doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Boxlock with intercepting safety sears

Larry: As usual, your explanation to my question was well thought out, makes a lot of sense and is most likely accurate. Appreciated. Thanks.

Basically, No.

However, as Joe said, intercepting sears tend to feature in higher quality models and therein lies the increased value.

The geometry of the boxlock sear and bent means they are very unlikely to slip or break if made well. The intercepting safety on a quality model is largely belt and braces. IMO.

Are boxlocks and sidelocks distinguishable on this point - ie, as a consequence of their design, are sidelocks more prone to accidental discharge hence the almost universal inclusion of interceptor sears on sidelocks? Or was it more that interceptors sears are a quality indicator and therefore added routinely to sidelocks to bolster their image as a higher quality design compared to boxlocks?

Did the original A&D patent include interceptor sears? If not, was there a separate patent registered for that add-on?

As far as trousers go, I wouldn't mind loosing them. Not a lot at stake.
When gun safety is concerned I'd rather have belts and braces. And I'd pay for them.
JMHO.

JC

The limbs on a boxlock are far more robust than a sidelock. The sear and bent are at convenient angles and both are strong. There was no intercepting safety on the original A&D design. A number of later variants did include intercepting safeties. Good 'A&W' Webley models with screw grips often had them, for example. You see them incorporated in a lot of nice boxlocks by Army & Navy, William Evans and many others. Plenty of sidelocks don't have them but theoretically warrant them more.

Just adding to the discussion...Here's a very high quality Ford BLE..one side has the intercepting sear, the other side had it removed for some strange reason. You would never have been able to tell the gun was missing its interceptor unless you pulled the stock. My point ealier was on English made boxlocks, the price seem to elevate slightly when the gun is equipped with intercepting sears....on continental guns, they are common place and nobody seems to value them anymore than a standard boxlock. German boxlocks seem to be equipped with them in every grade, I once had a Sauer "Habicht" model that was bottom of the barrel for the Sauer line...it still had Krupp barrels and intercepting sears.

How do I know if my Wm Evans BLE has intercepting sears?
I have bushed firing pins, it's a classy gun.
Mike

Mike. The telltale sign is a small screw just posterior to the fences on the side of the receiver. I think you can see in photo above.

The mantra from influential "experts" at the time hammerless guns were being developed was that all of them should have interceptors or tumbler blocks -- esp any hammerless gun pretending to be a "best" gun. For the first quarter century of their existence, boxlocks were able to give sidelocks a run for their money in the "best" category, and it followed that many of the highest quality versions were fitted with intercepting sears, whether they needed them mechanically or not. Diggory probably has a better handle on it, but I think they start disappearing from British boxlocks somewhere around 1900 and are mostly gone by the First World War, at least in the British trade. The Germans are a little different.

Most German boxlocks don't have both the upper and lower sear screws which means intercepting safety. So, it is reserved for the upper grade guns.