Anyone use an unerlever opening SXS? I thik W.J. Jeffery, James Woodward and some others built doubles with underlever opening.
I am wondering how handy the lever is in use, how it compares to top lever operation. Mechanically it has definite advantages both on terms of leverage and simplicity of construction. It is the handiness that leaves a question.
I never had but two. An old Boss gun and a Needham single I once owned. I found the under-lever slow to operate in comparison with either a top lever or side lever gun...Geo
Probably could've gotten used to it if I'd shot the guns more. I like the MF Ideal trigger guard lever best.
Are you referring to the Jones rotating under lever? If so they are slower to operate, some do it quite well. But they are one of the strongest fastening systems ever used.
There are other types of under levers. One is a push forward and the other is a pull upward operation. I had a Adams with a push forward lever that I liked both the styling and operation of. Unfortunately the barrels were paper thin and they had stopped doing the Teague lining by then. Lovely brown Damascus wall hanger it was with barrels less than .015, one spot just about where my thumb and finger would rest.
Side levers work quite well if you come across one take a good long look at it.
I use my Stephen Grant Jones lever quite often in events and I am used to it and
it is near an unconscious move to open it. It has non rebounding hammers which adds to the drama. One modern equipped co-participant said it looked like it came with the Mayflower!
Tell me in plain simple words what makes the Jones underlever any stronger than any other good bolting system. As I see it all it does is hold the barrels shut. Holding the barrels closed is one of the minor factors of "Strength" in a break action gun.
Miller, as I see it, the Jone's system literally bolts the barrels down to the action bar and no movement is possible. And if it's properly built it also retards most of the rearward movement. I've heard more than one old gunsmith claim they've never seen a gun with the Jone's underlever off face. I can't speak to this though I have two with the Jone's system I'll never shoot them enough to know.
I have a Joseph Lang Jones underlever, non-rebounding hammer gun which is somewhat slow to reload but once you get used to the "dance" of half-cock then open it's fine for shooting where a fast reload isn't needed. It does fine on clays and is my favorite quail gun. As far as the strength of lockup I don't know because I've only put 6,000 rounds through this gun which was completed March 6, 1866 and it's as tight as the day I bought it.
I have the exception to the rule. I bought a Joseph Lang 2 years ago with the Jones underlever. It was off face when I bought it. But it had been through a hard life.
I have an H grade twist bbl Lefever with Bolted Doll's Head. Gun has been used & abused, bores look like a sewer pipe, has a crack in the left bbl, stock is held together with tape. I bought it "Cheap" as a parts gun but haven't needed any parts from it.But you know what it's tight & on face, even with the ball hinge pin completely removed with just the Doll's Head holding. I fail to see any useful advantage to the Jones Lever which would outweigh its drawbacks.
I've seen a few loose Jones under levers. They're slow to operate, but have few moving parts to wear or break, and lend stylish lines to a gun, I think.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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, 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
Don brings up a good point. Many gun owners don't understand the purpose of individual locking parts. The concept of "unloading" a certain part is lost on most gun owners, but tens of thousands of Beretta over unders in daily use have a device that, fitted correctly, unloads the trunnions.
I thought this gun, which is owned by my Son In Law, might be of interest. It is an unusual mechanism that didn't actually work very well, which I guess is the reason you don't see many of them. It was obviously an experimental or transitional mechanism before they had fully worked out the 'standard' hammerless mechanisms. It has an underleaver which pushes downwards to unlock the barrels and cock the hammers, rather like the martini henry rifle, but they hadn't got the mechanical advantage quite right. If you fire both barrels it is a real struggle to push the leaver down hard enough to cock both hammers. If you fire just one barrel it is fine, but both is a struggle. To aid cocking the hammers there are side cocking leavers which can be used as well. These leavers can also be used to 'de cock' the gun and make it safe. In the world moving from good old hammerguns, which could be rendered safe by lowering the hammers, to a world where every gun went around full cocked all the time this would have appealed to the safety conscious 'oldtimers'
The other interesting feature of this gun is the safety leaver - it works the opposite way round to the conventional ones. If you think about it it makes total sense to those used to hammer guns - you pull them back to activate the mechanism so why not pull back the safety to achieve the same result. My guess is that that like so many shooting variations which were possibly used to get round patent rules the rest of the manufacturers adopted the opposite direction - but that is only a guess.
As you would expect from me it is a Perrins of Worcester!!!
What an interesting gun...
Don;
Yes I had indeed missed that point if it is in fact true. As I said I have never owned a gun with this bolting system, burt as far as I knew it only pulled the barrels down against the frame. I had never heard this aspect mentioned before.
If it does serve this function it will of course require careful fitting or will be like many of the rotary top bolts & still serve only a single purpose.
If it is in fact fitted firm enough to unload the hinge then it is one of the few older actions which does so.
8-Bore;
Am I save in assuming on the Berettas you are speaking of the lugs on the sides of barrels which fit cutouts in the receiver side wall. I can definitely see how these could be fitted to unload the trunnions a bit.
I cannot say for certain the rear lump of a double underbolted gun has ever been fit to actually unload the hinge but if properly fitted with minimum clearance shoild certainly be a plus in resisting the bar from stretching.
Thanks for both for all the input. When I asked What makes it stronger, this was the sort of answers I was seeking. Just the fact it could clamp the barrels tightly to the bar didn't really impress me all that much. This other adds much more to think upon.
Miller, I took a look at my Woodward SXS DR from 1879 (450-400 2 3/8") which is the only Jones I have at this time. The "T" has made a shiny spot on the back of the back bolting slot. That indicates one gun as I described.Perhaps some of the gunmakers will weigh-in on this question.
As far as unloading the hinge pin/trunions goes, the answer is that "draws" are relatively common, but not universal. Vic Venters published an article on "Jointing and the Circle," and included it in his book, "Gun Craft," see page 11. This dealt with the fitting of the front edge of the back lump to the back edge of the "bridge" of the action body so as to "draw" barrels firmly onto face and the hook off the hinge pin. Purdey's (at least for one) currently makes SXS guns with replaceable draws and supplies a series of replacements each larger by a few thou to compensate for wear and restore on-face with a simple drift out drift in part.
The 1909 Boss Over/Under patent calls out an interacting dove tail joint of the action sidewall and barrel breech verticals that are fitted to draw the barrels onto face and unload the studs (trunions).
DDA
Interesting.
My take is that whatever tightly fitted system you might select, it will wear with the opening and closing action more than it ever will with firing stresses.
Build interference and wedge fit all you want, it's going to wear and 'shoot' loose although the actual 'shoot' part isn't causing it.
I'd bet that with any sound lockup system if you could close the thing once and somehow pressurize the vessel 100K times to simulate firing and associated stresses, you would measure no wear upon disassembly.
These things don't stretch apart, they grind themselves apart.
Thank you all for the interesting responses.
Bob Blair, that Mortimer is stunning. It offers the elegance of teh Dickson, and I suspect with a more robust action. Love the sweeping lines and the uncluttered receiver top. It also seems that the lack of a top lever would make the internals much simpler than a top lever gun.
Old farmer, that is an amazing double with the cocking indictors on each lock. Interesting observation about the cocking effort involved depending on the number of springs that have to be compressed, it reflects my experience with the French Ideal which is also a lever cocker.
KY John, I will look up Kirby Holt for sure.
Reason I posted the question is a semi finished action which is lying there wanting attention. That Mortimer is giving me ideas. Forging the underlever is daunting, on the other hand the end result, if it has the lines of that Mortimer, would be worth the trouble.
Don:
Thanks for the info. I have had a number of guns over the years but to the best of my knowledge none of them were fitted to actually draw the hook from the hingepin. Of course they weren't in the class of a purdey. One further question, strength wise which in your opinion adds the most; a properly fitted Jones, a properly fitted rear lump, or a properly fitted top bolt. From my limited perspective it does not really seem to be as desirable to actually unload the hinge, as much as to simply share its load. Any of these if properly fitted will do so.
Shotgunjones;
I will say I am in full agreement with this post.
Two guns which I presently have though are worthy of comment I think in this thread, though I have mentioned them before.
One is a lowly J P Clabrough, Birmingham proofed, the Other a KNock-About VL&D/J P Sauer. Both are double underbolted (No Draw) with Doll's Head. Neither has compensated bolts, Neither the bolt nor the bites in the lumps have any taper to them. Both are still tight & on face, though both are more than 100 years old. On both the rear surface of the front lump cams the bolt back in closing so the top lever is not latched open. In studying these actions it seems to me as the gun is closed, firmly but not forcibly, as the bolt clears it snaps home with virtually no friction, thus no wear.
Might it be that a tapered bolt while "Compensating" for wear in fact actually induces said Wear.
[quote=2-piper One further question, strength wise which in your opinion adds the most; a properly fitted Jones, a properly fitted rear lump, or a properly fitted top bolt. I'd be inclined to go with the circle draw fitted rear lump. However, there are so many other factors that this opinion would be very hard to back-up.
From my limited perspective it does not really seem to be as desirable to actually unload the hinge, as much as to simply share its load. Any of these if properly fitted will do so. If the hinge pin is properly/tightly jointed to the hook there will be no way to truly uunload it. So, you are both right and astute in your observation.
[/quote]
DDA
Re the locking bolt and barrels to action fitting, there is an assumption, fostered by generations of gun writers, that the only phenomena at work are the rearward thrust of the cartridge on the action face.
Known factors such as the friction component of cartridge in the chamber, the radial expansion and axial contraction of thick walled cylinders and others, are overlooked, at least I have not come across any mention of them in the known "authorities".
The situation brings to mind the theories re ulcers being caused by stress, untill two doctors discovered that a simple microbe and not stress was the cause.
SGLover;
The only writings of W W Greener I have is his 9th edition & many things in it are from previous writings so hard to tell just when he said what. He does mention radial expansion as being a fault of an unbolted Doll's Head in that due to this expansion, according to him, it is lifted vertically from its seat upon firing thus losing its effect. Both Westley Richards & Dan Lefever used a bolted Doll's Head. Have never owned a W R so can't speak for them but this Doll's Head & the hinge are all the Lefever has. All are over 100 yrs except those assembled at Ithaca & they are near the century mark. All mine have remained tight over that century + of use.
Some of the top levers have gone a bit left but as mentioned this comes about from rubbing friction in opening & closing, not from shooting IMO.
Regarding ulcers I once knew a gentleman, now deceased, who told me he Cured his ulcers by eating Hot Peppers. Some time after he told me this I saw a Dr's report who had researched ulcers & he stated firmly that hot peppers were an asset in healing them.
