I have not understood why they ,<Purdey for example> made non rebounding Hammers in the 1870's along with under leavers.I know the Jones under leaver was or is very good but it is a royal pain compared to the top leaver.Could it have been cheaper?

The non-rebounding locks are almost always easier to cock than rebounding locks. Other than the bit of time it take to pull the hammers to half cock there is no disadvantage to non-rebounding locks. For hunting I much prefer to use non-rebounding hammer guns.
Cheers,
Laurie

Probably non rebounding and underlever hammer guns were previously used and enjoyed by people ordering new guns. They wanted something just like they had before.

not everyone always wants the new fangled stuff

things changed fast in those days and i doubt everyone always wanted the newest ideas. Tradition you know.

I believe nonrebounding hammers support primers better and maybe resulted in fewer pierced primers in the "old days".
Mike

I do like the ease of a half cocked hammer .The problem I have had is I'm not sure if it's cocked or not but I am sure if I used a lot I could get used to it.I was dove hunting once and it was like I was in Argentina I was wishing It was a top lever at the time.Also almost shot my dogs head off checking to make sure the gun was on half cock....... she never flenched...... but don't let a thunder storm come up...she'll be gone to China.

Husqvarna made the Model 20 Underlever sxs with rebounding hammers from 1877 until 1956, not everyone abandon them. Not paying much attention I believe I've seen German underlevers from between the wars.

Here's my Greener at half cock. It is very easy to quickly bring to full bent. I love that feature but as others have said, it can be confusing with a quick glance whether it is on half or full cause full is only a little more than 1/4" further back. Another reason for non rebounding locks to stick around was some shooters felt the hammers fell harder and had more confidence the primer would fire. Could the Stanton patent fees have kept some of the lower priced guns from using the rebounder?

Half cock



Here is full cock. Notice how little difference between half and full.



Action is Greener's January of 1868 patent he called his "Self-acting Striker" in which the striker is forced back by engaging on a small teat on the hammer. Evidently one of the big problems with early primers was the strikers would pierce the primer and become stuck. This definitely eliminated that problem. (This was W.W. Greener's first patent after he left his father's business and set out on his own.) According to Graham Greener's best guess this gun would date to 1872.

All makers would have made almost anything that the customer was willing to pay for. Hammer guns made well after they went out of fashion had to have been made to order. Perhaps an older customer seeking to match his favorite older hammer gun or like some of my family a person who refused to be caught up in the latest new fashion.

I am sure that the expiration of any patents saved a few shillings but not enough to remain in the past without a customer with money in hand. Money and demand drove the bus.

Love that Greener! Wow!

Another non-rebounder,underlever,that came late to the party.My
Purdey 16 BIW/Thumbhole, circa 1873. As others have said, the quick and easy 1/4" throw to bring the hammers to full cock,is a treat in the field.

I'd buy the Greener for the hammers only.I say a 10 recently that if the barrels would have been just a little thicker I would have bought it.Same hammers as your.