doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thread Like Summary - visual interest versus name recognition & cost

Hanging out in Whittington inevitably leads me into coveting some things (of course!) so... I find myself looking at English hammer guns yet again, but this time I'm beginning to discern a pattern in my analysis. Normally it is a very straight-forward process, cost-versus-benefit going first with perceived-use patterns followed closely after that first cut, but... not this time. Since hammer guns are more "art" to me than just useful tools, I'm finding another variable in the mix and I'm going to call that rather newly-discovered variable "Visual Interest". In some ways for me, it now outweighs the normally more-practical approach.

Most guns are merely tools, with no time and even less-effort being expended in the finished product. Accordingly, these "tools" are usually quite crude (there are probably better examples, but think of a cheap 1920s pocket pistol or an inexpensive military-surplus rifle from say... sometime before WWII). If they're dependable and functional you can still appreciate them (& even desperately need them on some occasions). If they belonged to some beloved person in your life (past or present) they can be treasured and even revered, but they are still, really... only "tools". "Fine" guns on the other hand, are usually differentiated from the rest of the pack by the amount of time and human-effort invested in their appearance (more highly-figured & finely shaped wood [not plastic!], more-adroitly applied and higher-cost finishes [engraving, not Parkerizing!]). Many of the early English hammer guns go well-beyond that mark and accordingly...they are almost in a class by themselves. As a practical matter, most aren't very utilitarian. They are all now...what(?) at least 100-years old, and many (if not most) employ the use of an archaic (and perhaps even demonic) invention, Damascus Steel, in their long and now-ancient barrels (Egads!). They're frankly...very slow to use (loading, cocking and firing take forever by modern standards) and they're also likely to be fragile and not really good for use in challenging weather or other unstable (changing, crowded, or desperate) conditions . And still... with all those very real "handicaps" (for lack of a better descriptor) I'm clearly drawn to them. They are the "Steam Punk" of the gun world (look the definition of that one up) and I think they are endlessly-cool and... even though I need one like a hole in my big (& mostly empty) head, I want another one to use on targets occasionally and perhaps...possibly (only in perfect weather and of-course with well-controlled field conditions) for hunting upland game.

I'm presently focused on back-action guns, though bar-action guns might offer some real advantages here (many more of them have survived, most are somewhat newer [i.e., later production], and many are simply better-made) and I've finally narrowed the field down to just a few alternatives. What I'm finding now is that the perceived-use limitations of some of the lighter, unchoked, and non-rebounding versions are not deterring me because... I like how they "look". Heavier guns (7lbs plus) and the more-normal (more available) bar-action and top-lever guns would make for far-better target guns (which is the more likely and ever more-practical use of such a firearm) but... they're just too-conventional somehow in my eyes. And while some truly-fine and well-known guns (some with very-familiar names in the gun-world) are presently available, I keep circling back to those more-obscure artifacts and it's purely because of that "visual interest" factor for me. It's now down to finding one that will fit me or that can be reasonably-altered to fit (being a southpaw limits my options even further). It's an odd way to buy a gun, I'll freely admit. First world problems, eh?

Lloyd, you’ve made your decision and it’s in line with what I would have recommended.

My thinking, and it’s what I try hard to follow, is that I need to love the gun first. And that is typically a combo of handling and appearance. Rarely does the maker’s name make much of a difference to me. A well made and beautiful gun doesn’t need a name to be a well made and beautiful gun.

These aren’t words of advice for collecting or making money. But when I follow it I’m sure happy with what’s in my safe.

Chukarman: Thanks for that, I certainly do like 16s and I clearly like side-levers but...12s are far-easier to feed than 16s these days, and since sidelevers are fairly-uncommon they accordingly seem to be collecting something resembling a premium these days. No...it will be a 12 and for all the usual reasons, quite possibly a Jones underlever, and it will definitely be shot for targets and moreover...game. I'd also like to find out if non-rebounders actually do cock more easily (i.e. more quickly). Another old-gun learning experience (which is usually fun for me). If I really like it, I can always upgrade to a more-refined and possibly better version later.

Well....I bit the bullet, so-to-speak, and finally bought another hammergun. Waiting on Kirby to ship it now and... it's truly steam-punk on steroids, a non-rebounding, side-lever Lang made in the middle 1870s. The photos are still on his webpage (if you're interested). Pedaled a nice M99 .250 Savage to do it. With the way things are going in Colorado (& elsewhere too) I figured that I'd better get the guns I'm curious about in-hand now, and not "later".

Circa 1866. The side-opening system is Lang's Patent No. 46. I've never seen another like it.



Not bad for 157 years old. Love those fences...



And here's the best part...cocking those non-rebounding hammers from half-cock is a piece of cake.

Lloyd,
Went over and took a peek.
I like it!!
Congrats.

+1

SRH