doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com recently acquired georg lechner

Ford:
I realize it was an answer to a pressure issue, but for which cartridge, metallic or shotshell, was the bushed and disk set strikers developed/designed. With that, why would an O/U have a typical firing pin hole atop while a bushed and disk set striker below or under?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey,
I really don't understand your question, but will answer the best I can.I have no idea which cartridge the "bushed and disc set strikers"were originally developed/designed for.I guess that would be "lost in antiquity".The reason I had my combination gun changed was because it "blew"(pierced) a primer in a 9.3x74R cartridge.The original pin was a "Hound's tooth/dog's tooth" type(ie on the hammer).The story about this gun is in the next "WAIDMANNSHEIL", but the high pressure was due to the gun being misidentified as 9.3x74R when it was actually 9.3x72R Sauer&Sohn.I killed at least 6 Red Deer using the wrong ammo- is there a lesson here? I don't why you asked the question about the O/U; if it was not for my rifle,but another,maybe it was rechambered/rebarreled for a different,higher pressure cartridge.What are the particulars of the rifle you have in mind?
Mike

Ford:

I just knew you would lean on the "lost in antiquity" phrase, but that is valid only for a time. Permit me to lead the witness a bit, if I may. I assume, remember assumption is the anthesis of exactitude, that it was the Nitro powders that lead to breech face/striker design. I'm not concerned with later alterations, etc. but am focused on straight from the shop as it rolled off the assembly line examples. I can see that having a disk would allow for the later exchange of strikers but why on the following example, with scattergun tubes above & below, would the lower striker be as it is? I would think that such striker designs were centered around solid projectiles & Nitro poweder.


German post WWII O/U with M. Sch. initials as well as a script K and GAN in a triangle.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey,
There is no way I can say, with certainty, why the pictured gun had one bushed striker and one unbushed.There may be a couple possibilities, but absent a complete history of the gun, you will have to choose the one you like. It's possible that the original striker was improperly located, requiring recocating. It's possible it was bushed to correct some defect in the casting/forgeing from which the action was made ( the double rifle that was stolen from me had a small defect that only caused a peculiar mark on the primer;which will identify it if I see a fired cartridge).It's possible that an extra set of barrels was made for it, chambered for a higher pressure cartridge, which is now lost.
I don't know if there was one reason for bushing the strikers.My Meffert drilling,with Dural receiver, had bushed strikers for all barrels (prewar).I watched Walter make double rifles and combo guns chambered for 7x65R and 30-06 w/o bushings.Some of these had o/u shotgun barrels.If the gun was not made with "hounds tooth" strikers,replacing strikers with bushings isn't especially easier than those without.It's not the bushing itself that's important, it's the diameter and fit of the striker.Certainly,nitro powder and solid projectiles, can cause conditions requiring bushed strikers to address them,sometimes;but it's not the bushing,it's the diameter and fit of the striker.On the other side of the equation, a rifle size striker will fire shotshells, just fine.
Maybe we can talk more at the gunshow Sat.
Mike

It seems the possibility of replacing the lower striker might be a very hard job from inside of the gun. Maybe replacing the upper striker from inside was an easier task, thus no bushing.

Daryl,
Actually, it would be easier to replace the lower one,the upper tang is a little in the way. When drilling the raw reciever blank for the upper pin/striker (of either type) the tangs had to be bent out of the way and then bent back.
Mike