Unknown air pistol marked 'BSA'

Unknown air pistol marked 'BSA' 

With thanks to David.

John G, author of The Encyclopedia of Spring Air Pistols, said of this pistol:

1. It is obviously a prototype, as no other example is known, and no patent exists (the British airgun patents have been searched thoroughly by various people and none relating to this design has never surfaced). In my experience companies never mark prototypes with "Manufactured by.....", as they are not intended for pubic consumption. Usually a simple company mark, or an in-house reference number is all that is used.

2. The quality of the lettering and its uniformity are nowhere near the usual BSA standards. The font is also weird and not typical of BSA.

3. The appearance of the piled arms logo is crude and lacks the detail usually seen. The first pic below is the logo on the pistol and the other three pics are from BSA air rifles of the pre-war period. The pistol's logo looks acid etched to me.

4. My overall impression of the markings is that they are trying too hard to tell us who made it, with the 'Manufactured by ..., and the piled arms, and the BSA under the piled arms.
5. If it were a BSA product and the poor quality of the markings was a deliberate lapse in standards because they knew that it would never leave the factory, then why would they bother to put put "Manufactured by .." on it?

So my best guess is that, whatever he origin of the gun, someone wanted to add value by giving it the BSA connection. I would love to be proved wrong, as a completely unknown BSA prototype like this would be the find of the century.

John G posted again about this pistol on airgunbbs.com:

My first impression was that the lettering was not very well acid etched, using a resist on the metal surface. However, I have also shown it to a top expert firearms engraver, who worked for a famous gun-maker, and this was what he said:

“I think the lettering is clearly done with a pantograph with a spinning cutter. ( Taylor Hobson type machine )The give- away is the ‘wobble’ on some of the letters caused by the cutter running off to one side as it ploughs through steel as opposed to a softer metal eg brass/ silver/ copper etc. these machines were used mainly for brass plaques and suchlike. I recognise the rounded bottom of the cuts and the run off is what happened when I was using one on unsuitable hard materials. The font is very basic and would have been standard brass letters or patterns set in the plate on the top.
On the BSA example, the lettering is quite deep and the problems show up. Most manufacturers of this period had a basic panto for various jobs around the factory and were quite common for basic work.
Today, pantographs are much more sophisticated with CNC control over depth etc. and also with HSS and carbide cutters.”

I also contacted John Knibbs and his son Mark, as BSA experts, and this was the reply:

“I saw this on one of the Facebook forums and have already discussed it with Dad, we are both of the opinion that it just doesn’t ring true as being a BSA made pistol. There is nothing recorded anywhere that we can find and the whole workings of the pistol do not look anything like a BSA style or workmanship. Equally, the lettering looks to be engraved, not the usual stamp or etching used by BSA at the time? Strange pistol, but it just doesn’t seem right to be BSA.”

Realising that they had only been able to see on-line pictures of the pistol when it was in its as-found rusty state, I sent them pictures of the cleaned-up gun, pointing out the innovative features and machining quality, after two months I have yet to receive a response.

When I bought the pistol, I was also about 90 % certain that the markings were an attempt to make an unknown nondescript pistol worth a lot more than it was, and the seller seemed to agree and so I paid a very modest price for it. Now I am not so sure especially as the engraving was clearly done a long time ago, if not at the same time as the pistol was made ( the dirt, t and underlying and patina in the markings matched the rest of the gun).

Having bought the pistol and cleaned it up, he wrote:

After dismantling and close inspection, I could say with some confidence that it was made in Britain, most likely in the 1920’s, or possibly early 1930’s, and was a prototype. It does have a maker’s mark, but I do not want to say anything about that at present, as there is the possibility that the inscription could be fake, and added later to in order to add value to an otherwise unknown gun. I want to present all the details about the pistol first, and then ask everyone’s opinion about a possible maker, prior to disclosing the inscribed name. In that way I can get an overall unbiased view.

This is the gun with the rust and dirt removed. The breech-surround is dovetailed for a rear sight, but the sight blade is missing, otherwise the pistol is complete and fully functional.

It is a concentric model, with a deeply rifled 0.177 steel barrel, and has a similar grip-cocking action to the Highest Possible, Tell 2, Acvoke and Thunderbolt Jr pistols. However, the design has many significant and highly inventive differences to those pistols, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Unlike the Highest Possible, Tell 2 etc., it is unique in not using the trigger guard as the cocking link. Instead the trigger guard is fixed and the pistol uses a separate forked link that straddles it.

The cocking link is skillfully forged from carbon steel as a single unit, and heat hardened. Such a precise forging would be something well beyond the capabilities of an amateur:

2. Again uniquely, the trigger guard is made of spring steel and its front end is fixed to the sear, so that it acts as the sear spring, and keeps the sear of the one-piece trigger/sear unit pressed against the piston. Both ends of the trigger guard are specially shaped, and they mesh beautifully with cut-outs sections in the sear and frame, as can be seen here (note that the sear pin has been removed):

The trigger guard can be removed easily if needed, by sliding it laterally out of the shaped slots, but once it is in place, no amount of longitudinal movement is ever going to make it come adrift. This deceptively simple method of fixing shows considerable machining skill and attention to detail. No screws or pins needed!

3. The breech closure is unique for an air pistol and consists of a swing down breech block, with a thumb-lever operated cam, so that any wear in the leather breech seal can be taken up by thumb pressure. This unit is both intricate and exceptionally well- engineered. Note that the breech block has a built-in pellet seater, and that both sides of the thumb lever have been chequered. Such attention to detail smacks of real professionalism.

4. Another innovative design feature is the spring loaded detent catch which locks the action rigidly in place (none of the other grip-cocking pistols have anything similar). Instead of being a normal type of detent, uniquely it is double-ended. The other end simultaneously applies spring pressure against the rear of the trigger, so that the detent unit serves two functions.

5. The air transfer unit also shows great attention to detail. The rear cylinder end has four air transport holes, and a steel plate that screws onto it has four sloping channels machined into it that guides the four jets of compressed air directly behind the pellet:

6. Unlike any other pistol I know of, the piston head with its leather seal is threaded into the piston body. This is an interesting refinement, but would have added to the complexity of the manufacturing sequence, and I don’t actually see what advantages it would have.

From an overall economy of design, I found the pistol to be quite amazing, and unlike any other I can think of. A LOT of thought has gone into it.

The whole pistol is held solidly together by the two grip plate screws. When the grip plates are removed, there are three large diameter pivot pins holding all the moving parts of the action together. One pin serves a dual function as pivot for the grip and for the trigger/sear. A second pin acts as the cocking link pivot, and the third pin is the pivot for the drop-down breech block. These pins are a sliding fit, and can be pushed out by hand, their large diameter ensuring there is no play, and when the grip pates are screwed in place, the pins cannot move. As a result, it is the only pistol I know where the action can be disassembled in just two minutes using only a screwdriver.
The piston and spring can be removed by unscrewing the cylinder front plug, which like the Acvoke has two holes to accept a pin spanner.

This shows the disassembled pistol and the locations of the three pins:

The trigger is actually very good for some reason. Far better than say the Warrior, which also has a one-piece trigger/sear.

The cylinder bore is about 0.88" (22mm) (the threaded end makes exact measurement difficult). More interesting. the external diameter is 1.00" exactly, which is one of the reasons I am convinced that this is a British-made pistol.

Here are some pics of the piston head. It is machined from a single piece of steel and the leather washer appears be a band forced over the head into a groove. (The leather is crumbling so I did not want to try to remove it). The two holes on the face of the piston head are not for screws and are blind, and must be just for removing the head with a pin spanner.

Richard added this excellent comment:

This is a fabulous pistol. The more I study the photos, read the comments from other members and have a think about it, the better it gets!
The trigger design could be improved by way of an independent sear and the trigger-guard made thicker and sculpted as it would no longer be employed as a spring.
I'd also angle and re-style the grip, although it does need to be relatively upright to perform its arc-forming cocking stroke. Similar in orientation to the grip- cocking designs mentioned in previous posts.

Back to what it is though, being the theme of this thread discussion- not how it could be 'developed'!...

You mention John, the possibility that the inscription could be faked in order to confer enhanced value.
In the absence of documentation this has to be considered.
The faker is putting it out there to challenge the records the motive being profiteering, mischief-making, or both.
Enhanced value would be maximised by using illustrious names such as Westley Richards, Cogswell and Harrison and Greener. I use these examples as being widely known makers of good shotguns who have had minor and short-lived but eclectic, high-end dabblings with airguns.
A speculator at auction or wherever, not expert in either field would nonetheless know these makers and may feel comfortable in paying more.
Would greater value be conferred by Frank Clarke, BSA, LJ et al?...
Am I correct in believing that BSA made some weird and wonderful prototypes, or pieces that are widely acknowledged to be from the factory and left them un-marked? as did Webbo?...would they annoint some prototypes and not others? An unanswerable question...Maybe workers would nab a prototype and stamp it at home in which case it would be the real deal but not 'sanctioned' by their employers.
Was it standard factory practice to have their identity on tested products destined for market only, not something under test that may or had failed?
Would prototypes be made with the intention of destroying them or putting them un-marked in a locked room if they did not make the grade- maybe unearthed years later to be sold, as Webley did back-along

Steve said:

I struggle to think a company like BSA could prototype an air pistol and there be no surviving written record at all, although of course you could never be sure. The fact that none of the design innovations appear on other bsas might also be a point against.

If it was suggested that a BSA designer or engineer produced something as a personal project, and perhaps marked it with the company logo almost tongue in cheek, that might be more possible?

If it is right though that the markings are a little unprofessional, can we revisit if we are sure beyond doubt it is British? They make all sorts of funny firearms in India, for example, or so I am told.

John replied:

Thanks for your thoughts. All valid points. These are my thoughts:

1. The question of 'surviving records' is one that often crops up. In my experience, the smaller companies, like Frank Clarke, Edwin Anson, Lincoln Jeffries, etc. never have any surviving official company records, and we always have to rely on anecdotal information from former employees, or patents, to be aware of any workshop experimental prototypes that never made it into production. The larger companies, like BSA and Webley did keep more formal records, but again these were either records of Board Meetings etc., or records for development and manufacture of guns that were already in production, or intended for production.
By way of example, there are no known official records of the Webley Whiting pistol, yet a prototype has survived and we only know its identity from Whiting's 1910 patent. There are no reported BSA company records for the experimental George Norman air pistol, yet we know it existed from its 1910 patent. We know from an ex-employee that Greener made around 50 examples of a backstrap air pistol around 1908, but there are no company records or patents.

While John Knibbs may have extensive BSA records of production and pre-production air rifles, I doubt there are any surviving records of workshop experimental designs, as these probably did not much further than being written up in workshop notebooks. So in my opinion, the lack of company records for a specific prototype is not good evidence that it was not made by that company.

2. I am convinced that the pistol was made in Britain for the following reasons: (a) its appearance is typical of British designs of the period - where cosmetic appeal is sacrificed in favour of efficiency. (b) The pistol was discovered in this country and appeared to have not been fired for a very, very long time. (c) The cylinder OD is imperial ( 1.00 inches); (c) the two grip screws that hold the whole thing together are 3BA.

3. I agree, the fixing of the sprung trigger guard to the sear is a safety issue. I think that this design feature was most likely introduced as it was the only way you could fix the trigger guard in place. (This not a problem when the trigger guard is the cocking lever). Despite its safety issue, it is a clever solution to a design problem.

It also struck me that the whole pistol was overthought, and then I remembered someone else who had overthought an air pistol. None other than George Norman, chief designer for BSA in ca. 1910 -1930. His was the first British design for a concentric barrel air pistol (even pre-dating Edwin Anson by several years), which was patented in 1910. This pistol was full of innovative ideas, like a concentric barrel, sliding cylinder, grip cocking using a steel ribbon round a drum to replace a cocking lever. So innovative in fact that it could never have been a commercial success. It is interesting to compare the Norman pistol with the mystery pistol:

Guy said:

John--how is the body of the breech set up held onto the cylinder? Is it and the outside of the cylinder threaded or is it silver soldered or something else?

How old do you think the gun is?

Do you think it has been made from scratch or some bits modified from an existing gun?

I was looking at the piston and wondered if that came out of a conventional pistol and then it was reversed so the sear hole was at the front--------and a threaded insert made for the piston head-------------with the original head (which would be at the back now, cut off). I dont know of any guns with a piston like that in a small diameter. You mentioned a bore of about 22mm. I think that is just a fraction bigger than a Webley Junior / Diana 22 rifle.
I also wondered if the housing containing the detant was originally a breech block
There are some very nice touches with the gun and it does look like somebody put a lot of thought into it.

What are the dimensions / weight of the gun?
Thanks 

John replied:

1. I am pretty sure it dates to the mid-late 1920's, just possibly into the 1930's. I base this on the patina, the type of bluing where it has survived, which is of the rust bluing type typically found on guns like the Highest Possible, Titans, Certus, Parker etc. of the period. Also I think that the gun would have been made shortly after the concentric Highest Possible and Tell 2 were patented in 1922 and 1925 respectively, and was probably inspired by one or both of these.

2. Definitely not made up from parts of other guns. To get this gun to assemble and disassemble so easily, and to function flawlessly, must have taken a lot of design refinement, and to find bits of other guns that would fit together so perfectly would be a miracle.

3.The piston looks much better made (and thicker walled ) than most pistons I have seen, and I do not think it was an adaptation. I think the threaded piston head may have been introduced for experimental purposes, as it would make it very simple to make and try out different types of head/seal arrangements while keeping the same piston body.

4. The housing containing the detent is simplicity personified - just a drilled and milled block of steel. There would be no need to adapt a breech block from some other gun.

5. The gun is 220mm long, barrel 190 mm, and weight 963 grams (very similar to the Webley Senior).

6. The breech housing is a separate annular steel piece that is fitted over the cylinder and appears to be very neatly brazed in place. (I think I can just make out a brass layer).

John added:

I have been giving more thought about who, in the 1920-30’s period was best placed to come up with the design of this mystery pistol. If you think about it, only two gunmakers in the UK up to the outbreak of World War 2 had ever considered a concentric pistol design: George Norman at BSA and Edwin Anson. Similarly, only three gunmakers in the UK had ever favoured a cocking method based on a hinged grip - George Norman, Edwin Anson and Lincoln Jeffries. So up pops a pistol from the pre-war period, incorporating both of these features, plus some ingenious new design concepts, very professionally made, and perhaps dubiously marked as made by BSA. We can discount Lincoln Jeffries, as he was an avid patenter, and would have certainly have patented this design if it had been his. I know I am biased and would love it to be a BSA prototype, but I can’t help thinking that the balance of probabilities are with it being BSA in origin.