“Missing Fire”: Eley and the Growing Pains of British Breechloaders

A gun fires twenty cartridges without a problem, then misfires on the twenty-first. Most sportsmen would probably suspect something was wrong with that particular cartridge. Eley Brothers, however, argued that the problem might have been with the gun all along. The previous cartridges could have fired despite receiving weak blows from the hammer, with a slight variation in the next cartridge finally causing a misfire.

Problems like this were familiar to British sportsmen during the early years of breechloading. In my earlier article, The Birth of British Pinfire, I examined Eley’s entry into the British pinfire market and the complaints that followed. Correspondence published in The Field described sticking and bursting cartridge cases, misfires, and disagreements over whether British or French ammunition was more reliable.

Eley was still addressing many of these same problems years later. A surviving instruction sheet from the company explains some of the difficulties encountered with both pinfire and central-fire guns, along with Eley’s advice on what was causing them.

Getting a Gas-Tight Cartridge to Fire

Eley’s pinfire instructions begin with a warning that Gas-Tight cartridges should only be used in guns with strong locks and hammers capable of delivering a “long, lively blow upon the pin.”

To prevent gas from escaping, the pin was fitted tightly through the metal and paper packing of the cartridge case. This created additional resistance, requiring a stronger hammer blow to drive the pin against the internal percussion cap. A gun that worked perfectly well with ordinary pinfire cartridges might therefore have trouble igniting the Gas-Tight variety.

The fit of the cartridge in the gun could cause further problems. Eley warned that an opening too small for the projecting pin could grip it “as by a vice,” while a short hammer might strike the side of the pin rather than its end, bending it and reducing the force reaching the cap. The company recommended hammers of sufficient length and strength, specifying a pull of at least 14 pounds.

Inside each pinfire cartridge was a small percussion cap that had to be struck by the pin to ignite the powder charge. Eley manufactured caps specifically for this purpose, including the large waterproof percussion caps preserved in the original tins shown here, labeled “For Breech-Loading Pin Cases.”

When the Metal Base Burst

The lower half of the pinfire notice deals with another problem Eley customers encountered: “Bursting the Metal Base of the Cartridge at the Edge.”

Eley blamed this on chambers that were too large or guns that had become loose at the hinge or locking mechanism. An oversized chamber could allow the metal base of the cartridge to expand beyond what it could withstand. Similarly, a gun might appear to close properly but still allow the barrels to move slightly away from the breech when fired, leaving the cartridge head without enough support.

A sportsman finding a burst cartridge case might naturally blame the ammunition. Eley pointed out that the problem could actually lie with the gun, even when there was no obvious sign of anything wrong with its action.

Central-Fire Wasn’t Always an Improvement

On the other side of the instruction sheet, Eley addressed a complaint that might seem surprising today. Some sportsmen who had switched from pinfire to central-fire guns were finding that their new cartridges misfired more frequently than the pinfire cartridges they had used before. Central-fire is generally regarded as an improvement over pinfire, particularly because it eliminated the projecting pin, but the change did not always bring the improvement in reliability that shooters expected.

Eley attributed these problems largely to the construction of the gun, particularly the striker that transmitted the hammer’s blow to the percussion cap. Strikers could be too short, too sharp, too blunt, or unable to move freely enough to deliver a proper blow. Rebounding locks presented another difficulty. Their mechanisms could begin checking the hammer’s movement before it had struck the cap with sufficient force, resulting in a misfire.

The company also defended the sensitivity of its percussion caps. Making a cap respond to an extremely light blow increased the risk of accidental ignition when loading or closing the gun. Eley maintained that its cartridges were already as sensitive as safety permitted and claimed that a properly constructed gun should fire 5,000 rounds without a single misfire.

The Products Behind the Instructions

Eley’s surviving invoices show the variety of ammunition the company was supplying during this period, including pinfire and central-fire cartridges that continued to be sold alongside one another.

An invoice from 1875 records an order for 12-bore “Gastight” central-fire cartridges, blue central-fire cartridges, percussion caps, and brown central-fire cartridge cases. The printed letterhead advertises waterproof breechloading cartridge cases and loaded cartridges in both pinfire and central-fire configurations, along with ammunition for military rifles and revolvers.

Two invoices from 1885, both addressed to J. Elsley of Alcester, Warwickshire, show the continued purchase of pinfire and central-fire ammunition by the same customer. One lists cartridge cases for both systems in 12-bore and 16-bore sizes. The other includes several varieties of central-fire cartridges alongside 200 brown 12-bore pinfire cartridges.

These separate orders from the same customer show that pinfire and central-fire were still being purchased together more than twenty years after Eley entered the British pinfire market. Both systems remained part of the company’s regular trade, and Eley continued to provide guidance on the mechanical problems customers might encounter with either type of ammunition.

Explaining Failure, Defending the Product

Eley naturally had an interest in defending its ammunition. Throughout the notice, the company pointed to problems with the guns themselves, whether weak hammers, poorly made strikers, worn hinges, or chambers that were too large. It also acknowledged that cartridges manufactured by the million would inevitably have small variations, and argued that a properly made gun should be able to accommodate them.

This was the point behind Eley’s example of the twenty-first cartridge failing after twenty successful shots. The company also explained that an insufficient first strike could disturb the priming composition, leaving a cap that appeared empty when examined afterward. Even identifying the cause of a misfire could become a source of disagreement between the gunmaker and ammunition manufacturer.

As breechloaders became more common, sportsmen had to contend with problems involving both the guns and their ammunition. Even central-fire, which would eventually replace pinfire in most applications, brought its own complaints about reliability. For someone whose pinfire gun had served him well, purchasing a newer central-fire gun did not necessarily mean an end to misfires.