doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Tobin

Ted;
Understand, I'm not doubting your word here as I have never even seen a Tobin. Just sort of perusing, do you have any ideas as to why these guns do not hold up. According to Researcher's post, these guns started to be built in 0904. Smokeless powder had already been on the market at least a decade prior to that so it didn't come about after the guns were built. The 1893 patent date would somewhat coincide with the general introduction of smokeless.

Most of my Lefevers have a last patent date on them of 1887 but they do not seem to have this problem of frame bending nor stretching. Over the years I have had a couple of the Baker Batavia line which does not have the "Draw Bolt" of the graded line. They too were tight & have only "One Function" bolting in the rib extension. They simply have an open-ended slot in a straight rib extension.

I will say though that unless those Tobin bolts were carefully fitted for their dual purpose I think that steep downward slope to the "Hole" in the extension was a great mistake. The slot in the Bakers rib has the bolting surface parallel to the bore axis.

Miller,
The patent for the Tobin Simplex design had been around for a decade before Frank M. Tobin ended up with it, and started producing guns. You are astute in noticing that the bolting is comparable to other designs. But, the frame itself has had huge cuts taken out of both sides, and a large hole cut in the bottom for the lump from the barrels. My opinion, and it is free and worth at least double what it cost you here today, is the Tobin frame is compromised on resistance to twisting forces, and the design may actually aggravate them. The dual purpose use of the springs as cocking levers necessitated they be long, with a corresponding long action bar, to provide leverage to get the gun cocked. They also used rollers on the spring and hammer ends, clearly trying to reduce the effort it took to cock the gun. Early on, I figured out that the pin, part number 29, could be rotated, 180 degrees, presenting a fresh, unused surface to the barrel lump. On the guns I owned, this never changed a thing, they were still sloppy. The �wear� was actually a bend across the action bar, and Moses has accurately nailed the problem, on the illustrated gun.
That gun didn�t leave the Tobin factory looking like that.
The identical problem exists in far too many of them to discount that there is a problem in the design. Inspite of the fact that smokeless powders were available around the same time the guns were produced, many folks stuck with loading their own components with black, the same way they had for generations, and the problem may not have been well defined until the company was gone, or, nearly so.
I still believe it is a problem that develops with high pressure ammunition, and the guns would be satisfactory with loads more typical of black powder pressure. My 16 was mostly unused when I got it, with the lever well to right, as any new double gun should be. I had formed my � low pressure only for Tobins� opinion by then, and used the gun with great success, and no issues. The 16 gauge Tobin frame was a bit narrower than the 12, otherwise they are identical. Perhaps the 16s held up better? But, it was a single gun out of many.
Of course, the Nitro Special that replaced it, has no such limitations, if you want to call them that way.

Best,
Ted

Actually, modern ammunition has nothing to do with it. The heaviest 12-gauge loads our North American Ammunition companies produced during the years Tobin doubles were being factory built was 3 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 28-grains of dense smokeless powder such as Infallible or Ballistite pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot.





When progressive burning smokeless powder, high velocity loads, Western Super-X, Peters High Velocity, etc. came out in the 1920s they actually moved that 1 1/4 ounce of shot out at higher velocity but lower pressures than the heaviest old bulk or dense smokeless powder loads.

I still believe a large segment of the population loaded black, for a long time after smokeless was introduced.

It was cheaper. It worked well. And, shooters, then and now, are a stubborn lot. It oftentimes takes the law being changed to get them to switch.

Regardless, take a look at the guns for sale on a few of the websites, paying attention to the photos of the toplevers on the Tobins for sale.

It ain�t pretty. One hapless Tobin, has had its toplever bent to the right, to make it appear right. The hole they drilled in it must have been for decor.

Best,
Ted

The dealer that listed this gun thinks it is worth 3K. My opinion of dealers isn�t going up as the years go by.

Best,
Ted

The dealer that listed this gun thinks it is worth 3K. My opinion of dealers isn�t going up as the years go by.

Best,
Ted[/quote]

The gun I have been looking at is listed at 1/6 of that price & is said to be in excellent condition.
However, the basically useless photo's only from left & right sides show a chunk of timber out of the stock at the rear of the right lock plate. Other from that it is hard to determine the true condition from the poor pics.

Not saying deceptive but I think not enough knowledge to take a useful pic or judge true condition, as it is a private seller.

O.M

Did you ever see nose hairs & zits on a photo of Miss America ?

O.M

Ted;
I am in full agreement that black did stay around a good while after smokeless was introduced & was used by many both for economy & familiarity. Early Ideal handbooks which were the primary loading instruction manual available in those years did not recommend loading anything but black or bulk smokeless. Loads were somewhat limited by shell capacity, however, fairly stiff loads with 1� oz of shot would fit even the 2 5/8" hull with a roll crimp.

Now I may be wrong on this (would like to be shown if so) but I have before me an old Hercules loading manual. Two hand-picked loads; both with WWAA hulls & Win 209 primer & using WWAA wads are;
#1 - 18 grains powder X with 1 1/8 oz shot @ 1200 fps @ 10, 400 psi,
#2 - 25 grains powder Y with 1� oz shot @ 1220 fps @ 8,400 psi.

My take is in spite of the 2K lower psi load #2 will put more bending &/or stretching stress on the frame than will load #1 as it is moving a heavier load at a higher velocity. Load #2 is listed as a 3� dram equivalent
I will stick my neck out even further & say if one loaded 89 grains of black behind 1� oz of shot & reached 1220 fps even if the psi was only 6,400 it would still have put essentially the same stress on the frame.

Sounds to me as if the Tobin was simply under-engineered from the git-go for either Black or Smokeless in anything except very mild loads.

Miller,
Correct me if I am wrong- you are claiming a 6400 psi load puts the equivalent stress on a firearm frame as one at 10,400?

Best,
Ted

Ted;
I am claiming the strain on the frame of the gun is the opposite reaction of propelling the charge down the barrel, just as is recoil. Max chamber pressure is just one small part of the entire thrust. If you push an ounce & a quarter of shot out the muzzle @ 1220 fps you have done the same work, both forward & backward, regardless of the brief Max pressure. The load is being accelerated for its entire travel down the barrel. It takes an amount of time for that frame to deflect, admittedly very small, but the higher pressure load holds that max pressure for a shorter time than does the lower pressure load.


Way too many people when they consider internal ballistics get too hung up on the max pressure & that alone.

I will turn your Question around, I ask you;
Are you telling me a 1 1/8 oz load at 1200 fps will stress the action more than will a 1� oz load at 1220 fps just because it Briefly has a higher max pressure?? If so explain why the heavier load Kicks Harder with a lower Max pressure??