doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Smoothness of Cocking, Cocking effort

George and Mike. I didn't bring it up but seeing as you two are going on about Ideals......

I don't have a wimpy little 16 like Mike but I have just recently shot two 12 gauge Ideals, my 6R EE and a friend's grade 5. I completely agree with Mike's comments about the ergonomic design. I would suggest I have average size hands and am not particularly strong, except when I haven't used deodorant, and yet I found, as I always do, that both my ejector gun and the extractor gun I tried were easy enough to cock that I didn't think about it. I know about Mike's gun...just curious George, how old is yours?

Some years ago, I was looking for a 'best' grade s/s, probably a self opener. I visited a number of UK dealers and handled quite a few guns - and I have also handled a fair number of friends guns, plus done a lot of reading!
The conclusions were that there was a lot of variation - from gun to gun. A Purdey can vary from very smooth and nice to very uneven in effort. I have been told that a fair number of guns on the Purdey Beesley action, especially older ones have been 'got at' by 'gunsmiths' who are more like 'blacksmiths'.
The best, in good order are smooth with a very even closure action. The worst are best described as uneven and lumpy in operation.

The best of the lot are the Henry Atkin 'Spring Opener' models - again when in best correctly adjusted condition. They are based on the same Beesley patent, but have minor differences to the Purdey interpretation and use a conventional "Southgate" style ejector. A good one is about as good as you will get anywhere at any price.

I don't have any experience of English O/U designs, but out of the continental O/U designs of which I do have experience, the Merkel 303E (NOT the lesser 203E model, which is less good having different ejectors) is excellent - very smooth and even, and the Beretta SO5/6 series are also good. The lesser Berettas are also good, but do vary a bit - my 57EL has an annoying need to be very deliberate to FULLY open against slight spring resistance to get enough gape to load. Not all have this trait, which can be adjusted out, but needs care not to overdo the adjustment causing non cocking.

It all depends on how the gun is closed. Here in the UK we are instructed in the "correct" way to close a gun is to hold the barrels still and to lift the stock up with your hand on the toe of the stock.
I have put the quotation marks around the word correct as I find this method very slow and cumbersome. I use guns with assisted openers and I find it much quicker and smoother/easier to lift the barrels up to the action. You can adjust the position of the hand to increase the length of the leverage applied to closing the gun.
Bob

My grade 3-R is a 16ga and dated to 1926 according to the Mourneta book. Ideals are way cool guns! The ambidextrous safety is the fastest thing I've found for a covey rise, except that is goes backwards...Geo

Hmmm, yours, Mike's two and the two I was just shooting are all between 1920 and 1928, if memory serves. I was wondering if different time periods and some of the minor changes that took place were having any impact. But all five guns are from the same era and all five are between grade 3 and grade 6.

Did Gene Hill make guns? As for the quote, I think you are about 80 years off.

That quote was attributed to Tom Purdey in talking to W.W. Greener. A description of the conversation can be found on page 20 of Graham Greener's book, "The Greener Story."

Quote:
During one meeting of gunmakers in London, W.W. Greener was talking to Tom Purdey about the various merits of guns. Examining a Purdey sidelock W.W. commented, "Your sidelocks are very hard to reload," to which Tom Purdey replied, "Our Customers have someone to do this for them," implying of course that his customers always had "loaders" since they always shot in the best circles. Greener's response was, "Oh, so you have got a problem then."

A lot of main spring strength built in most English designs. An auto or pump main spring has more frictional and inertial load to overcome to effect a primer hit, yet you can cock an auto hammer with the little finger of your weak hand. Try that with sidelocl or boxlock tumbler for fun! No wonder the cocking effort is so noticeable. Especially when main spring resistance is "enhanced" with the feel of inter part friction.

I came across an interesting solution in a Holland Dominion, a roller bearing in the forend acting on the cocking lever so as to minimise friction and the resulting feel to the hands. It works.

I was somewhat mystified when I read this thread earlier today CZ. I couldn't recall having difficulty as you described cocking any gun since I was a young boy. While I was working outside in the yard this afternoon, I noticed a lot of purple grackles flying around, so I decided to grab a few guns and some shells and thin the herd as I checked the guns for cocking effort. I used an H grade Lefever, a G grade Lefever with auto ejectors, and a Ugartechea Falcon, all in 12 gauge, and a 16 gauge L.C. Smith Field grade featherweight. Long story short, the H grade Lefever was easiest to open and cock, followed by the GE grade Lefever, then the Ugartechea, and then the 16 ga. L.C. Smith. But none was remotely difficult, even when I moved my hands closer to the hinge pin and trigger guard to minimize my leverage. This description in the original post of opening and cocking a "Best" gun... "During the points in the cocking cycle of maximum friction, I could feel parts rubbing each other. Vibration sent back through the cocking mechanism, and felt through the barrels."... is astounding. And hard to believe. Is this perhaps an April Fool's thread? Nothing I shot today even approached so-called "Best Gun" status. I might expect that kind of sensation from a Baikal or a Norinco or an old abused N.R. Davis. Maybe it's not the gun. I really think the problem could be solved by eating a bowl of this every morning:



Scratch that. The Obama Wheaties will only make you run down the steps of Air Force One like a little fairy. If you really want fast results, try to find a vintage 1974 Canadian box with a picture of the Bluenose Palladin King Brown on the front. Some of them even had a Secret Soviet KGB Spy Decoder Ring inside.

I did splash 9 of 10 grackles I shot at. Coulda' been some fine Ortolan there if I was into eating guts.

I own self-cocking doubles by 11 different makers, 4 different nationalities. The least noticeable that comes to my mind, as far as cocking effort and smoothness, is the Beretta 687 SPII/30". Barrel length plays a big part in noticeable effort with cock-on-opening guns. The longer the barrels, the more gravity helps you. The Perazzi is very smooth, but the barrels are still fitted so well to the receiver that the only real noticeable effort there is friction within the receiver/barrel relationship.

I have several Foxes, all are smooth, with none of the feeling of parts rubbing together, as you mentioned. My Dickinson is hard to close, but opens and cocks the hammers easily. The closing difficulty is from very strong springs in the ejectors. There was a thread awhile back about someone who made some adjustments to that by cutting some coils off the springs. It lessens the throw of the empties, but makes for easier closing. The ejectors are excessively strong, IMO. The only Purdey I ever shot was very smooth opening and closing. Terry Allen, the brilliant gun photographer, had a little Grant, as I recall, a few years ago that was a cock-on-closing double. It was so smooth and well built that it was hardly noticeable. I saw him showing it to a couple guys and asked him if it was cock-on-closing gun. He looked sheepish and replied, "Well, I don't know". He pulled the triggers, opened it and closed it, and still didn't know. He handed it to me and I did the same, but felt slightly more effort was necessary to close it than to open it, indicating it was cocking on closing. But, it was very smooth.

I don't recall ever noticing any real "roughness" when cocking any of my guns, really. But, now that you have "breeched" the subject, I just may have to go to the safe one day soon, get them all out, and do a comparison check.

Interesting thread, CZ.

SRH

JohnUK
Has described what I'm thinking about. Higher and lower effort at different places in the cocking cycle.

The most difficult cocking effort I've seen described was an early Baikal, that galled surfaces because of poor fitting.

I designed steering column pieces back when they weren't cable shifters. C/K trucks, Dodge, John Deere, etc. If there was a column shift with tilt wheel, I was in it at the component level. What you felt, how hard it shifted, where in the swing every gear was chosen, was designed in. We worked hard to take grittiness out of Cadillac column shifts. We knew our connection to the driver was through the shifter.

The cocking of a shotgun with dropping barrels is similar in most respects. Though the mechanisms are much older.

It is often said development stopped long ago, having reached perfection... blah, blah, blah,... I disagree.
I believe there is room for further refinement in the cocking cycle of shotguns.

Whomever added the little rollers probably had a job like mine.

So where's this go? In cars, Toyota found a way to push a cable.
In shotguns? Well, I think no matter the scale of the action, there is the possibility of even effort from open to close, and no transference of grittiness.
Because the leverage changes at different angles, shapes of mating parts would have to change at different spots, all while making sure cocking distance was maintained.

Does anyone think we could specify cocking effort at an elite maker?

I wish I could steal SDH's action pictures for this thread.