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?
Last edited by Lloyd3; 01/05/25 07:45 PM.
