I see interceptors as being the "ultimate" design in gun safety. Growing up with "Elsie" and seeing what can happen if one get dropped or bumped harshly makes you very aware of the inherent risks of any gun's design.
Now...is this overkill(?) a superfluous addition that will add cost and complexity without really addressing a need...maybe. I see my modern Spanish sidelock (with it's faithful copy of the beautiful H&H design) as being about as "safe" as a gun can be, because unless the trigger get properly "pulled" it simply won't go off, period. That's comforting for a moment or two and then real life intrudes and you move forward into whatever you're doing next. It's clearly a strong sales point to make to any new gun buyer and it does help address the learning curves that many new hunters have to successfully navigate but...is it really needed? I now own several older (& very old) guns that are of a very rudimentary design (single underbites, & no real safeties other than a half-cocked hammer) and I use them without fear, but that's because I know the inherent risks and I take pains to avoid doing anything stupidly dangerous with them.
Boxlocks originally had interceptors too, but after a bit of time had passed folks realized that the bearing surface of their trigger and hammer sears were of sufficient size (& stability) that they weren't really needed and as time went on they became less common. Modern boxlocks (well, less than 100-years old) don't even bother with them anymore.
Last edited by Lloyd3; 12/15/25 12:29 PM.
