doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Hammer gun durability vs hammerless?

I really enjoy shooting my hammer guns, but I've noticed that it's not uncommon to see a hammer gun that has worn tumblers to the point where the hammer won't hold back. Are hammer guns intrinsically more prone to that because the sear notch in the tumbler is so small, or is that just more an issue with low end guns? I don't recall seeing many high quality hammer guns with this issue.

I'm asking mostly out of curiosity, but also because I'd like to use my hammer guns for target shooting more often, but I'm often hesitant due to concerns about wearing them out, and I'm not sure if that's something to concern myself with or not.

Probably a good subject on which to get Dig Hadoke's views.

some of my hammer guns show signs of being well used - fortunately also mostly well cared for. i hunt and shoot clays with them and have never seen excessive wear on the tumbler or sear notch-

and I normally strip the locks to clean them when i first get the gun - years of petrified oil and such, so i get a good look at them - that includes a better grade Belgium gun, British hammer guns hammer and Parker hammer guns

I think you will see the wear/misalignment predominant in locks that do not have a bridle. On hammerless guns, and sidelocks with a bridle, the tumbler is supported on both sides of the tumbler and alignment is maintained. In locks that only have a tumbler pin supported in the sideplate, the spring pressure is always twisting at the pin in the tumbler bushing and minimal wear will let the tumbler and sear get out of proper engagement.

My $.02,

John

Thanks John. That's very good insight.

That's consistent with my experience too. I think most of the worn out guns I've seen have been low grade guns that don't have the tolerances that John referenced above.

THe theoretical advantage is with the hammer gun, especially the back action type that has a solid action bar. A totally manuall operated system has fewere bits to wear and mistime compared to a self cocking or a self ejecting one.

In practice even cheap hammer guns, like those that Italian makers produced in the thousands post WWII, stand up well to wear, even abuse, as long as rust is kept away. Wear in the sear bents, more frequently the safety bent than the full cock bent, seems to be due to poor heat treatment than a design thing. Replacement tumblers are available and changing them is not that hard to do.

I am confused by the comment above re bridles. Which hammer guns have no bridles in their locks? Seems impossible to hold a tumbler up against the lock plate with no bridle.

Mark, shoot the bloody gun to your heart's content. Keep it clean and properly lubed and it most likely will outlast you. Most wear comes from negligence. Having said that, avoid removing the locks frequently. In dry conditions once a year should be enough.

And a word about lubricating: easily overdone, just a little grease goes a long way. It will quickly wick into all the tight spots and do what it's intended to do. Gobbling it on will do nothing more than soak the wood. You've seen enough of that!

My Joseph Lang was built in 1866 and I have no Idea how much it was used before I bought it. I've shot over 6,000 cartridges in her and she works as well as ever. I shot quail with her Friday a week ago, 100 rounds of clays this past Friday and am taking her quail hunting in Georgia next Saturday. I fully expect someone else to be shooting her regularly after my demise.

The only locks without bridles that I've seen were early CVA muzzleloaders. I don't believe the bents are any different size between the hammer guns and hammerless. I've had a number of locks apart and have never noticed a difference. I shoot my hammer guns and never think about it. At least the hammer gun locks are easier to work on - especially the tumblers and sears. The bents are on the hammers in a hammerless gun and they're usually much harder to remove than taking apart a sidelock. JMHO