I thought some might be interested in these photos of a 1892 H&H Royal that I was regulating today. I describe it as transitional as it has several features that link between the earlier 'Type One' dip edge Royals and the 'Type Two' more current styling that Hollands adopted after opening their Harrow Rd factory in 1893.
Obviously this is a later lock plate shape but still stamped 'Block Patent Safety' although the actual interceptor sear referred to has been replaced by the 'Spear' interceptor sear much utilised by John Robertson's London workshops (he built or at least finished many of the Royals for Hollands up until 1893).
The action is still not stocked to the fences and the simplified Scott top extension is still in use.
The bolstered tumbler pivot is still in evidence.
The engraving pattern is showing signs of the later move to bold foliate but still has the rose bouquets of the earlier pattern.

Cool!

So, does one refer to it as a 7 pin configuration?


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Toby;

I am surprised to see the excellent condition of the locks and lock plates, including the engraving after 126 years. Does the remainder of the gun look that well? Are the barrels damascus?

That's a great looking lock, Toby. Beautiful workmanship.

What type of regulation were you having to do to it? Are you referring to regulating the barrels?

Thanks for the pics and narrative.

SRH

It is such a pleasure to see such fine workmanship. Each part shaped, fit and polished to such perfection. What do you think we are looking at in hours? Twenty hours in each lock? Twice that, even more?

I would love to see what that bolster looks like on the inside, underneath the tumbler. Is the purpose of it to give a longer bearing surface for the axle?

I've never seen one like that disassembled.

SRH

Beautiful gun. Speaking of transitional H&H's, what are your thoughts on the design of this one (poor pic quality but interesting specimen):

https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-f...un_id=100727841

I would describe it as a 9 pin. You may be only able to count 8 but in fact the int sear is held on by its pin in a BLIND hole. The pin you can see on the outside in (nearly) the right place is the main sear's spring pin whose head is hidden behind the interceptor sear.

Yes the rest of the action is as good. The hardening on many of this period's guns is very good and helps preserve the engraving as long as they haven't been abused.
The barrels are original 30" steel.

Stan,
Trigger pulls, safety slide, sear clearance and ejector timing. Regulating POI is well above my pay grade!
Best, Toby

At this time, virtually all locks were made by specialists for the Makers, very few in house. So they had economies of scale and highly specialised craftsmen. Also many of the components would have been forged near to final shape and filed up using patterns which saved time. How long? No idea but probably less than one might imagine.

Stan,
The lockplate is quite flat behind the tumbler: the bolster was only on the outside. Yes it was put there to increase the bearing surface for the tumbler pivot. They fell out of use as it became clear they were unnecessary.
Best Toby

Dan,
I have seen a couple of those shaped lockplates on early Hollands and actually restored one a few years back. The lockwork is classic Scott of the period and I guess that the slightly unusual lockplate style was the characteristic of the trade gunmaker who was supplying Hollands at the time.

Here is a photos of the one I handled:





And at the time I wrote the following about it:

This is an extraordinarily rare 'No. 2 Pattern' sidelock specified with 'Best Finish'. We have never actually seen one of these beauties before nor know anybody who has. One should note the very unusual scalloped lock plates and the lack of any through pin in the lockplates. Also the very broad action, almost a pigeon gun in its proportions.
The lock internals are pure early 'Royal', which it predates, but with no dip to the upper edge it looks much more like a later 'Royal' in profile. It was built as an ejector utilising the notorious Hodges ejector patent and so one can assume it was actioned by the EC Hodges who was a very important 'actioner' to the London trade. However, the ejector system was changed to the much more reliable Perkes system, probably around 1890.





A link to the gun's details is:

http://www.heritageguns.co.uk/H&H%20SLE%207817/H&H%20SLE%207817%20Details.htm

Thank you, Toby. I recently saw a Leech and Sons with that precise lock pattern (beautifully engraved) so the Scott origins makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, that gun is slated for decommissioning. I think this configuration is actually very attractive for an early sidelock design.

Presented without comment:

Thats a bit agricultural compared with the Holland

Thank you, twice, Toby. I assumed the lock plate was flat beneath the tumbler, but wondered if the bolster was a separate press fit affair, like a cap with a shoulder, that was dressed off flush on the inside .............. or if it was actually part of the lock plate itself.

I really like the scallop on the rear of the lock plate on the other gun you pictured. Reminiscent of some m/l lock "tails" I have seen, but much more ornate.

Best, SRH

I have a collection of 1870's era unfinished lockplates as would have been supplied to the trade.

All pins are present - heads and back ends are not "finished"
Tumbler axles are round - A jig would make a quick job of filing square tapers on to fit hammers.
All springs are present and functional but in a rough filed condition - possibly as fine as a second cut file.
Lock plates are oversize and the finish is that of a bastard file.
Bridles are present but oversize and afar cry from the refined and often ornately filed bridles we sometimes see.
I would imagine working by eye i would be looking at it taking 20 hours minimum in order to take these "as supplied" lock plates to anything we might see on a gun we might describe as finely worked, whats interesting to me is that when i make springs i carefully polish the inside surfaces before making the bend - clearly this isn't what has been done on these locks and it was left to the gun maker to finish up inside as best as he could.

They are lightly rusted with the ravages of the intervening 140 years in some gunsmiths or others parts box and some have been robbed for stirrups and springs but some are complete or nearly so. Bar action and back action sidelocks and also conventional back action locks too; all hammer gun locks, all rebounding.

They will have had jigs for everything - computers have killed the art of simplifying a complex task by turning it into smaller more achievable jobs.

I would say that the lock plates were probably cut square and then drilled with a hole that is a reference hole for later work holding and becomes the tumbler axle.

plates into a press which would cut the plates to shape.

Plate to drills set up to drill holes in the right place for the right style of bridle. holes then tapped - then as now to speed things up the taps might have been on a belt driven drill i imagine if you set the belt up right you could stall it out before the tap broke - its not the proper way to use a tap but we have all shoved a tap in a hand drill at one point lets not assume that yesteryear's people were as purist as we might like them to be!

Pins would have probably been mass manufactured either in house or by another specialist.

Ive got some tumbler forgings which will have been lathed down to size a lathe with stops in the appropriate places would have made this easy and repeatable.

Tumblers to a filing jig, which could have been used on a filing machine or grinding machine.

You can start to see the economies of scale, i can see that assuming pins were bought in, tumbler forgings bought in, springs probably pre bent and then fitted if you had a workshop set up for lock plates and men/boys/women/ or outworkers feeding the supply or carrying out specialist tasks you even a relatively small operation might be producing hundreds of gun locks a week - the purchase and setting up of equipment and specialist tools was probably more expensive than any workers time.

Very interesting discussion. Thanks to all.

I once in my machinist career had to tap blind holes for some small screws in H900 17-4PH stainless. I broke the first several I tried by hand tapping. I was building the part on a CNC machine. One could set the spindle to stop at a given depth & reverse rotation. I calculated the feed rate to accommodate the spindle speed in relation to threads per inch. I then proceeded to "Power" tap the rest without breaking another tap. I have tapped hundreds of holes by simply chucking the tap in a drill chuck on a Bridgeport mill & hand feeding by feel. This works great on a through hole, but not so well for a blind hole.
We used a lot of two flute taps which had the lead ground to curl the chip ahead of the tap, which was called a "Gun Tap". This designation had nothing to do with firearms, but because they were designed for power tapping.
You can actually power tap under conditions which are near impossible to tap by hand. You can believe it or not as you see fit but with over 35 years in machine shops, I tapped a "LOT" of holes both by hand & by power.

Not I, never.

I know how to power nap, but not power tap.

SRH

I have never Power Tapped with a hand drill either. I try my level best to not tap with an un-guided tap, only do that when it is an absolute necessity. If I drill the hole under a drill press then I will put some type of guide in the press to keep the tap aligned. In spite of the lead-in, taps are not self-centering, plus support for the upper end gives one a bit of a hedge against breakage.