James, thanks for posting pictures of my Lindner. Haha
Let's see some pic's of your SxS's & O/U's
- Thread starter Win/64
- Start date
James, thanks for posting pictures of my Lindner. Haha
They’re addicting....
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I miss the pandemic pinfires. You win, COVID. Damn you.
I'm with you. There's nothing more fascinating than the evolution of the British game gun; the men and women, the materials, the designs, the companies, and the historical context that drove the whole process.
Pinfire's series was like opium. I already knew I was addicted, but it's greater than I realised.
Pinfire's series was like opium. I already knew I was addicted, but it's greater than I realised.
No, COVID-19 doesn't win. I'm still breathing.
I dare say I've described enough pinfires here to make the point that the un-loved predecessors to the fine centre-fire hammer and hammerless doubles illustrated in this thread can be interesting in and of themselves. The pinfire game gun might have had the briefest existence, at about 10-15 years (compared to 200 years for flint, 40-60 years for percussion, and the 150 years-and-counting for the centre-fire), but it made the transition from muzzle-loader to breech-loader possible in the public's mind, and the catalyst of that thought process might be worthy of a post here, considering it helped bring us to where we are now.
Back in the day, the popularity of cartridge-loading guns was not instant or sure. Human nature fights change at every opportunity, regardless of annoying things like facts. Just look at the news (on second thought, don't, it is too depressing). What really propelled the change from one to the other was the reality TV of its day, a public trial. Two of them, actually.
The safety advantages of the pinfire over muzzle-loaders were important to a very early and important supporter of the pinfire system, John Henry Walsh. He had lost part of his left hand to an accident with a muzzle-loader and arguably this had much to do with this, and his renown in the shooting community probably contributed a great deal towards making the pinfire system acceptable to sportsmen. In 1857 Walsh became editor of The Field, a weekly London newspaper devoted to country activities, and it was during Walsh's term that The Field became the main catalyst in the debate over the merits of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader. The newspaper published letters from readers, often under elegant pseudonyms. It was in the battleground of The Field's letters column that the public war of words was waged, having started shortly before Walsh's arrival with an otherwise innocuous letter in December 1856 that invited readers who had used the breech-loading guns to comment on their advantages or disadvantages. This unleashed the fanboys on both sides.
Letters either for or against the pinfire breech-loader constantly appeared in The Field from shooters and gunmakers making claims on the advantages of the guns they owned or built. The letters provoked a heated debate, and this undoubtedly would have gone on for some time. Both sides offered challenges to each other, and to bring some sort of fair conclusion to the matter, The Field announced in January 1858 that the first Field Trial would be held later that month. The Field Trial was later postponed to the ninth of April, and on that day, in the park near Battersea bridge, both breech-loading and muzzle-loading guns were tested for penetration power at forty, fifty, and sixty yards; patterning within a thirty-inch circle at those distances; and recoil when clean and after thirty shots fired. Penetration was measured by the number of sheets of brown paper pierced by pellets, and recoil was to be measured with a spring-powered device. Eighteen muzzle-loaders competed against six pinfires and a single base-fire, in five weight classes.
After so much debate in print, much of it in praise of breech-loaders, it is interesting that pinfire guns from most of the well-known London gunmakers that were building them at the time were conspicuously absent from the firing line, with only Edward Michael Reilly of Oxford St. doing so, presenting both muzzle-loaders and pinfire breech-loaders. Prominent London makers may have felt there was much to lose and not enough to gain in such a contest, and perhaps they knew very well the limitations of the pinfire, and the imported French cartridges. On the big day the pinfire guns were outperformed by muzzle-loaders in penetration and placement of pellets within the thirty-inch circle, losing in each of the four weight and bore classes. One of the factors, recoil, could not be properly compared as the recoil of each gun was stronger than the spring device built to measure it. While a win for proponents of the muzzle-loader, the results were nevertheless close (and in truth I doubt a flying pheasant or partridge would have been able to tell the difference).
Performing worse than the pinfire that day was Charles Lancaster's base-fire gun, which placed last out of the eleven entries in the first class. Lancaster's proprietary base-fire system was actually a very early centre-fire type, first built in 1856 after acquiring Louis Julien Gastinne's French patent of 1853, and using specially constructed cartridges that held the priming mixture between two foil layers in the base of the cartridge. The hammers struck a captive pin or striker, which in turn struck the centre of the outer cover of the cartridge base. This detonated the priming mixture within the base and lit the charge through perforations in the inner layer. In its day the base-fire gun was arguably the most expensive game gun on the market (costing some 60 guineas or more), and the result of the trial must have been quite a disappointment to the maker, and to his customers.
Despite Walsh’s hopes, the battle of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader did not end with the Trial, and the correspondence column of The Field remained filled with hotly debated claims. This led The Field to hold another, bigger event on the fourth and fifth of July 1859, at Hornsey Wood House in the Finsbury Park area of London. The rules and classes were the same as that of the previous year, and although the recoil-measuring machine was strengthened, a double discharge from one gun broke the machine.
There were 17 entries in the first bore/weight class, with 10 pinfires, six muzzle-loaders, and a needle-fire gun by Joseph V. Needham of London. Several pinfire makers that took part in the 1858 Trial were ready to try again, namely Frederick Prince (now Prince & Green), William Rochester Pape, and Reilly. They were joined by Needham, William Egan of Bradford, Elliot of Birmingham, Philip Hast of Colchester, and Auguste Francotte of Liège, Belgium (with a gun with moveable barrels of the Bastin type, a design of the Bastin Brothers of Liège). As far as can be determined, the British-made pinfires in the trials were all forward-underlever guns of the design initially built and marketed by Joseph Lang. The Egan 12-bore pinfire placed the highest for breech-loaders, at fourth place. There were 12 entries in the second bore/weight class, with eight muzzle-loaders and four pinfire guns. Edward M. Reilly’s 15-bore pinfire made it to sixth place in this class.
In the penetration and patterning tests, the performance of the pinfire gun had improved to being almost equal that of the average muzzle-loader. While at first glance the 1859 Trial might seem another disappointing result for breech-loaders, but the fact there was now less of a difference in performance between the two systems meant that the breech-loading gun could no longer be discounted, and the advantages of the pinfire, such as ease of use and safety in handling, would weigh heavily in its favour. This improvement in the second Trial came as a result of improving both the quality of the cartridges used, and the design and construction of the guns.
In the end it was probably the matters of safety and convenience that were most relevant to the shooting public. Minute differences in shot patterns and penetration were already variables, owing to how well barrels were regulated (this was well before the invention of choke boring), and to the different formulas and quantities of powders. With the muzzle-loaders there could be variation in quantities of shot and powder from one shot to the next, and in the types and treatment of wadding. Each shooter (and gun maker) was free to experiment with these variables in the search for the perfect combination. In the case of the pinfire that was left to the cartridge manufacturer, and, in the early days of the pinfire in Britain (and for the Field Trials), pinfire cartridges were manufactured in France and had to be imported. There might not have been much choice in loadings and materials, all of which might help explain the slightly inferior performance of pinfire guns versus the muzzle-loaders in the Field trials.
While the Trials did little to settle the matter of which was the superior system, with each side claiming success from their differing perspectives, the Trials did establish the pinfire system as a viable choice for sportsmen, and it appears that more and more adventurous sorts were willing to try the new invention – as long as the guns were British-made.
You can't have a post without pictures, so here is a British-made pinfire in all its glory, shaped and sculpted by hand and oozing style and sophistication, a bar-in-wood 12-bore by Parker, Field & Sons of Holborn Street, London, a favourite of Queen Victoria herself (I've already covered the history of the firm in an earlier post in this thread). The single-bite partial snap-action rotary underlever action is John William Parker Field’s patent No. 3485 of December 1862. As the patent action was reserved for their 'best' sporting guns, few were made. This one survived with its original case and cleaning rod.
I dare say I've described enough pinfires here to make the point that the un-loved predecessors to the fine centre-fire hammer and hammerless doubles illustrated in this thread can be interesting in and of themselves. The pinfire game gun might have had the briefest existence, at about 10-15 years (compared to 200 years for flint, 40-60 years for percussion, and the 150 years-and-counting for the centre-fire), but it made the transition from muzzle-loader to breech-loader possible in the public's mind, and the catalyst of that thought process might be worthy of a post here, considering it helped bring us to where we are now.
Back in the day, the popularity of cartridge-loading guns was not instant or sure. Human nature fights change at every opportunity, regardless of annoying things like facts. Just look at the news (on second thought, don't, it is too depressing). What really propelled the change from one to the other was the reality TV of its day, a public trial. Two of them, actually.
The safety advantages of the pinfire over muzzle-loaders were important to a very early and important supporter of the pinfire system, John Henry Walsh. He had lost part of his left hand to an accident with a muzzle-loader and arguably this had much to do with this, and his renown in the shooting community probably contributed a great deal towards making the pinfire system acceptable to sportsmen. In 1857 Walsh became editor of The Field, a weekly London newspaper devoted to country activities, and it was during Walsh's term that The Field became the main catalyst in the debate over the merits of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader. The newspaper published letters from readers, often under elegant pseudonyms. It was in the battleground of The Field's letters column that the public war of words was waged, having started shortly before Walsh's arrival with an otherwise innocuous letter in December 1856 that invited readers who had used the breech-loading guns to comment on their advantages or disadvantages. This unleashed the fanboys on both sides.
Letters either for or against the pinfire breech-loader constantly appeared in The Field from shooters and gunmakers making claims on the advantages of the guns they owned or built. The letters provoked a heated debate, and this undoubtedly would have gone on for some time. Both sides offered challenges to each other, and to bring some sort of fair conclusion to the matter, The Field announced in January 1858 that the first Field Trial would be held later that month. The Field Trial was later postponed to the ninth of April, and on that day, in the park near Battersea bridge, both breech-loading and muzzle-loading guns were tested for penetration power at forty, fifty, and sixty yards; patterning within a thirty-inch circle at those distances; and recoil when clean and after thirty shots fired. Penetration was measured by the number of sheets of brown paper pierced by pellets, and recoil was to be measured with a spring-powered device. Eighteen muzzle-loaders competed against six pinfires and a single base-fire, in five weight classes.
After so much debate in print, much of it in praise of breech-loaders, it is interesting that pinfire guns from most of the well-known London gunmakers that were building them at the time were conspicuously absent from the firing line, with only Edward Michael Reilly of Oxford St. doing so, presenting both muzzle-loaders and pinfire breech-loaders. Prominent London makers may have felt there was much to lose and not enough to gain in such a contest, and perhaps they knew very well the limitations of the pinfire, and the imported French cartridges. On the big day the pinfire guns were outperformed by muzzle-loaders in penetration and placement of pellets within the thirty-inch circle, losing in each of the four weight and bore classes. One of the factors, recoil, could not be properly compared as the recoil of each gun was stronger than the spring device built to measure it. While a win for proponents of the muzzle-loader, the results were nevertheless close (and in truth I doubt a flying pheasant or partridge would have been able to tell the difference).
Performing worse than the pinfire that day was Charles Lancaster's base-fire gun, which placed last out of the eleven entries in the first class. Lancaster's proprietary base-fire system was actually a very early centre-fire type, first built in 1856 after acquiring Louis Julien Gastinne's French patent of 1853, and using specially constructed cartridges that held the priming mixture between two foil layers in the base of the cartridge. The hammers struck a captive pin or striker, which in turn struck the centre of the outer cover of the cartridge base. This detonated the priming mixture within the base and lit the charge through perforations in the inner layer. In its day the base-fire gun was arguably the most expensive game gun on the market (costing some 60 guineas or more), and the result of the trial must have been quite a disappointment to the maker, and to his customers.
Despite Walsh’s hopes, the battle of the breech-loader versus the muzzle-loader did not end with the Trial, and the correspondence column of The Field remained filled with hotly debated claims. This led The Field to hold another, bigger event on the fourth and fifth of July 1859, at Hornsey Wood House in the Finsbury Park area of London. The rules and classes were the same as that of the previous year, and although the recoil-measuring machine was strengthened, a double discharge from one gun broke the machine.
There were 17 entries in the first bore/weight class, with 10 pinfires, six muzzle-loaders, and a needle-fire gun by Joseph V. Needham of London. Several pinfire makers that took part in the 1858 Trial were ready to try again, namely Frederick Prince (now Prince & Green), William Rochester Pape, and Reilly. They were joined by Needham, William Egan of Bradford, Elliot of Birmingham, Philip Hast of Colchester, and Auguste Francotte of Liège, Belgium (with a gun with moveable barrels of the Bastin type, a design of the Bastin Brothers of Liège). As far as can be determined, the British-made pinfires in the trials were all forward-underlever guns of the design initially built and marketed by Joseph Lang. The Egan 12-bore pinfire placed the highest for breech-loaders, at fourth place. There were 12 entries in the second bore/weight class, with eight muzzle-loaders and four pinfire guns. Edward M. Reilly’s 15-bore pinfire made it to sixth place in this class.
In the penetration and patterning tests, the performance of the pinfire gun had improved to being almost equal that of the average muzzle-loader. While at first glance the 1859 Trial might seem another disappointing result for breech-loaders, but the fact there was now less of a difference in performance between the two systems meant that the breech-loading gun could no longer be discounted, and the advantages of the pinfire, such as ease of use and safety in handling, would weigh heavily in its favour. This improvement in the second Trial came as a result of improving both the quality of the cartridges used, and the design and construction of the guns.
In the end it was probably the matters of safety and convenience that were most relevant to the shooting public. Minute differences in shot patterns and penetration were already variables, owing to how well barrels were regulated (this was well before the invention of choke boring), and to the different formulas and quantities of powders. With the muzzle-loaders there could be variation in quantities of shot and powder from one shot to the next, and in the types and treatment of wadding. Each shooter (and gun maker) was free to experiment with these variables in the search for the perfect combination. In the case of the pinfire that was left to the cartridge manufacturer, and, in the early days of the pinfire in Britain (and for the Field Trials), pinfire cartridges were manufactured in France and had to be imported. There might not have been much choice in loadings and materials, all of which might help explain the slightly inferior performance of pinfire guns versus the muzzle-loaders in the Field trials.
While the Trials did little to settle the matter of which was the superior system, with each side claiming success from their differing perspectives, the Trials did establish the pinfire system as a viable choice for sportsmen, and it appears that more and more adventurous sorts were willing to try the new invention – as long as the guns were British-made.
You can't have a post without pictures, so here is a British-made pinfire in all its glory, shaped and sculpted by hand and oozing style and sophistication, a bar-in-wood 12-bore by Parker, Field & Sons of Holborn Street, London, a favourite of Queen Victoria herself (I've already covered the history of the firm in an earlier post in this thread). The single-bite partial snap-action rotary underlever action is John William Parker Field’s patent No. 3485 of December 1862. As the patent action was reserved for their 'best' sporting guns, few were made. This one survived with its original case and cleaning rod.
That's quite a mouthful. I hope it didn't take as many parts to make as it takes words to describe.
Glad you're still breathing. And writing.
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
That Parker, Field and Sons Pinfire is absolutely exquisite, and to have the original box and cleaning rod is the icing on the cake!
Great story about the competition, thanks for taking the time to post this.
Great story about the competition, thanks for taking the time to post this.
Who would have guessed that snap-actions were an improvement that came ahead of top levers. Turns out they're quite parts-efficient (see diagram at link). None of those pictured are rotary underlevers, but achieving the same with the rotary approach wouldn't be any more difficult. Looks like Purdy found a unique way to make the underlever more ergonomic.
http://www.hallowellco.com/snap_action.htm
http://www.hallowellco.com/snap_action.htm
Last edited:
More musings on snap actions...
Imagine if gunmakers/inventors hadn’t had the urge to come up with something better… Thankfully that was far from the case. Snap-actions allowed the gun to be closed and bolted in one motion, with that satisfying ‘clunk’. Not surprisingly, many shooters of the day opposed this development quite vociferously, fearful that springs would fail at inopportune moments, or that such designs would not be strong enough to withstand the jolt of firing, or be unnecessary complications – simpler was better, and the interrupted-screw underlever was jolly well sufficient, what? There is a certain truth to this, and some of the early snap-actions were hardly robust or all that easy to use. We know which one won out in the end, but to pass the time on a wet Saturday, here is the sequence of inventions, with my beloved pinfires right in the middle of it all.
As with almost all important gun inventions, the French were there first. François Eugène Schneider came up with the first snap underlever, patented in October 1860, and acquired by G. H. Daw in 1861 and immediately improved, for the Daw centre-fire breech-loader that first appeared in late 1861 (Londonshooter?). Thomas Horsley was next with a spring-tensioned trigger-guard lever in February 1862. Joseph Needham patented his snap sidelever in May 1862, and the first toplever snap action was Westley Richards’ pull-lever of September 1862. Then came J.W.P. Field’s snap underlever patented in December 1862, pictured yesterday, followed by James Purdey who patented his famous double-bite snap action in May 1863, with a sliding underbolt linked to a peculiar thumb-operated lever in the trigger guard, illustrated in the link that Straightshooter provided. Inventions still flourished, with Thomas Horsley coming up with his sliding toplever patented in October 1863, Edward Harrison (of Cogswell & Harrison) with a forward underlever snap action in February 1864, William Powell patented his toplever snap action in May 1864, and Stephen & Joseph Law patented their side-lever snap action in May 1865. Then, Purdey married his double-bite action with W. M. Scott’s toplever (which Scott patented in October 1865), narrowly edging out John Croft’s snap toplever patented in April 1866. While the best of these actions stayed in use into modern times (the Powell and Westley Richards in particular), most disappeared quickly and the strong and efficient Purdey sliding underbolt and Scott toplever spindle became the standard, and that combination is found on most double guns today.
I hardly need to illustrate the Purdey action, just look in your gun cabinets… And I’ve never seen a Horsley trigger-guard lever. But here are the other snap-actions, in chronological order:
Joseph Needham Patent No 1544 of May 1862
Westley Richards Patent No 2506 of September 1862
J.W.P. Field Patent No 3485 of Dec 1862 (see yesterday’s post)
The Purdey action of May 1863 fits in here.
Thomas Horsley Patent No 2410 of October 1863
Edward Harrison Patent No 271 of February 1864
William Powell Patent No 1163 of May 1864
S&J Law Patent No 1276 of May 1865 Seems fragile!
John Crofts Patent No 1033 of April 1866
There are a number of very obscure actions that appeared interspersed with these, but most were variations on the same designs, or they simply didn't catch on. At least we've inherited the best design for our current guns, to the point that we hardly give any notice to what is (1) a very clever design, and (2) part of an interesting evolution of ideas, engineering and practice.
OK, I'll climb back down into my hole now.
Imagine if gunmakers/inventors hadn’t had the urge to come up with something better… Thankfully that was far from the case. Snap-actions allowed the gun to be closed and bolted in one motion, with that satisfying ‘clunk’. Not surprisingly, many shooters of the day opposed this development quite vociferously, fearful that springs would fail at inopportune moments, or that such designs would not be strong enough to withstand the jolt of firing, or be unnecessary complications – simpler was better, and the interrupted-screw underlever was jolly well sufficient, what? There is a certain truth to this, and some of the early snap-actions were hardly robust or all that easy to use. We know which one won out in the end, but to pass the time on a wet Saturday, here is the sequence of inventions, with my beloved pinfires right in the middle of it all.
As with almost all important gun inventions, the French were there first. François Eugène Schneider came up with the first snap underlever, patented in October 1860, and acquired by G. H. Daw in 1861 and immediately improved, for the Daw centre-fire breech-loader that first appeared in late 1861 (Londonshooter?). Thomas Horsley was next with a spring-tensioned trigger-guard lever in February 1862. Joseph Needham patented his snap sidelever in May 1862, and the first toplever snap action was Westley Richards’ pull-lever of September 1862. Then came J.W.P. Field’s snap underlever patented in December 1862, pictured yesterday, followed by James Purdey who patented his famous double-bite snap action in May 1863, with a sliding underbolt linked to a peculiar thumb-operated lever in the trigger guard, illustrated in the link that Straightshooter provided. Inventions still flourished, with Thomas Horsley coming up with his sliding toplever patented in October 1863, Edward Harrison (of Cogswell & Harrison) with a forward underlever snap action in February 1864, William Powell patented his toplever snap action in May 1864, and Stephen & Joseph Law patented their side-lever snap action in May 1865. Then, Purdey married his double-bite action with W. M. Scott’s toplever (which Scott patented in October 1865), narrowly edging out John Croft’s snap toplever patented in April 1866. While the best of these actions stayed in use into modern times (the Powell and Westley Richards in particular), most disappeared quickly and the strong and efficient Purdey sliding underbolt and Scott toplever spindle became the standard, and that combination is found on most double guns today.
I hardly need to illustrate the Purdey action, just look in your gun cabinets… And I’ve never seen a Horsley trigger-guard lever. But here are the other snap-actions, in chronological order:
Joseph Needham Patent No 1544 of May 1862
Westley Richards Patent No 2506 of September 1862
J.W.P. Field Patent No 3485 of Dec 1862 (see yesterday’s post)
The Purdey action of May 1863 fits in here.
Thomas Horsley Patent No 2410 of October 1863
Edward Harrison Patent No 271 of February 1864
William Powell Patent No 1163 of May 1864
S&J Law Patent No 1276 of May 1865 Seems fragile!
John Crofts Patent No 1033 of April 1866
There are a number of very obscure actions that appeared interspersed with these, but most were variations on the same designs, or they simply didn't catch on. At least we've inherited the best design for our current guns, to the point that we hardly give any notice to what is (1) a very clever design, and (2) part of an interesting evolution of ideas, engineering and practice.
OK, I'll climb back down into my hole now.
All these J-shaped hammers are taking me straight back 40 years to the then-hot debate of straight vs curved vs S-shaped tonearms on record players. Some thought that having the arm enter the head in line with the groove somehow improved tracking, while others pointed out that any simple rigid connection between the two ends would do the job, and a straight arm would be lighter than one that took a roundabout route.
Similarly these hammers: having defined the working bits, the pivot, striking face, and thumb grip, a mechanical engineer could then put enough structure in between to ensure strength to spec for minimum material (unless some mass was needed, and then its distribution radius from the pivot would be considered) but somewhere there's a balance between necessity and beauty.
Similarly these hammers: having defined the working bits, the pivot, striking face, and thumb grip, a mechanical engineer could then put enough structure in between to ensure strength to spec for minimum material (unless some mass was needed, and then its distribution radius from the pivot would be considered) but somewhere there's a balance between necessity and beauty.
LOL, I had several turntables in the 70's/80's that had an arm fashioned from two straight, parallel and connected rod arms that could pivot at the connecting points. The point was that as the needle tracked across the LP, the angle of the cartridge/needle to the grooves always stayed exactly the same.
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
Stephen, thanks for your exemplary condensed overview of the development of snap actions. I love your passion, collection, and knowledge.
To my own way of thinking I'm not that sure that the designs that survived are the best or that they progressed by logical evolution. For instance, the pinnacle for 120 years has been the side lock ejector however to my mind ejectors are more trouble than they're worth and the sidelock is just a more labour-intensive way to achieve the same results as a boxlock. With regards to actions for opening and fastening a gun I would say there has been no substantial improvement over the Daw/Schneider patent this past 160 years. Or if there has been, its not necessarily the top lever opener.
Can we see the Schuller in a future post?
Last edited:
Londonshooter, I stand corrected on my use of language, or lack of precision thereof! I should not have used 'best', perhaps 'most successful' or 'most popular' would have been more accurate. To a maker, the Purdey-Scott bolting design might be considered the most copied or reproduced bolting system. From an engineering standpoint, the value might be one of strength from the double-bite. From a ergonomic perspective, the lateral top-lever release is distinctly practical- unless you are a left-hander, then it is plain awkward. The fact that most hinge guns use the Purdey-Scott system does not make it best - just the most prevalent. I suppose it can be argued that all bolting systems do what they are designed to, so they cannot be ranked - though there must be a reason why one system prevailed against almost all others.
Personal preference is, well, personal. A side-lever looks most elegant to me, more so if twinned with a trigger-plate action, though at this stage in life I almost certainly will never get to own one! And a side-lever will always be a right-hand or a left-hand gun depending on its location, but never appropriate to both. From a use perspective, I never had any problems with an under-lever, I rather like the look of them, and the forward-underlever snap-action (like on the Daw and Thomas Woodward's Acme) is easy to use by a rightie or leftie.
Ejectors? I've never had to load and reload so quickly that these would have been needed. And they can be fiendishly complicated, as one finds out when they go out of whack. We agree there, and on the eternal subject of sidelocks vs boxlocks, I'm of very mixed minds. Both lack external hammers, so that's a problem for me (!). I do like the look of a sidelock, but a boxlock is simple, clever and reliable, and I can't find fault with them mechanically or with their looks (other than the hammer thing). On the subject of design, coil springs would seem to be a more reliable choice than leaf or vee's. I suppose coil springs were harder to make at the time. Combine coil springs with a forward underlever, and you're back at the Thomas Woodward...
I'm a fan of the Superposed, which is a boxlock o/u with coil springs. Great design, albeit hammerless.
I will post pics of the Schuler-Colleye, a outside-the-box bolting system. But first I might come back to the subject of hammers and design.
Londonshooter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
To a certain extent I think what drove the remarkable rate of new action designs from the 1860's to 1890's was the desire to avoid paying patent use fees to another maker. This, coupled with the desire to possibly obtain royalties from one's own patent.
Hammers, hammers, hammers… When do we look closely at such things? Hammer guns have a certain charm and are ‘from another age’. Flint locks seem like such contraptions, and percussion locks, with hammers meant to focus the strike on the cap, keep it in place, and deflect flying bits of copper away from the shooter, follow a certain form. With the appearance of the pinfire, the role of the hammer was to drive in the vertical pin to strike the internal cap, but not too much so as to allow the extraction of the case by the extruding pin. Because of the different arc, hammer noses tended to be longer than with percussion hammers. And later centre-fire guns could have more vertically-compressed profiles as the noses did not have to reach the vertical pins. Low-profile centre-fire hammers could also disappear from the sight plane when cocked, while the tall ‘rabbit-eared’ pinfire hammers were always in sight.
However, just because they do the same job doesn’t mean they have to be identical. Hammers were shaped by hand with files, and even from the same maker, no two sets might be wholly identical. Combined with differences in engraving styles and decorative flourishes, there is actually a fair bit of variation in hammers when you stop to look. So let’s look at a bunch of them.
All have high thumb-pieces, and a under-stop that keeps the hammer from hitting the pin flat. Some retain a design hold-over from percussion days, with a raised 'shield' or extended lip meant to deflect pieces of copper cap, now reduced to a stylized flourish. Most are rounded, others have flat sides, and some with both. Some are decorated with 'dolphin' features, a common motif. Others are plain, plain, plain. And if hammers aren't your thing, you might notice instead the wide variation in the fences, another part where the filer could really have a lot of fun!
Amongst these British examples are three Continental guns. Did you spot them?
However, just because they do the same job doesn’t mean they have to be identical. Hammers were shaped by hand with files, and even from the same maker, no two sets might be wholly identical. Combined with differences in engraving styles and decorative flourishes, there is actually a fair bit of variation in hammers when you stop to look. So let’s look at a bunch of them.
All have high thumb-pieces, and a under-stop that keeps the hammer from hitting the pin flat. Some retain a design hold-over from percussion days, with a raised 'shield' or extended lip meant to deflect pieces of copper cap, now reduced to a stylized flourish. Most are rounded, others have flat sides, and some with both. Some are decorated with 'dolphin' features, a common motif. Others are plain, plain, plain. And if hammers aren't your thing, you might notice instead the wide variation in the fences, another part where the filer could really have a lot of fun!
Amongst these British examples are three Continental guns. Did you spot them?
Rebel Till Death
CGN Regular
- Location
- Burlington, Ontario
Rebel Till Death
CGN Regular
- Location
- Burlington, Ontario
