|
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
Topics38,463
Posts545,052
Members14,409
|
Most Online1,258 Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,156 Likes: 318
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,156 Likes: 318 |
I'm posting this for a friend. He has interest in a Lancaster base fire Shotgun. Lancaster patented his "Base Fire" in 1858 and might have taken over the market from pinfires had he not tried to monopolize the sale of ammunition for the gun. Apparently there is a slight difference between Lancaster "Base Fires" and Lancaster "Center Fire" guns. The Lancaster breech face of a base fire with large diameter firing pins with a conical nose. Lancaster C-F versions have a much smaller diameter firing pin. There are base fires which have been modified to C-F; Is the firing pin size the only difference between the two?
Last edited by Argo44; 09/27/22 12:20 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,718 Likes: 479
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,718 Likes: 479 |
If that was the only difference you’d think you could just bush the firing pins, make smaller ones and enjoy. Maybe early guns were deemed to weak to convert or just said to be so as a way to sell more new guns.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,156 Likes: 318
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,156 Likes: 318 |
Thanks Jon; my friend said that was exactly what was done, bushing the firing pins to convert Lancaster to C-F. His question is more esoteric though. Are the firing pins the only difference between early Lancaster base-fires and later Lancaster Center-Fires? He said apparently no one he has found in UK can give a definitive answer. I certainly can't. Gene
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,784 Likes: 185
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,784 Likes: 185 |
Lancaster >>Base-Fire<< guns are quite rare. I think that the cartridge(probably from the mid to late 1850s???) was akin to our 0.22" rimfire or Flobert cartridge now. ANY sharp pressure to the base of the cartridge would ignite a compound where flame raced thru 3 / 4 or 5 holes to an awaiting compressed Black powder charge. I do not think a priming cap had arrived on the scene by then????
Serbus,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,156 Likes: 318
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,156 Likes: 318 |
https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/ace-of-base-fireAnd Steve Nash's excellent comments: https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=575942This one might be key: "It took me a while to understand that Lancaster's slide-and-drop action gun was also being built under a slightly modified design to use the early Pottet/Boxer or Schneider/Daw centre-fire cartridges. At first I thought these were simply converted base-fires, but no, these were built that way, concurrently with the base-fire. AaronN can tell us when the Pottet and Schneider cartridges first appeared in France, and as to the action designed for them, there is much history."
Last edited by Argo44; 09/27/22 07:29 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,718 Likes: 479
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,718 Likes: 479 |
We forget the first job of any gun maker was to sell new guns, not improve older ones. Also there were so many failed “perfections” along the way. Countless locking systems, chokes, barrel lengths, features and special secret advantages for sportsman. Most were quickly left behind but a select few endured. The Jones under lever is a classic example of a obsolete System which long was used because it worked well, not that it was the best or only option.
|
|
|
|
|
|