|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,481
Posts545,238
Members14,410
| |
Most Online1,335
Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478 Likes: 16 |
The only Dickson I owned is made in 1893 and was Damascus barreled. It had been rebarreled by the makers. 6 lbs. 3 ozs.
ALL Brit guns are proofed when new. Proof includes stamping barrel bore diameters in some form. It is then determined if barrels are in proof based on amount of variation from the proof bore diameter. There are plenty of Brit guns with barrel wall thickness at 20 thousandths or even less AND THEY ARE STILL IN PROOF.
My Henry Atkin SLE has thin barrels at about 21 thousandths and it is still in proof. In fact, it was proofed with 'thin' barrels. I am sure as hell not planning to cut the barrels off and graft on new tubes.
C Man
Life is short
Quit your job.
Turn off the TV.
Go outside and play.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
It has been I believe well proven & documented that the biggest danger to thin barrels in the forward half of the barrels is not them bursting, but being dented.
When still in proof handle them carefully, don't overload beyond what they were designed to shoot, but no need to go to "Super Low Pressure" loads either. Those loads lower the "Chamber" pressure, not the pressure down the barrel where you are concerned about with thin forward section barrels. Don't use very slow powders ether, use the faster powders they were built to use in light loads & you will have no problems.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
In the DRA the distinguishing feature is the Round Action. For that alone most people would forgive sleeving and thin barrels, yet not all sleeving is equal.
A DRA sleeved with Boehler Super Blitz tubes, is a wise choice. If one such comes my way I will not argue about seeing the joint or the blacking difference. But I am no collector and do not understand the collecting thing. I would be OK with that DRA silouet especially in a non ejector that has no visible ejector kicker screws.
Last edited by Shotgunlover; 01/06/18 08:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 180 Likes: 18
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 180 Likes: 18 |
What you have to remember is the fact a Dickson Round Action was a premium luxury item - and a step above any London gun.
When Lord So-and-So wanted a round action built as light in weight as possible, that's what Lord So-and-So got. Price was not an object. So if the gun left the shop with .019" walls (I've seem them), that was fine. If the walls became too thin after a few seasons, and the gun was deemed to need new barrels when it came in for the annual overhaul, that's what it got. And Lord So-and-So paid for it (hopefully).
I think a lot of people today do not understand this was the way things were. Dicksons were not built for the po' folks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
Dicksons were not built for the po' folks. That holds true for them even today, Mike.  SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 459 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 459 Likes: 12 |
What you have to remember is the fact a Dickson Round Action was a premium luxury item - and a step above any London gun.
When Lord So-and-So wanted a round action built as light in weight as possible, that's what Lord So-and-So got. Price was not an object. So if the gun left the shop with .019" walls (I've seem them), that was fine. If the walls became too thin after a few seasons, and the gun was deemed to need new barrels when it came in for the annual overhaul, that's what it got. And Lord So-and-So paid for it (hopefully).
I think a lot of people today do not understand this was the way things were. Dicksons were not built for the po' folks.
Whilst I agree the majority of your post, I don't think the DRA was a 'step above' - more like the 'top step' shared with some London makers. Certainly not lower, but not (in my opinion) higher either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478 Likes: 16 |
"Whilst I agree the majority of your post, I don't think the DRA was a 'step above' - more like the 'top step' shared with some London makers. Certainly not lower, but not (in my opinion) higher either."
What distinguishes the Dickson Round Action is not the level of craftsmanship (which is top drawer), but the genius of the design. This was developed by John Dickson about the time Purdey, et. al. were developing hammerless guns. In my book, this brilliant design places John Dickson the man well above other gun makers of the era.
C Man
Life is short
Quit your job.
Turn off the TV.
Go outside and play.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 459 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 459 Likes: 12 |
"Whilst I agree the majority of your post, I don't think the DRA was a 'step above' - more like the 'top step' shared with some London makers. Certainly not lower, but not (in my opinion) higher either."
What distinguishes the Dickson Round Action is not the level of craftsmanship (which is top drawer), but the genius of the design. This was developed by John Dickson about the time Purdey, et. al. were developing hammerless guns. In my book, this brilliant design places John Dickson the man well above other gun makers of the era.
I think there are other clever designs - notably Anson & Deeley and Frederick Beesley (the Beesley (Purdey) self opening action). I don't wish to suggest John Dickson was any less a great man, but I do think these (and others) were probably equally great. Just a personal view.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
So, who is generally recognized as having invented the trigger plate action? Grant, MacNaughton, Phillips, Dickson?
I haven't a clue.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,486 Likes: 393
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,486 Likes: 393 |
So, who is generally recognized as having invented the trigger plate action? Grant, MacNaughton, Phillips, Dickson?
I haven't a clue.
SRH Some French guy at Manufrance.  Edit: Seriously though, Dickson patent is from 1887. The Ideal was introduced to the market in 1888. My understanding is there were a number of years of development before being produced and sold in 1888. Who know when they first designed it.
Last edited by canvasback; 01/07/18 03:01 PM.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
