S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
2 members (SKB, Mike Harrell),
303
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,561
Posts546,340
Members14,423
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
IMHO, the Jones had a good run of some 40-50 years and served well. It was ultimately supplanted by other bolting systems, all of which were supplanted by the top lever (for practical consideration). The Jones gives away nothing in strength but is slower in reloading. I doubt manufacturing costs are much of an issue. The slower reloading is an issue only when your purpose requires increased firepower, say flurry competition. It was supplanted because more firepower could be had with equal, or at least adequate, strength. I enjoy shooting guns of Jones underlever bolting for novelty and honor of their antiquity. In its day it was a "great leap for mankind." That's catchy.
DDA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 231 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 231 Likes: 2 |
I like the lines and the balance of my Charles Ingram underlever. It is a bit slower to load, but I don't have the luxury of shooting driven game either... It does not bother me being a little slower. BillK
Last edited by BillK; 10/19/16 11:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,744 Likes: 496
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,744 Likes: 496 |
Most Jones under levers are from the early years of doubles. Call it from 1870-1890's. I know a few were made even into the between the war period but most are 120-140 years old. Worn out examples are numerous I am sure but I have seen a good many which worked just as well at they did when first made. Even when used in double rifles they seem to hold up well. Slow and steady they last a long time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
My fault, I did not clarify that it is not the Jones lever that is turned to open the gun, but the snap action type of underlever that is pushed forward, the system used by Jeffery in the original big bore express double rifles. It was also used by James Woodward and some other doubles I have seen over the years.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,000 Likes: 402
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,000 Likes: 402 |
I have OWNED several of them, very nice to use and ergonomic. The spring required to power the lever is a bit difficult to make. The spiral spring Woodwards are nice as well.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,435 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,435 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,531 Likes: 82
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,531 Likes: 82 |
The Jones rotary under lever was in its day the strongest bolting system produced . This is why it was popular for heavy caliber guns and rifles. .As Henry Jones never took out a full patent it became public property and thus used by many makers without having to pay royalties . With the improvement of materials and manufacturing techniques it became , like most other locking systems superseded. Like all bolting methods it had its advantages and disadvantages .
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,744 Likes: 496
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,744 Likes: 496 |
If you want to talk with a dealer who knows and speaks very highly of the push forward design call Kirby Holt at Vintage Doubles. He shot one several years for his personal use I remember. Often he has a few on hand and his evaluation of guns is very complete.
Like I said I had an Adams push forward under lever that I really liked but the barrels were scary thin and by the time I bought it Teague was not taking on anymore lining work. I bought with the intent of having them line the barrels to save the Damascus pattern which was as beautiful as a fine burl stock. I so wanted to keep it I almost had Briley fit a set of 20 tubes in it but that would have destroyed the balance of the gun.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Note I did not say, or even imply, the Jones design was "Weak". I simply stated its main "Strength" characteristic was in bolting the barrels down. The main force on a break action gun is Axial. While true the friction of the barrels being tightly secured to the frame can, & likely does, take some of the strain off the hinge but adds nothing to the flexing back of the standing breech. There are other systems which equal or exceed the aid to the hiunge. I highly suspect, though do not have actual figures to substantiate it, a properly fitted rear lump on a Purdey style double underbolt has gives more assist to the hinge joint than does the friction incurred in the Jones design. It is also noted that most reputable makers of doubles intentionally do not bed the barrels to the frame, but have them stop with bearing on the standing breech & a thousandth or so clearance between the barrel & action flats. A properly fitted Greener Crossbolt of course adds resistance to axial thrust at the "Top" of the standing breech, What better place is there than that to put it. As I enjoy shooting muzzleloaders on occasion Speed is not my main consideration. If I had a double with a Jones underlever I would no doubt shoot it & enjoy it, but I just don't see it as having a major advantage in the strength department.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Miller, IMHO, you may be missing a point. I would expect that the rear of the locking cam would engage the back of the "lump" and unload the hinge pin and hook. Since the lever pivot is substantial if not massive, the cam to lump joint should support a very significant forward shear load. If the hinge joint is unloaded, the opening moment (rotational force) will be around the cam/lump joint and there will be bending force only between the lever pivot and the breech.
Perhaps someone can confirm/refute this hypothesis.
DDA
|
|
|
|
|