doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Pierced actions; why not"?

I have been wondering about guns with pierced actions lately.

So I asked a good and knowledgeable friend for his opinion. He wrote:

"In the early days of breechloading guns a pierced action was pretty much standard with all makers, regardless of whether it was made in London or elsewhere. Making a gun this way allowed the action to be slightly slimmer in profile and much easier to clean.

I do believe that the difficult fine fitting of the underlug added additional strength to the action by providing another bumper preventing the barrel from moving forward. I can�t imagine the skill required to fit the underlug perfectly.

Gunmakers were always jockeying for preeminence by offering something new. And I guess that it was at this time that some of the upper class saw someone who they wanted to emulate using one without the protruding underlug and began asking for the same type gun.

So began the snobbish appeal of the new action. London, always looking for an edge quickly promoted it as the product of superior workmanship. It�s all fashion and not related to a gun�s integrity."

However Cyril Adams writes:
"One readily apparent distinction of a London best gun is the fact that the (barrel) lumps never extend through the action."

I assume that it served a purpose, either real or imagined and took additional time, care and fitting.

So why are guns with a pierced action bottom considered by some to be a sign of "lesser quality"?

The smooth bottom action would appear easier to make ?

Someone forgot to tell Peter Hofer that:

It simply became a feature of the best quality guns of the period. The aesthetic of the best gun gradually favoured certain features and characteristics. Best guns in the 20th Century, coming out of London had a certain look. Therefore, one way of trying to establish the grade of a gun is by looking for these features.

Sure wish the tag "best" hadn't been hung on those guns by their self-promoting makers. Would have been a lot more definitive to call them "London Tops" than try to have exclusive rights to and corrupt the adjective "best", which belongs to all English speaking people for their use and enjoyment. Reminds me of one of our egotistical American makers....

So are there FUNCTIONAL advantages or disadvantages to this type of gun or is it simply a matter of style? Is it a stronger means of barrel attachment?

When I was a kid growing up in Detroit, all the "best" cars had tail fins. It didn't seem to make them any better however.

Last time this subject went around I conjectured that it would be easier to make the non pierced version because no one could ever tell whether it was fully fitted or not. I was rejected out of hand for that. I will be curious to hear how this thread plays out.

My little 28ga American Gun Co (Crescent) Hammer double has a non-pierced action. All this time I thought it was just a "Hardware" gun, didn't realize I had a "Best".

Seriously there is a lot more involved in a gun being best than whether or not the lug pierces the action floor.

I located this discussion earlier on the DGBB.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=148784&page=1

It seems no one had a definitive answer to the question back then either. I guess like the issue of stocked-to-the-fences, it will remain a source of conversation, controversy and banter.

Yeah, Mark....if we ever all agreed on these "major issues" then this would be the most boing site on the net. Mix 'em up and fume a little--ah, the spice of life!