message effectively, the attackers often
simply outflanked the comparatively immobile field-pieces. The barrels, therefore,
were removed from the carriages, placed on separate wood stocks and issued to
individual marksmen who could make best use of the firepower. In this way began
the story of the modern rifle.
The advent of the rifle-musket in the middle of the nineteenth century brought
a great increase in range and hitting power. But this was still achieved at the
expense of considerable numbers of men; gradually, inventors’ thoughts returned
to the possibilities of replacing these men in a single ‘battery gun’. Apart from
eccentricities such as the Perkins Steam Gun of 1843, in its way an awesome weapon
but a particularly unpractical one, the first of the modern volley-guns was the
→Mitrailleuse. Credit for the rediscovery of the ancient ribauldequin is generally
given to a Belgian artilleryman named Fafschamps, but his gun was refined for
production by Josef Montigny and Louis Chistophe; made in Montigny’s factory in
Fontaine l’Évêque, near Liége, the 37-barrel Montigny Mitrailleuse was extensively
employed in Belgian strongpoints.
These multi-shot weapons were not regarded with much enthusiasm by
contemporary army commanders, most of whom had served much earlier in the
century and regarded such devices as unsporting. However, when the American
Civil War began, the attitudes of the field commanders differed greatly from their
European colleagues. This was partly due to the employment of large numbers
of volunteers, whose commanders were often politicians or leaders of commerce
rather than career soldiers, and to the unique capacity of even the U.S.A. of the
1860s to produce hundreds of thousands of machine-made arms.
Precisely who invented the →Union Repeating Gun is no longer clear. Though
it was patented in Britain in 1866 by Wilson Ager, an inventor of agricultural
machinery, no comparable protection was sought in the U.S.A. and a lawsuit
contesting the rights to the gun was fought in New York in 1861 between Edward
Nugent and William Palmer. Advertised as ‘An Army in Six Feet Square’, the Union
Repeating Gun was successfully demonstrated before President Lincoln on 16th
October 1861; Lincoln promptly sanctioned the purchase of all ten of the available
guns, the first recorded purchase of a ‘battery gun’ by the Federal army. Fifty were
purchased in 1861, plus two by each of Generals Fremont and Butler in 1861–2. The
Union Repeating Gun may also have been the first rapid-firing gun to be used in the

war. The dispute hangs on a contested attribution of the use of Union Repeaters
at along the Potomac at Middleburg, Virginia, by the 28th Pennsylvania Volunteer
Infantry on 29th March 1862. However, Colonel John Geary subsequently returned
the guns as ‘ineffectual and unsafe to the operators’ and the story relies heavily on
unsupportable hearsay; the claim for the large-calibre Confederate →Williams Gun,
which was incontrovertibly used in the early Summer of 1862, seems the stronger.
The first demonstrable use of Ager’s gun took place at the Battle of Gaines Mills in
June 1862, some five weeks after the first authenticated use of the Williams Gun.
The Union Repeating Gun fired the standard .58-calibre combustible paper
cartridges from special capped-cylinders fed into the distinctive hopper on top of
the breech, which gave it the sobriquet ‘Coffee Mill Gun’. As the breech-handle
was cranked, each cylinder was fed into the breech, fired, extracted and dropped
down through the action into a receiving tray from which it could be retrieved and
reloaded. When clean and in good order, the gun could attain a cyclic rate of about
120 shots per minute; unfortunately, ignition of the cartridges was suspect and
some ignited only after they had been ejected. The breech was also difficult to close
when the gun heated up or became foul.
The battery gun patented by William →Billingshurst and Joseph Requa of
Rochester, New York, in September 1861 (U.S. no. 36488) was the first to use self-
contained metallic cartridges, 25 of which could be loaded on a flexible metallic
strip. A train of priming powder was then laid in a trough behind the breech, to be
ignited by a conventional cap-lock on the side of the breech. The flash from this
could reach the propellant in the cartridges through basal holes. The Billingshurt-
Requa gun first saw action at Charleston, South Carolina, in 1863; however, it
was susceptible to misfiring if there was moisture in the atmosphere and was
often relegated to covered strongpoints. So many of these protected bridges and
river crossings that the Billingshurst-Requa became known as the ‘Bridge Gun’.
Curiously, the U.S. Navy, which could have been expected to take damp-induced
misfiring very seriously, formed an appreciably better opinion of the gun than the
U.S. army!
The work of Ezra →Ripley of Troy, New York, and patented in October 1861
(U.S. no. 33544), the Ripley Battery Gun bore an external affinity with the later—
and more successful—Gatling, though its barrels were fixed and it operated more in
the manner of the Montigny Mitrailleuse. The detachable breech-block was loaded
with standard .58-calibre combustible cartridges, which could be fired singly or as a
volley by judiciously turning the crank-handle attached to the cascabel. The Ripley
Gun was light and handy, but was poorly promoted and doomed from the outset.
Many interesting machine-guns were tested by the Federal and Confederate
authorities, but few encountered success: the Mayall Revolver Cannon, patented
in October 1860, ignited its combustible cartridges electrically, but its cyclic rate
proved to be a mere twelve shots per minute and the army regarded it as a positive
danger to its crew; the .50-calibre Raphael Gun, a slide-fed side-loader, was found
to be too inaccurate when tested at Frankford Arsenal in August 1862; and the
Douglas and Corry volley guns were too late to see service.

This 1883-model .30-caliber Gatling Gun, complete with the
cumbersome 1884-type Accles magazine, has a high-quality
new carriage made by Stern Cannons of Ashland, Kentucky.
The first Gatling Gun was patented by Richard Jordan →Gatling in November 1862
(U.S. no. 36836). A .58-calibre mechanical repeater, this fired standard combustible
cartridges inserted in integrally-capped carriers—not unlike the Union Repeating
Gun, though Gatling always denied this source of inspiration. The concept of a
multiple-barrel cluster had been introduced by the DeBrame Revolver Cannon
(patented in the U.S.A. in December 1861), but Gatling’s was the earliest gun of its
class to prove effectual. It achieved an impressive fire-rate by firing six times for
each turn of the barrel cluster, though only the uppermost barrel fired. The earliest
Gatlings were, however, far from the success that is usually assumed. They leaked
gas severely and the method of wedging the cartridge-carriers into the breech
made the crank handle difficult to turn.
By the middle of the war, the Gatling had been re-designed for .58-calibre
copper-case cartridges carried in separate cylindrical inserts. Aligning the
chambers and the barrel still proved problematical, so the breech-throats were
tapered to handle any slight misalignment. Unfortunately, the accuracy of the pre-
1865 guns was still very poor.
In 1862, Gatling demonstrated one of his guns before Governor Oliver Morton
of Indiana, who was so impressed that he wrote to the Assistant Secretary of War
recommending the new gun for official trials. Coupled with an effective Press
campaign, and headlines like ‘Two Hundred Shots a Minute’ or ‘A Substitute for
Troops’, the Gatling Gun was soon in the public eye. The first six were made by

Miles H. Greenwood & Co. in the Eagle Iron Works, Cincinnati, Ohio, but were
destroyed by fire before they could be completed—allegedly due to Confederate
saboteurs, lending spurious credence to unfounded allegations that Gatling’s
sympathies lay with his ‘native South’.
With the backing of McWhinney & Rindge, another thirteen guns were
subsequently made by the Cincinnati Type Foundry Company and an optimistic
approach was made to the Federal army. Unfortunately, Rindge and Gatling crossed
the path of Brevet Brigadier-General James Ripley, ‘Old Fogey Ripley’, the near
septuganerian Chief of Ordnance who was apt to confide that his ‘ideal weapon’
was a flintlock musket. It seems that one Gatling was sold to the U.S. Navy, where
trials were successfully undertaken in July 1863, while the remaining twelve guns
were purchased by Major-General Benjamin F. Butler (‘Beast Butler’), a political
appointee in command of the Massachusetts Volunteer. There are, however, few
reports of these guns seeing action.
Butler is known to have tested them in somewhat bizarre circumstances—
against Confederates during an unofficial truce!—but his purchases of ammunition
were insufficient for sustained firing and it seems probable that the Gatlings were
relegated to point-defence. They rate no mention in Butler’s autobiography.
Similarly, it has yet to be proved that the gun purchased by Admiral David Porter
ever saw action with his Mississippi squadron. Possibly the most interesting
purchase of Gatlings during the war was of the three that defended the Times
Building during the New York Draft Riots of July 1863. But even these did not
have to fire a shot…
The first Federal army trial occurred in January 1865, when a four-barrel
.58-calibre gun weighing 426 pounds on its wheeled carriage passed an impressive
test at Washington Arsenal. A barrel had burst during the trials, but the lockpiece
had simply been removed and the gun continued as a three-barrel. The success of
the Gatling in these trials persuaded General Alexander Dyer, the Chief of Ordnance
in succession to Ripley (who had been forcibly retired two years previously) to
request development of 1-inch calibre gun that could take the place of the standard
12-pounder field gun for flank defence.
This gun was developed successfully, the first being made by the →Cooper Fire
Arms Manufacturing Company in Philadelphia before work eventually passed to
Colt. Cooper also made the last of the early .58-calibre guns. The story of the 1-inch
Gatlings is outside the scope of this book; it suffices to say that the first trials were
spectacularly successful, persuading General Winfield Hancock to order twelve for
his army corps on the spot, and production continued until the mid 1870s. On 24th
August 1866, General Dyer sanctioned a hundred-gun Gatling Gun contract. Made
by →Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, with which the Gatling Gun
Company had contracted following the failure of Cooper to make guns that were
sufficiently durable, these were delivered in 1867. Fifty were 1-inch calibre, the
remainder chambering the .50 centre-fire service cartridge.
By 1870, successful trials had been undertaken in many countries and the
negotiation of contracts with Russia (1868) and Turkey (1870) assured Gatling’s

fortune. Guns had been sold to France, Prussia and Japan by this time, and a
production licence granted to Sir W.G. Armstrong & Co. Ltd in Britain. Some idea
of the performance of these early guns is necessary to appreciate why they were so
successful in the decade after the end of the American Civil War—and why, indeed,
they were able to co-exist with the truly automatic machine-gun well into the
twentieth century. At a test in Karlsruhe, Baden, in 1869, one .50-calibre ten-barrel
Gatling was pitted against a hundred picked men armed with needle-rifles. Firing
for a minute at eight hundred paces, the Gatling fired 246 shots and obtained 216
hits. The riflemen managed a mere 196 hits from 721 shots in circumstances that
favoured them. Hostile fire would undoubtedly have degraded their performance
appreciably, but would have made very little difference to the Gatling.
British trials undertaken at Shoeburyness in the summer of 1870, in which .42,
.65 and 1-inch Gatlings were pitted against breech- and muzzle-loading field guns,
the Montigny Mitrailleuse, and a selection of infantry rifles showed that while
the Gatling and Mitrailleuse performed similarly on static targets, the former
obtained more hits by virtue of its easier manipulation. At 300 yards, for example,
the Gatling had obtained 369 hits out of 616 shots in two minutes, compared with
an impressive 171 out of only 185 for the Mitrailleuse; at 1400 yards, the figures had
been 104 from 545 and 68 from 296 respectively. The most realistic trial, however,
saw each of the guns firing at individual man-size dummies placed to represent a
column ‘retiring in loose order’. At 300 yards the Gatling scored twice as many hits
as the Mitrailleuse; at 950 yards, the Gatling obtained 177 hits compared with only
nine for the Mitrailleuse, whose inflexibility proved its Achilles’ heel.
It took little imagination to picture the effect Gatling Guns could have on
massed ranks, but the lesson was, curiously, applied only in Colonial Wars: very
successfully at the battle of Tel el-Kebir in the Sudan in 1882, against the Zulus, or
in some of the ‘wars’ undertaken by the U.S. Army with native Americans. Oddly,
a myth arose that no European army would suffer against the Gatling Gun in the
way that ‘undisciplined savages’ had done, as European officers would surely not
send serried ranks into action against machine-guns. The myth was to be so costly
in the Somme or Passechendaele forty years later.
THE SEVEN WEEKS WAR
During this brief conflict, the Prussians had comprehensively outshot the vaunted
Austrian army armed with conventional Lorenz rifle-muskets. The Prussians had
armed with the comparatively crude →Dreyse bolt-action needle gun. The breech
leaked gas, and the high, looping trajectory of the slow-moving bullet undeniably
contributed range-gauging problems; the Prussian inventor had even buried the
percussion igniter immediately behind the bullet, forcing the firing needle to run
through the charge before reaching the cap. When the cap fired the main charge,
the needle speedily corroded in the heat of combustion. Prussian soldiers even
carried spare needles, noted the experts. But these ‘experts’ failed to appreciate

that the bolt system facilitated loading, particularly when the firer was prone or
behind cover: factors that contributed greatly both to Prussian success and a lower
than expected casualty rate.
FRANCO–PRUSSIAN AND NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLONIAL WARS
The resentment simmering between France and the steadily-uniting German

states boiled over when, after some cunning political manoeuvring by Bismarck,
hostilities began in the summer of 1870. Most uncommitted European observers
expected the French to crush Prussian alliance, and it was widely believed that the
southern German states—such as Bavarian and Baden—would probably be won
over to the French side. But it was not to be: the war was a crushing victory for the
Germans, and hastened the fall of Napoléon III.
The course of the war had been greatly helped by the poor quality of many
French troops and by the inertia of their leaders. The principal weapons of the
Franco-Prussian War were the →Dreyse needle-rifles carried by the Prussians and
the Württembergers, and the →Werder and →Lindner-transformed rifle muskets
of the Bavarians. Reporting to his government in 1869, Colonel Baron Stoffel
(according to his Rapports Militaires Ecrits de Berlin, 1866–70, 1871) estimated that
the troops of the North German Confederation could muster 1.5 million rifles and
140,000 carbines.
This Mitrailleuse in the collection of La Musée du château de Morges,

Switzerland, shows how it resembled a nineteenth-century field gun.

On 15th July 1870, the Prussians had a total of 1,097,260 needle guns of all types
(including 448,510 M1841 and 434,567 M1862 infantry rifles, 101,886 M1860 fusilier
rifles, and 29,896 M1865 Jäger rifles). There were also 54,172 M1857 carbines in
the hands of the cavalry. Against these, according to a survey taken on 1st July
1870, the French could field 1,037,555 Mle. 1866 Chassepot needle-rifles, 342,115 ‘à
Tabatière’ conversions of earlier muskets, and 1,989,401 smooth-bores of various
types. There were also several hundred de Reffye Mitrailleuses in the French army:
the vaunted ‘secret weapon’ which, the French believed, would drive the Prussian
riflemen from the field.
By the end of the war, however, the Mitrailleuse had been crushed by the
effectiveness of the German field artillery, which had also negated much of the
advantage the Chassepot held over the improved Dreyse rifles. Casualties had
been high: German losses amounted to 46,589 dead (killed, died of wounds, and
missing presumed dead) and 127,867 wounded, while the French casualties were
assessed as 119,805 dead and 143,066 wounded. In addition, at least nineteen
thousand Frenchmen had died in captivity. Illness had also incapacitated many of
the fighting men, the inclement winter of 1870–71 laying low no fewer than 84,000
men of the invading German armies in December 1870—fully ten per cent of their
strength. It has been estimated that 328,000 Frenchmen ‘fell ill’ during the war.
Analysing the casualties showed that 93 per cent of the German casualties
had been due to small-arms fire, while only five per cent had been due to artillery.
On the French side the figures showed a marked difference—70 and 25 per cent
respectively. Though the French continued to make Chassepots at a prodigious
rate (about 122,000 new guns were made between 17th September 1870 and 22nd
February 1871), the Germans had captured a fantastic 665,327 of these needle-guns
during the fighting, together with a half-million assorted breech- and muzzle-
loaders. As a result of the deteriorating supply situation, therefore, the French,
desperate for weapons, had obtained about 1.5 million guns from Europe and the
U.S.A. in 1870–71…in no fewer than ninety differing models. Most of these were
acquired on behalf of the Comité de la Défense Nationale, and issued to the Gardes
Mobiles and irregulars, but some nonetheless found their way to front-line troops.
Guns such as Remington Rolling Blocks and Peabody dropping-block rifles were
infinitely superior to the Chassepot and greatly valued by individual recipients,
though lack of ammunition hindered their effectiveness on a broader scale. The
same was true of the handful of Gatling Guns acquired in 1870, which offered far
better performance than the cumbersome de Reffye Mitrailleuse.
The accuracy, general handiness and fire-rate of the Prussian needle guns
(Zündnadelgewehre) was claimed as an important factor in the Seven Weeks and
Franco–Prussian Wars even by some of the most respected historians of the
twentieth century, who overlooked the value of the Prussian field artillery in 1870–
71. Though the Dreyse rifle played an important role in the Seven Weeks War, when
it had been pitted against conventional rifle-muskets, its ineffectiveness was more
remarkable in the Franco–Prussian War than its advantages. The Dreyse shot very
erratically at ranges greater than about eight hundred paces, which was roughly

The infantry weapons of the
Franco-Prussian War were simiilar:
needle-guns by Dreyse (Prussian) and
Chassepot (French). However, only
the latter could be converted to fire
metallic cartridges.

the maximum effective range of its curious oviform projectile. Most sources
suggest that the needle gun was more accurate than the Bavarian rifle-musket at
all ranges below 800 paces, but that most ‘second generation’ breech-loaders were
considerably more accurate than the Dreyse. In the Austro–Prussian War, most
Prussians carried needle guns while the Austrians were at a disadvantage with
their Lorenz rifle-muskets at anything other than long range: a style of combat
which was very rarely favoured in Europe at the time.
In the Franco–Prussian War, however, the French had their own needle rifle.
The success of the Dreyse had persuaded the French to adopt a variant firing a
smaller bullet (11.43mm diameter) at a higher initial velocity to give a flatter
trajectory. The Fusil d’Infanterie Mle. 1866 (better known after its inventor, Antoine
Alphonse Chassepot) would have been an improvement on the Dreyse had not the
French, in their wisdom, used an indiarubber obturating washer to seal the breech.
After a few shots, the heat of combustion destroyed the elasticity of the washer
and the breech seal failed; the all-metal cone-seal Dreyse would continue to work,
despite its occasional back-blast.
Needle guns were doomed by the inefficiency of their ammunition and had
no lasting effect on firearms history, apart from adding further testimony to
the potential of the bolt-action. The fire-rate of even the earliest Dreyse breech-
loaders, notwithstanding that the firing needle had to be retracted before the bolt
could be opened, was considerably greater than the contemporary muzzle-loading
rifle-muskets. Compared with the guns that had preceded them, needle rifles were
acceptably accurate even if loaded rapidly (provided careful aim was taken); the
theoretically better accuracy of rifle-muskets usually deteriorated with speed, as
speed meant forgetting to tamp the cartridge down properly with the ramrod,
spilling some of the powder charge or fumbling the cap onto the nipple.
Howard Blackmore, writing in British Military Firearms, 1650–1850, records
that firing ten rounds of muzzle-loading ammunition in 3½ minutes was regarded
as a reasonable performance. The Bavarians regarded the average rate of fire for
the Werder rifle to be ten rounds per minute ‘from the pocket’, or 14–15 for an
experienced firer. There were reports of as many as 24 rounds per minute being
fired; and, even in the 1869 trials, groups of 36 shots were fired in a little over two
minutes (the best was 2 minutes 6 seconds) with such accuracy that they all hit a
9×4-foot target at 200 paces.
The vertices of projectile trajectories are very important in a military
context, because a flat bullet-path minimised the effect of range-gauging errors.
The Zündnadelgewehre, owing to their low muzzle velocity, were inferior to the
standard rifle-muskets in this respect; they were also vastly inferior to the French
Chassepot, which compared favourably with the contemporary metallic-cartridge
rifles—for example, the Mauser, the Werder or the Martini-Henry. Nineteenth-
century sources quote differing ways of assessing the flatness of trajectory, though
most were based on calculations of the ‘safe’ zones for infantry and cavalrymen
in each bullet path. These naturally varied according to distance, and whether the
marksman was standing, kneeling or prone.

The French Chasspot was as effective at 900 metres as the Dreyse (with its high
looping trajectory) was at 600; and that the ‘third generation’, the small-bore
breech-loaders represented by the Gewehr 88 →Reichsgewehr, were as effective at
1200 metres as the Dreyse was at half that distance. Indeed, the original Dreyse,
the Infanteriegewehr M1841, compared very unfavourably with the French Mle. 59
carbine…a typical short-barrel muzzle-loader. The maximum height of the Dreyse
bullet above the bore, when firing at 600 metres, was a staggering 9.95 metres
(more than 30 feet) compared with only about 7.8 metres for the French Mle. 59.
In addition, the maximum range of the standard M1862 Dreyse infantry rifle,
only 1500 metres, compared badly with 2250 metres for the Bavarian Podewils-
Gewehr rifle-musket, 2500 for the Mle. 66 Chassepot, and about 2900 metres for
the Mauser M1871. Even in the Seven Weeks War, this had allowed the Austrian
troops to open fire at much longer ranges than the Prussians; the difference was
simply that the latter, with their breech-loaders, could make better use of cover.
In the Franco–Prussian War, with both sides using needle guns, this Prussian
advantage was negated.
By the time of the Franco–Prussian War, the single-shot breech-loader was well
established and most armies had replaced their rifle-musket conversions. Little
Switzerland had even adopted the 10.4mm Vetterli bolt-action repeating rifle in
August 1869 and the way ahead was plainly signalled. The Vetterli infantry rifle had
a twelve-shot tube magazine under the barrel and could carry a thirteenth on the
cartridge elevator. Though long and heavy, it conferred a considerable advantage
on the Swiss infantryman. No real attempt was made to provide an ‘elite’ version
of the Vetterli, though the Repetierstutzer, introduced in 1871, had a special set-
trigger in the tradition of the Austro–Prussian Jägerbüchsen.
The Battle of Plevna (Pleven) during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–8 showed
not only that the single-shot breech-loader was doomed, but also that outnumbered
(but well-protected) riflemen could still defeat infantry and cavalry advancing
across open ground. During the first skirmishes on 20th July 1877, the six-thousand
strong Russian vanguard attempted to storm well dug-in Turkish defenders in what
was then accepted as a routine, if usually costly part of contemporary warfare.
Attackers, armed with single-shot 10.6mm-calibre Berdan bolt-action rifles would
be pitted against defenders firing block-action Peabody-Martini rifles of similar
efficacy. Things went according to plan until the Russians were within 300 yards of
the Turkish positions; the defenders put down their Peabodies and picked up lever-
action Winchester repeaters. Within minutes the Russians had been routed; and a
second assault, mustering thirty thousand men, suffered similarly. No fewer than
95,000 Russians tried again on 11/12th September, but were repulsed at a cost of
twenty thousand Russians and 6200 Turks. Plevna remains the classic nineteenth-
century demonstration of the superiority of the breech-loader.
The fighting for Plevna was contemporaneous with British campaigns in Africa
and on the North-West Frontier, where the need for firearms suited to a wide range
of climatic conditions was emphasised. Colonial powers often discovered that
guns which worked perfectly on home service fell short of perfection abroad. The

The armies of the colonising nations—
principally Britain and France in the second
half of the nineteenth century—were often
confronted by huge native armies with very
little fear of death. Though breech-loading
rifles and the first machine guns could cause
terrible slaughter, even technology would
fail if ammunition ran short.

The earliest machine-guns were so heavy that they were often seen as a form of light artillery. They could be accompanied by
heavy mounts, including pedestals for static use, and by a range of accessories which could take several mules to move. These
engravings of a Maxim are taken from the British periodical Engineering of March 1891.

Martini-Henry was no exception, encountering such severe extraction troubles in
the heat, sand and dust of Suakin and Tel-el-Kebr that problems could no longer be
suppressed. After an outcry in the Press, and a government inquiry, blame was laid
on the .450-inch coiled-case cartridge that unwound under the African sun, leaving
the separate case-head to be torn away by the extractor as the breech was opened.
By the 1880s, with the adoption of an assortment of magazine breech-loaders,
some of which offered the virtues of reduced calibre, the Eurpoean scene was in
disarray. In 1887, however, the French had introduced the first serviceable small-
calibre military rifle, firing an 8mm cartridge loaded with smokeless ‘Poudre B’.
The Fusil d’Infanterie Mle. 1886, better known as the →Lebel, had an under-barrel
tube magazine. This could be a source of danger, as premature ignition could be
caused by slamming the butt too hard on the ground—allowing the nose of the
cartridges to smash into the primer of the round ahead of them.
Yet though the Lebel rifle offered no real advance on contemporary 11mm clip-
loaded →Mannlichers, its cartridge represented a huge advance in efficiency. No
less lethal than the big black-powder patterns it replaced, it performed far better at
long ranges and was so much lighter that many more cartridges to be carried for a
given weight. Where the French led, everyone was to follow.
The Spanish–American War (1898) and the Second South African or Boer
War (1899–1901) both showed that the vaunted firearms of the major powers
were lacking in efficiency. The U.S. Army found the Krag-Jørgensen to be very
inaccurate, a problem which was eventually traced to poorly-made barrels and
inefficient bedding, while the British were comprehensively outshot in South
Africa by Mauser-carrying Boers. The Boers, it is true, were experienced fieldsmen
and had a great advantage over the ill-led Britons; and their commando tactics
so influenced the development of irregular warfare that the British, in particular,
were to make good use of the lessons forty years later.
THE FIRST WORLD WAR
By the time of the First World War (1914–18), revisions had been made to the bolt-
action rifles used by Britain and the United States of America. The British had
created the ‘Rifle, Short, Magazine →Lee-Enfield’ or SMLE simply by chopping five
inches off the barrel of the Long Lee-Enfield, revising the sights and fitting guides
enabling the contents of two five-round chargers (‘stripper clips’ in U.S. parlance)
to be fed into the magazine; the U.S. Army had simply replaced the Krag with a
modified Mauser known colloquially as the →Springfield.
The SMLE was particularly vulnerable to criticism from the target-shooting
fraternity, particularly after the politically-inspired adoption of the →Ross rifle in
Canada. The Canadian Army had previously taken nothing but the standard British
rifles and so the change in procurement was keenly felt. The Ross was everything
the SMLE was not: long, very accurate and thus revered by target shooters.
Agitation was such that the British War Office even promoted an experimental

modified Mauser, the ‘0.276in Rifle Pattern 1913’ (P/13), to deflect criticism from
the National Rifle Association, the gun trade and even its own experts. By August
1914, the SMLE, it had been decided, would be replaced with a gun based on the
P/13. However, war caused the plans to be changed; not only was production of
the SMLE accelerated, but the P/14—a modification of the P/13 chambering the
rimmed .303in cartridge—was also ordered into production. The contrast between
the short and handy SMLE and the long, cumbersome Ross Mark III and P/14
highlights another recurrent theme in military weapon design. In the pursuit
of maximum effectiveness—the combination of reliability and ‘killing power’—
compromises must be made. The target shooters’ ideal is rarely suitable for mass
distribution to untrained men, and new or ‘revolutionary’ weapons rarely reach
service status without protracted development.
During the opening phases of the First World War, the time-proven SMLE
handled unusually well in the hands of troops trained in rapid-fire and the British
Expeditionary Force held back numerically superior Germans during the Battle of
Mons. Each Tommy, the Germans believed, had a machine-gun. Rapid fire had not
been taught to the partially conscripted German armies, and they were caught very
much by surprise by disciplined regulars.
Quite apart from the potentially lethal chance of reassembling the bolt without
the lock-piece, the vaunted Ross ultimately proved a disaster in the mud of the
Western Front—just as British trials has suggested it would be. Surviving Ross
rifles were withdrawn from the dispirited Canadian troops in 1916 and replaced
by the SMLE Mk III. Some remained in the hands of snipers, however, who
appreciated their shooting qualities and could clean them as and when necessary
out of the line. Before the war was over, though, most of the Rosses had been
replaced by the P/14: heavy and unwieldy but with a stronger bolt system than the
SMLE. Consequently, the P/14 proved especially popular with the British snipers.
Many senior British Army officers initially regarded sniping as ‘Bad Form’:
ungentlemanly, and therefore not to be pursued by any civilised power. However,
once the First World War had stretched past 1915 with no immediate end in sight,
the British, having had a change of heart, found themselves impossibly short of
suitable rifles. Commandeered Mannlicher, Mauser and Ross sporting rifles, as
well as Long Lee-Enfields, received a curious selection of commercial optical sights
until sufficient supplies of P/14 and the otherwise tempramental Canadian Ross
Mark III had been assured. The P/14 usually received 4× Aldis optical sights; the
Ross was issued with American-made 6× Warner & Swazey Telescopic Musket
Sight of 1908 or 1913. Though the performance of the Warner & Swazey sights was
surprisingly poor, they nonetheless came as a revelation to shooters used only to
open sights. The Germans were better equipped, fitting selected (but otherwise
standard) Gewehre 98 with excellent Zeiss, Goertz and Ajack optical sights.
German snipers were elitist, and lessons learned from their activities promoted
the sniper to a value that is appreciated today.
The First World War brought the first increase in elite forces in several decades.
This was partly due to the increasingly stagnated nature of the trench war, which

The First World War was
remarkable for the way in
which tradition and technology
attempted to co-exist. These
four German artillerymen have
a Mauser short rifle and an
anachronistic sabre.

The German Maxim, the MG. 08, was the
scourge of Allied attackers during the First
World War. The upper picture shows a posed
trenchscape; the lower, an MG. 08 retrieved
from Turkey in the 1990s.

promoted sniping, and the success of the machine-gun. The crews of the German
→Maxim and British →Vickers guns rightly judged themselves as elite units,
though the subsequent issue of lightened guns to infantry machine-gun companies
removed some of the gloss. By 1918, machine-guns had appeared on tripod mounts
to provide sustained fire, on light bipods for close-quarter infantry support, as
‘machine rifles’, and in the air. The machine-gun had truly arrived. Water-cooled
Maxim and Vickers machine-guns exacted a dreadful toll on the Western Front.
However, these guns were very heavy—the standard German Maschinengewehr-
Gerät 08 (System Maxim) weighed 62kg, 132lb—and required a crew of several men
to manage them.
The emerging pattern of trench warfare soon indicated that while heavy
machine-guns were excellent for static use, built into strongpoints in the defence
system, lighter guns were needed to support the troops during advances across no
man’s land and into the ground commanded by the opponents’ machine-guns. The
Germans simply lightened the MG.08, producing the MG.08/15, but this was still
water-cooled, clumsy, weighed 18kg (40lb) without the coolant, and was usually
serviced by four men.
Strangely, the Germans all but ignored the air-cooled →Bergmann machine-
gun, weighing a little under 29lb without its small tripod, and restricted the
efficient →Parabellum to aerial use. The young Erwin Rommel, famous for his
role in a later war, commanded a Württemberg mountain unit on the Italian
Front during this period. Among the guns especially favoured by his unit was the
→Madsen light machine-gun, purchased in Denmark, which provided an effective
combination of mobility and firepower some years ahead of its time. With their
top-mounted magazines, these Madsens proved to be far better machine-rifles
than the MG.08/15, and were greatly prized.
At the outset of war, the British had acquired small numbers of light machine-
guns developed by an American, Colonel Isaac →Lewis, but made by BSA. Though
the Lewis was very prone to jamming, owing to its spring-operated pan magazine
and rimmed cartridge, it weighed only 26lb and could be carried in the manner of a
large rifle. Despite its weaknesses, six Lewis Guns could be made for each Vickers
Gun and were to provide indispensable infantry support.
In 1915, the French adopted a light machine-gun (a Fusil Mitrailleur, ‘automatic
rifle’) known as the CSRG or →Chauchat. Despite poor performance, the Chauchat
was well suited to the French technique of firing from the hip while advancing.
Converted for the powerful U.S. .30–06 round, whereafter it performed even worse
than the original, the Chauchat was adopted to alleviate shortages of machine
weapons when the U.S. Army entered the First World War.
The failure of the Chauchat in U.S. Army service inspired John →Browning
to develop the Browning Automatic Rifle (‘BAR’), now often considered to be the
true prototype assault rifle. The BAR was large, weighing about 16lb in its original
guise, but light enough to be used from the shoulder by the specially selected
men to whom the rifles were issued. A twenty-round detachable box magazine,
protruding beneath the receiver, provided more than adequate firepower in 1918.

Though manufacturing problems occurred with the early BAR—hardly surprising,
considering the haste in which it had been readied for service—the rifle was well
liked. In the post-war period, however, its role was scrutinised, a bipod was added
(increasing weight by more than two pounds), and the BAR became more of a
light machine-gun than a true automatic rifle. Lacking a quick-change barrel, the
modified Browning Automatic Rifle was tried and found wanting against guns such
as the Madsen, the Czech ZB vz/26 and the Bren, though derivations were made in
Belgium, Sweden, Poland and elsewhere during the 1930s.
During the First World War, the Germans and Austro-Hungarians evolved
the concept of Sturmtruppen (‘storm troops’): heavily armed raiding parties which
relied on little more than their firearms and grenades. Close-quarter fighting
promoted the use of trench daggers, clubs and sharpened spades, but one of the
solutions to the problem of providing additional close-range firepower was found
by the Germans in the long so-called ‘Artillery Luger’ (lang Pistole M.1908) paired
with a 32-round drum magazine. These semi-automatic pistols were scarcely
ideal, as the magazines jammed too easily and projected clumsily below the gun-
butt, but they encouraged unconventional developments. In 1918, therefore,
the first true submachine-gun appeared. The →Bergmann MP.18,I retained the
cumbersome drum magazine associated with the long-barrelled Parabellums, but
could fire automatically at 600 rounds per minute. Though perhaps less than fifty
thousand had been made prior to the Armistice, the MP.18.I was to have an impact
disproportionate to its numbers.
THE GREAT PEACE
When the fighting ceased, time could be taken to analyse the lessons that could
be learned from combat in conditions ranging from the deadlocked trenchscape
of the Western Front to the snowy sub-zero of the Eastern Front in winter and
the arid sand of Mesopotamia. Though production of the →Maxim ceased in
Germany, huge numbers remained in circulation. Many were destroyed under the
supervision of the Allied disarmament commission, though enough remained to
equip not only the German police but also the armies of emergent nations such as
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Large numbers of Austro-Hungarian →Schwarzlose machine-guns served
Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The Russians retained the Maxim and the
British clung to the →Vickers Gun, which had proved themselves to be exceptionally
reliable, and the U.S. Army standardised the M1917 →Browning—a wartime
introduction which, once initial teething troubles had been overcome, proved itself
to be among the best of all infantry-support weapons. The Browning also proved
itself to be an outstandingly successful air-cooled aircraft weapon.
Successful though many of the water-cooled heavy support weapons had been,
the situation with light machine-guns was less encouraging. The →Lewis was too
complicated and too prone to jamming, and the French →Chauchat (‘CSRG’) was

too badly made to be reliable, the ‘light’ →Hotchkiss was far too heavy, and the
German MG. 08/15 was an unhappy hybrid. Experience had shown that recoil
operation, ideal if the components could be robust (which suggested weight), was
not suited to lightweight guns; the jarring as barrels and barrel-carriers moved
backwards could be absorbed by a heavyweight gun but not on one that weighed
less than 10kg (22lb). Only the first shot from the long-recoil Chauchat could
be placed accurately, and the →Fedorov automatic rifle (AVF) was exceptionally
difficult to control when firing automatically…even though it had been deliberately
chambered for a low-power cartridge. The conflict of weight and power has never
been satisfactorily solved in light machine-gun design: even modern guns such as
the HK21 and the →Minimi, which can feed from belts or box magazines, make
sacrifices—the former in the difficulty of controlling automatic fire with the
7.62mm NATO round, and the latter in acceptance of a 5.56mm cartridge that
cannot be used satisfactorily in a fire-support role.
Though the Germans, in particular, had sought a ‘universal’ machine-gun,
the so-called Einheitsmaschinengewehr, nothing of note had been achieved during
the war. The Italians had introduced a small twin-barrelled ‘machine-gun’ to give
mountain troops additional firepower, but this had been chambered for 9mm
handgun ammunition and proved to be a developmental dead-end. The embryonic
submachine-guns such as the Bergmann also chambered pistol cartridges.
Experimentation undertaken between the wars, therefore, concentrated on
developing efficient light machine-guns, providing aircraft guns with unusually
high rates of fire, and developing large-calibre machine-guns (inspired by the
anti-balloon guns of 1914–18) into battle-worthy weapons. A variety of light guns
appeared during the 1920s, characterised by gas operation and, as often as not,
breech-locking systems based on a tilting block. This promised a simple and robust
mechanism that did not need cam-tracks to be machined with great precision
or parts which required too much machining. Only the →Madsen remained the
champion the virtues of recoil operation, comprehensively out-shooting its rivals
in more than one trial held in the 1930s.
Among the first of the new gas-operated guns was the French-designed
→Berthier, subsequently exploited by Vickers but with origins that lay prior to
the First World War; cam fingers on the piston-rod extension acted on lugs on the
breech-block to raise the tail of the block into the roof of the receiver. A specially
hardened steel bar in the receiver, running transversely, minimised wear. The
Czechoslovakian →Praga and its derivatives (including the →Bren Gun) were
similar, but simpler and sturdier; the French →Darne had a unique locking-piece
inserted in the back of the breech-block, where it could be moved in and out of
engagement with the receiver-roof by means of carefully designed cam surfaces;
the 1922-type Hotchkiss retained a version of the familiar flap lock with pinned
links; and the France Mle. 24/29 (‘→Chatellerault’) relied on swinging links to
control the movement of the breech-block.
If these guns were all successful, albeit in varying degrees, the same could
not always be said of rival designs. The Italians went through a series of delayed

blowbacks which required external lubrication to function properly, and even the
locked-breech →Breda, the best of the pre-1939 designs, could not escape the need
for lubricated ammunition. The Italian magazines were also a peculiar group,
ranging from hinged integral boxes to a tray system that took the cartridge out,
fired it, and then replaced the spent case as the tray emerged from the opposite
side of the breech. Some of the Japanese guns, based for the most part on the pre-
1914 Hotchkiss, were no less quirky; the 11th Year Type and its tank-gun derivative,
the Type 91, had a hopper magazine on the left side of the receiver, and the similar
Type 96 (which had a box magazine) could even mount a bayonet.
The German designers became obsessed with the universal machine-gun. The
MG. 13 entered service in 1928, but was little more than a lightened air-cooled
version of the pre-1918 →Dreyse. The strut-type lock, inspired by a Mannlicher
pistol of the 1890s, was only marginally strong enough for its task, and the guns
were relegated to secondary service as soon as better weapons became available.
The ultimate result was the MG. 34, derived from a design credited to Louis Stange
of →Rheinmetall. Initially made in Switzerland by Waffenfabrik →Solothurn, guns
of this type relied on a rotating locking collar inspired by the Hotchkiss Fermeture.
They were used by the armies of Austria and Hungary from 1930 onward.
The German derivative was a sophisticated product, issued with a bewildering
multiplicity of mounts and accessories. It had a double-trigger system to give
single shots or automatic fire, and fed from a belt even when being used as a
light machine-gun. A 75-round belt-drum was issued to enhance portability. Yet
even the MG. 34 fell far short of operational requirements. It was too heavy and
cumbersome to be an effective light machine-gun, and mounting it on a tripod
camouflaged the lack of a heavy-support weapon comparable with the U.S. Army
.50 Browning or the Russian 12.7mm DShK. The MG. 34 was also much too difficult,
time-consuming and expensive to make, and proved to jam in hot and dusty or
sub-zero conditions. But it was still being made in quantity in 1945 alongside its
supposed replacement, the MG. 42.
The British adopted the →Bren Gun—perhaps the best of all light machine-
guns—and the U.S. Army tinkered with the light machine-gun derivatives of
the →Browning Automatic Rifle, which, owing to their fixed barrels and small
magazines, were unsuitable for even the light support role.
Many specialised tank, vehicle and aircraft guns were developed, among the best
known being the Brownings that served the U.S.A., Britain and elsewhere during
the Second World War. Comparatively low rates of fire hindered the performance
of many aircraft guns that had been derived from infantry patterns. This problem
grew as aircraft speeds rose, and the ‘window of opportunity’ for an effective hit
was progressively reduced. Providing sufficient volume of fire was solved in several
ways. Some designers favoured multi-gun installations, the British fitting as many
as twelve 0.303-calibre Brownings in the Hawker Hurricane, and others developed
multi-barrel guns. Some of the responses were much too complicated, particularly
those where complexity was mistakenly seen as technological progress, but a few
surprisingly fast-firing single barrelled guns were made in quantity.

Probably the most successful was the Soviet ShKAS, a rifle-calibre gun capable
of attaining a fire-rate of 1800–2000 rds/min. The ‘Ultra-ShKAS’ and SN (Savin-
Norov) machine-guns were both adopted officially by the USSR, though a pressing
need for striking power at the expense of fire-rate was to prevent series production
of either design. However, allowing the barrel to move forward as the breech ran
back gave fire-rates as high as 3000 rds/min in individual guns. Attempts were also
made to cross-connect two individual ShKAS guns to produce a single unit with an
exceptional rate of fire.
At the last moment, the Soviet designers saw sense. The 7.62mm Ultra-ShKAS
and SN were superseded by the 12.7mm ShVAK and BS (→Beresin) guns, each of
which laid the basis for 20mm adaptations created simply by changing the barrels.
It is interesting that the Soviet authorities stripped Brownings out of the aircraft
provided under wartime aid programmes, replacing them with the reliable and
often more powerful indigenous weapons.
The end of the First World War halted the mass-production of handguns,
and huge quantities of war-surplus equipment were destroyed or sold to the
nations that had risen from the ashes of the great imperial empires of Europe.
Others preferred to introduce designs of their own, befitting new nationhood: the
Czechoslovakian army, for example, accepted the under-powered vz. 22 and vz. 24
pistols largely because they had been designed by Bohemian-born Josef →Nickl.
The British, the Americans, and even the Germans remained true to their pre-
1914 regulation handguns. The French retained the 1892-pattern revolver, pending
the development of something better, and the Japanese refined the →Nambu into
the Taisho 14th year Type Pistol of 1925. A competition begun in Russia in the 1920s
resolved into the →Tokarev or ‘Tula-Tokarev’ pistol, which eventually entered full-
scale production in 1936, and the Poles adopted the wz. 35 or ‘→Radom’ in 1935.
Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de Guerre perfected John Browning’s posthumously-
patented design in 1929, though the onset of the Great Depression postponed
production for six years; the French approved the SACM-Petter in 1936.
Interestingly, excepting the Japanese pistol, all of these were essentially
Browning-type tipping barrel designs, even though the methods of depressing the
barrel and locking it into the slide varied from gun to gun. For example, the FN GP-
35 and the Radom relied on cam-finger depressors, whereas the French M1935S had
a locking shoulder on top of the barrel instead of the circumferential lugs favoured
by the others.
The greatest advance in pistol design to occur in the inter-war era was a
double-action trigger mechanism robust enough to withstand military use.
Though developmental work had been done before 1914 by the Russian Sergey
→Korovin and the Bohemian Alois →Tomiška, much of the credit is now given to
Fritz →Walther. The introduction of the Walther Polizei-Pistole (‘PP’, 1929) and its
compact variant, the Kriminalpolizei-Pistole or ‘PPK’ (1931), came at a time when
Germany was beginning to question the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of
Versailles. The upsurge of right-wing politics, exemplified by Adolf Hitler and the
NSDAP, coincided with the emergence of paramilitary organisations which were

prepared to purchase weapons in quantity. The Walther PP and PPK, together
with the competing →Mauser HSc and →Sauer Model 38, were ideal: small, sturdy,
reliable, and with the double-action trigger systems that enabled them to be fired
simply by pulling through on the triggers. The Walthers were still being made in
quantity well into the twenty-first century, but many consider the Sauer (made
only in 1939–45) to have been the best of the trio.
Though the period after 1919 was intended to be one of peace, and very little
firearms development ever reached fruition, the U.S. Army took the opportunity—
after trials lasting more than a decade—to introduce the ‘Rifle, Caliber 0.30, M1’,
better known as the →Garand after its inventor. The Garand was the first self-
loading rifle to achieve universal issue, though this had not been completed by the
time the U.S. Army entered the Second World War in December 1941 and many
units went to war armed with the bolt-action Springfield.
The Garand was another of the many designs that attracted considerable
criticism, failing the standard British dust and mud tests, but which war was to
prove to confer a considerable advantage on its firers. The worst feature of the
rifle was its idiosyncratic clip-loaded magazine, which prevented the action being
loaded with loose rounds; and the magazine capacity (a mere eight) was also
subsequently regarded as too small. In terms of rate of fire and, most importantly,
ease and comfort of firing, the Garand was a vast improvement on its bolt-action
predecessors: the considerable physical effort expended on manipulating the bolt-
action rifles was avoided, minimising fatigue, muscle tremors, increases in blood
pressure and consequent deterioration of accuracy.
THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Considerable experimentation between the wars had improved the quality of small-
arms almost universally, but had had little effect on the design of the weapons of the
rank and file. Thus, the initial Wehrmacht successes during the early campaigns of
the Second World War owed more to mechanisation—the Panzers, particularly—
and the perfection of aerial dive-bombing against lightly defended positions.
Apart from the adoption of the Garand by the U.S. Army in 1936, which had
excited controversy, the Allies had achieved little; the British Army had the new,
highly efficient Bren Gun, but the infantry rifle was still the bolt-action ‘Rifle, Short,
Magazine Lee-Enfield’ in a form little changed from 1918. Only the Russians had
much to show for the experiments with automatic rifles that had obsessed most
European armies in the 1930s: the majority view was exemplified by the British,
who still regarded them as wasteful of ammunition and lacking in durability.
The Red Army had tried the →Simonov-designed AVS in Manchuria, where
Japanese incursions had been comprehensively rebuffed, but such a lightweight
rifle—a little under 9lb empty—was too flimsy to sustain automatic fire with
the standard 7.62mm cartridge, quite apart from the maltreatment associated
with service conditions. Throughout firearms history, this has been a recurrent

theme: promising designs have often failed merely because they were insufficiently
strong. Surviving Simonovs were expended in Finland during the Winter War, the
complicated, rather fragile guns being superseded in 1938 (after protracted trials)
by the →Tokarev-designed SVT.
Adopted in February 1939, the pre-production SVT shared some of the
weaknesses of the Simonov. Procurement was soon suspended while an improved
AVS was tested, but Simonov was less acceptable politically than Tokarev and the
first true SVT rifle was assembled in July 1939. Experience in the Winter War
revealed so many weaknesses that the SVT38 was withdrawn again, to reappear
in April 1940 as the ‘SVT40’. Huge quantities of Tokarevs were made (more than a
million in 1941 alone), but series production was bedevilled by constant problems.
Bitter first-hand experience in the Winter War against the Finns, in 1939/40,
had taught the Russians the value of well-trained snipers. Among the thorns in
their flesh was Simo Hähyä, a farmer who had won many pre-war marksmanship
trophies. Attached to a unit on the Karelia Front, Häyhä, firing an open-sighted
Model 1928 rifle (a Finnish Mosin-Nagant), killed more than five hundred Russian
soldiers in fifteen weeks.
As a result of experiences in Finland, the Russians selected the most accurate
Tokarev rifles for snipers’ use, fitting them with telescope sights, but the SNT40
proved appreciably less reliable than the solid Mosin-Nagant bolt-action 1891/30
pattern. The latter was ordered back into production in 1942 and remained the
standard Eastern Bloc sniping rifle until 1963. The best of the Russian snipers
preferred the 1891/30 to the semi-automatic for reasons that are as relevant
today as they had been in 1941: the manually-operated rifle was more reliable, less
prone to structural failure and had no mechanical noise in the action. This was
particularly important if silence was essential, as the ejection/reloading cycle of
the SNT was accompanied by considerable clatter.
Despite the troubles originating from the disruption of manufacture after
the German invasion of Russia in June 1941, the Tokarev was by no means a total
failure. Provided it was kept reasonably clean—a stricture still applying to most
automatic weapons—it functioned satisfactorily enough in the hands of good-
quality troops such as the Russian marines. Poor equipment would not have been
tolerated by the Soviet snipers, who were rightly respected by their opponents and
extracted a terrible price for the German invasion.
Snipers also made their presence felt in the Pacific, where the Japanese not
only became past-masters in the art of concealment but also had a degree of
fanaticism sufficient to persist long after most Western marksmen would have
prudently withdrawn. The lessons were not lost on the Americans, while, even at
Arnhem, the Germans feared British snipers largely because the latter were taught
to aim only at the head if the circumstances permitted.
In the early 1930s, the rise of Germany had panicked many European countries
into developing new light machine-guns. In this period, the tactical employment of
machine-guns was dissected, to be analysed over and over again even though most
armies remained convinced by pre-1918 dogma: heavy support guns, generally

water-cooled, reinforced by box-fed light guns for close-quarter fire support when
mobility was pre-requisite. In 1939, therefore, Britain had the Vickers and the
→Bren Gun, while Russia had the Maxim and the light, pan-fed →Degtyarev. The
French, going a stage farther, had adopted the box-fed Fusil Mitrailleur Mle. 1924/29
(‘Châtellerault’) for widespread issue, and a curious drum-fed MAC 31 for static use
in the Maginot Line and aircraft. Once again, war was to provide conditions under
which peacetime developments were to be judged, and not all of them would be
successful.
Yet at the commencement of the war, the Germans, despite their spectacular
successes, were surprisingly lacking in advanced small-arms. The standard infantry
weapon was still the strong, accurate but somewhat cumbersome Mauser-type
bolt-action Kar. 98k, 45.6in overall, weighing 8.85lb and taking five 7.9mm rounds
in an internal magazine. The rifle was supplemented by a comparatively new air-
cooled medium machine-gun, the MG. 34, developed clandestinely in Switzerland
in the early 1930s and adopted after experiments in Hungary and elsewhere. The
belt-fed MG. 34 was appreciably lighter than most of its predecessors, very well
made, and efficient under most normal conditions…though, when the Germans
became bogged down in Russia and the Western Desert, demonstrating a notable
tendency to jam, its excellent manufacturing standards and minimal tolerances
proving an unexpected Achilles’ Heel.
While the MG. 34 jammed, the archaic-looking Degtyarev light machine-gun,
crude by German standards, proved extremely reliable under adverse conditions.
That impeccable quality did not guarantee efficiency was not lost on the Germans,
however, and has had a lasting effect on firearms development.
The German armies also had MP. 38 and MP. 40 (‘→Schmeisser’), submachine-
guns to provide a good volume of fire at the expense of chambering a pistol cartridge
with limited effective range. Automatic weapons were used to good effect in the
early campaigns, including the daring capture of Fort Eben Emael in Belgium in
May 1940. However, the impetus for the development of special forces was soon to
swing to Britain, desperately facing up to the threat posed by German troops in the
Pas de Calais and haunted by the bitter memories of the near-debacle at Dunkirk.
THE POST-WAR ERA
No sooner had Germany capitulated in 1945 than Allied weapons experts seized
their chance to interrogate their opponents. Secretly, many Anglo-American
specialists were prepared to admit that there was much to learn. In addition to the
FG. 42 and the MP. 43/StG. 44 series, not forgetting the incomplete StG. 45 project
and the highly-rated MG. 45V light machine-gun, there were countless interesting
projects to examine.
The Russians had been first to act. They have claimed that their experiments
with ‘intermediate’ cartridges began before the Second World War, which is
undeniably true. However, these appear to have concerned pistol-type cartridges,

Fighting a large-scale war made unprecedented demands on
weapons-manufacturing capacity. Production of these Mk III*
Lee-Enfield (‘No. 1 Mk III*’) rifles and their No. 4 successors ran into
millions during the world wars.

and the inference is that the Simonov and other carbines were directly comparable
with the U.S. .30 Carbine M1 rather than the MP. 43. Too many modern writers
have swallowed Soviet propaganda that they had outguessed the Germans!
The MP. 43 had shown the Russians that their policy of mass attack, then based
around the crudely effective PPSh-41 submachine-gun, would be improved greatly
by an assault rifle. Shortly before the war ended, the Russians had produced an
adaptation of the German 7.9mm Kurz cartridge known as the Model 43, but
had been unable to develop an effective gun. The trials had, however, produced
the promising gas-operated Simonov and →Kalashnikov prototypes. Both were
ordered into limited production, probably with a view to undertaking mass trials in
the manner popularised by the Germans. Simonov’s SKS entered service in 1945;
Kalashnikov’s more radical AK appeared two years later.
The first trials showed that the Kalashnikov required more development,
and the more conventional SKS was ordered into mass production. Though
discontinued in Russia about 1952, it proved to be so popular elsewhere that work
continued in the People’s Republic of China and other satellites for many years.
Once the AK-47 had been perfected, however, the Soviet Army retained the SKS
only for ceremonial duties.
The gas-operated AK, locked by a turning bolt, fires its M43 intermediate
cartridge—with a 122-grain bullet—at about 2460 ft/sec. It is acceptably accurate
and, particularly when fitted with the perfected compensator, surprisingly stable
in automatic fire. Since its inception sixty years ago, however, changes have been
made: the improved AKM, introduced in 1958, was much lighter, and subsequent
reductions in calibre (to 5.45mm) have flattened the looping trajectory of the
original 7.62mm cartridge. The Kalashnikov remains most people’s concept of
an assault rifle. In excess of seventy million have been made in several countries,
receiving so much media exposure in the hands of guerrillas, urban terrorists and
‘freedom fighters’ that its silhouette is easily recognisable.
The original AK was a short and rather clumsy gun, comparatively heavy at
10.5lb laden, but its efficiency belied its crude construction. The Kalashnikov is
simply the latest in a long line of small-arms embodying the post-1917 Russian
philosophy that nuances of construction or finish are irrelevant, assuming that the
guns work efficiently and are sufficiently robust for service.
Though the Russians were quick to follow the German lead, the remaining
Allies were much more sceptical. Once again, the old problem of maximum effective
range took precedence. Though analysis of the German 7.9mm Kurz cartridge, the
MP. 43 and the other experimental Sturmgewehre showed their merits, the U.S.
Army, particularly, refused to countenance cartridges whose maximum effective
engagement range was only 400–500 metres.
Immediately after the war, using a mixture of German, Polish emigré and
indigenous research, the British produced EM-1 (→Thorpe) and EM-2 (→Janson)
rifles around a special .280in cartridge, firing a 140-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity
of 2535ft/sec: less powerful than the U.S. 30-06, it was true, but better than the
lighter German 7.9mm Kurz. The roller-locked EM-1 had soon been discontinued

The rigours of combat often reveal flaws in the design
of weaponry which may not be evident in trials or
peacetime service. Even the M1 Garand (shown here in a
modernised form), generally regarded as an outstanding
success, struggled to gain acceptance in the U.S. Army of
the late 1930s. Courtesy of Springfield Armory, Inc.

in favour of the EM-2, which had a modified Kjellman flap-lock, and the British
government optimistically entered the EM-2 in the NATO trials of 1951–2. The
new rifle had several obvious advantages: its ‘bull-pup’ design, with the magazine
behind the pistol grip, permitted a standard-length barrel in an otherwise compact
design. Minor, but by no means insoluble problems appeared during the trials—the
guns were not particularly accurate, and had an assortment of teething troubles—
but the U.S. Army was so opposed to the EM-2 that the project foundered amidst
recriminations and allegations of deliberate bias. Even though some later EM-2
rifles chambered the 7.62mm T65 (the precursor of the 7.62×51mm NATO) and even
the bigger U.S. .30-06, the design disappeared into history.
The U.S. Army adopted the Rifle M14, little more than an updated Garand, most
remaining NATO powers taking variants of the FN-designed Fusil Automatique Leger
(‘FAL’). The British accepted the Belgian gun in the interests of standardisation,
production of the slightly modified ‘Rifle 7.62mm L1A1’ beginning in the Royal
Small Arms Factory and at BSA Guns Ltd in 1956.
The Korean War of 1950–3 was fought on comparatively conventional lines,
with the small-arms that had served since the Second World War. In addition,
most of the special forces that performed so well prior to 1945 had been stood down
or disbanded. After Korea, however, a perceptible change in warfare occurred.
Gone was the classic large-scale confrontation between major powers; instead, the
fragmentation of the great colonial empires promoted the ‘freedom fighter’—a
guerrilla, often but not inevitably communist-motivated, determined to overthrow
the existing order and then impose his ideology to bring order from the resultant
chaos. Nowhere was this more obvious than in poor countries where no attempt
had been made to educate the indigenous population, or where national borders
had been drawn with no regard for tribal demarcation.
Though small-scale ‘traditional wars’ arose in the Middle East and the Indo-
Pakistan sub-continent, the involvement of the Great Powers has been comparatively
limited; most of the conflicts have been between opposing guerrillas, guerrillas and
local authorities, or guerrillas and supposedly powerful Western nations.
One outcome of the change in warfare has been the erosion of traditional
industrial supremacy, which is rarely capable of alone defeating guerrillas who can
carry the sympathy of the people with them. Confrontations between the French
and the Viet Minh in the First Indo-China War (1946–54), for example, showed
that Western strategists often underestimated their comparatively weakly armed
opponents, hastening in the ignominious French withdrawal from Indo-China.
Many of the lessons were lost on the Americans, whose embroilment in Vietnam
(1961–73) never wholly subdued the Viet Cong in fighting that could be brutal and
bloody in the extreme.
For all the millions of tons of bombs, defoliant chemicals, shells and small-
arms ammunition expended during the conflict (and the loss of over fifty thousand
American lives), the communists eventually gained not only Vietnam, but also
neighbouring Cambodia. Nor could the Portuguese halt nationalism in Angola or
Mozambique; and the Belgians were panicked into withdrawing from the Congo.

Experience in the Yemen, Central America and Afghanistan makes the point over
and over again: guerrillas are rarely conclusively defeated solely by the non-nuclear
military might of even the most powerful industrialised nations (whose politicians
are rightly wary of all-out war).
Among the few qualified successes in a catalogue of misfortune are the British
exploits in Malaya (1948–60) and the rebuttal of Indonesian infiltration in Borneo
(1963–6), where emphasis was put on fighting irregulars on their own terms—but
with all the sophisticated back-up available to a modern soldier. Yet the brutality
of parts of these campaigns would not be acceptable in today’s liberalised society.
The increase of fighting such as encountered in Malaya and Borneo gradually
changed attitudes to small-arms. During the 1950s, most NATO-aligned armies had
adopted the comparatively cumbersome FN rifle, the FAL, which weighed about
11lb loaded and measured 44in overall. Despite its undoubted power, impeccable
reputation and suitability for long-range fire, the FAL was no more appropriate for
jungle warfare than the equally large and powerful U.S. Rifle M14.
During the early Vietnam campaigns, the U.S. Army—such a strong advocate of
power in the trials that had caused the demise of the British EM-2 rifle in the early
1950s—suddenly decided to seek a smaller gun firing a lighter, handier cartridge.
As the wood of the M14 stocks rotted in the tropics, the new gun was also to feature
a synthetic butt and fore-end. After protracted testing, the →Armalite rifle,
designed by Eugene →Stoner, became the ‘Rifle M16’. Built around the commercial
.222in Remington sporting rifle cartridge, which had proved itself against thin-
skinned game, the M16 represented a great reduction in rifle weight and allowed an
individual soldier to carry more of the lightweight cartridges (182 grains compared
with 396 for the standard Cartridge, .30, Ball M2). The finalised M16, together with
its loaded thirty-round magazine weighed a mere 8.7lb!
The M16/M16A1 series has been purchased for Limited Theatre use by the
British Army, and was particularly popular in Borneo. The worst problem has
concerned the American 5.56mm M193 bullet which, though undeniably very
destructive at short range, is not especially effective beyond 400 metres and
is readily deflected by branches and obstructions. The European compromise is
a heavier slower-moving bullet (the SS109) and a faster rifling twist to improve
stability. However, though this improves carrying properties appreciably, lethality
is reduced compared with the M193.
After an inauspicious beginning, experience in Vietnam ultimately showed that
the intermediate cartridge and (ultimately) the small-diameter bullet were suitable
for combat use, indirectly confirming the advocacy of the Germans during the
Second World War and the Russians thereafter. However, most of the ‘traditional’
wars contested by highly industrialized nations have nonetheless featured full-
power cartridges. These have included the conflict between Iraq and Iran, the brief
confrontation between Britain and Argentina in the South Atlantic in 1982, the
Gulf War, and the war in Iraq.
Ironically, the British and Argentinian armies were armed similarly in 1982:
both, for example, used FN-designed infantry rifles, general-purpose machine-

Gunmaking techniques have advanced
at a greater pace since 1950 than at any
other time in firearms history, owing
to the introduction of new fabricating
techniques and the advent of synthetic
materials. However, the makers of
sixteenth-century wheellocks—often
works of art in their own right—would
recognise kindred spirits among the
craftsmen who created this Blaser R-93
sporting rifle. Courtesy of Blaser.

guns and pistols. The principal difference lay in the light machine-guns, where
the British Bren proved more serviceable than the Argentine heavy-barrelled FAL,
and in support weapons. The open treeless expanse of the Falkland Islands proved
to be more suited to the traditional concepts of infantry confrontation than, for
example, the tropical jungles and sub-tropical rain forests of Malaya, Vietnam or
Borneo. The fighting also reflected a more traditional role…

ORGANISATION AND TERMINOLOGY
And a note on sources of additional information
The dictionary has been organised on as logical an alphabetical basis as can be

compatible with its goals, although punctuation, ampersands and some word
breaks have been ignored. In addition, some businesses and many brand names
(especially on shotgun ammunition) have always considered a prefatory ‘The’ as
part of their title; these have been listed as ‘Arms & Ammunition Company Ltd
[The]’ to minimise confusion.
Company names may cause problems if they are listed as ‘Smith, James, &
Sons Ltd’, which could be a partnership of ‘Smith’ and ‘James’, or a business that
had been started originally by a sole trader called ‘James Smith’ and subsequently
expanded to include his sons. The style ‘James Smith & Company’ has been
preferred here, even though it appears to disrupt alphabetical progression. The
basis of classification, therefore, is effectively:
Smith
Smith [&] Company
Smith [&] Son
A.A. Smith
A.A. Smith [&] Company
A.A. Smith [&] Son
A.B. Smith
Smith [&] Brown
Smith Carbine
Smith Pistol
Smith Rifle
Smith, White [&] Company
Cross-references are indicated in several ways. Most simply say ‘see Garand’. It is
obvious in these cases that the keyword is ‘Sharps’ or ‘Garand’. Where this is not
so obvious, particularly as there is great scope for confusion in corporate names,
the keyword is either prefixed by the ‘→’ symbol or underlined (e.g., ‘James Paris
→Lee’, ‘Lee-Enfield’).
Particular care is necessary with monograms, which can be difficult to decipher,
but the problems are summarised in the relevant directory entry, and the most
confusing examples have been listed under every combination of their individual
letters! Brand names and trademarks have been listed wherever possible, but
numerical designations have been ignored anywhere other than in the section
devoted to an individual manufacturer. Thus details of the Remington Model 700
bolt-action rifle will be found in ‘→Remington, rifles, bolt-action’, but not under
‘Model’. Numerical designations do not always appear on guns, and those that

do are often easily identified by referring to sources of information listed in the
individual directory entries.
Some of the best-known ammunition makers are also included, alongside
many headstamp codes. However, only the surface of this complex subject has
been scratched. Proof marks may be identified from letters accompanying them,
and the first attempts have been made to explain the abbreviations used by military
formations (e.g, ‘→German military unit marks’). However, inspectors’ marks have
been largely ignored, with the exception of American examples; U.S. government
inspectors customarily applied marks that can date other wise anonymous items.
TERMINOLOGY AND CORPORATE STRUCTURE
The introduction of limited liability, where the risks taken by promoters were
restricted in law, brought a series of new abbreviations. Limited partnerships
were formed by a general partner, who accepted complete liability, and a number
of sleeping partners whose risk was limited only to their capital investment—but
only if they took no part in running the business. These operations were known
as Société en commandit in France, frequently abbreviated to ‘S.N.C.’; as Società in
accomandita (‘S.I.A.’) In Italy; and as Kommanditgesellschaft (‘KG’) in Germany.
True limited-liability operations in Britain were distinguished by ‘Ltd’ or
‘Company Ltd’, although, from 1977 onward, public companies have been identified
as ‘plc’ (public limited company). Similar businesses in the Netherlands are
naamloze vennootschap (‘NV’), and are Aktiebolag (‘AB’) in Sweden; Danish and
Norwegian equivalents are usually identified as ‘AS’ or ‘A/S’.
Public companies in France and Belgium are classed as Société anonyme (‘SA’),
the latter often gaining the additional qualification ‘Belge’ (‘SAB’); comparable
terms include Società per azioni (‘SPA’, SpA’) in Italy, and Aktiengesellschaft (‘AG’)
in Germany. Private companies, each formed in accordance with its own national
rules, include Société à responsabilité limitée (‘SARL’, ‘s.a.r.l.’) in France, Gesellschaft
mit beschränkter Haftung (‘GmbH’) in Germany, and Società a responsabilita limitata
(‘SRL’, ‘s.r.l.’) in Italy. Any French company described as Société Mixte (‘SM’) is a
partnership of private individuals and government agencies.
Additional information may appear in the form of ‘Brothers’ (often rendered
simply as ‘Bros.’) and equivalents such as Fratelli (‘F.lli’, Italy), Frères (France
and Belgium) and Gebrüder (Germany). Among the variants of ‘Son’ are Sohn
(plural ‘Söhne’, German), Zoon (plural ‘Zonen’, Dutch), fils (French and Belgian),
Figlio (plural ‘Figli’, Italian) and Hijo (plural ‘Hijos’, Spanish). Abbreviations for
‘Proprietor’, often itself listed simply as ‘Prop.’, include Inhaber (‘owner’ in German,
Inhaberin if female). Witwe (German) and Veuve (French) both mean ‘widow’.
The spelling of ‘Liége’ was altered officially to ‘Liège’ in 1946, reflecting changes
in local pronunciation. The older form is preferred throughout the dictionary, as
the greater part of coverage dates prior to 1945; however, ‘Liégeois’ and ‘Liégeoise’
(both still in use) are unaffected.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION
References to sources of additional information have been provided in many entries.

Further details will be found in the ‘Bibliography’.
General studies. Firearms Past & Present by Jaroslav Lugs, which has been
published in Czech (1955), German (1962) and English (Grenville Publishing,
London, 1973) is an underrated source of information, particularly as it takes a
different perspective to the customary Anglo-American viewpoints. It also has an
excellent bibliography.
Gunmakers. Among the studies of individual gunmakers are Johan Støckel’s

immense Haandskydevaabens Bedømmelse (Copenhagen, Denmark, second edition,
1962), reprinted in 1992 by Journal-Verlag Schwend of Schwäbisch Hall as Der Neue
Støckel, with a third volume contributed by Eugen Heer. Although rarely intruding
into the ‘modern era’, it is indispensable. Colonel Robert E. Gardner’s Small
Arms Makers (Bonanza Books, New York, 1963), understandably biased toward
U.S. topics, was a pioneering and greatly underrated study which represented
nearly fifty years of research. Its coverage may be inconsistent and occasionally
very frustrating, with comparatively little attention paid to individual products,
but these are minor flaws. Cataloguing British gunmaking has benefited greatly
from the scholarly work of the late Howard Blackmore, whose A Dictionary of
London Gunmakers 1350–1850 (Phaidon–Christies, London, 1997) and 1999-vintage
supplement are invaluable—particularly when supported by English Gunmakers
(‘The Birmingham and Provincial Gun Trade in the 18th and 19th century’) by D.W.
Bailey and D.A. Nie (Arms & Armour Press, London, 1978). The latter desperately
needs reprinting in an enlarged and revised form. Boothroyd’s Revised Dictionary
of British Gunmakers (published privately, 1997), by Geoffrey Boothroyd and his
daughter Susan, is another invaluable source of information.
John A. Belton’s Canadian Gunsmiths from 1608 (Museum Restoration Service,
Bloomfield, 1992) is helpful, while Claude Gaier’s Five Centuries of Liege Gunmaking
(Éditions du Perron, 1996) is as attractive as its scholarship is excellent. Le Qui
est Qui de l’Armurerie Liégeoise by Guy Gadisseur and Michel Druart (Éditions du
Pécari [Atlantica], Biarritz, 2005) provides an indispensable directory of Liégeois
gunsmiths. A similar role for the French gunmaking industry is fulfilled by the
two-volume study Le “Qui est qui” de l’arme en France de 1350 à 1970, compiled by
Jean-Jacques Buigné on the basis of initial research by Pierre Jarlier (Éditions
du Portail, La Tour du Pin, 2001); and Yves Cadiou’s Grands Noms de l’Armurerie
(Crepin-Leblond, Paris, 1999) can help to refine detail.
Company histories. With the exception of an occasional sponsored, self-

promotional or commemorative review (e.g., F.N., 1889–1964 and the fiftieth
anniversary history of DWM), and reprinted catalogues that give snapshots of
individual activities, comparatively little information is available regarding any

These attractive, brightly-
coloured cutaway drawings
of the Heckler & Koch P7 (PSP)
semi-automatic pistol appeared
in a promotional brochure dating
from November 1982. They
are typical of the high-quality
illustrations commissioned by
large-scale
INTRODUCTION manufacturers.
AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 79
A rarely -seen leaflet advertising the P1 (P38), P5 and PP, dating from a time when
PAGE 80 : GUNS DICTIONARY Walther was celebrating its centenary.
but the best-known makers. Colt and Winchester are served almost to saturation,
whereas the activities of Sauer and Savage (to name but two) have hardly received
mention. Individually-sponsored studies of most lesser manufacturers, which
are often excellent in themselves, merely highlight the difficulty of balancing
manufacturing history with the details sought by individual collectors.
Excellent examples of the ‘onecompany’ studies are LieutenantColonel
William S. Brophy’s Marlin Firearms (Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 1989), which
delves into its subject in meticulous detail, and Harold F. Williamson’s Winchester.
The Gun that Won the West (A.S. Barnes, South Brunswick, 1962), which accepts that
the history of a gunmaker is not simply that of the guns. Ellsworth S. Grant, in The
Colt Armory (Mowbray Publishing, Lincoln, 1995), goes behind the scenes to show
not only how the guns were made, but also how the manufactory operated.
Firearms. So many books deal with individual topics that it is impossible to

recommend more than a few. Particularly useful, however, have been the all-
enveloping Small Arms of the World (Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, eleventh edition,
1977), compiled by W.H.B. Smith, Joseph E. Smith and Edward C. Ezell; The
Greenhill Military Small Arms Data Book, by Ian V. Hogg (1999); and Military Small
Arms of the World (Krause Publications, Iola, seventh edition, 2000) by Ian Hogg
and Colonel John S. Weeks. The Handgun, by Geoffrey Boothroyd (Cassell, London,
1976), and Handguns of the World, by Edward C. Ezell (Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
1981), presented detailed overviews, whereas Pistols of the World by Ian V. Hogg,
John S. Weeks and John Walter (DBI, Inc., Northfield, fourth edition, 2004), and
Rifles of the World by John Walter (Krause Publications, Iola, third edition, 2006)
took a directory approach. Detailed gun-by-gun listings, such as the Gun Trader’s
Guide (John E. Traister, ed., Stoeger Publishing Company, South Hackensack)
and S.P. Fjestad’s The Blue Book of Used Gun Values (Blue Book Publications, Inc.,
Minneapolis), are published annually in the U.S.A. Although these can subordinate
history to observational details, they represent invaluable sources of information.
Airguns. There is still no reliable history of this particular subject, despite steadily
growing interest. W.H.B. Smith’s Gas, Air and Spring Guns of the World (1957) is out
of date, and John Walter’s The Airgun Book (the third edition of 1984 was the most
historically orientated) has been out of print for many years. The later editions of
Dennis Hiller’s Air Rifles and Air Pistols (published privately in Britain) had much
to offer, but the most comprehensive survey is currently The Blue Book of Airguns by
Robert Beeman and John Allen (Blue Book Publications, Inc, Minneapolis, eighth
edition, 2010).
Ammunition. There are several excellent sources of information concerning the

history and identification of ammunition, not least being the work of Jakob H.
Brandt and Horst H. Hamann in Identifizierung von Handfeuer-WaffenMunition
(Journal-Verlag Schwend, Schwäbisch Hall, 1971–3). I am concerned mainly with
recording aids to identification; thus works such as The Cartridge Guide by Ian Hogg

(Arms & Armour Press. London, 1982) are invaluable. I would also like to single out
Collecting Shotgun Cartridges, by Ken Rutterford (Stanley Paul, London, 1987) for
particular praise; although this would benefit from critical review, the book offers
a tremendous amount of information.
KEY CROSS-REFERENCES
The entries below have been extracted from the main directory, partly because
of frequent references and partly because it will be some time before the entire
project has been uploaded in even its most basic form.
CYPHERS, IMPERIAL AND ROYAL
Although the small-arms of many armies bear national markings, others are easier
to identify by the markings applied by their kings, queens and emperors. Some of
these were elaborate monograms; others were simply small crowned Roman letters.
Bavaria. The kings Leopold II (1864–86), Otto (1886–1913) and Ludwig III (1913–
18) used a crowned cursive ‘L’ or a crowned ‘O’.
Belgium. Kings Leopold II (1865–1909), Albert (1909–34), Leopold III (1934–50)
and Baudoin (1950 to date) used the letters ‘L’, ‘A’, ‘L’ and ‘B’ respectively. The
‘L’ and ‘A’ marks are customarily cursive, whereas the ‘B’ is usually a Roman
letter—often hatched horizontally in its largest sizes.
Britain. Prior to the accession of Queen Elizabeth II (‘E. II R.’) in 1952, only three
cyphers had been used since the 1830s: ‘V.R.’ (Victoria Regina) by Queen
Victoria between 1837 and 1901; ‘E.R.’ (Edwardius Rex) by Edward VII, 1901–10,
and Edward VIII (1936 only); and ‘G.R.’ by George V (1910–36) and George VI
(1936–52). Date determines which is appropriate. The marks on small-arms
consisted simply of crowns above Roman letters, although each monarch also
had a cursive cypher that could take a very different form from the simple
version. While cursive forms often graced the hilts of swords, uniforms and
accoutrements, they have never been reported on firearms.
Bulgaria. Prince Ferdinand I (Tsar from 1913) used a crowned ‘F’ from 1887 until
superseded by Boris III (1918–43). Simeon II reigned from 1943 until 1946, but
was deposed by pro-Communist forces before attaining his majority.
Germany. The cyphers of Kaisers Wilhelm I (1871–88) and Wilhelm II (1888–1918)
took the form of an imperial or squared-top crown above ‘W’; it is thought
that the ‘F’ of Kaiser Friedrich III, who reigned for a few months in 1888, may
never have been applied to small-arms. Imperial cyphers were used only on
the weapons of the navy and colonialprotection forces; the armies of Prussia,
Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg continued to apply their own royal cyphers.
Netherlands. King Willem III (reigned 1849–1890) was succeeded by three
queens—Wilhelmina (1890–1948), Juliana (1948–80) and Beatrix (1980 to

A promotional leaflet published by Beretta U.S.A to highlight the adoption of the Beretta 92 (‘M9’) pistol by the U.S. armed forces.
date). Cyphers customarily take the form of a crowned ‘W’, ‘J’ or ‘B’. In their
larger applications. over the chambers of Mannlicher rifles or on the slides of
FN-Browning pistols, for example. the letters were customarily outlined and
hatched horizontally. Smaller versions, on the Parabellum pistols or edged
weapons. were often simply small cursive letters beneath crowns.
Norway. The cyphers of King Haakon VII (1905–57) and King Olaf V (1957 to date)
may be found on Krag- Jørgensen rifles and other military stores. They take the
form of ‘H’ with ‘7’ on the crossbar or ‘V’ within ‘O’ respectively.
Portugal. King Luis I (1861–89) used a crowned ‘L IO’; Carlos I (1889–1908)
preferred an elabo rate crowned ‘CI’ monogram, often found above the
chambers of Mauser-Vergueiro rifles; and Manuel II, deposed in the revolution
of 1910, adopted a large crowned ‘M’ with a small ‘2’ looped around the point.
‘M2’ marks will be found on 7.65mm army-type Parabellum pistols.
Prussia. King Friedrich Wilhelm IV used a crowned ‘FW’ mark. This was
superseded by a simple ‘W’ when Wilhelm I gained the throne. The King of
Prussia became Kaiser of Germany in 1871, reigning as ‘Wilhelm I’ until 1888.
He and his grandson, Wilhelm II (1888–1918) used crowned ‘W’ cyphers. There
is n0 evidence that the mark of Friedrich III (1888)—presumably a crowned
‘F’—was ever applied to small-arms.
Romania. Carol I (1881–1914) used an addorsed ‘CC’ monogram on behalf of
himself and his consort, Charlotte of Luxembourg. Customarily encircled
beneath a crown within a wreath of laurel, it will be found on machine-guns.
Ferdinand (1914–27) is believed to have used a crowned ‘F’; Míhaí I (1927–30 and
1940–7) adopted an elaborate monogram consisting of four crowned letters ‘M’
joining at their bases in the form of a cross. Carol II (1931–40) perpetuated the
‘CC’ monogram of his nineteenth-century predecessor.
Saxony. The cyphers of Kings Albert (reigned 1873–1902), Georg (1902–4) and
Friedrich August III (1904–18) took the form of cursive ‘AR’, ‘GR’ and ‘FA’
beneath crowns.
Sweden. A black-letter ‘C’ beneath a crown appeared on many firearms made by
the state ordnance factory is Eskilstuna, Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori. This,
however, should not be classed as a monogram, even though many Swedish
kings have been named appropriately—e.g. Gustav V (1907–50) and Carl XVI
Gustaf (1950–73). Oskar II reigned from 1872–1907, during the period in which
many Mauser rilles were made.
Württemberg. Small-arms were marked simply with a crown over a Roman ‘W’, as
King Wilhelm (1891–1918) shared his name with the Kaiser. However, a fraktur
‘W’ is commonly encountered on swords, uniforms and accoutrements , and
may yet be reported on firearms.
MONOGRAMS
The penchant for these methods of marking dates back to the nineteenth century,
the origins perhaps lying in the successful development of methods of moulding

rubber. These were particularly popular fittings on pre-1914 revolvers, the first
perhaps originating in the 1880s. Unfortunately, the mould-makers were keen
to show their skills in handling the tinest design-detail, resulting in technically
highly impressive but often almost totally illegible results. This is particularly true
of concentric or superimposed lettering, though linear designs are often (but not
always) significantly easier to read.
There are three basic types of monogram: superimposed, with the letters
on top of each other or intercutting; concentric, when they take a circle-within-
circle form; and linear, where the letters, though conjoined, are in a sequence that
can be read as a continuous string. However, the characteristics can be blurred
by superimposing only a few of the letters. This makes it difficult to decipher
monograms—letter forms may be too distorted, or the dominant letter difficult
to determine—and they have been listed in the dictionary under each of the most
obvious permutations. A mark that apparently reads ‘ABC’, therefore, could be
listed under ‘ACB’, ‘BAC’, ‘BCA’, ‘CAB’ or ‘CBA’ and it may be necessary to try several
possible sequences before an answer can be found. A monogram containing five
letters of equal significance has 120 permutations, so attempts have been made
(helped by the subordination of ‘CO.’ or ‘Co.’, for ‘Company’) to the name to assess
dominant letter(s) in each trademark in an effort to keep entries to a minimum.
NATIONAL MARKINGS
The absence of countries or states from this list indicates either that they applied
no marks which could be classified as ‘national’, or, alternatively, that no reliable
information has been obtained. Arms have often been changed when crowns have
changed hands, when republics have superseded monarchies, or with the addition
(alternatively, loss) of provinces and colonies; consequently, the notes that follow
are merely as guidelines. In addition, restrictions of space have often forced the
die-engravers to simplify or even omit details. →‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
Argentina. Found on stores ranging from Maxim machine-guns and Mauser rifles
to Ballester-Molina pistols, bayonets and accoutrements, the national Arms
consisted of an oval shield containing two hands clasping a Phrygian or ‘Liberty’
Cap on a pole within a wreath of laurel, generally surmounted by a sunburst
(Sol de Mayo). Inscriptions will be in Spanish, and may be accompanied by
‘E–A’ or EJERCITO ARGENTINO.
Australia. No readily identifiable national marks have been used, other than ‘D’
or ‘DD’ (‘Department of Defence’) and the marks applied by individual states—
e.g., ‘W.A.’ for Western Australia or ‘TAS.’ for Tasmania. Many state-marks were
applied before the 1900 confederation.
Austria. Some post-1945 guns will bear a displayed eagle mark, often accompanied
by ‘BH’ (Bundesheer, ‘state army’). The Austrian eagle has a single head topped
by a mural (or ‘civic’) crown, and a breast shield charged with a single horizontal

bar. One talon holds a hammer, while the other clasps a sickle; broken shackles
signify release from oppression.
Austria-Hungary. No national marks were applied, though the double-headed
Habsburg eagle was used as a military proof mark.
Bavaria. National markings were rarely used on small-arms, though the shield of
the state Arms—a distinctive ‘lozengy’ pattern—is perpetuated in the mark
applied by the München proof house. See also ‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
Belgium. No specific national marks have been identified. See also ‘ABL’, ‘GB’ and
also ‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
Bolivia. The arms consist of a shield bearing a depiction of Potosi mountain in
a landscape, with a breadfruit tree, a llama and a wheatsheaf, within a circlet
containing the name of the country and nine stars. The Arms are customarily
surmounted by an enwreathed condor and backed by a trophy of two crossed
cannon, four bayonetted rifles, and three pairs of national flags. One cannon-
mouth holds a Phyrgian Cap; the other contains an axe. The marks may be
found beneath EJERCITO DE BOLIVIA (‘Bolivian army’); inscriptions will be in
Spanish.
Brazil. Customarily accompanied prior to 1968 by ESTADOS UNIDOS DO BRASIL
(or simply ‘E.U. do Brasil’), the crest consists of a large five point prismatic star
impaled on a sword, point uppermost. A constellation of five stars, the Southern
Cross, lies within a circlet of small stars on the centre of the prismatic star; the
circlet originally contained twenty stars representing the original provinces,
but the total was increased to 21 in 1960, to 22 in 1962, to 23 in 1977, to 24 in 1981
and finally to 27 in 1989. Marks found on weapons ranging from Mauser rifles
to Madsen submachin-guns and FN FAL rifles customarily have twenty-star
circlets. The device is generally contained within a wreath of laurel and coffee
leaves, and may be placed on a stylised sunburst, particularly on post-1930 guns.
The legend ESTADOS UNIDOS DO BRASIL and 15 DO NOVEMBRE DE 1889 (the date
of the formation of the Brazilian republic) may be found on a scroll. Property
marks may take the form of the letter ‘B’, for ‘Brazil’, usually within a circle or
an encircled six-point star. Inscriptions will be in Portuguese, highlighted by
a preference for ‘Berlim’ (Berlin); EXERCITO BRASILEIRO (‘Brazilian army’) has
also been widely used.
Britain. No national marks have been used, though the ‘BO’ of the Board of
Ordnance (prior to 1855) and the ‘WD’ of the War Department (post-1855) will
be found with the Broad Arrow. See also ‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
Bulgaria. The Arms comprised a lion rampant on a shield, sometimes, especially
on older guns, superimposed on a pavilion and supported by two lance-bearing
lions. This was replaced early in the twentieth century by a rampant lion on a
shield beneath a crown supported on two batons, found on Parabellum pistols
and Maxim machine-guns supplied shortly before the First Balkan War began.
From 1947 onward, the lion appeared on a demi-cogwheel within a wreath of
wheat ears separated at their tips by a five-point star. A small version of the
Bulgarian lion has been used as a military proof- or property mark.

Canada. Small-arms used during the period of British domination, including Ross
rifles, bore a Broad Arrow within ‘C’. Modern military stores may instead bear
a stylised maple leaf.
Chile. Encountered above the chambers of 7mm Mauser rifles or on the slides of
9mm Steyr-Hahn pistols, the Chilean Arms consist of a five-point prismatic star
on a shield halved horizontally, with a crest of three rhea feathers, supported
by a crowned Huemal (Andean deer) and a crowned condor. They will usually
be found on a mound strewn with laurel, particularly when impressed into
butts; stock-marks may be accompanied by ‘M.F.’ in a rectangular cartouche,
sometimes placed above the date of manufacture or reconstruction. Some guns
display a chamber mark consisting of crossed slung Mauser carbines, CHILE
and ORDEN Y PATRIA; others have an unidentified stock roundel that seems to
consist of ‘C’, ‘I’, ‘A’ and ‘E’, with the first and last letters dominant. Inscriptions
will be in Spanish.
China. Marks in Chinese characters are usually distinctive, but can easily be
confused with Japanese. Guns made in the principal Chinese arsenal in Hanyang
will be marked with a double interlocking diamond logo, which, particularly on
guns made in the 1930s, may be combined into a flattened octagonal border
enclosing the designation. Others may have a stylised cogwheel enclosing a
bow-and-arrow, the significance of which is still not known; and others may
show a stylised disc-like sun with twelve short pointed rays, adopted in 1928
but customarily used merely as a property or proof mark on military stores.
Colombia. Customarily surmounted by a condor with shackles in its beak and a
scroll bearing LIBERTAD Y ORDEN, the Arms consist of a pomegranate and two
cornucopiae above a Phrygian Cap on a spear-head, and a representation of the
Isthmus of Panama separating a sailing ship on the Caribbean Sea from a similar
ship on the Pacific Ocean. The shield was customarily placed on two pairs of
flags and backed by a sunburst within an oval border, though guns supplied by
Českosolvenská Zbrojovka after c. 1930 lacked the sunburst and border and had
REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA added beneath the Arms. Others displayed EJERCITO
DE COLOMBIA (‘Colombian army’), whereas Mauser rifles supplied in the 1950s
by Fabrique Nationale used COLOMBIA and FUERZAS MILITARES (‘Military
forces’). Inscriptions will be in Spanish.
Costa Rica. The Arms consist of a shield bearing seven stars above the three
volcanoes (representing the Isthmus of Panama) separating sailing ships on the
Pacific ocean and Caribbean Sea, the latter being accompanied by a sun rising
over the horizon. Marks will be in Spanish.
Croatia. Marks applied during the German occupation during the Second World
War featured the traditional chequered shield beneath the letter ‘U’ within
an eight-looped rope border. This denoted the Uštaze, a right-wing Catholic
militia raised by Ante Pavelic.
Cuba. Found on firearms ranging from Remington-Lee rifles to the FN FAL, the
Arms used from 1902 until 1958 consisted of a shield divided into three. The
top bears a key superimposed on land- and seascape representing the Gulf of

Mexico; the lower portions contain five diagonal bars and a Royal Palm in a
stylised pastoral scene. A single supporter in the form of a fasces topped with a
Phyrgian Cap lies behind the shield, which may be enreathed in oak and laurel.
Inscriptions will be in Spanish.
Czechoslovakia. Guns will sometimes bear the crowned two-tailed Lion of
Bohemia, charged prior to 1960 with a breast shield (for Slovakia) bearing a
double-armed cross on a base of three mountains. They may also be marked
‘ČSK’ for Československa (‘Czechoslovakia’). The confederation, something of an
articial creation, split in 1997 into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Denmark. National markings were rarely used on firearms. See also ‘Cyphers,
imperial and royal’.
Dominican Republic. The Arms consist of a plain cross on a shield, charged
with six national flags, a Cross of Christ and an open Bible. The shield may be
enwreathed in palm- and laurel leaves. Marks will be in Spanish.
Ecuador. The Arms consisted of an oval shield or cartouche displaying a landscape
(featuring the volcano Chimborazo) rising, beneath a shining sun set on a band
bearing the March–June zodiacal signs. A steamer rides off the mouth of the
Rio Guyas. Surmounted by a condor, the device is backed by two paired flags
and a wreath of palm and laurel, and will usually also feature a fasces at its base.
Marks will be in Spanish.
Egypt. A country with a troubled history, this has rarely applied distinctive marks
to its guns. However, the Eagle of Saladin was used in 1952–8 and from 1984 to
date, and a stylised Hawk of Quraish during the Federation of Arab Republics
(1972–7). The Egyptian army marks customarily had breast shields divided
vertically into three. Marks will be in Arabic.
El Salvador. Rifles will bear a triangular seascape with five volcanoes beneath
a rainbow and a staff supporting an enrayed Phrygian Cap, which may be
encircled by the date of independence 15 DE SET. DE 1821. This is usually backed
by five national flags and may be enwreathed in laurel.
Estonia. The Arms comprised three lions passant guardant on a plain shield. It is
not known to have been used on small-arms.
Ethiopia. Guns used in Ethiopia may bear the Lion of Judah, apparently a
property mark, and a mark consisting of the imperial crown above an Amharic
inscription and a stylised lion’s-head mask within a wreath of laurel (?). Others
are said to bear the cypher of Haile Selassie within a wreath of a grapevine and
a wheat-ear.
Finland. Small-arms used in Finland rarely bear national markings, though ‘S.A.’
and ‘Sk.Y’ marks (qq.v.) are common. A few guns have been reported bearing
a fylfot, or swastika, with its arms pointing to the left (cf., the marks used in
Germany during the Third Reich pointed to the right), but so have some modern
Chinese firearms and the attribution is unclear.
France. National insignia has rarely, if ever appeared on modern military small-
arms. However, ‘R.F.’ for République Française (‘French Republic’) has been
reported on the grips of Unique and other handguns.

Germany. Though imperial cyphers and displayed-eagle military proof marks
were used prior to 1918, no national marks were applied with the exception of
DEUTSCHES REICH (‘German Empire’) on captured guns or Beutegewehre. Guns
made during the Third Reich may bear an assortment of marks based on the
displayed-eagle state emblem, but these were customarily used simply as proof
and inspectors’ marks. The swastika or Hakenkreuz was rarely used, excepting
in marks applied by some of the paramilitary formations.
Greece. These firearms may bear the National Arms, comprising a cross on a
horizontally-barred shield enwreathed in laurel. Marks will be in Greek.
Guatemala. Guns often bore a quetzal bird perched on a scroll reading LIBERTAD DE
15 DE SET. DE 1821 (Liberation day, 15th September 1821), with two bayonetted
rifles crossed above two crossed sabres within a wreath of laurel tied with a
riband recording the national motto (?). Marks will be in Spanish.
Haiti. The National Arms consisted of a trophy of anchors, swords, flags, drums,
rifles, cannon and cannon balls in front of an Emperor Palm, superimposed (or
topped by) on a Phrygian Cap on a vertical staff. Marks will be in Spanish. 32.
Honduras. Last revised in 1935, the national Arms consists of a triangle with
five flames (now a sun?), flanked by two towers, in front of a Mayan pyramid
rising from the sea. Topped by a quiver of arrows and two cornucopiae, this was
set inside a border bearing the date of independence (15th September 1821).
Marks will be in Spanish.
Hungary. Part of Austria-Hungary (q.v.) until 1918. Hungarian firearms made
in 1918–43 will occasionally bear a shield, halved vertically. One half contains
seven bars; the other has a double-armed cross, encircled by a coronet, on a
triple-step base or (particularly in later examples) a grassed mound. The
mark is customarily surmounted by St Stephen’s Crown, which is topped by a
distinctive bent cross. Hungarian small-arms produced since the Communists
came to power in 1948 (e.g., Tokarev 48M pistols) may display a crest of a
crossed hammer and sword within a circlet of wheat-ears.
India. Part of the British Empire until 1947, the Indian authorities applied
marks in the form of ‘I’ beneath a Broad Arrow to their military stores. Post-
independence weapons will display the cap of the Pillar of Sarnath, created by
the Buddhist emperor Asoka (by whose name it is often known). Only three of
the pillar-cap lions are visible.
Indonesia. The national emblem, the Garuda, a mythical half-human bird, may
be found on Beretta-made Garand rifles and a range of machine-guns. Other
firearms will bear a large five-point star, from the Presidential flag. See also
‘TNI’.
Iran. Some guns will bear the mark of the imperial dynasty, which consisted of a
scimitar-wielding lion backed by a rising sun. This customarily appears beneath
a Pahlavi crown within a wreath of oak and laurel leaves. See also ‘Persia’.
Iraq. Some guns—Lee-Enfield rifles, for example—will bear a mark comprising an
Arabic character (appearing as a reversed angular ‘S’) within a triangle. More
modern weapons may display what appears to be a monogram comprising

‘A’ and an inverted ‘2’, which is said to be an Arabic abbreviation used by the
Republican Guard.
Ireland (Eire). No national markings.
Israel. The six-point Magen David (‘Star of David’) appears in the Defence Force
badge, accompanied by a sword, an olive branch and a scroll bearing the national
motto. Marks will be in Hebrew.
Italy. The Arms of Savoy were used by the Kingdom of Italy until 1946, but rarely
if ever appeared on weapons. They consisted of a shield bearing a St George’s
Cross within a plain border. A bundled Fasces, however, may be found on
firearms made during the supremacy of Benito Mussolini (1922–43).
Japan. An imperial Mon in the form of a stylised chrysanthemum was used on
small-arms.
Korea. The emblem of a circular yin-yang and four Kwae trigrams representing the
four seasons (or the elements of creation) may have been used.
Laos. Guns may be marked with an emblem depicting three elephants beneath a
parasol.
Latvia. The Arms consisted of a shield charged with a rising half-sun above a lion
and a griffin in separate quarters.
Liberia. A shield bearing a star above eleven vertical bars may have been used.
Marks will be in English.
Lithuania. The Shield of Arms consisted of a sword-wielding knight mounted on a
rearing horse, his own shield being charged with a Patriarchal Cross. However,
a highly stylised crown may be found on small-arms.
Luxembourg. The Arms consisted of a crowned lion rampant on a horizontally-
barred shield, originally with an inescutcheon in the form of a small shield
bearing the Netherlands lion (q.v.) on a billeted ground. The term ‘Letzebourg’
may be used instead of ‘Luxembourg’.
Manchuria (Manchukuo). This short-lived republic, formed in the 1930s under
Japanese control, does not seem to have used any identifiable national marks
other than the cross-and-concentric-circle attributed to Mukden arsenal.
Mexico. A distinctive mark of an eagle with a snake in its beak, perched on a cactus
on an island in a lake, has been used on military firearms for many years. The
device is usually enwreathed in oak and laurel. Marks on guns imported into
Mexico generally take the form of an heraldic displayed eagle, and often also
bear REPÚBLICA MEXICANA; indigenous products use a less formal mark, more
traditionally Aztec, accompanied by FÁBRICA NACIONAL DE ARMAS – MEXICO D.F.
Weapons used by Mexican insurgents may bear a Phyrgian Cap on a sunburst,
accompanied by ‘R’ and ‘M’ or ‘R de M’. Inscriptions will be in Spanish.
Netherlands. Rarely encountered on firearms, the National Arms bear a rampant
lion (clutching a sword and a sheaf of arrows) on a plain ground strewn with
gold billets. See also ‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
New Zealand. Part of the British Empire and Commonwealth, the New Zealand
authorities often marked their service weapons with ‘N’ and ‘Z’ , separated by
a Broad Arrow.

Nicaragua. The National Arms comprised five volcanoes and an enrayed Phrygian
Cap, on a staff rising out of a seascape beneath a rainbow.
Norway. A mark of a crowned lion bearing the Axe of St Olav has been widely
used. See also ‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
Orange Free State. This short-lived republic simply used ‘O.V.S.’ on its small-arms.
Paraguay. The principal mark found on Mauser rifles and FN-Browning pistols
consisted of a five-point prismatic star (Estrella de Mayo) on a stylised sunburst,
generally within a wreath of palm- and olive leaves—though laurel alone seems
to have been used on most guns. An oval border and also sometimes REPÚBLICA
DEL PARAGUAY will also often appear. Inscriptions will be in Spanish.
Persia. See ‘Iran’.
Peru. The National Arms consisted of a shield divided into three, with a llama and
a chichona tree (each in an upper compartment) above a cornucopia. The shield
was usually placed on two pairs of national flags, surmounted by a sunburst and
(alternatively, or) wreath of laurel, surrounded by a wreath of palm- and olive
leaves. Guns may also be marked REPÚBLICA PERUANA or REPÚBLICA DEL PERU.
Philippines. Guns may be marked ‘R.O.P.’ (‘Republic of the Philippines’).
Poland. Part of Russia until the Revolution of 1917. Guns may bear a crowned
single-headed displayed eagle, often accompanied by ‘R’ and ‘P’ for Reszpublika
Polska (‘Polish Republic’) or ‘F.B.’, ‘RADOM’ (q.v.), and the date; ‘FB’ within a
triangle may also be found.
Portugal. Small-arms may bear a version of the National Arms, which comprised
a shield within a shield, containing five small shields each charged with five
discs; seven castles (the ‘Bordure of Castile’) lay around the outer edge of the
large shield, the whole being placed on an Armillary Sphere and surrounded
by an unusually naturalistic ‘spray-wreath’ of laurel leaves. See also ‘Cyphers,
imperial and royal’.
Prussia. The displayed-eagle national mark was customarily confined to proof
marks. See also ‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
Romania. A large crown was used on many pre-1918 small-arms, customarily
above the designation (e.g., ‘ARMA MD. 1892’). → ‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
Russia (Tsarist, pre-1917). The double-headed imperial eagle was widely used in
proof and property marks. It can be distinguished by its double crowned heads,
beneath a single large crown symbolising the unity of the many provinces. It
should bear a breast shield showing St George slaying the Dragon (taken from
the Arms of Moscow), an encircling collar of the Order of St Andrew, and four
small shields on each wing bearing the Arms of major cities and provices of the
Empire. However, most small-arms marks are too small to show these in detail.
Inscriptions will be in Cyrillic (shared only by Bulgaria, Serbia and Yugoslavia
prior to 1948).
Saudi Arabia. The National Arms consists of crossed scimitars beneath a palm
tree, though the current flag bears only a single Sword of Abd al-Aziz (straight-
bladed since 1981) beneath the shahada—an expression of the creed of Islam in
Arabic script.

Saxony. No national markings. See also ‘Cyphers, imperial and royal’.
Serbia. Found on Mauser rifles, amongst other guns, the pre-1918 Arms consisted
of a pavilion containing a double-headed eagle on a shield, with an inescutcheon
or ‘breast shield’ bearing a cross with a decorative striking-steel in each quarter.
Siam. The Chakra mark was widely used on Siamese military stores. Originally
used in Indian to describe a spinning wheel, ‘Chakra’ came to signify a war-quoit
with a series of flame-like blades issuing from a circle. The largest examples,
particularly those used prior to the 1920s, sometimes contained lines radiating
from the top centre of the inner ring; later examples usually have concentric-
circle interiors.
Slovakian Republic. Formed by the German authorities during the Second World
War, the armed forces of this short-lived territory marked small-arms with a
Patriarchal Cross atop three mounds.
South Africa. Part of the British Empire and Commonwealth until 1960, South
African weapons of this period were marked ‘U’ (for ‘Union of South Africa’),
often containing a Broad Arrow.
Spain. The National Arms have been revised many times, but, owing to the need
for compact marks, those used on small-arms have almost always taken a
standardised simplified form. The marks found on stores ranging from Mauser
rifles to Astra pistols comprise a crowned shield quartered with a castle (for
Castile), a lion (Leon), vertical bars (Aragon) and a ‘wheel of chains’ (Navarra).
An inescutcheon bore three fleurs-de-lis for the House of Borbon on a plain
ground, but a small compartment at the shield-tip, which should have contained
the pomegranate of Granada, was customarily voided owing to lack of space.
Spanish-made Mausers often omitted the Arms, instead bearing a crown over
FÁBRICA DE ARMAS, OVIEDO and the date. The so-called Falangist guns, made
during the Spanish Civil War of 1936–9, often by Industrias de Guerra de
Cataluña, were marked with a crossed fasces and a sword. Modern small-arms
may bear revised Arms, lacking the inescutcheon, placed on the displayed Black
Eagle of the Holy Roman Empire with a Nimbus and a scroll charged with UNA
GRANDE LIBRE around its head. Distinctive badges of a ribanded yoke and a
sheaf of arrows are placed to the right and left of the eagle’s tail respectively.
Some guns may be marked LA CORUÑA; others will bear the modern Spanish
air force mark, an encircled displayed eagle beneath a crown, superimposed on
stylised wings.
Sweden. Many older small-arms—Mauser rifles, for example—bear a crowned
black-letter ‘C’, the mark of Carl Gustavs Stads Gevärsfaktori, the state-owned
gunmaking plant. Modern weapons may display property marks in the form of
three ultra-simple stylised crowns.
Switzerland. Swiss Schmidt-Rubin rifles, Schmidt revolvers and Parabellum
pistols may display a cross (Schweizerkreuz or Croix Helvetique) on a sunburst
or, usually post-1909, on a vertically-barred shield. Small crosses may serve as
proof- or inspectors’ marks, the latter customarily including an indentifying
letter.

Syria. Small-arms issued since the 1960s may bear the Hawk of Quraish with a
breast shield divided vertically into three. Virtually identical with the marks
used by Egypt (see above) in the days of the Federaton of Arab States (1972–7),
Syrian examples could be distinguished by two small five-point stars on the
centre bar of the shield. Inscriptions will be in Arabic.
Thailand. See ‘Siam’.
Transvaal. This short-lived republic marked its military stores with ‘Z.A.R.’ (Zuid
Afrikaansche Republiek, ‘South African Republic’).
Turkey. Some Turkish guns will bear a Toughra, customarily placed above the
chamber of Mauser rifles, which is basically a calligraphic version of the sultan’s
cypher. Others may be marked with a star-and-crescent, with a ‘TC’ monogram
(Türkiye Cümhuriyeti, ‘Republic of Turkey’), or with an ‘As.Fa’ mark representing
the military factory or Askeri Fabrika in Ankara. Marks will be in Arabic prior to
1926, and then customarily in Roman lettering.
Uruguay, also known as ‘Republica Oriental del Uruguay’ (‘R.O.U.’) or simply
‘Republica Oriental’ (‘R.O.’). The Arms consist of a laurel-enwreathed quartered
oval beneath a rising sun, bearing the Scales of Justice, the ‘Cerro’ citadel of
Montevideo, a horse and a bull. The marks are customarily accompanied by a
date, and, on later examples, by R.O.U. EJERCITO NACIONAL (‘National army of
the Oriental Republic of Uruguay’). Inscriptions will be in Spanish.
United States of America. Military stores are simply marked ‘U.S.’, or U.S.
PROPERTY. A few guns—the ‘American Luger’, for example—may bear marks
in the form of a displayed Bald Eagle with arrows and thunderbolts in its talons.
USSR. Small-arms made prior to the fragmentation of the Soviet Union in 1991
will bear a hammer-and-sickle mark. See also ‘C.C.C.P.’
Venezuela. The Arms consist of a shield divided into three, with a wheatsheaf and
a trophy of flags and sabres above a white horse. The mark is surmounted by
two cornucopiae and may be surrounded by a wreath of coffee and palm leaves
(sugar cane?). A riband bearing the dates of independence and federation of
the Estados Unidos de Venezuela (‘EE.UU. Venezuela’), 19th April 1816 and
20th February 1889 respectively, binds the limbs of the wreath. Some modern
firearms will also be marked FUERZAS ARMADAS DE VENEZUELA (‘Venezuelan
armes forces’).
Yugoslavia. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, formed after the First
World War, initially used marks based on those of Serbia (q.v.). The shield
bore a crowned double-headed eagle with an inescutcheon or ‘breast shield’
divided with two compartments above a third. Used on ZB machine-guns,
Mauser rifles and FN-Browning pistols, these honoured the Arms of the three
principal consitituents of the federation. Post-1948 guns may bear the State
Emblem of six torches forming a single flame within a circlet of wheat-ears;
some may also be marked ‘S.F.R.J.’—‘Socialist Federal Republic of Jugoslavia’.
Pre-revolutionary marks will often be in Cyrillic; later examples are in Roman
lettering. ‘BTZ’ signifies Voino Tekhniki Zavod, the state ordnance factory in
Kraguyevac; other guns may display PREDUZEČE (q.v.) in Cyrillic or Roman.

This cartoon-like promotional leaflet was offered in the 1990s by FN Herstal to advertise the new
small-calibre Personal Weapon System. This almost jocular genre is rarely used to promote firearms,
which are usually deemed to be too ‘serious’ to facilitate such a light-hearted approach.
Author’s collection

NATO STANDARD NUMBERS (‘NSN’)
Applied by the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (‘NATO’), this system was based on
the U.S. Federal Stock Numbers (FSN), introduced as part of an Act of Congress
in 1952 to assist governmental stock control, which extended to virtually any
article of military value. A typical FSN consisted of a four-digit prefix, the Federal
Supply Code (FSC), and a seven-digit serial number. In September 1974, a two-
digit National Codification Bureau (NCB) component was added to identify the
originating country and the NSN was formed.
All NSNs have thirteen digits, customarily separated into groups of four,
two and seven. In addition to a general ‘11’, which simply refers to NATO itself,
identifiers for individual NATO members include ‘00’, ‘01’ and ‘06’ for the U.S.A.;
‘12’, Germany; ‘13’, Belgium; ‘14’, France; ‘15’, Italy; ‘17’, Netherlands; ‘21’, Canada;
‘22’, Denmark; ‘23’, Greece; ‘24’, Iceland; ‘25’, Norway; ‘26’, Portugal; ‘27’, Turkey;
‘28’, Luxembourg; ‘33’, Spain; and ‘99’ for Britain. The system has been expanded
intermittently to include non-NATO members, ‘30’ signifying Japan, for example,
and ‘66’ for Australia. The marks will sometimes be found on small-arms. For
example, a British 7.62mm L8A1 armoured-vehicle machine-gun, an indigenous
variant of the FN MAG, will be marked on the left side of the receiver with the
designation MACHINE GUN 7.62MM TK L8A1 over the manufacturer’s code (RSAF
Enfield), the date (1965) and serial number—UE 65 A282—above the NSN.
The NSN group contains the ‘1005’ prefix common to all guns and small-arms of
30mm calibre and below; the code for Britain, ‘99’; and an arbitrary stock-number
‘960–6851’. The codes will also be found on much more mundane items: the ‘Cloth
coated bayonet frog, polyurethane on textured nylon, IRR’ bears ‘8465–99–011–
2306’. Though most of the marks may be read without difficulty, some will include
the country of manufacture instead of the country of use. Consequently, the
Belgian-made MAG machine-guns used by the British Army (7.62mm L7A1) exhibit
‘13’ in the NSN instead of ‘99’.
Patents
The precise origins of ‘Letters Patent’ are still often contested. In Britain, they
originally allowed a Monarch to confer the privileges on favourites that were ‘patent’:
open to public scrutiny, so that the honours or services due to the beneficiary
would be provided on request. Gradually, however, the system evolved more into
a method of honouring merchants who introduced new manufactories, techniques
or inventions by granting them a period of unchallengeable exploitation.
The first patent of this type to be granted (by Henry VI in 1449) allowed a
stained-glass maker, a Fleming immigrant named John of Utynam, a twenty-year
monopoly on a manufacturing process unknown in England, but only about sixty
monopolies had been the subject of Letters Patent prior to the death in 1603 of
Elizabeth I.

By 1610, the granting process was being regularly abused; some requests were
mistakenly rejected on the grounds that the ‘trade was already being pursued’ and
the acceptance of others owed more to favouritism or to patronage than real merit.
Public outcry and judicial criticism prevailed, however, and the system of grants
was radically overhauled.
The new system was operated by the judiciary for more than two hundred years
without governmental interference, though a change made c. 1713, in the reign of
Queen Anne, established that a petitioner had ‘by an instrument in writing [to]
describe and ascertain the nature of the invention and the manner in which it is to
be performed’. The first application to be accompanied by a written specification
was made in 1718 by James Puckle, to protect a primitive form of machine-gun, but
the grants of protection were still often contested.
Many changes have been made over the years to national and international
patent law, and the original English intention of petitioning the king by way of
Lords Chancellor soon gave way to applications made directly to officials appointed
by the Crown to receive, assess and grant protection. Another major change was
made to the British patent system shortly after the Great Exhibition had been
opened in London in 1851. Prior to the last day of September 1852, English and
Scottish patents were numbered in separate series. With effect from 1st October
1852, however, the implementation of the Patent Law Amendment Act combined
the disparate series; numbers were reduced to ‘1’ and a simple progression occurred
until, on 1st January 1853, the series re-started at ‘1’.
A new Patent Office was created in a Master of Chancery’s office in Southampton
Buildings, London WC, where, much extended, it remains to this day. A trademark
registry was created in 1875, applying marks from 1st January 1877 onward; and the
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act of 1883 not only transferred responsibility
from the ‘Commissioner of Patents’ to a Comptroller General of Patents appointed
by the Board of Trade, but also appointed the first Examiners. An Act of Parliament
passed in 1902 finally ensured that investigation, albeit limited, was to be made
into claims of novelty before patents could be granted.
The 1852-type grant system continued until 30th December 1915; from 1st
January 1916, a new series began at ‘100001’ to run on, supposedly sequentially,
without regard to calendar years. The Patent Act 1977 then made an important
change, as applications made after 1st July 1978 were numbered from 2000000
upward. However, processing claims made on or prior to 30th June 1978, often
slowed by investigation (and litigation), ensured that the old numbering system
survived into the present century. Numbers that had stood at about 1525000 on
1st July 1978 were approaching 1610000 by 1st September 2000.
A mark PATENT 12345 on an artefact of British origin, therefore, can have
several interpretations: (1) Registry in England (or, theoretically Scotland) prior
to 30th September 1852, the last remnant of a cumulative non-specific system
begun in the eighteenth century. (2) Registry in any of the years between 1853
and 1915 in which more than 12,345 patents had been granted. In this case, but not
infallibly, the marks will be found as PATENT 12345/67—the 12,345th of 1867—and

the year date should be included (e.g., ‘12345/67’ or ‘12345/1867’) in cataloguing
information. Few if any pre-1915 individual years exceeded thirty thousand
grants. (3) In accordance with any agreement by which a particular patent (which
may or may not be accompanied by its annual identifier) has been licensed to a
manufacturer, common in cases where the inventor lacked suitable finance or
production facilities. Thus the mark PATENT 12345 would be the 12,345th item to
have been made in accordance with the licensing agreement, and, therefore, would
not refer directly to the protecting legislation.
Obviously, patent no. 12345 cannot have been registered in the finalised
cumulative series, on or after 1st January 1916, as this began at 100001: grant no.
123456 dates from 1919.
The British system was well-organised, but this was not always true of other
countries; Spain, for example, had a much more flexible ‘patent’ system which could
incorporate the registry of trademarks. Yet practically all European countries with
the exception of Austria and Austria-Hungary, which issued Privilegium numbered
in annual-cycle sequences, relied on simple cumulative numbering series from
which the earliest date of an item may be deduced with comparatively little
difficulty.
The U.S. patent system owed its inception to an Act, signed on 1st April
1790, which recognised the rights of men to profit from their inventions. A
board comprising the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney
General—or their nominees—was empowered to issue patents to endure no more
than fourteen years on presentation of specifications, drawings and models. In
1793, however, the Patent Board was abolished in favour of a fee-based registration
system based not on novelty or utility, but instead on the raising of revenue.
Finally, on Independence Day, 1836, a new Patent Act repaired much of the damage
that had been done by the ineffectual grant system, and a system of investigating
claims against ‘prior art’ appeared.
On 15th December 1836, unfortunately, the Patent Office lodged in Blodgett’s
Hotel, Washington DC, was destroyed by fire together with more than seven
thousand irreplaceable patent models, nine thousand drawings, and the entire
application/grant records.
The continuous nature of U.S. patents, even though they began again at ‘1’ after
the implementation of the new Patent Act on 13th July 1836, ensured that numbers
had reached 6981 by 1st January 1850; 640167 by 1st January 1900; 2492944 by 1st
January 1950; and 6009555 by 1st January 2000. One particularly helpful feature
of marks applied in accordance with U.S. Patents (though they rarely include the
actual number) is the legal requirement to state the day, month and year of grant.
This is so unlike regulations governing the exploitation of protection in other
countries that it can provide an immediate clue to nationality.
The U.S. Patent Office has also sparingly re-issued patents, numbering
them separately from 1838 onward. Numbers representing this sequence will
occasionally be found, and, unless accompanied by proper identification, can be
perplexing. Marks such as REISSUE or simply ‘RED’ can be helpful. Reissue numbers

stood at merely 158 on 1st January 1850; at 11798 on 1st January 1900; at 23186 on
1st January 1950; and at 36479 on the first day of 2000.
The German system, which was implemented in 1877, six years after the
foundation of the German Empire or Deutsches Reich, also runs sequentially.
Patents granted by the German Federal Republic (1945–91) follow on from those
granted during the Kaiserzeit (1871–1918), the Weimar Republic (1919–33) and the
Third Reich (1933–45). The sequence has been continued since the reunification of
Germany. However, a satisfactory individual year-date/patent number correlation
has yet to be compiled. A few typical examples give an idea of the numerical
progression: no. 1192 (7th August 1877), 28109 (4th November 1883), 65225 (16th
February 1892), 105620 (20th December 1898), 256606 (22nd November 1911),
578765 (7th November 1930), 824160 (4th July 1950) and 1553964 (July 1966).
The duration of patents, customarily enshrined in law, can also be useful. Pre-
1852 English patents were granted, with significant exceptions, to run fourteen
years from the application of the seal of the Lord Chancellor’s office; the 1852
Act, though retaining the fourteen-year maximum, backdated protection to the
date of application to ensure that infringement could not occur between the first
submission and the final grant. Additional provisions included fee-supported
renewal of patents after three and then seven years, and the submission of a
Provisional Specification with the patent application.
Items made in the few months between initial submissions and the final grant
will display marks such as ‘P. P.’, ‘P. PT.’, ‘P. PAT.’ or ‘PROV. PAT.’
Patents listed on industrial items often prove to have been granted to someone
other than the manufacturer. This became increasingly common in the era of
mass-production, where fewer inventors had the opportunity to produce and then
market their ideas.
Many licensed them to well-established manufacturers, obscuring the origins
of particular items, and others were employed by large and well-established
businesses which viewed the work of employees as their own. For example,
Waffenfabrik Mauser & Co., a world-renowned supplier of military rifles by 1914,
secured the lasting reputation of its surviving ‘founding father’ Paul Mauser by
filing all patents in his name. It is doubtful if Mauser personally undertook design
work after about 1890, but involvement of others, with one well-documented
exception, is now impossible to prove. Another problem can be provided by the
British ‘Communicated’ patents, which often bear the name of a British patent
agent working on behalf of an inventor domiciled overseas.
Prior to 1859, the identity of the inventor was seldom revealed; it then became
a statutory requirement. Yet many spelling mistakes were still made in British
records—particularly foreign names—and there have been lapses of geography.
Other problems may arise from the transfer of patented designs by licence, which
often allowed differing manufacturers to make the same items at the same time.
It was common to find notes such as ‘the proprietor of British Patent 12345/06,
for improvements in the manufacturer of the widget, seeks interest from patents
wishing to benefit from his invention…’ in periodicals such as The Engineer or

Engineering. And a major flaw in the use of patent information to date items can
sometimes be seen in the retention of marks, often for historical reasons, long
after the patents themselves have elapsed.
TRADEMARKS
The marks granted to protect the rights of manufacturers and distributors (and
to assure purchasers of merchantable quality) provide some of the best ways of
identifying guns, ammunition and accessories if they can be read effectively.
Trademarks have their origins in the masons’ marks of the Middle Ages and
in the marks applied by Guild members thereafter, which helped to differentiate
the work of individuals in an era where literacy was an exception instead of the
general rule. Where firearms are concerned, trademarks (excepting in the form
of initials) are rarely found prior to the American Civil War of 1861–5, but then
become increasingly common.
This was entirely due to the perfection in the 1870s of a moulding process that
allowed gutta-percha to be used to make grips for handguns. The facility with
which this material could receive a design led to a proliferation of decoration, and
to the embodiment of marks and monograms in the basic designs. The complexity
was limited only by the skills of the mould-maker, which were often exceptionally
high. Dog’s heads, birds, flowers, impressive scrolls and delicate chequering were
just some of the many designs that each manufacturer guarded jealously—and
their rivals just as eagerly copied. Consequently, though it is usually easy to link a
design with a particular manufacturer, grips commissioned by distributors could
grace a variety of inexpensive rimfire revolvers with differing origins.
Trademark acts have been passed in most European countries, though registry
in Germany did not begin until 1874, Britain followed in 1877, and many Spanish
marks were originally registered as patents. In the U.S.A., uniquely, ‘first use’ of
a mark often guarantees legal protection; prior to the Lanham Act of 1946, which
made important changes, registration conferred only minor additional advantages.
The first international agreement protecting ‘Industrial Property’ was signed
in Paris in 1883, the ‘Paris Convention’ thereafter being modified many times until,
by the time of the meeting in Lisbon in 1958, more than eighty countries had
subscribed. The Arrangement for the International Registration of Trademarks
was signed in Madrid in 1891. Though some international consensus exists,
however, intra-national views vary appreciably.
Protection for marks in Germany, prior to 1945 at least, was usually granted
for ten years; at the end of the period, therefore, unless the renewal was prompt,
anyone was free to register the same mark. There are a few cases where gun-related
marks have changed hands three times or more. And some countries, notably the
U.S.A. (and Britain, to a lesser extent), deem protection to have ended once a name
is classed as generic.
Trademarks found on firearms may be divided into several categories. The
easiest to identify are those accompanied by a name: the well-known Mauser

and Walther ‘banners’, for example. Next comes the group accompanied by
abbreviations, and then marks composed of →monograms (interlocking initials).
Marks consisting of an illustration and an abbreviation are usually easy to read, and
can be identified if the abbreviations can be linked with a specific manufacturer.
However, this is still impossible in the case of some marks; in others, a range of
possibilities may exist.
Monograms range from simple and easily read, customarily true of more
recent designs, to complex and confusing in the case of many nineteenth-century
patterns. This is usually due to the zeal with which pre-1900 lettering was
decorated: tendrils, floriation and hatching often makes the letter-forms difficult to
detect. Brandnames are customarily easily read, and as easily identified. However,
very little research amongst brand-name registries—tedious, but potentially
very useful—has yet been undertaken within the gun-collecting fraternity and,
consequently, many names are still difficult to date precisely.
Key to Trademarks
1. Abercrombie & Fitch Company (U.S.A.) BSA Guns Ltd (Britain).

2 and 3. Accuracy International Ltd (Britain). 37. Bolte & Anschütz (Germany).
4. Air Arms Ltd (Britain). 38. Browning Arms Company (U.S.A.).
5. Air Match SrL (Italy). 39. California Industrial Company, Calico
6, 7 and 8. J.G. →Anschütz Germania (U.S.A.).
Waffenfabrik AG, and successors (Germany). 40–42. Česká Zbrojovka AS(Czechoslovakia).
9 and 10. Norica Arms Company (Arizmendi, 43 and 44. Charter Arms, Inc. (U.S.A.)
Spain). 45–48. Colt’s Patent Firearms Mfg Co. and Colt
11. Astra–Unceta y Cia (Spain). Industries (U.S.A.). Mark no. 47 is that of the
12. Auto-Ordnance Corporation (U.S.A.). Colt Custom Gun Shop.
13. Azanza y Arizabalaga (Spain). 49. Dae Woo Heavy Industries, Small-arms
14. Izhevsk arms factory (USSR). Division (South Korea).
15 and 16. Fritz →Barthelmes–FB Rekord 50. Daisy Mfg Co. (U.S.A.).
(Germany). 51. Dansk Industri Syndikat AS ‘Madsen’
17. C. y T. Bascaran, Cometa (Spain). (Denmark).
18 and 19. Bayerische Sportwaffenfabrik 52. Deutsche Waffen- u. Munitionsfabriken
(Germany). and Berlin–Karlsruher Industrie Werke
20. Beeman Precision Guns, Inc. (U.S.A.). (Germany).
21 and 22. Vincenzo Bernardelli & Co/ SNC 53 and 54. G.C. Dornheim, Gecado (Germany).
(Italy). 55 and 56. Echave y Arizmendi (Spain).
23. Benelli Armi SpA (Italy). 57. Star–Bonifacio →Echeverria SA (Spain).
24–27. Pietro Beretta SpA (Italy). 58. Edgar Bros. Ltd (Britain).
28. Berlin-Suhler-Werke (Germany). 59–62. Eidgenössische Waffenfabrik, Bern
29. Armas Bersa SA (Argentina). (Switzerland).
30. Bildstein, Mommer & Co. (Germany). 63. Imperial Metal Industries/IMI, →Eley
31–36. Birmingham Small Arms Co. Ltd and Division (Britain).

64 and 65. Industrias El Gamo (Spain). 115. Friedrich Langenhan (Germany).
66. Ensign Arms Company (Britain). 116. Von Lengerke & Detmold (U.S.A.).
67 and 68. Erma-Werke (Germany). 117 and 118. Łucznik Predom (Poland).
69. Fabbrica d’Armi Italiana →Rizzini &C., FAIR 119. Marlin Fire Arms Company (U.S.A.).
(Italy). 120–22. Waffenfabrik →Mauser AG/Mauser-
70. Fabbrica Armi Sportive, →FAS (Italy). Werke AG/Mauser Jagdwaffen (Germany).
71 and 72. →Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de 123. Mayer & Söhne (Germany).
Guerre/FN Herstal SA (Belgium) 124 and 125. Mayer & Grammelspacher,
73. FIE Corporation (U.S.A.). Dianawerk (Germany).
74. Guilio Fiocchi &C./Fiocchi Munizione SpA 126. Merkuria (Czechoslovakia).
(Italy). 127. Milbro Ltd (Britain).
75. Forehand & Wadsworth Arms Company 128. Mondiale–Modesto →Molgora (Italy).
(U.S.A.). 129. Moritz & Gerstenberger/Gerstenberger &
76–8. Luigi Franchi SpA (Italy). Eberwein (Germany).
79–81. A.L. Frank, ALFA (Germany). 130. National Arms & Ammunition Co. Ltd
82. Armi Renato →Gamba (Italy). (Britain).
83. General Electric Company (U.S.A., found on 131. National Rifle Association (U.S.A., found
Vulcan Miniguns). on commemorative guns).
84 and 85. Gustav Genschow & Co. AG, GECO 132. National Rifle Company (India).
(Germany, also used by Dynamit Nobel). 133. Navy Arms Company (U.S.A.).
86. Gerstenberger & Eberwein, Em-Ge 134. Nederlansch Wapen- en Munitiefabriek
Sportgerätewerk (Germany). (the Netherlands).
87 and 88. Grünig & Elmiger (Switzerland). 135. Gotthilf von Nordheim, Vono (Germany).
89. Gustloff-Werke (Germany). 136. China North Industries Corporation
90 and 91. Haendler & Natermann GmbH (People’s Republic of China).
(Germany). 137. Omnipol (Czechoslovakia).
92. C.G. Haenel , Waffen- & Fahrradfabrik 138. Österreichische Werk-Anstalt (Austria).
(Germany). 139. Bernhard Paatz (Germany).
93. Hämmerli AG (Switzerland). 140. Parker-Hale Ltd (Britain).
94–100. Harrington & Richardson Arms 141 and 142. Friedrich Pickert, Arminius
Company (U.S.A.). (Germany).
101. Friedr. Wilh. Heym GmbH & Co. 143 and 144. Anciens Établissements →Pieper
(Germany). (Belgium).
102. Hopkins & Allen Arms Conmpany (U.S.A.). 145. Karl Arndt Reck GmbH (Germany).
103. Husqvarna Våpenfabriks (Sweden). 146. Reising Arms Company (U.S.A.).
104. Israeli Military Industries (Israel). 147 and 148. Relum Ltd (Britain).
105 and 106. Italguns SpA (Italy). 149. Remington Arms[–United Metallic
107–9. Iver Johnson’s Arms & Cycle Works Cartridge] Company (U.S.A.).
(U.S.A.). 150. Replica Arms (U.S.A.).
110. Armas →Juaristi (Spain). 151 and 152. Rheinisch-Westfälische
111 and 112. Albrecht Kind, AKAH (Germany). Sprengstoff AG, Rws (now used by Dynamit
113. Kriegskorte & Co., KRICO (Germany). Nobel, Germany).
114. H. Krieghoff GmbH & Co. (Germany, 153. Rheinische Metallwaaren- &
post-war). Munitionsfabrik/Rheinmetall-Borsig AG/

Rheinmetall GmbH (Germany). 186. VEB Fahrzeug- & Waffenfabrik ‘Ernst
154. Rhöner Sportwaffenfabrik GmbH →Thälmann’ (Germany [DDR]).
(Germany). 187. Thompson/Center Arms (U.S.A.).
155. Röhm GmbH (Germany). 188–90. Oy →Tikkakoski Ab (Finland).
156. Amadeo Rossi SA (Brazil). 191 and 192. Tula Arms Factory (USSR).
157 and 158. Pulverfabriken →Rottweil 193. Aldo Uberti & C SNC (Italy).
(Dynamit Nobel, Germany). 194. Manufacture d’Arms des Pyrénées
159. Thomas E. Ryan (U.S.A.). Françaises →‘Unique’ (France).
160. Saco Defense, Inc. (U.S.A.). 195. Viking Arms Company (Britain).
161. Empresa Nacional de Industrias Militares 196 and 197. Koma-Werke/→Voetter & Co.,
‘Santa Barbara’ SA, →CETME (Spain). Schwarzwalder Jagd- & Sportwaffenfabrik,
162–6. J.P. Sauer & Sohn GmbH & Co. Voere (Germany)
(Germany). 198. Carl Walther Waffenfabrik/Carl Walter
167 and 168. Savage Arms Company (U.S.A.). Sportwaffenfabrik GmbH (Germany).
169–71. Herbert Schmidt (Germany). 199. Lothar Walther (Germany).
172. Sheridan Products, Inc. (U.S.A.). 200–5. P. Webley & Sons/Webley & Scott
173. Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft/SIG (Britain).
(Switzerland). 206–8. Hermann Weihrauch KG (Germany).
174. SIG-Sauer (Switzerland/Germany). 209. Dan Wesson Arms Company (U.S.A.).
175 and 176. Simson & Co. (Germany). 210 and 211. Westinger & Altenburger,
177. Kovo AS (?), Slavia (Czechoslovakia). →Feinwerkbau (Germany).
178. Springfield Armory, Inc. (U.S.A.). 212. Wilsker & Co. (Germany).
179. Stenda-Werke (Germany). 213 and 214. Winchester Repeating Arms
180. Sterling Armament & Co. Ltd (Britain). Company (U.S.A.).
181. Steyr-Mannlicher GmbH (Austria). 215. Zieh- und Stanzwerke →Schedetal AG
182. Stoeger Industries (U.S.A.). (Germany).
183–5. Sturm, Ruger & Co. (U.S.A.). 216. Antonio Zoli & C. SNC (Italy).

Gun Dictionary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gun Dictionary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gun Dictionary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUNS DICTIONARY

a guide to firearms, airguns,

Copyright © John Walter, 2001–2017

All rights reserved

Updated to 1st September 2017

PRODUCED IN GREAT BRITAIN

THE RISE OF THE GUN: 13

ORGANISATION AND TERMINOLOGY: 72

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 5

PAGE 6 : GUNS DICTIONARY

PAGE 8 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 9

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 11

PAGE 12 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 13

PAGE 14 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 15

PAGE 16 : GUNS DICTIONARY

PAGE 18 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 19

PAGE 20 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 21

PAGE 22 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 23

PAGE 24 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 25

PAGE 26 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 27

PAGE 28 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 29

PAGE 30 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 31

THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

While European authorities dallied with capping breech-loaders and needle-guns,

PAGE 32 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 33

PAGE 34 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 35

PAGE 36 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 37

PAGE 38 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 39

PAGE 40 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 41

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 43

PAGE 44 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 45

PAGE 46 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 47

PAGE 48 : GUNS DICTIONARY

THE SEVEN WEEKS WAR

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 49

FRANCO–PRUSSIAN AND NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLONIAL WARS

The resentment simmering between France and the steadily-uniting German

This Mitrailleuse in the collection of La Musée du château de Morges,

PAGE 50 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 51

PAGE 52 : GUNS DICTIONARY

INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION : PAGE 53