Continued and close
Some years later, a best H&H 10-bore was mentioned in the catalogue of this same auction house. As this gun was next in serial number to my other 10-bore, yet completely different, I had to have it, after all, I already had the double page in the Number Book … (well, if that’s not a good excuse, what is ?)
Although a ‘best gun’, it’s not a ‘Royal’, this designation being reserved to toplever side-locks.
As for shooting, I do not intend to use my Paradox guns for hunting. Yet, as with all my ‘oldies’, I want to try them out. As Graeme Wright explains so well in chapter 14 of his book
Shooting the British Double Rifle. A Modern Guide for Load Development and Use. 3rd edn Kenmore East, Australia, a Paradox is rather particular in its ammo. For those who want to seriously shoot with Paradox guns and the like, this book, and in particular chapter 14 should be mandatory lecture (NB: as from 2nd edition). Graeme, based on his own tests and those of friends, suggests bullets of bore size or .0005 - .001” (0,0127 – 0,0254 mm) under (for the 12-bore). After measuring the bores of my 10 and 12-bores with a three-point digital micro-meter, I had bore-size bullet moulds made by CastBulletEngineering in Australia based on the drawings in Graeme Wright’s book. H&H advised 15 to 1 parts of lead and tin for the bullets, that “MUST be passed through the regulator before being used”. Bullets in Paradox guns not meeting any serious friction till the end of the barrel, I don’t know if the ‘bumping up’ effect makes the bullets swell in the smooth bore part of the barrel.
After I had acquired my first 10-bore, I was offered by the maker of a brand-new Paradox 10-bore (it bears the H&H name, but was made by another gunmaker …) a set of repro 10-bore loading tools of which he had had made an extra set. This new 10-bore was to shoot plastic shells, of which he sent me dozen (empty). Unfortunately, the bullet mould is quite a bit undersized, as was the sizing die. By a Dutch firm I had made several sizing dies via the spark erosion process that I use in the repro sizing-press.
According to Graeme Wright, the present BP is of a lesser quality than the British BP at the end of the BP era, with Swiss now the best alternative. If so, Swiss it is at any case a lot less ‘dirty’ than modern French BP.
I have great fun in shooting running wild boar (card-board on rails) with my 1910 12-bore Paradox and other DB-rifles, from Purdey 16-bore front-loader with 1½ dr BP, 40-bore 2-groove, 34-bore pinfire, 43-bore Express, up to some 12-bores of other makers with 4 drs of BP, not to mention a couple of ‘cape-guns/rifles’. And although I have shot clays with both the 10-bore Paradox (with 13 lb quite a swing-through …) with the recommended relatively light load of 4 drs BP (Swiss no. 3) and 1½ oz of no. 8 shot, I still must try out ball. In spite of Graeme Wright’s instructions, I did not succeed in turning-over the plastic shells with an electric drill. Instead, I made my own turn-over tool, based on the patent drawing for one of the first turn-over tools (the wooden bloc in one of the pics; there is room for a 12 and a 16-bore). When burning BP, a tight fixation of the bullet is not necessary.
The -plastic- 10-bore cartridges are ready, but having shoulder problems after a skiing accident, I’m not looking forward to the recoil of the recommended 8 drs BP load.
Already having one of the last 12-bores made (1910), I couldn’t resist buying a very early (1886/1887) First Model Royal 12-bore when this was auctioned in Austria some months ago. This one is still based on the action of a 12-bore shotgun, with Damascus barrels.
This early 12-bore at only just over 7 lb feels and handles as a shotgun, and in fact, the early Paradox were based on shotgun actions. The charge was only 3 (!) drs of BP. The 1910 has a much stronger action and is with 8.43 lb slightly heavier. The charge was 30 gn of ‘Revolver Cordite’ (no BP equivalent given).
Unfortunately, I have no provenance for this gun … yet. In the past I had a very good contact at H&H, but of late, this firm doesn’t even answer requests for provenance. So disappointing! Yet I’ll try again for this ‘gufle’ (and once more for a DB .577 …)
I have attached a pic of the action bodies of the 1886/1887 and the 1910 version.
Some quotes on Paradox from my 3 GB document with notes of all gun-books read:
“
In fairness to other inventors and gunmakers, it should be noted that there was nothing new in the idea of partially rifling a barrel. There are guns by Joe Manton that exhibit this feature dating from the beginning of the 19th century, and (…) idea probably much older than that.” [BAKER, David J. : Heyday of the Shotgun ; The art of the gunmaker at the turn of the last century, Swanhill Press, Shrewbury UK, 2000]
Some Paradox-copier gunmakers after expiration of the patent: Andrews (no name known to me), Moore & Grey (‘Anomaly’), Bland (‘Euoplia’), Bonehill (no name known to me), Tolley (‘Ubique’), Cogswell & Harrison (‘Cosmos’), Lang (‘Afrinda’), Army & Navy (‘Jungle’), Jeffery (‘Shikary’), Westley Richards (Explora, Fauneta)
Lancaster came with his oval-bore alternative ‘Contender’, and Greener (1889 patent) tried barrels with the first part rifled and the muzzle part smooth, which was no success.
Even Winchester had their ‘me too’: “
A few model ’87 shotguns were made using ratchet rifling only near the muzzle of the barrel. Recoil was so severe that the idea was discarded.” [MADIS, George : The Winchester Book, Dallas, Texas, 1961]
Purdey, although having taken out a provisional patent # 2952 in 1871* for a sort of rifled choke, never bothered with Paradox-like guns. If a sportsman wanted to have both, rifle and smooth, he could order a set of rifle-barrels for his gun (or vice versa).
(* “
The object was to obtain a higher velocity of a bullet with less fouling and less stripping. In the invention, a rifle barrel was smooth bore for about ¾ of it-s length. In the last six inches or so a rifled tube was inserted.” [DALLAS, Donald : PURDEY Gun & Rifle Makers ; The definitive history (Quiller Press Shrewsbury, 2009]
View attachment 578425View attachment 578427
The end
