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

What have you fellows got to say about Tobin, American made in Norwich Conn sometime around 1910. Sidelock 12g 2 3/4 chambers.

I have never seen or handled one in person.
How do you rate them for quality, function, handling ?
Are they Purdy under bolt ?
Anything at all about them please, so that I may better understand.

O.M

Try doing a search on here and you'll find plenty about a Tobin.

If smokeless powder had never come along, there would be a few more Tobins around.

The design is neither sidelock, nor boxlock, but, a weird hybrid that has a lot of steel removed from the frame, for the guns mechanics. The only part carried on the sidelocks is the sear springs. The rollers on the hammers and the spring ends, and using the springs as cocking levers was a clever idea, but, due to the design, it is a low pressure ammunition gun, period.

Dave should be along with some documents and photos. But, it is a gun from the past, and the market seemed to work exactly as it should have in this case.

Best,
Ted

And likely a good chance that the opening lever is well left of center. I had a couple of Tobins and have seen a few others. They all had the opening lever left of center which apparently was common on them. One of them I had had the straight English stock and I must say it was a nice handling gun. Even the pistol grip gun was nice and they weren't near as heavy as one would think. But, as mentioned, they aren't really a "high pressure" gun.

Revdocdrew has some high res Tobin pics on his website.
A well maintained Tobin is very smoothly actuating.

Most everything courtesy of Greg, Daryl and Dave

http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/24779062
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/22641451

"Rod & Gun in Canada", April, 1911
https://archive.org/stream/rodguncan12cana#page/1462/mode/2up

Tobin Arms Mfg Co. (Ltd) -- I may be the guru of Tobin as I've had four articles published on that company. I discovered Tobin in the 1980's when I was researching things Fox at the Library of Congress and feeding my findings to Mike McIntosh for his book on Ansley H. Fox. Mike encouraged me to continue the Tobin search and write about them. Frank Major Tobin, Canadian by birth, was a gun salesman for various companies around the U.S. from the 1880's to after the turn of the century. Somewhere he acquired the rights to a shotgun patent of Clarance Wollam of San Francisco and set up a company in Norwich, Connecticut, to manufacture the gun. Tobin operated there from 1904 to 1909, then moved to Woodstock, Ontario, Canada, 1910 to about 1916. My Tobin articles were published in Volume Five, Issue 1, and Volume Eight, Issue 1, of The Double Gun Journal; Volume 39, Number 12, May 1994 of The Gun Report; and Volume 34, Number 3 of (the Canadian Journal of) Arms Collecting. Volume 14, Number 1 of Canadian Journal - Arms Collecting reproduced Tobin catalogue #311 from the factory in
Woodstock. The Tobin gun was offered in 12- and 16-gauge and a variety of grades from $30 to $250 with options of ejectors and a single-selective trigger. Tobin also made guns for the trade, that don't say Tobin anywhere on them, but they can be confirmed by the patent stamp -- PAT. MAY 23-93 AND PATENTS PEND'G. Serials to a bit over 11,000 were made in Norwich, and above that in Woodstock. Actually quite a transition spread through the 9000 to 11000 range. G.B. Crandall, a gunsmith in Woodstock that had worked for Tobin, took over the remains and from about 1922 billed himself as successor to Tobin Arms. He probably assembled around 500 guns in the high 18,xxx and low 19,xxx range until he retired in 1951. I believe he was more noted for his varmint rifles.

Jim Stewart Collected Canadian Tobins of every grade except one mid-grade and then donated the collection to the Canadian Museum of History. He did an article about this in the May - June 2016 issue of Canadian Antiques & Vintage. About that time Ted contacted me about a Tobin for sale here in Washington, which turned out to be the one grade Jim hadn't acquired. I put Jim in contact with the seller. Jim did a subsequent article published in Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine.

Tobin was born in Halifax, our provincial capital. There's a Tobin Street in the older, then-fashionable area of the city. Thirty-seven Tobins are in the Halifax phone book.

Anyone seen or heard of a Tobin single-shot, long barrel called Sealer's Special?

[quote][Are they Purdy under bolt ?/quote]


No. They bolt through the rib extension. A method that looks for all the world like Ansley H. Fox's Patent No. 714688 granted Dec. 2, 1902, and assigned to Philadelphia Arms Co., but was never used on Philadelphia Arms Co. guns.





BTW, None of my eight Tobins have the top-lever left of center or a stretched frame. G.B. Crandall made a 12-gauge 3-inch Tobin --

Dave,
I had one Tobin that was not off the face due to the frame distortion-my 16, which was my last Tobin. The five previous all were.
A friend owns the last 12 gauge I owned, a gun that came from out own prankster John Mann. It was the pyro version Tobin, and the gun had a shim put on by Mike Orlen. It didn�t appear to have been used much, but, it needed the fix. John didn�t know it needed to be fixed, the prankster notation comes from the story about the Amish goat herd with the two high grade LC Smith�s that he posted, and taught a few regulars here a stinging lesson about naked greed.

Best,
Ted

Drew--Good to see you back! Don't let the critics get you down.

Thanks Larry. I guess Dave has declined my pole...uh...poll proposal

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=536437&page=4

My 16 was as nice a handling gun as I have ever owned, 6lbs 1oz. It may be the last gun Stan Baker ever worked on, it was shipped back to me on a Monday, received on the next Thursday, and I learned of his death on Wednesday. Stan removed the forcing �steps� that were in the barrels, lengthened the forcing cones, opened the full x full chokes to SK and MOD, and polished the bores. I took the day off on Friday to grouse hunt with my girlfriend, and knocked the first bird I had ever fired the gun at out of the sky.
It was quite a week.

Most Tobins I�ve seen were low grade beaters. I can honestly say that about many various double shotguns built here in the states. But, I think the Tobin, perhaps more so than other early American designs, If fed a diet of high pressure ammunition, will fail sooner, rather than later.

Best,
Ted

Thank you all for furthering my understanding of Tobin guns.
I think that I don't want one now.
All other things aside, I cannot abide a fake sidelock.
Just me.

O.M

I wouldn�t characterize them as Fake sidelock s.
Their side plates actually carry some essential parts needed for the guns function.
Drew has some pics of one I photoed as I took it to bits.

I didn't know what other term to use for that type of lock because it is not actually a side plated box lock either.

O.M

All hammerless Lefever Arms Co guns have their hammers mounted solidly to the frame. Early models had the sears mounted on the side plates. Later ones with the large single cocking hook have the sears frame mounted as well. Never-the-less they are not simply boxlocks wearing "Falsies".

The side plates give access to the lock works & the layout of the hammers & mainsprings are like a bar-action sidelock, Except they aren't mounted on the plate. Sear notches on the hammers are located on the outer periphery f the hammer rather than close to the axle for much more secure sear purchase.

I too abhor a normal Boxlock with falsies but do not see any feature on the Tobin which would lead me to trade a good Lefever for one, even if it were originally of a higher grade. The Lefever has a better frame shape, both for handling & aesthetically & is Stronger. In short, the Lefever is about the best of both worlds with advantages of both the Box & Side lock guns.

When I think fake sidelock, I think of the guns that have the side plates just screwed to the action sides as a place to place engraving.

In the spectrum of sidelocks, there are some that only have one pin, and there are some that have 9 pins, and everything in between.

I think we are safe calling Tobins hybrids mostly because the mainspring isn�t attached to the sideplate like traditional sidelocks.

This might help; from http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/24779062

In order for a gun to be a sidelock, the fire control workings have to be mounted on the side plate itself, like so:



The Tobin is really neither, boxlock or sidelock. The Lefevers really aren�t either. I owned a Lefever for about 48 hours, and a friend wanted it way worse than I did.

I�m pretty sure I�m not interested in ever having a Lefever restocked, at my expense. I guess that isn�t an advantage of the design.

The Tobin isn�t a weak gun when used with the loads that were in common use at the time the patent was issued. It simply falls short with modern ammunition.
If one keeps that in mind, a Tobin can be a satisfactory shotgun. In my case, a Nitro Special filled the spot that the Tobin held, and I don�t think too hard about what I shoot out of the Nitro.

Best,
Ted

Now that we have the funny lock work out of the way, what about the funny barrel work ?
Those steps in the forcing cone area, what is that ?

O.M

The Tobin I had with the sharp cones was marked �Tournament�. It is unclear at this time who it was produced for. It did not say Tobin on it anywhere. The Tournament marked guns are fairly common. None of my Tobin 12s were so equipped.
Speculation is the sharp forcing cones were designed to work with roll crimped ammunition, of a specific length.
I have no evidence of this theory, or, any other. They were simply there. There have been other guns from the same era that have similar forcing cones, but, there is no documentation at this time as to why.

Best,
Ted

W W Greener discussed the sharp forcing cones in his works. I do not know where it first occurred but he included it in his "The gun & its Development", 1910 edition. It was according to him an attempt to do away with the possibility of gas leakage while the load passed through the cone. He Strongly Condemned the practice, recommending the ordinary cone. A word of caution if you have a gun so chambered; "DO NOT" fire it with a shell longer than the chamber. At this point in time, all paper shells were closed with the roll crimp. One should Never fire a shell in which the end of the fired shell laps into the bore itself.

My ca 1913 LAC catalog lists loads in 12 gauge of up to 3� drams, or equivalent, of powder behind 1� oz of shot. Those aren't weak even by modern standards. This includes a measured amount of Black or Bulk Smokeless & up to 28 grains of Ballistite or Infallible (same composition as Unique only slightly thinner flakes, thus a bit faster). You will not find a load today listing as much as 28 grains of Unique pushing 1� oz of shot.

From Drew's pictures, it appears that perhaps Tobin copied the Lefever design, except he changed the bolting. Can't really tell from the pictures how closely he followed Alexander Brown's original rotary bolt design. Brown's intent was that his bolt should serve two purposes, 1st hold the barrels down & 2nd hold the standing breech up to the barrel breech. It can accomplish both purposes only with precise fitting & usually the secondary function suffers.

Lefever accomplished the two purposes by using a square-shouldered "Doll's Head" & then a wedge bolt working in the rear of the Doll's Head. All of the ones I have had seem to have been extremely well fitted & served both functions well.

I would have no fear of "Action Strength" in my Lefevers even with modern short Magnums, but keep my loads light in respect to barrel strength & 100+-year-old wood.

As far as the �sharp� forcing cones, I think Ted is referring to the length of the taper between the end of chamber and start of full barrel inside diameter.

Some shotguns are quite abrupt (short), and some quite gently sloping (longer).

CZ
Yes, that is how I took it & also what I was speaking of. Present day SAAMI specs call for a 5� max angle from the horizontal axis for the cone. For nominal chamber & bore dimensions, this would give a length of .400". If anyone has a gun with cones shorter than this, personally I would Highly Recommend they do not fire any shell with a fired length longer than the chamber.

Stan Baker told me he had seen them, but, not many of them. His practice was to relieve them.
He didn�t know why they were like that. I thought maybe it was a 16 gauge thing, but, a few guys have seen them on 12s, as well.

Best,
Ted

Well said Miller.

I just shoot the ammunition my Tobins are spec�d for, and leave it at that.
Pretty much B&P comp1�s, or RST�s for game loads.

�Simplex� was the term Tobin used.

My Tobins were the oldest guns I have ever used/owned. To be fair, they had all been used, some very hard, by the time they got to me. It was a pleasure to carry the 16, which, would have been around 100 years old, at the time. A lot of guys like putting that history back to work, in the fall. Nothing at all wrong with that. But, I get it that most guys aren�t interested in going down that rabbit hole. Most double guns are a rabbit hole, and the really old, and primitive designs, are a deeper rabbit hole.

Best,
Ted

The Tobin bolting is not at all a rotary bolt a la A.T. Brown. It is a bolt that rotates horizontally. See Part # 16 --

Think I�ll pick up a spare set of DeMoya barrels, $30 seems very worth it....


Best,
Ted

The Tobin bolting is not at all a rotary bolt a la A.T. Brown. It is a bolt that rotates horizontally. See Part # 16 --
Thank you Reasearcher.

I have not seen any where a diagram of the actual working of this Tobin bolting system.

I can sort of imagine those parts together to hook over the square hole in the rib extension & hold it down, a bit like an L C Smith.
What I cannot see is any taper or other way it takes up wear & remains tight like a Smith.

Does anyone have a cut away drawing of the assembled action bolting system ?

O.M

Moses, It�s a single bolting design.
Part 16 rotates through the barrel extension holding the gun closed.
That part evolved in shape over time.

I have a Canadian 16 bore apart on my bench, and part #16 is shaped like a Rhombus not a nautilus.

So then it does accommodate a bit of wear & stay tight ?

O.M

Sure.
The hook just keeps working deeper, and the top lever keeps heading toward/past center.
There is quite a beefy coil spring #59 pushing the hook around into the bite on the one I have apart.

The hole through the rib extension is tapered on the bottom and back sides and the bolt is tapered to match.

The system is somewhat similar to the Frank Hollenbeck bolting used by Baltimore Arms Co. and then his companies up in West Virginia, Hollenbeck/Three-Barrel/Royal Gun Co.

Until ammunition with big numbers gets used in the gun. Then, the frame bends.

Best,
Ted

Thanks for the parts breakdown Researcher.
With the bolt tapered on both the bottom & back side, it should add a good deal of reinforcement to prevent frame bending. Most double gun frames are up to the load without a top fastener of any type.

One would think. But, every, single Tobin for sale on the web at the moment looks exactly like this:



The photog went out of his way to camouflage the fact that this is a sick gun. I�d be willing to bet the pin and lump have almost no wear. Few of them do.

But, a lot of Tobins, look just like this.


Best,
Ted

As well as the top lever being way out in left field an atrocity has been committed on that rib extension.
Also the action is over to the left or the barrels are to the right of the action.
Seen enough.

O.M

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??

Miller,
I�m not sure how we can measure the effect of the ejecta on the frame of the gun when it is hydraulically dampened by the human firing the gun. The heavier the load, the harder the ejecta will recoil the hydraulic dampener that is the human.

The force of the measured pressure within the frame and barrel assembly can accurately be measured, and will be a calculated mathematical formula, based on the propellant and the weight of the charge. This mathematical formula will not change regardless of whether the gun is held in a rest, or fired by a skinny woman, or a really fat guy.

In other words, the pressure is the only known we have to work with. Less is better, long term, when talking 100 year old guns. Perhaps the frame would do better with a load that is, all other things being equal,1/8 oz lighter, but, that may not be a given unless the gun is fired from a permanent rest. That bruise at the end of a long day of shooting is punishment the gun didn�t absorb.

Another horsefly in the Tobin yogurt is the fact that the pictured gun, with the lever far to the left, and the barrels misaligned to the frame, might just keep right on keeping on. I�ve never seen or heard of a Tobin opening up at the shot(LC Smith guys, I�m looking at you) and while the gun might not look pretty doing it, we are not in a position from simply looking at an internet photo to conclude that it doesn�t still work. And may keep right on working, for years. I won�t be firing it, and, honestly, neither will you, but, that is beside the point. The barrels are always heavy in a Tobin breech, you already noted the closure bolt is heavy, and it has a substantial spring, with significant mechanical advantage, holding the gun closed.

You might be unfair in your assessment of the Tobin, with regards to it not being up to a diet of even black powder loads, but, I�m guessing we really can�t know that for sure from where we sit today. I have seen, and owned a few, and can only report that the 16 Tournament grade gun was in good shape when it arrived, received superb maintenance, and careful use with ammunition that was low pressure by SAAMI specs, and left in great shape to serve a new owner who clearly understood what he was getting into. I�d be willing to bet the maker never contemplated the gun would be in use 110 years later.
As Dave has reported, he has never seen a lever left of center Tobin. But, he moves in higher circles than I.

Best,
Ted

Ted;
I think where we do not seem to be communicating is you are speaking "ONLY" of max chamber" pressure. I am speaking of the total pressure from the time of ignition of the powder until the charge exits the barrel. If you push the same weight charge out the barrel at the same velocity then the "Total" pressure is going to be virtually identical, matters not if its shot by a 90 lb petite woman or a 300 lb fat slob. "IF" you suspended the gun from wires or something so it could have "Free" recoil then you would never crack a stock, regardless of load.

As the gun is bolted shut & is with the exception of the movable charge a closed cell pressure chamber I do not see these external factors having any effect on the frame stress.

To go a bit further with my load analogy & remember this is from & old guide, I am not recommending any of these loads. Again 2 3/4" WWAA hulls & WW 209 primers
Load 1 - 17.5 grains Bullseye; WWAA12 wad; 1 oz shot,; 1200 fps @ 9,900 psi
Load #2 - 23.5 grains Herco; WWAAF114 wad; 1� oz shot; 1220 fps @ 9,900 psi.
Here we have a 25% heavier shot load, approx 2% higher velocity & a 34% heavier powder weight. @ identical "Pressure. I do not know what the difference in the weight of the wads is, but that will not offset the other factors.

Two things I will Guarantee you, 1 The "Total pressure to get load #2 out the barrel is Higher than load #1, in spite of having the same Max reading. 2 if either of them flexs a gun frame beyond its yield point it will be #2,

You might somewhat compare this with running a Marathon. The one who wins is the one with the fastest average for the entire race.
a loser way back in the line may have had one Burst of speed that was faster than any the winner accomplished, but he didn't maintain it long enough to accomplish the win.

I'm going to agree with Miller that there is more than just chamber pressure at work when a gun is fired. The kinetic energy from recoil due to the mass and velocity of the entire ejecta accelerating down the barrels can hardly be ignored. There is also torque and vibrations to consider in that split second after the primer detonates.

I will also defer to Ted's intimate experience with the design deficiencies of the Tobin guns. I believe him when he says the frames are weak due to large deep milling cuts. In the past, I've mentioned the obvious fact that some guns stand the test of time much better than others. There are a number of makes of doubles that are very seldom seen in a sound, tight, on face state. Some of these guns were made in and sold cheaply in extremely large numbers. Yet few survive, and when you see them now, most are either parted out or quite loose and worn. I don't believe this is because they were shot any more than higher quality guns. If anything, these were guns used by poorer working class folks who were less prone to waste ammunition on silly things like clay targets.

A lot of that is poor design. But I think both Ted and Miller might be overlooking another possible reason that Tobins bend and stretch aside from deep cuts in the frame or high pressure and heavy recoiling loads. I would suspect that part of the problem is in the steel used for the frames. Miller spent a lifetime milling, turning, and machining steel and other metals. I'm sure he would agree that steel is not all the same. It is an alloy of iron and other metals and carbon in varying percentages. There are thousands of different recipes or alloys with very different properties. And how that steel was processed also has a large bearing on how it performs. Drop forging, heat treating, annealing, etc. also enter into it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the steel used in the frames for Tobins and many other guns that didn't stand the test of time was simply a lower grade or inferior quality product.

Keith;
You are of course absolutely correct in that there are indeed many varieties & Strengths of steel. However when it comes to double shotgun frames of a century ago most were built using plain low carbon steel, which was then normally case hardened. As has been pointed out though previously these guns were normally Proofed, in the white ie prior to being case hardened.

Based upon Ted's input my best conclusion at this point is that the fault with the Tobin is mainly a poor design, cutting away too much vital metal from the bar. Tobin may well have used just as good quality steel as did Lefever for instance, but the Lefever simply does not have this problem.

I also believe another major factor on a lot of those Cheap imports is so many of them simply received no care at all. Most never had the hinges cleaned or oiled & if the barrels were cleaned at all it was a minimum run through with a patch which didn't remove the salts left from the corrosive primers. So many of these guns are found with badly pitted bores, far worse than most guns which were used only with black powder, as in the black powder days most realized the necessity of good cleaning. practices. It took a number of years for folks to realize that smokeless powder guns also needed cleaning.

Anyway to me this has been a very interesting subject & I appreciate both Ted 's & your input on it.

I think everyone is forgetting the very long looking frame. Long lever effect for lack of better phrase. No doubt all guns flex in multiple directions all the time when fired. This long frame with so much metal being hogged out is what I think is a overly flexible setup with only modest lockup. Over time it allows too much stress being directed at both the hinge pin and the lockup. Once one wears too much the other follows.

Jon;
I do not have a Tobin to measure, but going by the pictures the frame does not look any longer than the Lefever frame, or Baker or L C Smith for that matter. As far as holding the barrels Closed the further the bolt is from the hinge the less strain it has to bear. Is it easier to pry a heavy rock out of the ground with a 3-foot lever or a 6 foot one?

Just going by the pictures the bolt looks amply strong for the task. A lot of folks would be totally surprised if they did a smoke test on a lot of these "Multi-Bolted" guns. Most often one bolt is carrying the load.

Until shown otherwise I am still firmly of the belief that too much metal was removed from the bar, not leaving it up to the task at hand. The long frame itself is not a bad design as it has been used successfully on so many doubles. The steel in the bar must, of course, have an adequate cross section to give rigidity, but this also applies to short frame guns as well.
Most short frame guns, such as the A&D, if they fail in the frame, will do so by cracking the frame at the junction of the standing breech with the bar.
This was relieved somewhat, but not totally eliminated when it was learned there needed to be a radius in the corner.

2-piper, Cross sectional wise I think Lefevers have a lot more metal in them. The Tobin is a bad design I think. If you had a Tobin in hand you would wonder what the designer was thinking. Don�t know if it�s more a manufacturer problem with too much metal being removed for ease of making the gun or if that much metal was always intended to be removed. Either way a weak design that me.

There have been a lot of questionable designs over the years. I�m picking up early pump guns like Spencer, Marlin, Winchester, Union Fire Arms, Remington and seeing what changes were made to correct early design problems and what changes were made to get around existing patents. External hammers, internal hammers, hammerless-strikers, all got a trial. Some lasted decades and some fail quickly. Pumpgun design was done in 25 years or so total. Perhaps 20 designs produced, only to have five or six last decades and be 95% of total production. Just like obscure pump gun designs Tobins ended up on the failed design side of the ledger. Not everything is a perfect as a Winchester Model 12.

My experience with Tobin guns [I have owned a half dozen] has not been what Ted said . I notice Ted bought guns that were High Mileage. The ones I have owned were quite tight and did not come under Ted�s blanket. I have seen many other makes of heavily used guns that , if used as a blanket description for all of that make, would also be incorrect. Of course, we have had this same discussion here before. One may check those discussions and also Drew�s pictures for more information.

Miller,
I am not arguing with what you claim, I�m just saying quantify it, in a useful, scientific, and repeatable form. The devil is in the details, and while we can suppose it is harder on a gun pushing 1/8oz more shot out the end at the same velocity as a lighter load, that supposition proves nothing. Peak pressure is about all we can document.

Keith,
Gun steel, circa 1900, is pretty low grade stuff. I got that from Turnbull. You make excellent points.

Ky Jon,
I already brought up the long frame. The long frame with metal hogged out The Whole length of both sides, and a big rectangular hole cut in the bottom. I have posted in the past that had the frames been built of 4140 that was heat treated, we wouldn�t be having this discussion. I still believe that.

Daryl,
I shoot. I don�t collect guns. My only collection is a pretty decent collection of ex-girlfriends. I bought the Tobins I found in my area, to a one the 12s were rode hard. I did get a Tobin that was beautiful looking from John Mann, but, the damn lever was already way left of center. I passed on the worst, but, the only graded gun I ever had a shot at was the gun I told Dave about, and it was not local to me. My 16 was bought out of Gun Digest, was not local, and was in really decent shape. The pictures of the graded gun I told Dave about showed the lever well to left. My Tobin phase was behind me at that point anyway, but, I wouldn�t have bought the gun, in the condition it was in.
Lesson learned.
You and Dave can claim to have never seen a bad Tobin, but, when a Canadian chimes in here on the subject of Tobins, the bent metal/off face/loose/lever to left
comment isn�t usually far behind. It already happened in this thread. The graded gun I put the photo up of is further evidence. I am guessing they (Chanuks) get to see more of them, and, truth be told, it isn�t difficult to find an example in that condition. As I already posted, EVERY example currently listed for sale on GunBroker and GunsInternational is suffering from that.
Nobody made this up. They are out there. Sometimes, guns like like the Black Diamond I had, that appear to have had little, if any use, are already suffering.

If a decent Tobin showed up, priced right, I�d toy with the notion of buying it, but, most likely pass. I�d probably tell Dave about it if I did pass, I have done that already. I do still believe you are OK when you pay careful attention to loads when using a Tobin, assuming the Tobin is in good shape to begin with.

Best,
Ted

Lol as a Canadian, IMHO there are too many much better guns to buy than to waste my time with a Tobin.

I do know where and have been to the old factory.

Some guys climb on a new Harley, and go for a ride. Some guys get on a 1919 Harley, and go for a ride. The technique and experience will be different, but, to each their own.
The birds I took with my Tobin didn�t mean any less to me than the birds I got with better guns.

Best,
Ted