doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Barrel through-lumps

Mike,

Thanks for the information on the Dickson.

Ken

It is about fashion. But, big but, fashion often dictates where the money goes. Even though I can see no practical advantage either way, I do agree that most "best work" guns conformed to the fashion. It was pointless to build out-of-fashion guns that would have to be sold at a discount to get rid of them; you may believe that fashionable guns were important at fashionable shoots and that was where the money was. The fact of through lumps does not in and of itself make a gun not a "best work" but is a pointer that most probably the gun did not have the kind of time put into it to make it a "best work" gun. Similar point is flat back SLE's. There are many "best work" flat backs. But after the stocked to the fences style became established as the fashion, future flat backs were graded guns. Ergo, up sprung the myth that a flat back can't possibly be a "best work" gun. Have a look at Boss and Woodward flat back SLE's and tell me a flat back can't be a "best work" gun. The confusion mainly stems, IMO, from the "London style best work" gun. Some say a "best" must be a ALE made in London without through lumps and stocked to the fences. Well, that is the London pattern, so are talking about "best work" guns or London pattern "best work" guns??

DDA

It may be fashion, but I wonder if there's more to it. What about hammer guns that don't don't have them - like this Grant from 1879:



If they were fashionable at one time, wouldn't you see one on an early gun like that (bar action, 31" damascus bbls, btw)?

And what about putting a gun with a through-lump back on the face?

Won't you have to file up the part of the lump coming through the action? And won't that leave a gap?

Joe - I wonder if the through lumps were fitted precisely enough to take some of the force off of the hinge pin? I don't know, but it seems like the fit on the two would have to be perfect in order for them to work in conjunction. And if the bbls are properly fitted on circle, is it really necessary (especially ona shotgun)?

Also, does a through-through lump allow you to use a hinge-pin with a larger diameter? I imagine it does. I wonder if this is why Rigby stuck with them on their rifles. Did they use them on their best-quality shotgun?

Lastly, removing the through-lump would probably save time for the actioner - one less hole to cut and file up, one less place to fit the bbls, etc.

Anyway - I think the issue is more complex. That's all.

OWD

H&H did best Royal double rifles with or without the through lump, long after they only stocked to the fences.
WC-

I was thinking about this more last night. I wonder if the through-lump had anything to do with the manufacturing techniques used by the maker and the amount of machining VS. handwork done to the action.

I know this is the case with some boxlocks - especially guns with integral hinge pins.


OWD

Would the through lump allow a lower profile receiver? I like them since it makes it easier to clean the gun after shooting.

Through lumps are more often found on older guns and has more to do with joint pin size than any thing else . Like third bites they became unfashionable so most UK makers abandoned them .Webley for example did not as to do so made the hook prone to gapping .
I do not believe it has any thing to do with quality ,design yes as the afore mentioned Purdey.

BTW: I was checking out some Rigby DRs. The company didn't use a through lump on this little 22 SAVAGE HI POWER they made:

RIGBY BEST PRE WAR DOUBLE RIFLE 22 SAVAGE HI POWER



But they did use it on this 12g shotgun:

12 gauge Rigby Shotgun

Seems to me like a lot of extra work if it serves no purpose. I wonder where Small Bore is? He should have an opinion at the very least.

Wouldn't a shotgun frame be more rigid and stronger if it doesn't have a big ol' hole cut in it to accomodate a through lump?