I was looking at a discussion about Boss SxS action, where the merits of this design were questioned. In these guns the ejectors are cocked by being pushed against the breach face, which leaves rubbing marks on the breech of well used guns. Why would that design be desirable and still be made by Boss and some top makers? Are there any merits for it that make the marking of the breech worth it? Does cocking the ejectors by the breech face have any advantages over other designs?

Sure would eliminate the stress on the small ejector cocking rods most guns have. Ought to be almost fail safe.

I'm not very mechanical, but isn't that how most U.S. doubles cock their ejectors?

L, C. Smiths are the same.
JR

On the vast majority of Lefever ejector guns both the hammers & ejectors are cocked on opening the barrels. No breech face rubbing takes place. They do open just a tad harder, but not really noticeably so. They do close real easy in comparison to one of those rubbing the breech face.

I once had an 00 grade L C Smith ejector gun which was well used. The breech face on it was quite scored from having cocked those ejectors so many times. I suspect an occasional wipe of oil would help considerably, I doubt the one I had ever saw a drop of oil there.

Some american makers use the breech face to cock the ejectors, others dont. In either case the shell kickers still rub against the breech face and will leave marks over time. Extractors do it too.

There is not near the pressure, thus friction, involved with pushing an extractor back in as in cocking an ejector. With a properly case hardened frame there should be very littlem arking on the breech face of an extractor gun.

The Dickinson triggerplate action guns have ejectors which cock when closing the gun. It takes a bit of effort to do so. They work fine, and the "unusual" resistance to closing doesn't bother me at all, though it is the only gun I own that has this resistance. My departed friend, Doug, removed the leaf springs from his two, as he didn't particularly care for ejectors anyway. I think it is a very neatly designed system.

This link will take you to pictures Doug took of his Dickinson with the forend disassembled, and showing the ejector hammer mechanism. Just scroll down a few.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=302060

SRH

Aren’t those South Gate style ejectors? They look like standard over center types to me.

I am not an expert on Southgate ejectors, Dustin. I defer to you on that.

All I can say is that I've never shot a gun that required quite the amount of effort to cock the ejectors as the Dickinson does.

SRH

Look like southgates to me. Pretty basic. Most SxS doubles made today or within the last 50 years or so use some sort of rendition of the southgate. Very simple.

I knew Southgates were/are pretty common, and most of my doubles have ejectors ......... almost all of them. But, none of them require the effort to cock as the Dickinson. Guess i shouldn't have assumed there was a difference.

SRH

Stan,
Just looking at Doug’s pics....those springs that power the ejectors on his Dickinson are absolutely ginormous. They look to be much beefier and thicker than what you’d find on other guns using southgates. More than likely...that’s why the ejectors are so stiff to cock. Those are big ass v-springs.

That brings up another question that I have always pondered ..............why are .410s so hard to eject? My Dickinson is a .410, and even with the beefy ejector springs it doesn't kick the hulls as far as you would think it would.

Anyway, it's all very interesting. Thanks.

SRH