|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
749
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,138
Posts571,053
Members14,674
| |
Most Online19,682 Mar 28th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,284
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,284 |
Hi fellas, can't post video here so I ask you please to just take a look at the video of this patented action. http://www.vintageshotgun.com/?p=870It's from a Charles Lancaster I've just purchased which has a finely engineered action and is very pretty. I wondered if people here knew a name for this type of trigger mechanism? Cheers T
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,381 Likes: 702
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,381 Likes: 702 |
That is the "patent block safety" mechanism designed by F. Beesley around 1884 I believe. A type of "intercepting sear", but instead of being mounted on the locks..its mounted on the floor plate.
Dustin
Last edited by LeFusil; 09/05/10 02:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 790 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 790 Likes: 47 |
LeFusil, Spot on. Frederick Beesley made most of Lancaster's boxlock actions and arguably the backaction sidelocks too: they both use the 'wrist-breaker' action that cocks the mainsprings on closing. Having had to deal with quite a few of these actions, I would strongly advise against ever buying one that is not functioning properly, they can be a total nightmare. Some use a over-centre type ejector that was patented to get round the Southgate patent and the spring looks like a snail on acid. As a restorer, I would avoid this system at all costs unless one enjoys doing ejector conversions! Nowadays, I tend to avoid any contact with the Lancaster wrist-breakers. They are beautifully made guns and highly reliable until someone who doesn't understand them 'regulates' one!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
Toby is spot on as usual. I had one of these for a few years. Nice handling and attractive gun. I actually preferred shooting it to the wristbreaker side-lock I used for a while, which was beautiful but kicked like a mule.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,284
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,284 |
Ah so I've bought a nightmare then?  Actually it's really pretty gun and I got it for a song...it works too...so I don't intend to bugger around with it other than clean it up and re-finish the stock which sadly has been played with.. T
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,381 Likes: 702
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,381 Likes: 702 |
T, The patent # that covers that block safety design is #14,488 of 1884 under the name Frederick Beesley. The patent for the action is #425 also of 1884. I do not know when Mr. Beesley sold the patents/rights of the designs over to Henry A.A. Thorn, but assume it had to be soon after the patents were registered. Mr. David Baker writes of having seen some Beesely marked guns that used this action. The ejectors are a T. Perkes Patent system and are not as good as the southgate style, but like stated above, if un-monkeyed with, they work just fine.
I thoroughly enjoy my Chas. Lancaster Model A (aka Wrist-Breaker), its my favorite English gun at the moment. I used it two days ago to take a limit of mourning doves and with grouse season approaching...it will see even more time afield.
Dustin
Last edited by LeFusil; 09/06/10 06:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,284
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,284 |
I quite like my gun too actually...will post pictures when it's done! Cheers for all of the feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,381 Likes: 702
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,381 Likes: 702 |
I quite like my gun too actually...will post pictures when it's done! Cheers for all of the feedback. Remember T.....on 151 New Bond Street, the proper nomenclature for your action was "Body Action", not a boxlock. :-) Dustin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,465 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,465 Likes: 89 |
"Lancaster Boxlock - Interesting Action"
Once in Alabama I saw what was purported to be the worlds largest mouse trap collection....all were "interesting" only a couple survived the test of time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,381 Likes: 702
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,381 Likes: 702 |
"Lancaster Boxlock - Interesting Action"
Once in Alabama I saw what was purported to be the worlds largest mouse trap collection....all were "interesting" only a couple survived the test of time. F. Beesley didn't design mouse traps, he designed guns and mechanisms that have all withstood the test of time. My Lancaster is running strong and it just celebrated its 120th birthday and not a screw has been turned on the gun. Dustin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
The patent # that covers that block safety design is #14,488 of 1884 under the name Frederick Beesley. The patent for the action is #425 also of 1884. I do not know when Mr. Beesley sold the patents/rights of the designs over to Henry A.A. Thorn, but assume it had to be soon after the patents were registered. Mr. David Baker writes of having seen some Beesely marked guns that used this action. The ejectors are a T. Perkes Patent system and are not as good as the southgate style, but like stated above, if un-monkeyed with, they work just fine. Beesely filed at least 3 patents in 1884. It is also the year that he left his wife and children and married a widow of some means. I believe he sold his rights to Thorn either in 1884 or 1885.     Pete
|
|
|
|
|