doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Grip safeties in 1875? 16 bore Dickson

FWIW: Diggery has a 16 Holland & Holland grip-safety hammer video on his webpage as well.

JT, In the picture you shared, is it correct to view that as the trigger blade (above the trigger plate) cannot rise to trip the sear because the fulcrum activated by the grip safety cannot move unless the grip is held up against the guard tang? I am having a hard time understanding the mechanics above where the grip safety's blade enters the tang. To me, the trigger blade needs to go up, so the opposite end of the pivoting piece needs to go down...but it already at its lowest point.

Keith makes a very good point here. Interceptors have been a big selling point (as it has been endlessly pointed-out) on the better and "best" English sidelock guns for well over 100-years now, but in truth... accidental discharge seems to be a fairly rare occurrence in most cases, even in far-less expensive guns. Early "best" English boxlocks had interceptors as well, but as time went on they were dropped as being superfluous (given the robust nature of the A&D design). In any seemingly better-made gun (please note: cheaply-made guns aren't being considered here) I now suspect that it takes quite a substantial shock to cause a discharge and we all seem to be quite comfortable with any standard "safety" mechanism being "on" these days, even though as Keith points out they are only trigger-blocks at best.

Out-of-sight really is "out-of-mind" here and accordingly with hammer guns, it's arguably more of a psychological phenomenon than an actual "danger" to hunt with one's hammers "cocked" and that is simply because you can clearly see the now "menacing" hammers awaiting their moment (thus making one far-more aware of the actual risk). The psychology of this phenomenon was so-powerful at the dawn of "hammerless" guns that many (if not most) of the early hammerless sidelocks had very overt "cocking indicators" on their actions (some even had non-functional external hammers and even "crystal windows" where you could see into the lockworks and confirm that the gun was cocked). A grip safety would have (perhaps) allayed that psychological effect & then calmed the nerves of your fellow hunters. Like I mentioned here earlier, I'd have to try it for a while to see how it actually functioned afield. I'm guessing that there are good reasons for why they became obsolete ("cost" comes to mind immediately) but... perhaps there were other forces at play during that time as well?

Yet another "deep" question needing research, right?

CJF I’m not sure I sent mine off for restoration and asked Mr Perodeau to repair the spring in mine it was working under gravity only but truthfully Keith is correct it’s pretty much useless. If your right hand is gripping the wrist, safety is off.

Now Meffert’s grip is for tension on the main spring, so it can’t go off unless you grip it. Essentially you cock the hammers when you squeeze till it clicks.

Well Doc put in a link above that answers our question.Sorry I missed it Doc.

Yep. Here's a 14-bore pin-fire by Hugh Snowie of Inverness, @1860, a Harris Holland 12-bore pin-fire from 1861, and an unmarked conversion to pin-fire. As mentioned by others, the grip safety was a hold-over from percussion guns, not seen often after pin-fires.

I have several guns with the Purdey type grip safety. This one is a James Squires 8 bore two barrel set.

Beautiful damascus there 12boreman.

Steve - thank you for sharing those pictures

JT - wonderful craftsmanship went into those locks. I love how much care went into something most will never see.