.455


#1

At the moment I see a lot of ELEY head stamps passing by.

It would bi kind if somebody could tell me the difference between ELEY and ELEY’S


Thanks in advance.

Dutch


#2

No difference in my opinion. Except perhaps the slightly sneaky implication that Eley “own” the calibre. Which might be the case because I am not entirely convinced that is an Eley headstamp but others will know much better than me.

I have said before, within the British Gun trade there has always been a grammatically incorrect tendancy to add an “s” to the end of names. So Thos Bland & Co would become Blands. As in “I got it from Blands”.

Perhaps this may be another manifestation of the same thing. Certainly I still hear Eley referred to as Eleys as in “Eleys used to make them…”

Quirk of the British vernacular.


#3

Since the name is up anyway, how do you pronounce Eley? “Eelai”?
Soren


#4

Vince - I don’t think this is a “quirk of the British vernacular” as the habit seems to cross a variety of calibers, including .450. The headstamp obviously went from “ELEY” to “ELEY’S” and then back to “ELEY”. I have a .450 which has a space in the headstamp where the aprostrophe-S has been removed from the bunter. I would attribute the use of the “ELEY’S” headstamp to the 1910-1920 period but cannot be sure as all I have to go on is load introduction - and it might vary from caliber to caliber. British companies did not do things for no reason and I suspect it might be as simple as a new manager coming in and trying to make his mark by decreeing that all headstamps now read “ELEY’S”. Having worked for their successor companies (C-I-L / ICI), I can attest to this common phenomenon !! This is pure conjecture as I have seen nothing in any official records that supports it though someone researching other calibers might have found something.

Soren: EE LEE !!


#5

Ok, thanks, eelee it is :-)
Soren


#6

I have a number of these ELEY’S headstamps:
ELEY’S .455
ELEY’S . 455 .
ELEY’S . .32 W .
ELEY’S . 6.5 M/M .
ELEY’S 450/400.NITRO.
ELEY’S NITRO . 450 .
The Eley needle gun cartridges also used the apostrophe on the labels on the bases of the cartridges.

Kynoch used the apostrophe, as well. I have the following:
KYNOCH’S 400 BORE .
KYNOCH’S No 2 MUSKET
Shotgun Shells:
KYNOCH’S PAT No12 No2090 GROUSE EJECTOR
KYNOCH’S No 10 PATENT
KYNOCH’S No 12 PATENT
KYNOCH’S No 16 PATENT W.BITTER.COELN.
KYNOCH’S PATENT No 12 No 2090 GROUSE CARTRIDGE
KYNOCH’S PATENT No 12 No EXPERT SHELL SQUIRES.N.Y.
The shotgun shells are all making reference to a patent, so the possessive ‘Kynoch’s’ is appropriate.


#7

Of the 12 ELEY and 15 KYNOCH cartidges in front of me, none are “possessive”. All just ELEY or KYNOCH. Only oddballs of the lot are an an ELEY . LONDON . 577.(pistol) an [i]. ELEY LONDON . .450 /i and 3 ELEY BROs. in .450 pistol( no cal. marking)

On the ELEY front: .577, .577/450, .450 rifle, .450 pistol(X5), .380L, .350 No. 5, .320, and a .295

Kynoch: 577/450, 475 No. 2 NITRO,.30-30, 300 MAGNUM, 7MM and 6.5MM rifle, then a .450, .45A.C., .38 S&W, .380, .32, .310 C.K., .310 and then two marked ADAPTOR (.30 measured)


#8

And Kynoch have also the same shells with no "s"
Therefore:
1)either you do not have a possessive anymore,
2)either the Brits have lost their gramary rules at the beginning of the last century within a few years
3)either the “S” was not a possessive
4) either the “S” was a possesive but a more important fact needed to drop the grammatical rue

About me I prefer the option 4)
They deliberately change the hstp:

  1. Either because of a manager change as said Chris, but I don’t think so because people were a lot more serious as nowadays and this would imply to change the factory drawings which were hand made in these days, therefore a lot of work
  2. either to recognize the old ctges versus the new ones

JP


#9

JP:

[quote]1) Either because of a manager change as said Chris, but I don’t think so because people were a lot more serious as nowadays and this would imply to change the factory drawings which were hand made in these days, therefore a lot of work
[/quote]

I agree that I have no evidence that it was a new manager’s decision. ICI was notorious for a new general manager making serious “cosmetic” changes that required thousands of hours of work. They would often change the ICI logo which meant changing all letterhead, forms, product labels, advertising etc , just so that the new manager could be seen to be making changes. The company issued 6x 3-inch binders on how to use the ICI logo to every manager. Obviously we are talking Eley and not ICI here but I suspect that the ICI habit was inherited from the company’s predecessors. We may never know why they changed or what rationale was used !!!


#10

Hi Chris !
Because you perfectly know 450 ctges, could you please check if there is not a difference in case dimensions, or powder loading, or bullet design beetween the “s” and “non s” ctges ?

JP
PS: Did you know that the Micheline ctges have also been manufactured by Leon Beaux ???


#11

Hi JP,

I have done an extensive analysis of the .450s and there is no difference in dimensions, bullet weight, powder type, or primer. It appears to be an evolutionary change to the headstamp only. My analysis has been restricted to .450 and I would not say that I know them “perfectly”.

I was not aware that LBC made the Michelin blanks though I do have one on a REM-UMC case !?!? What is headstamp on the the LBC ones ?


#12

[quote=“ChrisP”]Hi JP,

I was not aware that LBC made the Michelin blanks though I do have one on a REM-UMC case !?!? What is headstamp on the the LBC ones ?[/quote]

No idea. (I think it must have the same hstp as a 450 from LB)
It appears in a 1938 Price list.
2 different kinds : regular loading and double charge

JP