doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Bbl lumps showing, or not..which is harder build

Lowell sometimes has problems with lumps.

I'd have to say, that some of these are budget best guns!
Hard times, moth holes in the tweed and up-keep of the estate caused these chaps to skimp a little.
We know lump not through is a nice feature on best guns no matter what.

Budget Best guns....

what planet is that guy from? Hey, go ahead and make up terms and definitions to suite as you go along....at least that way you can stay correct....in your own mind.
Steve

What a howl!!!

Some thoughts on this:

I believe the lumps on those DRs went through the bottom of the action because of the larger hinge pins H&H used to withstand the extreme pressures and energy those guns generated.

The way it was explained to me was that a bigger pin means a bigger lump which means more surface area to displace the energy generated by these rifles. Without these enlarged surfaces, these rifles would have gone off the face very quickly.

If the maker wanted to keep the lumps enclosed, they would have been forced to use a bigger action. This would have increased the gun's weight and ruined some of its sleek, aesthetic appeal.

I don't know why lumps-through-actions went out of favor on shotguns at the end of the 19th century. But just like flat-back actions and back-action locks, they did. Probably because they looked old timey.

Once builders like Purdey set the standard for the Best and received Royal approval, everyone else had to follow.

I was also told that the front lump on Webley & Scott 700s goes through because of an oversized hinge pin, too. The maker used an oversized pin because the hinge pin on these guns is fixed and it cannot be replaced to put the gun back on the face.

Something else: if guns with through-lumps are harder to make, why did makers keep using them on their low-priced guns? I think it's because the hole lets them machine the hinge-pin in place - a cost-saving measure that is a sign of a low-grade gun.

BTW: has anyone ever seen as final-version H&H Royal shotgun with a lump coming through the bottom of the action? I don't think I have.

OWD

Hey, if your really this upset...put some duct tape over your thru-lumps - you'll sleep better!

OWD....You might as well be talking to a lump on a log.

No, that didn't have anything to do with it. Had nothing to do with early vs late either.

Here's a .577/100/750 NE Royal, finished rather plain, without thru-lump:

http://www.pugsguns.com/findItem.action?id=1734

Here's a rather early .500/.450 NE Royal without thru-lump:

http://www.champlinarms.com/Default.aspx...&GunID=1386

Here's a very early .500/.465 NE Royal, without thru-lump:

http://www.champlinarms.com/Default.aspx...&GunID=1520

Of course, the .577/100/750 NE and .500/.465 NE are quite low pressure - they're both 14 tons BaseCUP. The .500/.450 is somewhat higher at 15.5 tons. The above rifles were all built without through lumps, but Holland built others in the same calibers to the same weights with through lumps.

If high pressure is the reason for the through lumps, we'd sure see more of them in the much higher pressure calibers.

Here's a .425 Westley Richards Rimless NE (18.5 tons) Royal from the late '20s without thru-lump:

http://www.pugsguns.com/findItem.action?id=1736

Here's a .275 H & H Magnum (18 tons) Royal from 1926 without thru-lump:

http://www.pugsguns.com/findItem.action?id=1824

Through the spectrum of calibers, from the low pressure .577, .465, and .375 2.5" Nitro Expresses to the high pressure/high velocity magnums, you'll find Holland Royal and Modele DeLuxe double rifles built both ways, even though they're otherwise identical rifles. Holland was always particular about strength in their double rifles. After the emergence of Cordite and high pressure cartridges, other gunmakers like Purdey and Rigby continued to build DRs on bar-actions, while Holland insisted on back-actions because they have more steel in the action bar at the break-off. Had the thru-lump issue had anything to do with pressure or strength, I sincerely doubt that Holland would have used both methods interchangeably, as they clearly did.

Interesting.

It looks like my DR theory was wrong.

So why did they do it? Any ideas?

OWD