I recently picked up a little Belgian guild jones underlever hammer 16, with non-rebounding hammers. It's a minor annoyance, but an annoyance nonetheless. Just out of curiosity, can non-rebounding hammers be converted to rebounding hammers? I've never heard of this being done..

i would think you would need to replace the internals on the lock

the sear and tumbler would be different - not sure about the main spring

finding parts to fit might be the issue,

back lock or side lock - L&R makes modern copies of both, but i never looked to see if they are rebounding

Hi Mark.
I am sure you will find that it would be an uneconomical conversion as far as the cost is concerned.

Thank you. I suppose it would be uneconomical.

you could always start shopping for a rebounding hammer gun now

save the non-rebounder for clays

I have converted a couple, both bar action. Essentially you have to change or modify the tumbler and almost certainly replace the main spring as the 'passive' arm needs to be considerably longer.
Some conversions are quite simple, only needing a new spring and an extension on the forward side of the tumbler to pick up the 'passive' arm of the spring.
Others can be far more complicated, especially back action locks which by their slim nature, sometimes won't allow the necessary movement on the spring and/or foul the sear spring.
Back at the height of the hammergun era, the conversion was commonplace and in fact many guns assumed to be rebounding as original were beautifully converted and show no sign of it. This can often be deduced by the date of the gun compared with the date of Stanton's patent.

Thanks Toby. This is a back action Belgian guild gun with beautifully polished locks and a long curved mainspring. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" probably applies here, but I appreciate knowing what's involved. Here's a few pics of the gun after I cleaned it up, just for grins. I can take a photo of the locks also if you're curious:

Before:



After:

[/URL]

Mark,
if that's not one of your grain paintings -

actually even if it is - nice looking wood for a gun that age.

the whole gun looks great - thanks for the pics

Thank you. That you had to ask tells me I did a decent job. There was little grain on it to start with

I like non-rebounding locks as it is easier to cock both both hammers when bringing the gun up to shoot. On most rebounding locks it is difficult to impossible to cock both hammers as the gun is raised. Also admit that black powder is more fun but do shoot mostly smokeless in damascus barrels.
Cheers,
Laurie

Leave well alone ! That's how it was made so keep it original.

hmm

my suppository guns are rebounding - my front stuffers are not

i will need to pay more attention - i had not noticed that, but honestly i shoot the cartridge guns more.

I happen to find that boring. Perhaps if I wasn't an artist who makes his living creating original artworks, both on canvas and on guns, I would feel differently. To me, unless we're talking original collector guns, which I generally stay away from, guns are just another canvas to work on. To each his own.

I hadn't considered that. I just looked at it again, and you're right, the hammers are easily cocked both at once, especially so since the frame is so small. Thanks!

I am also a fan of non-rebounding hammers; safe when on half-cock and easier than rebounding to bring to full cock for a shot, either one hammer or both. Hard to mix them up though because you have to remember to pull hammers to half cock to remove spent shells...Geo

Just what do we discuss here that is "economical?" LOL
CHAZ

A very attractive gun, especially after your artistry had been applied!
I suspect that this gun falls into the 'nigh-on impossible' section for conversion. The lock is so narrow behind the tumbler that I doubt their would be room enough for sear spring plus the 'passive' arm of the spring which must be extended (replaced) to reach the tumbler.

I happen to find that pretentious . If you create original "art works" then do so don't mess with others work . Your comments would have me believe you would put the Mona Lisa in a bikini to make her" more attractive" .

When I began my more productive hobby of flintknapping, I made the decision to never utilize the many unfinished aboriginal blanks I found while hunting projectile points. I studied them in all conditions of completion to better understand how I could replicate the originals.

There is likely a point of reason-ability in Mark's gun-stock art. I doubt Mark would undertake to 'improve' a Mona Lisa stock on an existing gun, but there are so many ugly ones out there that his work can make better, I do not personally see the problem...Geo

Pretentious? Pretentious? Hardly:
Mark has taken a "boring" gun of mine and made it a "Wow!" gun.
He is an artist of first degree, and does no harm to a stock by "enhancing" it.
I think what he did to this gun is simply amazing.
To each his own, but for me, Mark can shoot any of my guns, or "enhance" any one he deems needs it.
Sam Ogle, Lincoln, NE

Exquisite work on that stock, Mark.
Wow!

There is a big difference between altering a lock and painting grain on wood , something that has been done for hundreds of years , artistic may be but its not "art" nor is it original as its been done by many others before hand and is/has been done on an industrial scale by modern day Italian makers .
I do not denigrate the skill of those who do such work as I resect all craftsmen's ability as I would expect others to respect mine .

Altering the mechanics of the gun is a different thing to which my original comments were addressed .

Sir, thank you for clarifying your original comments. I frankly found your Mona Lisa comment to be quite insulting and dismissive of my opinion, but after further reflection, I'm just going to chalk it up to misunderstanding. We're in the same boat, and as long as we extend the courtesy of respecting each other's opinions, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to get along famously, and keep rowing the boat in the same direction.

Have a nice day.

To Dave, Sam, George, Toby: thank you very much. Go Hawks!

Sometimes the problem with the British/Americans is that they speak English not English like a proper British/American. And God help me understand Australian English sometimes. Glad it works both ways sometimes. Sometimes you say things that seem clear to you but not to those who hear them.

It is like having raised teenagers in three different decades. They all speak or text something I think I understand and we call English but I am certain they are Klingon using a Microsoft software interrupter program, other times I understand they are Borg and were are here to serve them.

Go Hawks. I can not stand to hear them, the talking heads, preach how Brady and his coach invented football.

I, too, am a fan of Mark's work as he has saved the bacon for me on a couple of projects. As for George's "productive" hobby of flintknapping, it is more appropriate to describe it as "cutting edge". I've seen his work and he is the Rodin of flintknappers. I'd ask him to post photos of his work, but that involves a lot of technological work for a self-proclaimed, modest caveman. Gil