doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Different lock styles & qualities.

I have gathered together some photos of the internal of locks from guns I have had over he years. Lots of different types, different qualities and in various stages of being cleaned up.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...e=1&theater

I hope the montage proves interesting.

Very interesting, Diggory. Thanks for posting. In terms of the hammerless locks, the Woodward, Atkin and Purdey locks seem very sophisticated and extremely high quality. The Holland lock, while beautiful clearly appears less complicated than the Woodward, Atkin and Purdey locks, at least to me, and yet just as functional (or maybe it's just because I have seen more Holland locks, the most copied lock in the world). I'd like to see photos of some Boss locks as well. It seems I've seen some complicated appearing Boss locks and some others that were a little simpler, more like the Holland locks. Dig, have you found this to be a true observation of Boss hammerless locks?

Interesting that the Boss, Stanton and the Adams share a lot of similarities. The lock from my Steve Earle Wesson would fit like a pea in a pod with that grouping.

Buzz - correct, the 20th century H&H Royal is a simple barrel-cocked bar lock, as is the Boss, except a few self-openers (I have just taken one of them in to fix the single trigger). The Purdey and Atkin are very similar - Beesley type self-opening spring cockers. A far more complex mechanism. I'll post some more when I dig them out of the archive.

Prairie Ghost, all those locks came from Stanton.

I enjoy that A&D action on the outside of that John Dickson & Son showing the cocking block. Excellent stuff Dig!!!!

I spoil you because I love you (most of you).

I would be interested to get your views on the principle differences between the Beesley/Purdey self opening (SO) action and the Atkin self opening action, Dig.
As I understand it, the Atkin SO incorporates improvements to the ejector system and to the cocking pads. It is clear from the photographs of the two actions you posted that the Atkin has an additional �spur� located outside of the bridle. What is its purpose?

It would appear that the Atkin action improves the Beesley/Purdey design and makes it easier to operate, so well articulated by Gough Thomas, of course.

Thanks

Tim

Please keep up the excellent posts Dig. Most of us appreciate the educational opportunities you are providing with the pictures & commentary.

Purdey and Atkin Spring Openers

The classic sidelocks made by Purdey and Atkin are more complex and sophisticated than the self-opening systems used by other firms. The main springs not only force the gun open, but they also cock the tumblers and fire the gun.

We should, in fairness, make clear that the inventor of the guns under discussion was a certain Frederick Beesley. His 1880 patent (No.31) was bought by James Purdey the Younger in August of that year for �55, who built the first as a .450 non-ejector double rifle. Thereafter, it became Purdey's house style of 'best' gun and has been justly famous ever since. The Beesley patent showed no ejectors.

The essence of the Purdey and the Atkin lies solidly in Beesley's patent drawings but both have undergone modification over the years. The action is ingenious and was unlike anything else on the market when conceived. Rods projecting through the action bar are pressed backwards by pads connecting with the barrel flats when the gun is closed. These push a cam, which puts the mainspring under tension.

When opened, the mainspring reverses the tension and puts pressure on the barrel flats, via these rods, and forces the gun to jump open. The force of the mainspring therefore, enables a Purdey to be fully opened with the right hand only, while the left is free to pick up cartridges, thereby speeding up the loading cycle.

When disassembled, the springs are under very little tension.
After the gun has been fired, this opening action causes the top arm of the mainspring to cock the tumbler as it moves upwards. This is why the Beesley is known as a 'spring cocking' sidelock.

Conventional sidelocks, like the Holland & Holland 'Royal' and the Boss, are cocked by cocking levers, which lift the tumblers as their forward ends hinge downwards when the barrels fall open.

The only real criticism of the action, made vocally by WW Greener and, doubtless, others, was that it was hard to close. James Purdey did not think it a problem. Neither do I, for that matter. The trick is to rest the stock on the hip, hold well forward and close with a smooth push. Once mastered it is automatic and natural. However, the criticism persisted.

Henry Atkin first sold a Beesley action sidelock in 1907 (actually a pair) but then reflected on the common perception that the Purdey was difficult to close. The subsequent alterations became encapsulated in the Atkin '1909 Model' which became his signature sidelock and remains so to the present day. In 1909, the firm was under the stewardship of managing director Charles Frederick Hinton, a nephew of founder Henry Atkin. Arthur Hodges provided the gun making expertise.

Two avenues of improvement were open to exploration. The first was the sequence of internal movements required to tension the mainspring when the gun was closed and the second was the ejector mechanism. It is noteworthy that ejectors have springs and they have to be put under tension either upon opening or closing the gun. This operation requires energy as well.

The first Purdey ejector was a coil spring type, patented by Nobbs in 1883 but this was replaced by the Wem system in 1888, with its distinctive bow tie shaped crossbar at the knuckle (from around S.N 14,000). This was prone to fail after prolonged use and the 1930s saw the introduction of the Lawrence ejector variation, with its centre-arm, which has been used ever since.

So, what did Atkin's come up with to improve the Beesley and create their own classic? Michael MacIntosh describes the difference as 'changing the lock cams and ejector system a bit'. Perhaps it is time to examine exactly what those changes are and what effect they have. It does not help that no patent exists for the modifications, as they are just that, rather than new concepts.

Alterations to the cocking mechanism.
Atkin decided to attempt to soften the 'hard closing' reputation of the Purdey. To do so, attention had to be paid to the parts operating the chain of motion from barrel flats to mainspring.

When checking a Purdey or an Atkin spring opener today, one needs to pay attention to the closing procedure. If not properly set up, the gun can feel like it has tight spots. If correctly done, it will feel progressive and smooth. The Atkin lock cam is slightly broader and more roundly profiled.

Alterations to the ejector work
In fairness, we should compare the Atkin ejector work with the system which was its 1909 contemporary. Atkin ejector rods work off a long limb, roughly the shape of a spanner, which is connected to the main sear. When the gun is fired, the forward end of this limb holds the ejector rod forward so that it can trip the ejector.

The Purdey has a turret on the tumbler, which fits into the reverse 'D' of the ejector rod. Upon firing, the turret moves forward and holds the ejector rod forward so that it can trip the ejector by pushing the side springs out of the way.

The Atkin ejector is a simpler Southgate type with each ejector trip pushing the cam past its firing point.

In 1947 G.T Garwood took delivery of his new Atkin 1909 model 12-bore. Better known as 'Gough Thomas', Garwood was the doyen of shooting writers at the time, having had a long period as gun editor of the Shooting Times. He was delighted with his Atkin and stuck with it for the rest of his life. He commented; "I am particularly pleased with the smoothness of opening and the uniformity of the effort required to close it... there are no hard spots, which is more than i can say for some self-openers".

Henry Atkin and James Purdey are names which can still be found on new guns with Beesley heritage. It reflects well on all three that the quality of the guns and the genius of the concept have withstood the ravages of time and stand proud as the best of their type. They prove that a complex action can remain efficient and reliable for over a century.

The key to making Beesley's action work is to make all the shapes right. There are so many inter-related movements, each reliant on the previous one being as smooth and balanced as possible, that stiffness from poorly shaped or angled parts will magnify the difficulty of moving them all.

The Atkin ejector system does seem to allow the whole operation to feel a little smoother.

This is really why Purdey and Atkin models are offered by so few firms. To be able to make one, you really have to be fabulously skilled and the work has to be carried on without cost-cutting on labour or materials. They are expensive to make. If you make one badly it will be horrible. Make one perfectly and there is not a better game gun in the world. It will function beautifully and faultlessly for generations, despite its complexity.

Really quite interesting and educational. Many Thanks for posting these, Dig. As exemplified here, you have a wonderful knack for taking the mystery out of a tremendously varied and complex subject and breaking it down and laying it out in a comprehensible manner.

To take this a step further, I think that is why your books are so invaluable to anyone entering the world of vintage British doubles. And that is also true for those of us who feel we know more than we really do!

Thank you very much indeed, Dig. A wonderful description and most valuable learning, for me also.

I've often thought that CAD/CAM software could be used to build an almost three dimensional picture of the lock and it's inter-relation with the rest of the mechanism of the gun. With colour coding it would be easier to understand than the usual two-dimensional diagrams and photos we are used to. I presume it would then be an easy step to run it through video, showing all the works in action as it is loaded, closed, fired, opened and ejected.

Anyone ever seen such a video?

Tim

A big thank you for that extraordinary series of photos. Some like the Edward Lang and the Smith trigger plate lock are eye openers.

trw999- while designing a SXS I used CAD and made articulated drawings to check on angular fit and possible conflicting arcs in moving parts. A video can be made of these movements but so far I have not seen one.

As a simplicity nut I was fascinated by the Edward Lang use of the same spring to power the tumbler and the sear. It has an uncanny resemblance to the L.C. Smith lock. It must be the only sidelock with as few parts as an Anson-Deeley.

The true champion for me though is the Smith trigger plate lock. So simple, so elegant and so obviouisly exploitable as proven by the many "detachables" over the years. And yet so underexploited when you think what it could do. Gough Thomas was right about the mental inertia of gunmakers.

If anything was missing it is locks based on William Baker patents. Baker was a simplification genius and favored coil springs, as do I after some mishaps with V springs.

Those are some great pictures, for sure.
Dig,or anyone, on the facebook link picture #3, Woodward bar lock # 4209, there a little raised square filed on the internal side of the upper arm of the mainspring near to the bend.
I always imagined that the main spring anchor pin in the bar of the action was filed from a nub left on the spring & filed to make the pin?..or did they drill a wee hole through the spring for a seperate pin & this is a kind of bolster to add more strength?
The little square bit is right around the spot were the pin would be, thats what made me think of the latter idea...though wouldn't that weaken the spring?
thanks
franc

Different small tweaks employed by different makers on slightly different locks. Woodward went some extra lengths in many unseen places. A real indicator of quality is often what the shooter never sees and will never know.

The previous discussion regarding quality, parts, inletting etc fell back to the 'well, it doesn't shoot any better' and 'what's the point?' and completely misses the point. Mass market factory produced guns were not as well made as bespoke bench-made one-off creations. They could not be.

I have limited my examples here to English guns in order not to upset anyone by pointing to qualitative differences with American examples because it always descends into nonsense when that happens. Anyway, I can make the point without and I think it is an interesting one for enthusiasts to ponder.

Refinement and the quest to make every action performed by the lock as close to perfect as could be, the quest to make each part as perfectly proportioned and perfectly fitted as could be are the true marks of quality.

Of course, some designs were aimed at making mass market, cost effective locks for lower priced guns (like the Baker mentioned by Shotgunlover).

These are some of the reasons that guns like the Woodward are far superior as examples of what a skilled gunmaker can do than are, for example, the Edward Lang, or the James Lang (which is still very high quality - the JL a good deal better than the EL).

Each lock illustrated shows small details which attest to the degree of care and perfection required. Some are better than others, while all are clever and all work very well and have survived for well over a century.

The refinement, the artistry, the perfection of interplay between all these unseen parts are part of the magic within a great gun.

And you left out the Europeans too Dig, but regarding lock technology I do wonder who lifted what technology from whom and if there were innovations that the Brits implemented that were not home grown.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Fascinating stuff, it's good to see the bare bones of those lovely old locks.

Oh, you mean the argument that my Pinto gets me from point A to point B just as well as your vintage 1932 Rolls. So what's so special about your Rolls.

What's so special, the value other people place on it and the price they're willing to pay to acquire one. Some people age but never mature, (also known as, elimination of the envy and jealousy and giving credit where credit is due), but the trouble is we have to put up with them on this Board.
Equating the product of a company that produced doubles for maybe all of 40 years to a gunmaker that has been building doubles for over 200 years is similar to the know-it all FNG that shows up at work the first day trying to tell everyone how to do their job.

The British certainly absorbed European technology - after all the Le Faucheaux at the Great Exhibition was displayed by a filthy foreigner. It nevertheless started the revolution into breech-loading sporting guns in the UK.

Lovely addition of the term "filthy foreigner". I'll have to pen that on the back of me hand. We shall see that term again.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Dig, stop sugar coating it and tell us straight.

Not my sentiments but the Brits did once believe that 'all wogs start at Calais'. They labelled the import 'The French crutch gun' but that did not stop them from copying it!

I'll have you know I love all things non-English, as my Italian, Romanian and Iranian ex-girlfriends will testify! Ok, not 'all things', just women. Oh, and Mannlicher Schoenauer rifles!

So lads,is the "bar" anchor pin @ the bend of the mainspring actually part of the spring, or was it drilled & added separately? I just wanted to know what,if anything, that little raised filed square on the spring of the 3rd pictured lock (Woodward) was for.
cheers
franc

It helps fix the spring in place by light contact with the wall of the bar, stops it slipping or working out of the pins laterally.

ok Dig, got it...thanks alot.
franc

I am smitten by the Hill and Smith lock. Studying the pic more carefully I discenr geometry similar to a sidelock. The simplicity is refreshing, using the one spring for powering both the tumbler and the sear. It has only two axles and a pin. And on further peering there seems to be a bite and an overhang at the extremities, making me guess that perhaps it was a detachable trigger plate lock.

It obviously predates the "detachable" generation by several decades. More interesting is why such s simple concept was not copied by any of the overseas makers who turned out mediocre boxlocks and sidelocks by the barrel load. This lock would have been so much simpler to make. Perhaps it is due to the same mental inertia that caused Bland to build the gun with flat panels on the receiver and the stock, as if it were a stillborn sidelock.

Small Bore, do you ever wonder what the result might have been if a maker lavished as much attention and finishing on a simple lock like the Baker as on a Holland type lock? The examples I have come across (Midland Dreanought, Army and Navy) seem to have downgraded the internal finish.

Thank you, Dig. That is great stuff and I need to spend some time with the photos and try to figure out what goes on where. Kind regards, Gil

Dig, I see that you had to bring it up again, as I thought it was not something to "quarrel" about.
"The previous discussion regarding quality, parts, inletting etc fell back to the 'well, it doesn't shoot any better' and 'what's the point?' and completely misses the point. Mass market factory produced guns were not as well made as bespoke bench-made one-off creations. They could not be."

For one thing, I got your point, and ALL L.C. Smith side locks were hand fitted, even the lowly 00 grade (Field grade). The picture I showed of the locks of an 1885 Quality F, was again, JUST A COMPARISON, nothing else, and some turned around with some smart azz comments.

This lock would stand up to any English or European lock.


Plus I see that none of the nose in the air commenters had any comments about the L.C. Smith Quality 7, everything was hand made except the imported barrels.

Not really, it does not have an intercepting sear, and the bridle only has 2 pins (which are not greatly located, I must add).
Additionally, the spring is a tad overstressed as the limbs appear to touch in two spots. Moreover, the distance from the tumbler axis to the bent is quite small, which puts a lot of stress on it.
The fact that LC put a lot of effort on the finish, does not make it a great lock.
And after this, I'll retreat in my foxhole...
Best regards,
WC-

WC, its funny that no American gun that I know of has intercepting sears, why is that? Is it because the American maker thought we didn't need them? Probably. Back then the lock shown on this gun was the most expensive shotgun made here or abroad.
Also the lock is cocked in this picture.

Here is a quote from another forum on a thread re. the exact same subject that pretty much says it all.

"Love is blind".

FWIW I think some of the high grade LC Smith guns are very nice looking guns.

All V sprung locks have superstrong springs. It makes you wonder about the need for such humongous power to indent a simple primer. Autos and pumps have much weaker hammer springs (judging by how easy they are to cock manually) and they have no problems with misfires. Is there a technical reason for this overpowering or is it another one of those "we always did it this way" things?

JDW, your appreciation of quality and mine clearly differ. But rather than get engaged in that - i'll restrict my like for like comparisons to what we can see.

I suggest you look at the first photo you posted and compare that with the Edward Lang on a quality basis. Then look at the Joseph Lang backlocks and compare those with the one you just posted. In each case, there are comparisons, which on point by point basis favour the two Langs, but the ball park is (quite) close.

Then look at the Woodwards and the Purdey hammer gun (the case coloured one). You SHOULD be able to see a qualitative step up. A big one.

Re intercepting safety absence in US locks- Maybe it has to do with the style of use, a gun that is handed back and forth between "gun" and loader probably needs features such as auto safe and intercepting safeties. Much handling increases the probability of a drop and an accidental discharge.

A gun in the hands of a lone hunter slowly walking up behind dogs can be held open till the dogs point and thus be safe. I am just speculating, the real reason mught have been cost.

V springs give a cleaner strike. They are a little faster and trigger pulls with V springs a can be set better and crisper. They retain their power for their entire life.

Coil springs are much easier and cheaper to make and they do continue to work (after a fashion) even when cracked or broken. In the English gun trade, the use of coil springs was almost always linked to cost cutting and applied to cheaper grade guns.

However, you may notice that Dickson preferred coil springs t power the top-lever return of his guns, while most quality makers used a leaf spring here too. Of course, Boss ejectors are powered by coil springs. They are very useful things but generally less favoured in quality locks than leaf springs.

An intercepting safety sear is a refinement. It was an added cost and made the gun safer. How necessary it is, is debatable. Arguably, the better quality the gun, the less need for an interceptor, as the likelihood of slippage or breakage was far less than on a cheaply made gun. We actually find them generally on higher quality guns.

Ah V springs! They and ribs are my two major peeves. I happen to have been unlucky with V springs, having had two break on consecutive hunts in a high quality boxlock, meaning one of those with super thin grooves on engraved grip screws, ie major expense to take apart. I know that this is a super rare event, but once it happens it leaves its mark in the mind and the wallet.

An old and decrepit Westley Richards droplock I own has a broken coil top lever coil spring, had it for decades before I bought it. The guide kept it operating, still does.

Thanks, KK, much appreciated.

[quote=Small Bore]V springs give a cleaner strike. They are a little faster and trigger pulls with V springs a can be set better and crisper. They retain their power for their entire life. [quote]

I would like some clarification on a couple of those comments, Dig, and must take you to task on one.

"They are a little faster and trigger pulls with V springs can be set better and crisper".

Faster? Are you saying that, when comparing a coil spring of 4.5# at full compression to a leaf spring of 4.5# at full compression, the leaf is faster ? (The 4.5# is just an arbitrary number) If so, that is really a moot point, and an arguable one, as the finest triggers in the world, and those having the shortest lock times, employ coil springs, not leaf. Faster lock times are a result of proper geometry. It is the easy way out, and the wrong method, to decrease the lock time by increasing the power of the spring, alone.

"V springs give a cleaner strike".

Huh? What does that mean exactly? Sounds more like sales pitch than physics.

"They retain their power for their entire life".

Not so at all. I can't believe, Dig, you've never handled an old hammer gun that was (evidently) used by right handers most of it's life, and in which the right hammer spring was much, much weaker than the left. This is so common in old external hammer guns that I can't believe you've never noticed it. I have several examples of them myself. My first original m/l side by side was a Powell. It retained the original springs in the locks. The right hammer was so much easier to cock that it wouldn't reliably detonate the percussion cap. As a quick fix I whittled down a piece of a wooden clothes pin (the coil spring type ) and press fit it between the leaves of the spring. It increased the power of it sufficiently that it fired 100% of the time. I eventually found another spring and fitted it. Point being that leaf springs certainly do lose their power, without breaking.

SRH

Stan, I agree the differences may be academic in practice, as are many of the differences between back and bar action locks. I assume you have read Burrard on the matter so I won't re-hash the stuff you already know.

It is a fact that the British gun trade used coil springs as a cost saving measure in general. I cannot think of a single long-lived really top quality gun made with leaf main-springs, though some makers did experiment with them (Greener & Scott spring to mind) and ultimately rejected them for their best models. Maybe others can come up with an example. I'm not being dogmatic about this, just observational. Coil springs did persist in lower grade models.

In my experience, where one mainspring spring is significantly different in power to the one on the opposite lock, it is because one has been replaced at some point in the past.

Almost all the quality hammer guns I pick up, ant they number hundreds per year, demonstrate that well made leaf springs are as good a century after they were made as the day they left the workshop.

The finest triggers in the world employ coil springs - really? Somebody please tell the British shotgun makers, they missed that.

It does not really matter does it? I guess the observation that leaf springs are preferred in quality British guns is the essence of the discussion on them, whether you think they got it right is something you are welcome to argue.

It doesn't, Dig. I am certainly not promoting coil over leaf for all applications. I have both, and appreciate both. I was just addressing your points.

The finest triggers in the world are not British, they are not even shotgun. Perhaps I should have made myself clearer, that I was referring to triggers on benchrest rifles. Triggers on them have reached perfection, necessarily so. The finest shotgun trigger I own is on my MX-8, leaf springs, but they are not in the ballpark with benchrest rifle triggers. My point, which I did not make very clearly, is that, if leaf springs were entirely superior to coil springs, they would be used in the benchrest rifle triggers.

Coil springs are kinda like semi-automatic shotguns. They are just......... made. Fine doubles, wherever they originate, and good leaf springs in them, are crafted.

All my best, Stan

All the peripheral stuff about top lever springs and trigger springs perhaps clouded the main point we were discussing - the mainspring on a shotgun lock. I take all your other points entirely.

How about those italian Fabbri -made shotguns ? Do they have coil or lever springs in their actions ?

While I love shotguns, I do not use them very well, pistols leave me cold yet I use them well enough to score 95per cent in Olympic air pistol shooting. Trigger sensitivity is the foundation of pistol shooting and much cultivated by pistoleers.

We tested a fellow pistoleer who claimed he cound detect minute trigger difference. Blindfolding him we asked him to judge the difference in a Perazzi with V and Coil spring locks in place. He could not. Neither could any of the rest of us including the owner of the shotgun.

Small Bore points out that the best shotgun makers used V springs. They also favored sidelock actions and finished the metal surfaces properly and these maybe the reasons for the absence of creep, rather than the type of spring used. Sidelock geometry promotes crisp triggers.

The boxlock geometry is more challenging from the trigger feel angle, since in the boxlock the main spring is compressed a bit when the trigger is depressed. However, one of the best boxlock triggers I came across was on a Winchester 21 which has coil springs, it had none of the usual "sponginess" of V sprung boxlocks.

Perhaps having had the experience of repeated V spring breakages makes me more coilspring-friendly, introduing a bias in my judgement.

I am starting to believe in the Uri Geller phenomenon. Since my last post on V/leaf springs I broke another one. Not a shotgun one, it is the flat spring on a British army jack knife. It just gave up and fell out of the knife handle in two pieces with no undue strain having been placed on the knife. It is getting so I feel some unease whenever I handle one of my V sprung doubles, a cute little 410 Cogswell hammer gun and an Italian SXS boxlock ejector.

Is there a V spring phobia support group out there?

I was told many years ago, by a maker of leaf springs, that the degree of polish has a great deal to do with whether or not it ever breaks. He said that the slightest score, or line, on a spring will introduce failure at some point.

SRH

My take? Leaf springs predate coil springs by centuries and tradition's grip is one of the strongest of human emotions. The best leaf springs require the highest skill of the workman and attain the level of art. There is a beauty and allure to them that defies rational explanation. I'm one of those who falls under their spell. The coil spring is probably equally efficient, perhaps more so in some respects but lacks the characteristic we double gun collectors admire most: soul derived from individual skill. No apology is needed for adhering to roots rather than technical progress.

Joe; Terry Wieland echos your thoughts in his Spanish Best book,...tradition.

When in Spain at Ugartechea he ordered a model 1030. He ask Mr. Ugartechea which spring should he get in his gun as they offered both. "Mr. Ugartechea replied, coil "they don't break", he said tersely." Meaning no doubt; not as likely. Then again maybe none of his ever broke.

Ugartechea coil spring. Not a very good picture. It is a pic of a pic.

If I was making a living guiding in Africa for animals that kill and/or eat people I'd carry a rifle with coils, no question.

Bird hunting or target shooting is quite different.

SRH

A well made V spring is undoubtedly a thing of beauty. Personally I find the encased coil springs in the Fratelli Gambas rather beautiful too.

It has crossed my mind that V springs probably were favored in early gunmaking because they could be made as and when needed on the premises. Coils are more of a specialist high quantity item, not so practical for low production guns.

That Ugartechea with coil spring shows a better finish than any Ugartechea I have ever seen. Which goes to show that coils can be part of a well finished total.

I wish you not too much dirt in Africa...... ;-)
That of course, is another problem for coils.

Best Regards,
Gunwolf

My experience of African rifles giving good service in hard conditions over many years suggests that the good quality boxlock action stands up to as much abuse as you can throw at it. A nice example is a Henry Atkin boxlock and a Rigby boxlock, both in .470, which have been in continual service in the hands of a family of professional hunters since WW1. Still both used daily. They are just two of hundreds.

...and both with leaf springs of course...!?

Gunwolf

There has been much discussion on the pros and cons of v-springs versus coil springs. However, there is another type of spring which is used by certain makers in some of their guns. This is the bow (or bowed) spring.

The use of bowed springs in best shown in the Round Actions made by Dickson and McKay Brown:



and MacNaughton Edinburgh Action guns:



How does this type of spring compare to the v-spring and coil spring?

Essential difference between a coil and other types of spring is that coils can only work with either external or internal guides. It happens that the guides also act as traps which hold together the bits of the spring in the event of a breakage and thus a coil will continue to function even if broken at one or more places.

The famed Russian vostok target gun uses bow springs, and I have seen two breakages in them. However, I am seriously willing to admit to being a V and flat spring jinx. No sarcasm intended.

Ah and the Dickson is my candidate for the best double ever built. A non ejector side pedal Dickson in 16 gauge must be the prettiest gun ever.

And now in the inexpensive Turkish imports Cabelas is selling under the name "Dickinson"...Geo

Correct.

Steven Dodd Hughes' picture of the S&W Elite/Dickinson internals in his final SSM article on trigger plate guns shows they use V springs.

Jay

Not disputing you Jay but I thought the trigger plate/blitz action by definition used the bow style springs. I have one of the Dickinsons but its with my Gunsmith presently to try and do something about the heavy trigger pulls. Whatever kind of springs it has they're pretty darn strong.

I checked my owner manual though and the exploded view pictures what look to me like bow style mainsprings. I'll have to read the SDH article...Geo

I have one too George, and also had my gunsmith work on lightening the trigger pulls. He confirmed that the springs are V-type. I have a PDF copy of the pics from SDH's article, but don't know a way to post a PDF in a thread. If you PM your email address to me, I can send it to you as an attachment.

Jay

Yes Jay, please send me the pictures you are referring to. My email is in my profile. I could be looking at the wrong parts in my owner's manual exploded view...Geo

After reviewing the SDH article Gunflint Charlie mentioned above I see that he was correct in the Dickinson gun's use of standard V-type mainsprings instead of the bow type springs utilized in the Dickson, McNaughton and McKay round action trigger plate guns. I had read all the articles but somehow missed that.

I'm blaming my error on the little bitty exploded view picture in my Dickinson owner's manual. The three action walls on the trigger plate separating and enclosing the left and right locks looked to my tired old eyes like bow springs. If I keep learning more stuff like this every day I might know something 'fore long!...Geo

This one does (as well as cocking indicators).
It is (was) an L.C. Smith 00 grade.

Pretty easy for me to conclude why they weren't there to begin with, Dewey.

Nice work.

Best,
Ted

Dewey,
That lock is just beautiful. A little nicer than the factory did. I just bought a Husqvarna peninsula lock hammer gun and am impressed with the quality of work that went into these hardware store guns.

A nice lock is s thing of beauty.
Regards,
Jeff