all you wanted to know about different break action shotgun action types
- Thread starter catnthehatt
- Start date
Damn John. I'll go with the excuse that I'd just driven 1800 kms. I was looking at the groove/lip at the bottom of the barrels as I was typing that earlier comment thinking "That's weird" but my tired brain didn't put it together. Cool!
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
Replaying in your mind sharptails falling from the sky and woodcock delivered to hand has got to be a distraction, James.
Have a Daw action gun previously discussed in this thread so will post pics when she comes back from the smith.
Have a Daw action gun previously discussed in this thread so will post pics when she comes back from the smith.
Strangely enough it would seem, Baikal single shot still uses the finger lever like the Manufrance has there. It is very natural to use. I have an H&H Rook rifle with the side lever, probably my favorite style. I'd take either over a top lever any day.
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
"Powell's Patent Snap Action"
This action is operated by thumb lever on top strap. Barrels are opened by pushing the lever upward, withdrawing a bolt in the breech-face. Wm. Powell's UK patent #1163 of 1864 was first incorporated in pinfires although centerfires followed in 1867. This is a true snap action meaning the barrels may be closed (with a beautiful "click" sound) with little effort and without operating a lever. This gun was made in 1874 and operating the lift latch also withdraws the strikers.
This action is operated by thumb lever on top strap. Barrels are opened by pushing the lever upward, withdrawing a bolt in the breech-face. Wm. Powell's UK patent #1163 of 1864 was first incorporated in pinfires although centerfires followed in 1867. This is a true snap action meaning the barrels may be closed (with a beautiful "click" sound) with little effort and without operating a lever. This gun was made in 1874 and operating the lift latch also withdraws the strikers.
Last edited:
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
T. Woodward action very early hammerless spiral spring sidelock
I had this gun apart today to make sure the workings were clean and lubricated. Looked pretty impressive inside for 140 years old!
Built on Thomas Woodward action patent of 1876, this is one of the first in evolution of "hammerless" guns. The previous year was the patent of Anson and Deeley action of Westley Richards, which remains the standard in boxlock rifles and SxS shotguns even today.
The actual builder is unknown, with no maker's marks present and no rib address. Sometimes that's been obscured because heavy-handed refinishing of barrels/rib but in this case there is sharp scroll engraving of rib. Just no words.
What's different about this action?
Its a sidelock but the plates include housings for bolts powered by coil springs. In this photo the bolts are cocked. The bolt housing seems integral to the plate - i.e. not fastened to it but built from the same piece of steel.
and here with bolt removed and spring showing:
The other side. Hard to see but these are shorebirds. Whimbrels or Curlews I would guess.
The gun locks up with Purdey double underbite and is opened by pushing the lever forward. This also serves to #### the bolts. Note also the bolts activate the cocking pins above. And triggers are locked with safety on top strap.
I had this gun apart today to make sure the workings were clean and lubricated. Looked pretty impressive inside for 140 years old!
Built on Thomas Woodward action patent of 1876, this is one of the first in evolution of "hammerless" guns. The previous year was the patent of Anson and Deeley action of Westley Richards, which remains the standard in boxlock rifles and SxS shotguns even today.
The actual builder is unknown, with no maker's marks present and no rib address. Sometimes that's been obscured because heavy-handed refinishing of barrels/rib but in this case there is sharp scroll engraving of rib. Just no words.
What's different about this action?
Its a sidelock but the plates include housings for bolts powered by coil springs. In this photo the bolts are cocked. The bolt housing seems integral to the plate - i.e. not fastened to it but built from the same piece of steel.
and here with bolt removed and spring showing:
The other side. Hard to see but these are shorebirds. Whimbrels or Curlews I would guess.
The gun locks up with Purdey double underbite and is opened by pushing the lever forward. This also serves to #### the bolts. Note also the bolts activate the cocking pins above. And triggers are locked with safety on top strap.
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Fascinating but I'd think the sliding hammers would be prone to wearing quickly compared to rotating hammers.
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
From the outset of the early hammerless designs, their creators had multiple challenges to change the mindset of 100's of years of (almost) exclusive use of external hammers. Aesthetically it must be as refined as the high standards of the day. Likewise in balance and handling. It must load, fire, and reload faster than conventional hammer guns. It must be self-cocking in some way, whether by lever, or opening of barrels, or closing of barrels (or even both - #### one on closing, the other on opening). Like a hammer gun, it was felt at least in those days, that it must be obvious when either of the locks is cocked. And since hammer guns were thought "safe" when the hammers down, there must be some way to make the cocked hammerless gun safe. This was all new and most clients were reluctant to change their thinking, not unlike the decade or two earlier when breech loaders challenged the muzzle-loading status quo - and many die-hards in the late 1870's would still not be convinced. Victorian Fudds.
The design of this one allows cocking with very little effort in large part because there are no rotary hammers. It's just easier and there is less travel required to compress the coil springs in line with the striker than it is to work against a pair of rotary hammers using a cocking lever. The designs that ended up ruling the day were those including A & D that employed barrel-actuated cocking. Perhaps coil springs were too much a departure from tradition for some to accept however they could be manufactured less expensively, were easier to replace, and if broken your gun would likely continue to function whereas not the case with leaf springs.
This is just one of the avenues that was explored and I'm not championing it but rather appreciate this design for the creative approach of addressing the fundamental criteria of the hammerless design. 1000's of guns were made and sold employing the following Thomas and Thomas Woodward patent of 1881, which maintained side-plate coil spring bolt action but changed the form to one with a top lever rather than a push forward underlever.
The design of this one allows cocking with very little effort in large part because there are no rotary hammers. It's just easier and there is less travel required to compress the coil springs in line with the striker than it is to work against a pair of rotary hammers using a cocking lever. The designs that ended up ruling the day were those including A & D that employed barrel-actuated cocking. Perhaps coil springs were too much a departure from tradition for some to accept however they could be manufactured less expensively, were easier to replace, and if broken your gun would likely continue to function whereas not the case with leaf springs.
This is just one of the avenues that was explored and I'm not championing it but rather appreciate this design for the creative approach of addressing the fundamental criteria of the hammerless design. 1000's of guns were made and sold employing the following Thomas and Thomas Woodward patent of 1881, which maintained side-plate coil spring bolt action but changed the form to one with a top lever rather than a push forward underlever.
Last edited:
I love the top strap engraving on that Powell, haven't seen another with that pattern. And that T Woodward patent gun is really something special and somewhat of a mystery. Obviously by the engraving and high quality wood it was built as a very high grade gun, but strange that there is no maker's name on barrel rib or lockplates. Oh well, with old english guns never say 'never'.
Today the efficiencies of coil springs is taken for granted, but 140 years ago these were all made by hand one at a time from steel of varying quality and were not necessarily inexpensive and neither consistent nor reliable. The average owner didn't know much about the workings of his locks, he just expected them to work perfectly every time, but the maker's reputation was on the line and his business depended that hard earned reputation. Other coil spring actions came along in later years, mostly in an attempt to lower manufacturing costs but they never displaced leaf spring powered actions in the English trade.
Today the efficiencies of coil springs is taken for granted, but 140 years ago these were all made by hand one at a time from steel of varying quality and were not necessarily inexpensive and neither consistent nor reliable. The average owner didn't know much about the workings of his locks, he just expected them to work perfectly every time, but the maker's reputation was on the line and his business depended that hard earned reputation. Other coil spring actions came along in later years, mostly in an attempt to lower manufacturing costs but they never displaced leaf spring powered actions in the English trade.
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Londonshooter, I think that you are reading (and wrongly) an awful lot into what I said, or didn't say. Top marks for imagination!
I'm always intrigued by the ingenuity that gun designers have shown over the years and appreciate the trials and tribulations that they have gone through to perfect the designs. And I certainly don't mean to infer that the gun isn't a work of art in it's own right but the main point of my comments were not to dismiss the design as much as to point out that there must be a reason why we see rotating hammers in modern guns and not sliding ones. Don't let me stop you from acting offended and making ridiculous statements in reference to Paul Mauser though if that's what you like to do.
I'm always intrigued by the ingenuity that gun designers have shown over the years and appreciate the trials and tribulations that they have gone through to perfect the designs. And I certainly don't mean to infer that the gun isn't a work of art in it's own right but the main point of my comments were not to dismiss the design as much as to point out that there must be a reason why we see rotating hammers in modern guns and not sliding ones. Don't let me stop you from acting offended and making ridiculous statements in reference to Paul Mauser though if that's what you like to do.
My turn, my turn! Londonshooter mentioned the 1875 Anson and Deeley patent by Westley Richards which was the first successful hammerless gun cocked by the fall of the barrels - or so the books say. Well, here is an excellent example of an original, made in 1879 as #2 of a pair, patent use #672 and sold out of their New Bond Street, London agency in 1880. This gun is an exact duplicate of the original very first A&D gun, including engraving pattern and checkering, less the engraving noting the first gun as the very first. This was Westley Richards very finest gun at the time and is one of my finest guns today. No bottom lugs, the only lockup on these guns is the original Westley Richards single snap action top bite engaging a top rib doll's head extension. It still works perfectly. The gun was completely reconditioned to new condition in England about 1990 including but not limited to sleeved barrels, chequering recut, engraving recut, everything refinished as appropriate, it could pass for new. 30" barrels, typical open and tight chokes and extractors because this gun was made before any suitable reliable ejectors were available. Bear in mind, this gun is 140 years old, made in the heyday of the hammer gun, yet it looks ( and functions) exactly like a modern side by side. How's that for progress? I have quite a few pictures of this one and I can only attach seven per post so I'll make two posts.
Further to this WR, note that it has been sleeved, I defy you to find the seam, even with magnification. This is how it can be done by a master. The barrels are very nicely struck and the gun balances and handles beautifully, both barrels shoot exactly to point of aim. Also included a good picture of the proof marks that should keep some people busy. This gun has been through proof three times! Once in 1879 when new. Then reproofed for nitro ca. 1904-1921, then again after sleeving in 1990! The gold name plate is engraved with what appears to be an intertwined WR, maybe the Westley Richards logo. Because it was from a split up pair the original double case was long gone but a friend sold me this period correct oak and leather case to complete the package. Purchased in 2009 at the Kamloops BC gun show. This and the Dougall were purchased at gun shows in BC, this one from a dealer. See, gun shows can produce some gems.
Now don't start squabbling guys, leave the insults to the kiddies on other subjects, this thread is for adults only I thought. If you open up newer side by sides you will find some ( mostly less expensive) using inline strikers and coil springs and some using rotating strikers with leaf OR coil springs. The same applies to over/unders. The jury is still out after all these years.
Last edited:
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Your correct Ashcroft, Blaser shotguns come to mind with inline strikers... you correct about the kiddies too!
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Beautiful WR Ashcroft, I acquired a WR Oak shotgun box with a leather case a few years ago but sadly don't have the correct gun to go in it yet!
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I wondered if something like that might interest you!
I'm not really certain what I want to do with it yet, I've only been about ten years deliberating! The box is in good shape relatively speaking but it could use some restoring on the inside. The leather case has seen it's better days and I'm not certain that it could be restored to usable condition but it makes a really nice conversation piece in my living room. I'm out of town right now but maybe drop me a pm and I'll send you some pics when I get home if you like.
Ashcroft, beautiful WR and thanks for posting it. I know you mentioned it was in the wrong thread but it still looks good here.
And onto the subject of in line strikers and coil springs, my Manufrance Ideal, in production from 1888 to 1985, has an in line striker and coil springs. And, as someone else noted, spring can break and it will still work.
And onto the subject of in line strikers and coil springs, my Manufrance Ideal, in production from 1888 to 1985, has an in line striker and coil springs. And, as someone else noted, spring can break and it will still work.
