doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Intercepting Sears

I agree 100% with your statement Chuck H and we could have a lengthly discussion concerning the merits of gun safety design, but did we change or improve the Parker reproductions when they came out? I don't beleive we did.
I quess the question is; if we have a chance to improve a design for safety reason should we do it or should we keep the design as is for purists like me? And what is wrong with the initial design of the "Automatic Hammerless" Lefever?
All the best

This discussion is a good one. I believe it's exactly what Ken wanted; get the juices flowing and discussing pros and cons of potential changes. Ken did say: "I have wanted to re make the Lefever shotgun but better than the original."

I'm not an advocate of intercepting sears for this project, but this discussion could reveal a ingenious safety feature that would be invisible to the user and easily incorporated, yet provide better safety than a conventional sear or trigger blocking safety. Frankly, I don't know what type of safety the Lefever has.

Jim, you forget that JP Sauer and Lindner boxlocks also frequently incorporated the intercepting sear. I see no reason not to consider the modification of the Lefever to incorporate additional safety feature of hammer block safety and/or intercepting sears. The addition will not visually change the gun and making it better (safer) with the hindsight of a hundred years would seem prudent. We are going to have greatly improved metallurgy and machine work in the gun so it will not be an exact copy in that sense anyway.

This photo is not what I wanted, but for those who can visualize leverwork, it will help. This is the "guts" of an 1894 Woodward BLE. The piece on the far right is the interceptor. Imagine it oriented as a "L" in the action. The juncture of the two legs is a sear that engages the hammer, the horizontal leg is lifted by the trigger blade, and the top of the vertical member pivots on a screw in the frame (top and back of each side). The second from the right is the hammer. Imagine it is a "T" layed on its right side. The sear of the interceptor catches the notch (bent) at the bottom of the cross bar. The regular sear piece catches a notch near the axle.



If I can get time, I'll reshoot this photo with the pieces in working orientation.

I think this discussion is fascinating. I certainly trust Miller's opinion regarding the hammer block. Would I want / appreciate a safety? Certainly I would.

I have a simple question. Who is going to engineer this?

Ken is a very talented engraver. Steve Earle is a very talented machinist who is a master with the current technology. Glen Flewless, who will be fitting the barrels is also a talented master. Steve needs to be handed a working action or CAD drawings to machine any changes into the action. Who is going to supply those?

Pete

First & foremost & think it necessary to get a grasp on what causes a "Jar Off". Well of course a "Jar" but what I am speaking of is what causes the gun to discharge. Is the primary reason wear to the sear surfaces which with the jar cause them to move under pressure. A proper sear should not move short of enough force to give breakage. This is where I believe the Lefever design stands out in that reduced leverage on the sear & notch should result in less wear as well as not putting as much camming force on the sear even if worn some. The further that point gets from the axle the easier it is to hold the main spring tension. Next most likely reason for the AD I believe would be inertia to the long end of the sear causing it to move out of engagement with the sear. The Lefever design I do not believe holds any advantage here. The Sauer I mentioned above I believe has about the best advantage I have seen for this aspect as the sear mass is about equally divided about it's pivot. There should thus be little chance of a jar causing it to move. It also incidently has the hammer notch on the outer periphery of the hammer. Some interceptor designs I have seen drawings of, unlike that Rocketman showed, are simply set side by side. It would sem any inertia applied to the sear would be applied equally to the interceptor.
Another possibility it has always seemed to me would be rather simple would be to simply design the safety to block the sears.

Miller,
Thanks for the explanation. The greater mechanical advantage of a longer 'arm' the sear/notch works at would indeed lower specific forces on the surfaces and reduce wear.

Your take on balanced inertia of the sears is a good one IMO.

I did not know if the Lefever safety was a trigger block or sear block type. Certainly a sear block type would be a more reliable feature if properly executed. My imagination runs to including a hammer block or maybe a simple transfer bar system (ala Ruger New Model) along with either the trigger or sear block.

Miller says:

Vide Shooting Sportsman , Jul/Aug 2002, pgs. 76-79 for MacTrevaltosh commentary on safety which is both trigger blade block and sear block. Don't know if this would work with the overhanging sears on Lefevers.

jack

Chuck;
The Lefever safety is just a trigger block. I believe your idea of a hammer block or transfer bar would be much easier to implement into the design than an interceptor & likely superior as well. A sear block safety has to be carefully thought out & fitted so it does not leave a gun prone to AD upon taking it off-safe, but that should certainly not be insurmountable.

I DID say "usually". I have never seen the inside of a Sauer or a Lindner. I'll stand on my opinion that "improving for modern PC's sake" the excellent but simple design of the Lefever is not a good idea. They have possibly the best, safest sear/hammer relationship of any of the older guns and certainly the simplest. Again, I haven't seen them all. This project is going to be hard enough to make and sell profitably, IMO. It doesn't need "improvements". That's JMO, as always. To carry it one step further, I don't think the idea has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, even though I wish them the very best. Look at how many other similar projects have died on the vine, for one reason or another. Are people buying those finish it yourself, in-the-white Parkers? This one won't even have the wood?