doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Whats wrong with this?

Indeed it is. And also thanks to Ian for taking the time to port the photo of the Burrard plate over here.

jack

Ted I've got to go hunting a few days you should have ample time to spend in study period and present your case for the so "out of period" gun.

jOe,
Lets start with what I actually wrote-"a bit out of period." Got that?

Lets return to the last post you put up-which states, "so out of period." Still with me?

When you get back from hunting gators, or, whatever, spend some time thinking about why you can't read what I have posted exactly the way I posted it, and why you lack the grasp of the semantic difference between "a bit" and "so", as they are used above.



'Gotta crawl before you can walk, good buddy....
Best,
Ted

WAP; I had intended looking up that 21 joint, as i was recalling it was indeed the DTCL, but as you have shown & Rabbit conceded saved me the trouble.
If you look at #4 DT joint, & imagine extending the flats marked A all the way to the lower bbl flats, eliminating the steps B, then you have what I referred to as "Conventional". You will note there is then no mechanical strength, only that of the brazing, to hold the lump against the bbls.
#5 also depends soley on the brazing but has a much larger area, but tends to more depth of the breech. This is the joint I referred to as a "Shoe Lump". I have a ca 1900 J P Sauer & Son 12ga back action sidelock with this shoe lump breech.
A picture is worth a 1,000 words, indeed thank you Ian.

"lack the grasp of the semantic difference between "a bit" and "so", as they are used above."

Is this like "it depends on what the definition of it is.?"

I'm with you now Teddy...I see that you ment the Boss was just a "bit out of period".
I apologize for misquoting you and blowing your 'bit' into a 'so'.

Ted Is a "bit" less or more than a "so" in your 'semantic' sceme of things ?

One more question Ted how long a time period is a "bit" when it involves a time period.
jOe


Ps...I think you "bit" off more than you can chew ol'Chap.

Well jOe, those Whitworth tubes were available to Boss very early in the 1880s, although many customers prefered damascus, and would for a few decades. When the top lever ejector guns, hammerless and hammer variety were developed, the underlever quickly fell out of favor. I know Lord Ripon sure liked them, but he was in the minority-the toplever guns were a hit.

As you posted, if it were a toplever gun, it would be gone.

I didn't call Boss, to find out the sequence of numbers, but, you can bet George, the gentleman who owns Champlin, did. If the ad states this gun is one of the last underlevers, that is the case.
Did they build lots more after this one? Don't bet on it-last I had heard, Boss had built less than 1000 guns since being formed in the early 1800s. So, when you only have a number set like that to work with for history, a gun that is built to a previous patent, while the new designs are being constructed before and after it, is a "bit" out of period. Bite that.


Unfortunately, I don't get to handle Boss damascus guns. None of the few Boss guns I've handled were damascus. They don't turn up here, in the middle of the midwest, with any frequency. I'm sure now, that I have handled at least one damascus chopperlump English best gun in the past, because I THOUGHT they were all built that way. A few kind folks have corrected that thinking, to which I am humbly thankful. The damascus barrels thing, in this case, is a moot point, anyway-they would seem to be long gone.

At any rate, I thought it was an interesting gun, at a great price, and that is why I put a link up to it. I wonder how long it will last, at that price? I don't have the spare $4400 laying around looking stupid, and my experiences, with hammerguns, have forced me to conclude that they will perform best, in someone else's hands, so that is a gun I'm never going to get to know.
The only guy I tease on a public forum about owning a cheap gun is Larry Brown, (he can handle it, and besides, he can't deny it, we have the evidence) and I think he shoud buy it, and write a nice article telling us all about it. I'd read that article!
Best,
Ted

Great thread. Although I showed up late to class, I'm glad I looked inside this one. Thanks for the visuals. I.F.

I can't wait to hear the full report after Ted get's it in his "grubby lttle hands".
jOe

Pay attention jOe-it 'ain't going to be in my grubby little hands, but, I would know for sure how it was put together if it were. You also missed a glaring mistake on my part, when I typed "less than 1000 guns since..." The actual non-typo number is less than 10,000. Still a very small set for a 200 plus year operation. Besides, I thought you posted you weren't interested in in my opinion or advice?

Why don't you prove it? Any time now.
Best,
Ted