May
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Who's Online Now
2 members (bsteele, Jusanothajoe), 321 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,531
Posts545,926
Members14,420
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364
nialmac Offline OP
Sidelock
*
OP Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364
I have been interested in these guns for many years. I've handled several, hunted with one I used to own and read many articles about their history. All the British ones were around five and a half pounds and I've come to believe that perhaps a big reason they were developed was the large number of men with missing limbs as a result of the war. It's quite possible to shoot these guns one handed. While smaller bore guns could be just as light, during that period there was a feeling that only women or old men would use them. The 2" gun looks like a standard 12 bore. I think keeping the chamber short was to insure that a standard cartridge couldn't be used in such a light gun, not so much for reasons of excessive pressure but for excessive recoil. It's quite possible to build a sub 6 lb. gun with 2 3/4" chambers. I've fired one and a quarter ounce loads through such a gun but I wouldn't want to do it often So what do you think? Was the 2 inch gun just a whim dreamt up by a marketing genius or was there a real need for it?

Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,114
Likes: 595
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,114
Likes: 595
I had always been told that it was a response to older hunters wanting a lighter gun to go afield with to do "rough shooting". Standard-weight guns being used in driven shoots is one thing, but when you actually had to carry your own weapon, well....I dare say, old boy, that sounds like work!

Your theory sounds plausible as well.

Last edited by Lloyd3; 10/16/14 09:00 PM.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,384
Likes: 106
Sidelock
**
Online Content
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,384
Likes: 106
The 2" shell was actually developed years before the 2" gun. Light loads for standard Brit game guns. Then, during the between the wars years when competition was tough and new guns weren't selling all that well, someone came up with the idea of a gun specifically designed for the short shells. Sort of like the Churchill XXV: at least part marketing ploy, to offer something the competition didn't have.

The early 2" guns underwent the same standard British proof as 2 1/2" guns. Later--during the 50's, I believe--the proofhouses established a lower proof standard for 2" guns. All the Spanish 2" guns made more recently were subjected to the CIP standard proof.

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 11
Sidelock
****
Offline
Sidelock
****

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 11
nialmac,
The origins of the 2 inch cartridge dates back to 1897 at which time London gun maker Charles Lancaster introduced a 2 inch and a 2 1/4 inch 12G cartridge that he named the "Pigmy," These cartridges were loaded with 1 ozs; or 1 1/8 ozs of shot; more importantly with smokeless rather than black powder which allowed the case length reduction. The intent was to use these cartridges in guns chambered 2 1/2-2 3/4 or 3 inches.The result was less than satisfactory with many reports of balled shot and much adverse press.[See Experts on Guns and shooting pages 265-278.] The result was that the cartridges rapidly faded from the market.
30 years later the trend was to lighter weight gun and the 2 inch cartridge was reintroduced this time for use in 2 inch chambered guns. The prime manufacture of these 2 inch guns for the trade was the Birmingham firm of Skimmin and Wood, whose name is currently owned by,F.J.Wiseman Cannock ,Staffordshire.
In my opinion the 2 inch gun was made for general use not for any specific customer group I am sure it was welcomed by the disabled,aged and young sportsmen/women.


Roy Hebbes
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 70
Likes: 2
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 70
Likes: 2
I own a 12 ga. Grulla that was ordered with 2" chambers and subsequently bored out to 2 3/4". The gun weighs 7 pds. 4 ozs. They apparently used standard weight barrels. Why it was originally ordered with 2" chambers is a mystery to me.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,737
Likes: 96
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,737
Likes: 96
I agree Austin, it tends to defeat the object. I have one made by Skimmin & Wood but using the name J & W.Tolley which was a name owned by them. It weighs in at 5 pound 5 ounce with 26 inch barrels. In the right circumstances it is a delight to use. Lagopus.....

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,384
Likes: 106
Sidelock
**
Online Content
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,384
Likes: 106
All the modern Spanish 2" guns I've seen, with the standard 850 bar proof, seem to tip the scale at around 6#--which is, in most cases, a good half pound more than the weight of a Brit 2".

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364
nialmac Offline OP
Sidelock
*
OP Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
All the modern Spanish 2" guns I've seen, with the standard 850 bar proof, seem to tip the scale at around 6#--which is, in most cases, a good half pound more than the weight of a Brit 2".


True Larry, but I had one at 5 3/4 lbs. I've also measured the width of the breach of standard Arrieta 12 bores and their 2" chambered guns. The 2 inchers are trimmer, only a sixteenth of an inch wider than their 16 bores. I've often thought of ordering a new one with 25" barrels and 14" stock. I'll bet they could bring it in at 5lb. 10 ozs.

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,472
Likes: 208
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,472
Likes: 208
2" 12ga guns allow use of 20ga shot loads with better patterns, due to fewer shot "scrubbing" the barrel.This was before shot protecting wads.
Mike

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 70
Likes: 2
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 70
Likes: 2
Lagopus, Even with the lengthened chambers on my Grulla the the wall thickness at the beginning of the forcing cones is 0.98". How does that compare with the wall thickness of english guns with unaltered 2" chambers?

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.093s Queries: 36 (0.060s) Memory: 0.8446 MB (Peak: 1.9017 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-05-16 11:06:06 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS