doublegunshop.com - home
Posted By: Lloyd3 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/18/17 05:44 PM
One just walked into the shop that we sold several years ago. This gun drives me crazy.....14 1/2 LOP, 28 tubes, SLE self-opener, gorgeous(!), 5lbs14!!!!!

I don't normally covet much anymore but...gawdalmighty, what a bird gun.
Posted By: KY Jon Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/18/17 06:31 PM
Hits like a 12 carries like a 20. To some that's a 16 not a 12/20. They were an interesting attempt to fill in a niche. Ultra light 12. Great bird gun concept but I would not like it that much in a hot dove field. As my wife says to me about guns go for it, money is only a means to keeping score, not winning life.
Posted By: keith Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/18/17 06:38 PM
Exactly! There are no guns that I have regrets about buying. But there are a number of them that I regret not buying. And not a single one of those I passed up with regrets has dropped in value.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/18/17 07:52 PM
I turn 60 in January.
Posted By: L. Brown Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/18/17 07:54 PM
But nice if you're walking a lot and shooting only a little. Only problem is, you go that light, then anything heavier than an ounce at modest speed and the recoil will get your attention.
I had a Lindner Daly Featherweight a bit lighter than that. Can't recall ever touching off any of my Gamebore 1 1/16 oz field loads in it. Let alone anything we'd put through an American 12, like a 1 1/4 oz Super X--which is a whole lot lighter than some of the pheasant loads they're pushing these days.
Posted By: Saskbooknut Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/18/17 09:58 PM
I do not see a problem here.
Likely chambered 2 1/2 inch, and proof for 1 1/8 ounce.
Using suitable cartridges, the gun is a dream upland gun.
One ounce of plated shot is plenty for me in 20 or 16 gauge, so why not a feather light 12 bore.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/18/17 11:44 PM
I have a tough time shooting most guns that fall under 6lbs well, regardless of gauge.
Single exception is a Remington model 17 pump. It isn't much under 6 lbs, and goes over 6 when the magazine and chamber are in the happy condition. If I had extra common sense, I'd sell EVERYTHING else and become the man with but a single gun.
An ounce in the Remington sure gets my attention. Especially with the 21" barrel installed. I imagine a sub 6 lb 12 would do the same.
I'm less of a zealot on weight, as I become more "seasoned". I don't want the field guns much heavier than 7, and 6 1/2 is preferable, regardless of gauge. I have two near 8 lb pumps I could shoot at the range all day long, but, they almost never go into a woods with me.
The 5 3/4lb Darne 28 is a difficult taskmaster, for me.

Best,
Ted
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 01:40 AM
Ted:

My 16BLE is also 5lbs14 and is dimensionally almost identical to this gun. I find my 16 to be almost ideal for me in the uplands. And, much like my boxlock, when loaded with two 1-ounce shells it weighs.....6lbs.

If the barrels or LOP were much shorter, then I could see a potential for problems. Not the case here.






Posted By: Karl Graebner Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 01:59 AM
I've lusted for a Merkel 1620, a 16 ga. on a 20 ga. frame. My light 12's at 61/2 lbs. loaded with 21/2 RST's with 1oz. of shot work well enough for me to cancel my lust. Still, there is always that "one more gun".
Karl
Posted By: Toby Barclay Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 08:26 AM
The Lancaster '12/20' is an interesting gun, as KY Jon says, an attempt to get on the 'lighter the better' bandwagon between the wars. What some do not appreciate is that the core of the gun was a Birmingham designed and built gun by the famous Baker who was responsible for a multitude of the designs that we generally attribute to better known 'makers.
The Baker design which is often described as a 'self-opener' but is more accurately described as an 'assisted opener when un-fired' was retailed by many of the gun trade at the time, not just Lancaster and Grant who are best known for it, but most did not go down the 'ultra-light' route.
Given the much vaunted superior strength of the back-action design, these other makers could produce a stronger action at normal game gun weights rather than a lighter gun with average strength.
I am finishing off a good example of this in the form of a Blanch right now which I hope will become my go-to game gun for the next few years. I don't have the final weight yet but I guess it is going to be in the region of 6lb 10oz.
It will amuse me that I will no doubt receive many comments about my 'lovely new Blanch BAR action' which (in keeping with the Blanch tradition) it is fact strictly speaking a BACK action.
Posted By: Natty Bumpo Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 09:22 AM
Originally Posted By: Karl Graebner
I've lusted for a Merkel 1620, a 16 ga. on a 20 ga. frame. My light 12's at 61/2 lbs. loaded with 21/2 RST's with 1oz. of shot work well enough for me to cancel my lust. Still, there is always that "one more gun".
Karl


Your lust for a Merkel 1620 can still be satisfied. A really nice one was just listed on Upland Journal. And its in Michigan too.

[img:center]http://uplandjournal.ipbhost.com/topic/60467-merkel-1620-for-sale/[/img]

NB
Posted By: L. Brown Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 11:06 AM
Originally Posted By: Saskbooknut
I do not see a problem here.
Likely chambered 2 1/2 inch, and proof for 1 1/8 ounce.
Using suitable cartridges, the gun is a dream upland gun.
One ounce of plated shot is plenty for me in 20 or 16 gauge, so why not a feather light 12 bore.


I had a Lewis 12ga, right at 6#. Factory 2 3/4" chambers, proofed for 1 1/4 oz. Doesn't mean I was going to SHOOT 1 1/4 oz through it. While there's a very significant difference in recoil between a 1 1/8 oz load at 1145 fps vs 1400 fps, it's still not a bad idea to keep Mr. Greener's "rule of 96" in mind.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 12:09 PM
Lloyd,
It is a very pretty gun. That said, it wouldn't fit either of us, unless it is cast left. I'll bet it isn't cast left. Are you scheming how to pull all this off while you are still in posession of that lovely boxlock?
I wish I was a natural shooter, who could pick up a gun and just run 25 straight at some sort of clay sport. I'm not. I have to practice, extensively, each season, to slowly drag the numbers up. I've gotten recoil sensitive, too, so a truly lightweight 12 is a siren I try hard not to listen to.
You, my friend, might see it differently. Good luck, a guy could do a lot worse than a light, SLE.
I'm looking at restocking a big Darne R10 12 to fit me, and I hope to have the weight come in right at 6 1/2 lbs. It is not a grousmas gun per say, but, would be used more on pheasants and clay games that require a bit of choke.

The little Darne 12 with the sling, choked slim and none, 6lbs, 1oz, is already about perfect for our trip.

Or, the model 17.


Best,
Ted
Posted By: Backworth Bob Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 12:41 PM
I use a pair of Lancaster 12/20's to shoot driven partridge and pheasants. Using 28g of No. 6 shot the guns are lively but not uncomfortable to shoot. The guns are however fitted with leather covered recoil pads which helps a lot.

Bob
Posted By: Karl Graebner Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 01:58 PM
NB,
I saw the one at Fieldsport, thanks for the link.
Karl
Posted By: Natty Bumpo Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 02:53 PM
Originally Posted By: Karl Graebner
NB,
I saw the one at Fieldsport, thanks for the link.
Karl


Karl,

Pretty sure the 1620 @ Fieldsport has had the stock cut. Also a lot more $$$$$, albeit with more engraving. Its been there for awhile. Thanks.

Rod
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 05:06 PM
Ted: You are right, of course.

This gun isn't a lefty and....it would require me to expend an additional $10k (minimally) over what I already have invested in upland toys. Your 6lb1 Darne sounds like a far-more practical gun if one must have a very light 12. This Lancaster is a beautiful gun, however, and artfully executed in the extreme. It awes me as a spectacular work of art should. Anybody who enjoys fine guns and lives for Fall in the uplands would (or should) be as impressed as I very much am. I may covet it, but I am (as always) limited by my practical frugality. I am also....so very grateful for what I already have and for what I (hopefully) have to look forward too.
Posted By: PALUNC Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/19/17 06:55 PM
Seen some of the Lancasters and they are very nice guns. I just purchased (but not received) a Dickson RA that was made 1943. With 28" barrels and a 14 3/4" stock it still only weighs 6.0 pounds.
Now I love a nice Dickson (but never owned one) and can't wait till next week for it to arrive but I have concerns over the weight.
I plan on useing some Caledonian 3/4 ounce loads in it.
Can anyone else attest to lightweigt 12 bores?
Posted By: Saskbooknut Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/20/17 12:41 AM
I shoot 1 ounce hunting loads in two different 20 gauge guns, AyA no.2 and Beretta 687, at 5 pounds 15 ounces and do not have a problem with recoil.
Why would a 12 bore with similar loading be a problem ? I might even try mild 1 1/8 ounce loads,but that would be about my limit in such a light gun.
Posted By: Chukarman Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/20/17 05:14 AM
What a lovely gun! I'd love to own and shoot it. Is it still for sale?

Speaking of lightweight Brit guns, I have a Harkom 16 w/ 28" barrels. It weighs 5-1/2 lbs.

Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/20/17 02:24 PM
It should be on Mark's webpage shortly.
Posted By: KDGJ Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/20/17 03:50 PM
Lloyd,

Looks like Mark put it up on GI 12-20.

Ken
Posted By: eddiel4 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/20/17 05:35 PM
And it shows that it is already sold on his Website. Doesn't take long for a truly special piece to go.

Gosh, but it was handsome!!
Posted By: Chukarman Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/20/17 07:31 PM
Too slow again. That didn't take long to sell.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/20/17 09:35 PM
Originally Posted By: Saskbooknut
I shoot 1 ounce hunting loads in two different 20 gauge guns, AyA no.2 and Beretta 687, at 5 pounds 15 ounces and do not have a problem with recoil.
Why would a 12 bore with similar loading be a problem ? I might even try mild 1 1/8 ounce loads,but that would be about my limit in such a light gun.


How would you feel about putting those same loads through those guns 100-250 times, on a typical league night at your club? Or, in Argentina?
Recoil sensitivity is a progressive thing. If you don't understand it, you are blessed.
But, that doesn't mean you won't come to understand it.

Lloyd, that gun had but 1 7/8ths DAH. I wouldn't have had to worry about shooting it well, I was quite safe from that siren.




Best,
Ted
Posted By: Saskbooknut Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/20/17 10:26 PM
I shoot 7/8 ounce at sporting clays, and 1 ounce for hunting. I don't think I referred to high volume shooting, and do not think I would be shooting that Lancaster 12/20 as a target gun.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/21/17 12:43 AM
No, you didn't refer specifically to high volume shooting-you asked how shooting such a light gun could be a problem.

For some, in different circumstances, it can be. This may be a complete shock, but, not everyone is just like you. And, that is actually OK.

We're done now, right?


Best,
Ted
Posted By: nialmac Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/21/17 07:34 PM
The subject of light guns and recoil is interesting. I have two Browning Twentyweights. One is 6lbs. and the other is 6lbs. 1oz. Fine to carry and shoot now and then but even a box of 1oz. loads fired at clays becomes very unpleasant. Something about the double shuffle of the action gives me a headache. By contrast I have a 16 bore Darne that weighs 5lbs. 13ozs. and a box of 1oz. shells at clays is zero problem. I have never fired more than about 25 rounds at one time thrugh the Darne but I'm pretty sure it would beat me up were I to do so. No getting around phisics. Darne used to claim that their breech design reduced felt recoil by supporting the case heads tightly, it may very well be true.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/21/17 09:30 PM
Ted: the true danger of a Siren is actually holding it.
Posted By: 1cdog Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/21/17 10:01 PM
With a minimum barrel wall thickness of .022 and .020 I couldn't get too excited about that gun.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/22/17 12:26 AM
Originally Posted By: Lloyd3
Ted: the true danger of a Siren is actually holding it.


Yea, but, I wouldn't be able to get my fat face down close enough to see the bead, Lloyd, if'n it had only 1 7/8" of drop. Holding is one thing, shouldering and shooting be another entirely. Kind of like having the prettiest girl at the dance, having dinner, dancing with, and canoodling with her is what a guy lives for, but, putting up with her for the entire 30 days of the month is a whole different kettle of fish.

It may be in proof at .020 and .022, but, yes indeed, a caveman like me would agree a bit more wall would be a good thing.

I don't have too much stuff worth 10K that qualifies as a toy. I'd have a tough time with that even if it did fit.


Best,
Ted
Posted By: Shotgunlover Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/22/17 08:19 AM
A really "clever" action invented by the ingenious William Baker, one of the great minds of English gunmaking.

All his actions invoke that "it is so simple, why didn't I think of that" feeling. My favorite is the BSA Single XXII.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/22/17 02:31 PM
Almost any "lightweight" 12-bore gun you pick up will have had the barrels struck way-down from the factory. Any 2-inch gun you measure will be no-more than .022 or .023. From what I understand, guns pass proof routinely in England now that are only in the high teens (.017 & .018). When you read the barrel information provided by Holt's on lightweight gun in their auctions you will commonly encounter this on guns with very recent proof dates.
Posted By: Owenjj3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/22/17 02:48 PM
For anyone interested, Joe Hall has a composed pair of Grant Single-Trigger 12/20's for sale at a somewhat reasonable price. Of course one tube is at the minimum .020. Take a look at the trigger guards which are reminiscent of a Purdey thumb lever look.

Matched Pairs, LTD
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/23/17 02:03 AM
Originally Posted By: Lloyd3
Almost any "lightweight" 12-bore gun you pick up will have had the barrels struck way-down from the factory. Any 2-inch gun you measure will be no-more than .022 or .023. From what I understand, guns pass proof routinely in England now that are only in the high teens (.017 & .018). When you read the barrel information provided by Holt's on lightweight gun in their auctions you will commonly encounter this on guns with very recent proof dates.


Lloyd,
Not a Darne. Even with the ugly backbore somebody did to the gun I got from Mr. Bodio, there is a lot of .050 wall in that gun.
The 2 1/2" chamber Halifax is even heavier wall. Weight is 6lbs, 4ozs. With 27" tubes.
If you are going to deal with French proof, better bring more than .020 wall, or, be prepared to bring the barrels or action home from the proofhouse in pieces.
My understanding is a lot more old English guns are failing reproof. Lightweight, or, not.


Best,
Ted
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/25/17 06:04 PM
God help me, this gun is still available.
Posted By: Toby Barclay Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/25/17 07:47 PM
On the subject of lightweight guns, I have just completed a Thomas Turner 12b 2 1/2" 27" damascus lightweight hammergun. MWT's 21 & 25. Cut-away stock, miniature forend, locks etc.
Weight? 5lb 3oz!
You could forget that you were carrying it!
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/25/17 07:53 PM
Thomas Turner's guns are really neat. That sounds like a stunning hammergun. Any chance of pix?
Posted By: Toby Barclay Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/26/17 06:59 AM
Lloyd3 Hopefully over the weekend. Frantically preparing for the Vintage Gunner's Cup but should be able to get them uploaded.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/26/17 02:21 PM
One of the board members here has a Thomas Turner lightweight, with the cut away stock, but, I can't remember who.
Geo?

Interesting gun indeed, but, again, not for a lefty, per se.

Best,
Ted
Posted By: Geo. Newbern Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/26/17 02:36 PM
GLS...Geo
Posted By: Toby Barclay Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/26/17 02:49 PM
Originally Posted By: Ted Schefelbein
One of the board members here has a Thomas Turner lightweight, with the cut away stock, but, I can't remember who.
Geo?

Interesting gun indeed, but, again, not for a lefty, per se.

Best,
Ted


Joe from Charlotte.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/26/17 03:41 PM
Ted: If I remember correctly, it was our own GLS. Sorry George, just saw your earlier post.

Mr. Barclay: Do you have any sense of where you will be pricing that Turner of yours?
Posted By: Toby Barclay Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/26/17 06:41 PM
Loyd3, don't think I should do sales on here, don't want to irritate DW! You can always visit my website www.heritageguns.co.uk. I have posted photos under a new thread rather than hijacking this one, especially for you!
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/26/17 07:06 PM
Classy answer Mr. Barclay. I shouldn't have asked the way I did. I will definitely check out your webpage.
Posted By: Paul Harm Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/27/17 03:31 PM
The stock could always be bent if it doesn't fit. Don't turn it down because you need a different cast.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/27/17 05:27 PM
Originally Posted By: Paul Harm
The stock could always be bent if it doesn't fit. Don't turn it down because you need a different cast.


I've had mixed results with that. Going from a bit of right hand cast, to a bit of left hand cast is usually quite a bit.
Some wood does it more than elegantly. Some wood doesn't do it at all.


Best,
Ted
Posted By: SKB Re: 1927 Lancaster 12/20 - 08/27/17 05:34 PM
I have had very good luck bending for cast. Much more difficult for drop. Every piece of wood is different but I have bent three recently for cast, all good to go. YMMV.
Steve
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com