doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Winchester 21 assembly / general questions

WOOWY!

To add to the mix:
32" VR 12 Gauge IM/FULL "Custom Built By Winchester",
Shadow Line Cheekpiece, Monte Carlo with Hession fore end, believe built as a Live Pigeon gun.-Dick

Here's a '67 custom grade w/box engraved by Salerno. Picked this one up out of an estate in Pennsylvania about 10 years ago, the quality of wood finish and wood is just OK. I like the older ones better myself (pre59)

2Piper,

I read your comments on the round bolt and thank you for your observations plus the mention of other shotguns that have them. Apparently is not as rare as I thought.

You mention the load bearing cross pin in the Mod 21. From the pics I have seen it seems that the cross pin is supported by frame metal on the front, so the load is not borne by the pin alone.

The lack of a central bridge does raise some questions. On the other hand I wonder how much actual contact between the rear lump and the bridge (and hence support) there is during firing. I have tested with smoke a couple of my doubles and there does not seem to be any load transfer between rear lump and bridge, ie no detectable contact. Also, when a gun is off the face and the barrels are refitted, ie taken back a few thou, this contact would then be lost even if it existed when factory new.

I wonder if the gents who own Mod 21s can help with this question of the lock up of the round bolt. Have any of you had any experience with Mod21s shooting loose and the subsequent repair required to put them back "on face"?

Any had any problems of a loose action camming itself open during firing? I have heard of this problem with some OUs but not with a SXS.

As a non American non British European I do not harbor any alliance for any style of shotgun. And also have never had the chance to actually handle a Mod 21, there are none in my area. The reported strength of the action does fascinate me though since it seems to flout accepted (by the British) tenets of shotgun design. I wonder if there were British guns in that endurance test carried out by Winchester where the Mod 21 was pitted against the rest.

The 21 barrels have a tensile strength of 115,000 pounds per square inch. In a 1932 ad Winchester fired the 21 with 3 1/4 drams of powder and 1 1/8 oz. of shot with the lug, lever, and locking bolt removed.

Case hardened frame guns have about half of the tensile strength (94,200 lbs vs. 174,600 lbs.) and elastic limit of the Win 21's blued frame.

Winchester tested the 21 with violent proofs (50% higher charges) against a Fox, Ithaca, Parker, and LC smith. The Fox failed after 80 rounds, the ithaca after 56, the Parker went 305, and they say records for the smith was lost but it also failed. The 21 went 2,000 rounds and was still in good working order.

*Herbert G. Houze, "a study of strength"

1. The cross pin has a bushing around it.

2. If a Model 21 does happen to become loose (rare), the bushing can be turned 1/2 turn and your good to go. If the bushing will not tighten it with a 1/2 turn, then it can be replaced with one that is slightly larger in size. There were several sizes.

3. I'm not sure if any British guns were used, or not. Probably not, cause who would what to destroy a Purdy, H&H, or a Boss among others?

I just took a look at two guns I own with conventional hinge pins with double underbolts, one a J P Sauer the other a J P Clabrough. Both have the hinge pin supported by the frame. Both have the bbls joined by braizing, the Clabrough with a dovetail lug &Not Chopper) & the Sauer with a shoe lump. Both are over 100 yrs old, both show considerable use or at least handling, both are still tight & on face yet "Neither" have wear compensating "Anything". The bolting surfaces on both the bolt & the lug are simply paralell, no wedge shape.
Both of these guns have the forend secured by a deely latch, no spring loading to give frictional wear to mating surfaces. The benefit of the bearing area of the rear lug is of course highly dependent upon its fit (workmanship).
Again the main point of the 21's fame is its metalurgy, not any superior design. The Model 97, 12 & A5 put more double gun makers out of buisness than the 21 ever thought of.

Just as a side thought, anyone have any idea what type metal & type of bbl joining was used for Jefferey's .600 NE.

This thread's got me looking. In my three doubles, two British, one Italian, the front lump recess is parrallel, but the rear fits in a reciprocating wedge form with the underbolt.

Don Moody, thank you for the info on the bushing. It is a nifty idea for sure.

Piper, the idea od inbuilt wear compensation makes sense. I have seen hundreds of "best guns" off face and seen many strange ways of repair. Some forethought that would prevent TIG welding the lump is not a bad idea in my view. The replaceable bushing is a simple way to offer built in renovation and to stop any "innovative" smith from doing weird things. Beretta and Blaser, to name two, use these devices in their OUs.

As to the metallurgy versus design concept. It would seem that the material specified is part of the total equation, as is the manufacturing method. Bruce Owen, production manager at Purdeys, wrote a long time ago in Shooting Sportsman that Purdey had to change to modern steels when it went over to CNC machining. The old stuff just could not handle the faster feed and cut rates of the new machinery. If I recall he used the words "better steels" which kind of raises interesting questions as to the term "best", but that is for another thread.

SGL;
Yes I agree here that mat'l specs are litterally a part of the "Design". I was however generally speaking of the mechanical design features. This is where I say there is only extremely small improvments (if any) in the "design" of a 21. Its design improvement is its metalurgy. The hinge is a good one, but they just found a slightly different way of doing it, nothing really innovative. J W Livingston had a patent for a hinge pin back in 1880 which was used on John Nichol's hammer guns which accomplished the same purpose & of course D M Lefever & F R Smith's 1882 patent for the ball & socket joint are legendary.
Not sure about Purdey's assesments, generally speaking the milder the steel the faster you can cut it. May be some other factors involved.
The Clabrough & Sauer do not have compensation period. The top lever comes to a positive stop at center & the bolts just slide home. There is just the barest minimum of clearence for them to slide & though I wasn't around when they were built all indications are they have virtually the same clearence today as they had over 100 yrs ago. When you think about it, the friction on these bolts is essentially Nil, so they don't seem to wear. Likewise on the rear lump, as it is not Pulled into a frictional condition by a forend spring it doesn't wear to any extent either. Even if the hinge wears to some extent the gun can go "Off-Face" only to the extent of the clearence on that rear lump.
Winchester very wisely chose to use modern steels which were available to them upon introduction of the 21 & on that factor built a "Deserved" reputation of a solid & durable gun. They did not however make any great "Innovations" in gun design with it. There are litterally hundreds of makes out there built to a superior design, but mostly of lesser mat'ls, though most of these have given great service & satsfaction to their owners, many for a long time & for lot's of shooting.

Any idea why they would have used differing types of steel for the receiver and for the floor plate? (eg. blue flaking off the floorplate)