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

I think Rocketman has nailed it. Fashion ultimately affected resale value to the point where you had to build to certain "expectations" after a certain point in time. Most of the great hammerguns were built prior to this mild aberration. Purdey leapt to the forefront of gun design and "fashion" when they bought and begain to build on Beasley's first self-opener design in 1883 and everybody else was playing catch-up after that. Very good designs (even ones made by highly competent people) simply fell by the wayside after just a few years. Lancaster's "Wristbreaker" is a classic example of this concept in action. It was Beasley's second self-opening design, only following his first by a few years, and yet when compared side-by-side with his first, it seems so-antiquated in appearance. Lancaster continued to build on that design thu the early 20th Century, losing market-share all the time to the more fashionable-looking bar-action guns.

Purdey's probably gets the lion's share of credit/responsibility for the "London best work gun" fashion. As noted above, after some point the fashion became so entrenched that all gunmakers had to follow. "Swimming upstream" was unprofitable. There is, JMO, an opportunity for to buy bargain quality grade by learning to sort out the "best work" guns of the older, out of fashion and transition guns. Is that flat back SLE an Original Quality grade "A" or is it really a "best work" gun?

DDA

I guess that the the same fashion would apply to Lancaster's dipped-edge lock plates. I find them attractive in their own way.

Ithaca Gun Co. added a through-lump to their Magnum-framed NID



while the standard frame NID apparently didn't "need" it --

Muchatrucha: Like the Lancasters you mention, I find most all back-action guns fairly attractive. Like the hammer guns they directly evolved from, they tend to have more rounded actions and a slimmer profile. In 1882, Purdey was just another high-end London gunmaker, mixed into the ranks of Lang, Grant, Blanch, Lancaster, and the rest. After buying the first Beasley patent, everybody else was losing market-share to them. Boss and Holland & Holland figured the game out and moved forward with them, the others fell behind and became second-tier makers.

It is cheaper to make a gun with a lump that goes right through the action. It is neater to make one without. Generally, the better quality guns were made without.

SB You surely must be referring to the London trade only.

Small Bore might not say this, but I will. The cost differential between English Best and American guns (even graded guns) is usually fairly vast. It's the old "machine-made versus hand-made" comparison, and with a few exceptions, most American doubles have the lump through the action. It doesn't mean that they're not good guns, it does mean that less human time was spent in their creation, and time is (and always has been) money. What's the difference between a Chevy and a Bentley? Mostly money.

Please explain to me how cutting a square hole in the action body and fitting a barrel lump to rotate and fit precisely into this opening "...is cheaper (easier) to make a gun with a lump that goes right through the action."
It seems to me that it would be just the opposite.

Obviously you are not a machinist. Its always easier to cut a through hole than a blind one. I will say though that in my opinion not having the through lumps i "Much Ado About Nothing". Also if you check the prices of the very highest grade American doubles they're not that far away from a "London Best". Admittedly the American makers didn't sell as many of these grades as did the London makers, but those weren't high volume guns either. The hidden lump added no real value to the quality of the gun but was more of a "Look What I Did" thing & there were people willing to pay for it.