The Birth of British Pinfire: Eley’s Entry into Breechloading Cartridges

Throughout the 1850s, a steadfast devotion to muzzleloading guns defined the British shooting world. Many sportsmen took pride in ramrods, paper wads, and the careful loading rituals they had practiced for generations, viewing the breechloader as a fleeting Continental curiosity. Lefaucheux’s pinfire system was especially scorned, with skeptics deriding it as “the French crutch gun.” Although some recognized the advantages of quicker reloading and the avoidance of stray powder spills, the idea of turning British sporting traditions upside down for a new invention provoked as much suspicion as enthusiasm.

Even so, a few forward-thinking gunmakers in Britain were quietly adopting breechloaders, banking on improved reliability and the promise of faster shooting. The real question became whether homegrown British ammunition could match or surpass the performance of the established French pinfire cartridges, which were already circulating among sportsmen who had traveled abroad. It was in this swirl of debate and apprehension that Eley Brothers stepped forward with their own venture into breechloading cartridges.

Eley Brothers’ Early Advertisements and Quiet Progress

Hints of Eley’s plan surfaced in The Field of 22 November 1856, where a brief advertisement for “ELEY’S SPORTING AMMUNITION” listed “Cartridges for Needle-Rifles, Breech-loading Guns, &c.” Although the text was short, its mere presence signaled that Eley was interested in supporting breechloading systems at a time when many Britons still dismissed them. A more explicit notice appeared in The Field of 6 February 1858, announcing that Eley now offered breechloading cartridge cases “of precisely the same sizes as the French, and of a superior quality.” Eley took the unusual step of stressing that “All cases [are] stamped on the head, ELEY BROTHERS, London” underscoring both product identification and a bid to stand out from Continental imports.

Such advertising did not immediately settle the debate over whether British cartridges could truly rival French ones. Many sportsmen who tried Eley’s early products complained about stuck cases, splitting seams, and unreliable fits in the barrel. The cost of three pounds per thousand seemed steep if the shooter had to wrestle with a ramrod after the first discharge. Nevertheless, some reported better success if the gun’s chamber dimensions matched the cartridge perfectly and if they carefully avoided moisture, which tended to soften the paper walls. Discussions in The Field repeatedly compared Eley’s “red” cartridges to the iconic green cartridges of Fabrique Gevelot, a leading French manufacturer whose products were admired for their reliable fit and consistent ignition.

Some surviving Eley cartridges exhibit reddish-orange hues, leading to speculation about whether they could be related to the “red” cartridges mentioned in period letters. While their exact connection remains uncertain, these cartridges are among the earliest styles associated with Eley and are exceptionally rare, found in only a few collections—including the author’s.

Turbulent Debates in The Field: 1858–1860

By the late 1850s, The Field newspaper had become the de facto arena for British sportsmen to air their opinions on the emerging breechloading systems—and Eley Brothers’ cartridges quickly moved to the center of the conversation. Letters in 1858 offer some of the earliest glimpses into the frustration felt by those who adopted British-made pinfire cases, only to discover they did not always live up to the promise of Continental reliability. Some readers were cautiously optimistic about domestic cartridges, while others expressed outright indignation at perceived manufacturing flaws.

One of the earliest extended criticisms appeared on 27 November 1858, penned by a correspondent signing himself “SAMOTH.” He recounted a vexing experience on a traditional British driven shoot, where beaters drove game toward his position, writing:

“Now only the other day I was placed in a rack in a wood which was being driven towards me, I fired one shot, and then placed a cartridge in the barrel… it stuck so fast that I could neither push it in or draw it out, though I had an instrument made of buffalo horn for pulling out the cases, which I broke in trying to withdraw this particularly tight cartridge.”

Such mishaps, he warned, might scare away otherwise enthusiastic sportsmen from adopting the new breechloading technology altogether. He further condemned the “paper not nearly so stiff as the French,” comparing Eley’s product unfavorably to the more rigid French shells that “always slipped in and out with the greatest ease.” SAMOTH concluded that unless English makers improved their fit and materials, importing cartridges directly from France might be the only viable option for British gunners. These remarks foreshadowed the common refrain that Eley’s cases too often stuck, burst, or otherwise disappointed, while the French-made green cases offered a seemingly simpler experience.

A flurry of similar accounts appeared over the next year, though not everyone agreed about the precise cause of these failures. Some insisted that mismatch between gun chambers and case dimensions was the main culprit, while others insisted that British paper quality lagged behind French standards. Although numerous gunsmiths—Lang, Blanch, Reilly, and others—were building breechloaders of respectable quality, the question remained: should one rely on local cartridge suppliers such as Eley, or pay to import the French products that so many travellers praised?

By 1859 and early 1860, The Field’s letters section bristled with further anecdotal evidence. Some sportsmen posted success stories, while others reinforced tales of sticking, bursting, and misfiring. The name “Eley” appeared consistently, for better or worse, attached to the red-labeled cartridges the company was marketing.

The situation escalated in the autumn of 1860, marked by a growing number of discussions around the topic of reloading cartridges for multiple uses. On 27 October 1860, “Glen Esc” (Derby) recounted his first season using Eley’s red cartridges. He praised them for being “warranted not to burst and to refill,” and found 90% indeed survived first firing intact. However, a large portion “stuck so fast to the barrel, owing to the composition on them becoming soft with the heat” when reused, forcing him to resort to a ramrod. Worse yet, “many of the brass pins bend nearly flat on being struck a second time with the hammer,” sometimes rendering the extractor useless. The Field’s editorial comment that day was blunt: “We believe that sportsmen must give up all idea of refilling their cartridges at present.”

A contrasting account appeared a week later, on 3 November 1860, from “Holly-Bush.” He claimed to have “repeatedly filled the cartridges three times over,” including some stamped with Boss’s name, without undue sticking or bent pins. Another sportsman chimed in that he had tested certain Paris-made cartridges from “Fabrique Gevelot” after reloading them three or four times, apparently with minimal trouble. “I inclose a new cartridge, and one I have used twice, and which I intend to use again,” he wrote to The Field, urging the editors to inspect it for signs of undue residue or tearing. Yet, true to the unpredictable nature of these debates, an editorial note pointed out that the sample cartridge looked suspiciously clean, almost as though it had not been fired with a normal powder charge.

Alongside these debates over refill feasibility, new complaints arose about misfires. On 3 November 1860, “H.T.” (Dumfries) revealed that “at least three in every 100 of Eley’s red cartridges miss fire at the first time of filling,” attributing these failures to missing caps, pins that caught the cap’s edge, or absent tinfoil covers that left the composition vulnerable to dampness. His frustration contrasted with his experience of never seeing a French-made cartridge misfire, and he urged Eley Brothers “to be careful, for their own sakes,” to rectify these manufacturing oversights.

By December 1860, the debate was aflame, and more voices joined in with strong opinions on British vs. French cartridges. “A Disappointed Sportsman of the Old School” wrote of paying 15 shillings per hundred for Eley cartridges from Mr. Daw, only to suffer 12 misfires in the first 68 shots—including 5 out of 22 on a single day. Furious, he turned to Gevelot’s green cartridges, which cost only 6 shillings 6 pence per hundred. Though these were “not so bad as Eley’s,” they still fell short of his ideal standard, prompting him to try filling the French cases himself “hoping for better things.” The stark price difference fueled controversy: for many, Eley’s higher cost could only be justified if the product consistently performed well, yet multiple letters showed that could not always be expected.

Such complaints were not universal. On 1 December 1860, “W.A. Adams” (Elmley Lodge) wrote of “only one misfire in an entire season of heavy shooting” using Eley’s No. 12 breechloading cartridges. He believed the secret was matching the gun’s chamber carefully, carrying the loaded shells in a reversible leather carrier, and transferring only small batches of cartridges from the case to one’s pocket in wet weather. Similar sentiments appeared from another sportsman who claimed to have used Eley’s cartridges for two seasons with no more than a single misfire—this in sharp contrast to correspondents like “H.T.” or “A Disappointed Sportsman.”

Discussions of safety also peppered the letters. “N.” reported that his keeper had dropped a loaded cartridge “a mere three and a half feet onto a stone,” causing it to explode at their feet, though fortunately without injury. Another writer, “Random,” offered tips for removing stuck cartridges (or “stickers”) by dropping a lead plug down the barrel, while “Higford Burr” suggested a simple three-ounce lead cylinder. The repeated mention of improvised extraction tools highlighted a pervasive worry that breechloading cartridges, especially if reused or stored improperly, had a troublesome tendency to swell in the chamber.

Some letters questioned whether the universal assumption that “French is always better” might be overblown. Certain shooters encountered occasional hang-fires or difficulty reloading Gevelot’s green shells, while others discovered that “the pins bend just as well on French-made cartridges if hammered too severely.” Yet a consistent refrain by late 1860 was that France had an edge in manufacturing precision, and Eley’s red cartridges came under intense scrutiny for occasional absent caps, malformed pins, or easily torn paper.

By the end of 1860, The Field’s pages brimmed with letters about pinfire reliability. Its editors tried to balance the dialogue, observing, “We should be glad to record the experience of our readers for the general good.” They also reminded sportsmen that breechloading remained a novel system in Britain—“great care [is] required in having [cartridges] to fit the gun,” they wrote—implying that brand choice alone could not guarantee success if chamber geometry proved incompatible or the user was inattentive.

Amid these heated debates, a few writers heralded the breechloader as “the future” of shooting. One self-described “Soldier” remarked in December 1858 that he would “rather give up shooting altogether” than revert to the muzzleloader, calling it an “old slow coach.” He proudly recounted how his breechloader had killed “about seven times as much” game as a friend’s muzzleloader, attributing the difference mostly to the speed of reloading. Such optimism, though, coexisted with the ongoing reliability complaints, painting a portrait of a British shooting culture at a crossroads—and reflecting how pinfire cartridges, especially Eley’s red shells, found themselves under unrelenting public scrutiny.

Technical Refinements and Published Instructions

Confronted by intensifying debate, Eley Brothers took an unprecedented step in January 1861 by publishing “Directions for Using Eley’s Breech-Loading Cartridge Cases” in The Field. This lengthy, illustrated guide explained why the cartridge should fit flush in the chamber, how to avoid bending the pin by inserting the cartridge at a slight slant, and the necessity of keeping everything dry. Eley’s instructions suggested that many so-called cartridge defects stemmed from mismatched barrels, misaligned pin holes, or improper seating techniques.

While education was part of the solution, Eley also pursued design upgrades. In April 1861, William Thomas Eley patented a more robust pinfire cartridge, strengthening the case walls and improving the seal around the percussion cap.

The newly introduced variant, stamped with an “1861” date, typically bore a brownish hue rather than the earlier orange or red. Surviving examples in some advanced collections show these improved brown cartridges side by side with the earlier versions, revealing noticeably thicker construction.

Shooters began reporting fewer splits and misfires, especially when the cartridges were used just once and then discarded. Although reloading attempts still posed challenges, Eley’s modifications appear to have resolved many of the persistent complaints about fragile construction. This incremental improvement, driven by the very public criticism in The Field, demonstrates how swiftly a manufacturer could adapt in response to widespread user feedback.

These changes also highlight the role of synergy between gunmakers, ammunition producers, and vocal sportsmen. Some breechloader designs, such as Needham or Boss, seemed naturally better aligned with Eley’s refined cartridges. Others struggled until owners had gunsmiths adjust the chamber depth or pin alignment to accommodate Eley’s recommended tolerances. Enthusiasts who took the time to test, measure, and even lightly grease or warm their cartridges often experienced the best results.

Today’s collectors can vividly trace the evolution of British pinfire by comparing original copies of The Field—which preserved every heated debate and new advertisement—with the cartridges themselves. Eley’s orange-red shells, transitional brown “1861” versions, and green Gevelot rounds provide a hands-on record of how user feedback and steady refinement drove British ammunition from initial skepticism to growing acceptance. Even minor shifts in pin alignment, paper color, or headstamps can reveal exactly where a design excelled—or fell short—in the eyes of 19th-century sportsmen.

Seeing these cartridges alongside surviving patent documents and period ads makes the story come alive. Each stamped head and colored case tells how Eley tackled technical challenges, responded to public outcry, and edged closer to overtaking the French imports. For collectors today, these artifacts are more than curiosities; they are tangible evidence of the process by which breechloading’s early fits and starts finally gave way to a new norm in British shooting.

Citations for The Field (1856–1861)

1. 22 November 1856:
   • Advertisement for “ELEY’S SPORTING AMMUNITION” listing “Cartridges for Needle-Rifles, Breech-loading Guns, &c.”​
2. 6 February 1858:
   • Advertisement announcing that Eley Brothers offered breechloading cartridge cases “of precisely the same sizes as the French, and of a superior quality,” stamped with “ELEY BROTHERS, London”​
3. 4 September 1858:
   • Discussion on metal cartridge cases and their drawbacks, such as sticking in the chamber due to metal expansion. A suggestion was made for using steel, although challenges with the cap and pin introduction persisted​
4. 27 November 1858:
   • Letter by “SAMOTH” describing discrepancies between English and French cartridges, with English cases being less stiff and prone to sticking. This issue, coupled with the higher price of English cartridges, was highlighted as a deterrent for sportsmen adopting breech-loaders​
5. 4 December 1858:
   • Mention of French cases as still being considered the best, with Eley improving in quality. The Field also references a method by Messrs Trulock and Harris of Dublin as the most effective for loading cartridges​
6. 11 December 1858:
   • A letter from “A SOLDIER,” passionately advocating for breech-loaders over muzzle-loaders, citing their undeniable superiority on the field and recounting an anecdote of outshooting others during a game drive​
7. 27 October 1860:
   • “Glen Esc” reports his first season using Eley’s red cartridges, highlighting issues with sticking and bent pins, as well as his advocacy for single-use cartridges​
8. 3 November 1860:
   • Various correspondents, including “Holly-Bush” and “H.T.,” discuss their experiences refilling cartridges, comparing Eley’s red cartridges with French ones​
9. 17 November 1860:
   • Criticisms about Eley’s cartridges sticking in the chamber, with suggestions for greasing the cases or using alternative designs​
10. 1 December 1860:
    • Contrasting views from W.A. Adams, who praises Eley’s No. 12 cartridges, and “A Disappointed Sportsman,” who reports multiple misfires and prefers French cases​
11. 29 December 1860:
    • “Higford Burr” and “Random” offer practical solutions for extracting stuck cartridges, while others note safety concerns with accidental explosions​
12. 5 January 1861:
    • Detailed “Directions for Using Eley’s Breech-Loading Cartridge Cases,” explaining fit, pin alignment, and moisture management​
13. 2 February 1861:
    • “Knickerbocker” proposes a new glue-sealing method for cartridges, and “Cosmos” speculates about French military adoption of Lefaucheux revolvers​