A relic William Bailes pistol.

[Pukka Bundook]

Morning Gents,

Photos of a pistol that came to live with me a few years ago.
Very sad case, as fist photos will show.
I must say I like it very much though.   
It must be an early William Bailes, as I do not think I have seen signature in block capitals before. 
Address is Russell Street, Bloomsbury, London.
It appears W'm Bailes moved to Russell street about 1750, from Tyburn Road,( which later became Oxford Street).

The proofs are London, with a crowned F as Bailes was not a free member of the Gunmaker's Company.

As you see, it was later converted to percussion.   I would never consider converting it back, as someone still saw it as a viable weapon and worthy of conversion when it Must have been at least about 80 years old.

I wondered about the broken scear, and broken off trigger, plus guard!  Had someone pulled Really hard when on half cock?  (Adrenalin rush??)
We will never know, but I don't see kids playing cowboys and injuns  causing this much grief to it.
I added a  part to the broken trigger, made a guard, and completely "missed it" in the engraving!

Also mended scear rather than fit  a new one.
The chamber holds 40 grains of powder, and it takes a .61 cal ball. The barrel is 22 bore, or about .60 cal. so ball is swaged down as it passes, making it feel  very powerful.  (Rips a real hole through a burning barrel)
No sights of course, but points beautifully.


































I have always enjoyed seeing the work of William Bailes, and when this little worn out pistol came up at auction , miss-identified as it was, (Balue they said!) I was Very pleased to become caretaker.

Please forgive the over-many photos.

Richard.

[smart dog]

Thanks Richard,
That is a nice early Bailes pistol.  I like that style as well as the turn offs with iron encased side locks.  Something that I wonder about is the early English turn offs during the 17th century were often rifled. It is a perfect application for rifling because of breech loading and the shouldered chamber (like the Ferguson rifle). Yet by 1700 almost all turn offs were smooth bored.  They are very powerful for the fixed powder charge and I would think rifling would make them an awesome defensive weapon.  Perhaps, the makers felt rifling was wasted unless there were good front and rear sights and those sights could catch on clothing since these were "pocket" pistols.

dave

[JV Puleo]

I like it. That pistol probably saw nearly 100 years of use.

I bought a similar wreck last year made by William Turvey. I'll try to post a photo later.
I also have a trigger guard problem - there is one there but it clearly isn't the original. I'm torn between leaving it alone (which is what I'll probably do) and trying to find one that can be made to fit the inlet better.

jp

[Robert Wolfe]

Nice, I like it. Thanks for sharing.

[Mike Brooks]

Great old gun.

[Pukka Bundook]

Dave,

I believe you came to the right conclusion re. no rifling and no sights.
It would most likely be that a pistol was most often engaged just beyond arms reach, and power would be more important , as aiming (pointing) would be merely instinctive.

Joe,
Yes, it must have had a long working life, as I don't expect it to have been converted much before 1830.
A question if I may;
Do you think W'm Bailes made any of this pistol?
The reason I ask, is I have photos of a more or less identical pistol, but signed by Bumford.
Yes I know out-sourcing was coming in fast, but had wondered if these pistols were bought in more or less finished, or whether they were finished in house.
I figured you are the one to ask, Joe!

Pleased you all like the old thing.
Have fired a few shots to see how it was, but will not make a habit of it. It has earned a rest I think.

Here are the photos of the very close looking Bumford.  (not  mine,  saved from auction site.)

[James Rogers]

Nice. Thanks for sharing!

[Mike Brooks]

I believe most English work was outsourced. All very specialized labor.

[Pukka Bundook]

Mike,

Yes, I think the same, But this brings up a question;
Bailes shop was likely very small, and his output not large.

Most likely he had a man and boy working for him. His own son and later another youth were apprenticed to him, So,  What work were they doing?
Most Gunmakers had apprentices in training, so they had to be assembling/fitting and such, but I am as yet unclear what this entailed.
Re being accepted into the Gunmaker's Company;
  A proof piece had to be presented and accepted as up to the required standard.
This would appear to indicate most likely bought in specialist parts,  (Furniture, lock and barrel, in fact All the parts), but assembled in a competent and workmanlike manner by the maker.
Do you think this the usual system?

[Mike Brooks]

Mike,

Yes, I think the same, But this brings up a question;
Bailes shop was likely very small, and his output not large.

Most likely he had a man and boy working for him. His own son and later another youth were apprenticed to him, So,  What work were they doing?
Most Gunmakers had apprentices in training, so they had to be assembling/fitting and such, but I am as yet unclear what this entailed.
Re being accepted into the Gunmaker's Company;
  A proof piece had to be presented and accepted as up to the required standard.
This would appear to indicate most likely bought in specialist parts,  (Furniture, lock and barrel, in fact All the parts), but assembled in a competent and workmanlike manner by the maker.
Do you think this the usual system?

That is my impression of what was going on too.

[smart dog]

Hi,
The lawsuit by the guild against John Hirst illustrated exactly what was going on.  Hirst was being denied freedom of the guild and was sued by the guild for making and selling guns within London.  In his defense at court, he described how none of the prominent gun makers built there own guns anymore and rather employed the services of over 21 different trades to do the work.  He then presented the court with a very fine gun he had made in entirety and challenged guild members to do the same.  He won his case and went on to become one of the most prosperous gun makers in London, focusing mostly on ordnance and EIC contracts.

dave   

[Pukka Bundook]

Dave,

Yes I recall this case, but that does not answer the question as to what the apprentices were doing, and what the master was doing.
They would not have had apprentices to learn nothing, so I still see it (at present) that they bought in the parts and made them up from there.
Hirst may have been ahead of many, being able to make all the parts himself, but to do so and actually make a living at it would be very difficult to do.  (Just like now!)

Very best,
Richard.

[redheart]

 :)Pukka,
It's a joy to behold!!!
Thanks for posting it!!!

[smart dog]

Hi Richard,
Perhaps, as you mentioned, the apprentices assembled guns but also maybe the master or his foreman actually built a select few of his offerings with apprentices helping.  Moreover, journeyman working for a maker had to produce their "masterpiece" to be accepted by the guild so they must have had some freedom to build work.  Perhaps typical makers had their "chevys", "buicks", and "cadillacs" with the cheaper grades heavily or completely outsourced. Then there were the government contracts, which I am sure required a large outsourced network with the maker just serving as general contractor.  That seems to be the major source of wealth for the most successful makers.  Building high end guns for wealthy clientele who took years to pay if at all put William Bailes and Joe Manton into serious debt.

dave     

[Pukka Bundook]

Dave,

Thank you again for your thoughts.
I am sure you are right and agree on all counts.   The thought of  lower end stuff being brought in complete was what prompted my initial question, as this and the Bumford look so very close , even down to the furniture.
Yes, working for the wealthy had very serious consequences!   Much better a good contract with the HEIC!....who paid, And promptly.

Must just say, going back to this old pistol, I Do like the way the cock, (hammer ) nestles into its place, in a most natural manner.  It seems to fit very well for a conversion.

Richard.

[JV Puleo]

I expect Bailes' apprentices started out polishing things - maybe cleaning customer's guns (something gunmakers often did). While I am certain that by the 2nd quarter of the 18th century most guns were assembled from bought in parts, there was a lot to learn. Also, we do not know if the parts were finished when purchased. I suspect they weren't and that much of the skill involved in "making" a gun went towards cleaning, polishing, and fitting of the parts. It is really no different than the modern rifle makers... very few would bother to make a barrel even though they could. The same is true with a lock although modifying a lock to fit a particular design or carefully adjusting it so that it functioned perfectly would still require great skill.

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you Joe.

I have been thinking about this and  am sure you have it right!

Pleased to see your thread showing a similar pistol by another great maker!

R.