This morning I came across some unique items on GunBroker and it got me thinking that a thread on stereotypes, failures and anomalies might be interesting. Feel free to post any that you might own, find for sale online or just want to share.

Please Note: I have no connection to any of these firearms.

Cracked frame on an Ithaca Flues

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=517320289

Double F FFOX

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=518573819

Smith owners that believe that their guns have anything even remotely in common with an actual good gun.

Dewey: could you please explain your animus toward Smith guns; in language a gentleman could understand and appreciate.
Were you not responsible for restoration of the Peary gun in the DGJ article "The Robert E. Peary Gun" by Tom Archer, Volume 21, Issue 3, Page 78?
Is it entirely the gun, or a Smith owner that riled you?
And I'm simply asking, not challenging, and very glad you have returned to gunsmithing/gunbuilding.

a downhand 6011 type weld pass, with the SMAW, not TIG- wow- turned that old fluesie into a real POS.It doesnt bother me that Dewey has a negative approach to Elsies- I love mine like I do my children and grandchildren- But Dewey is a real gentleman, unlike many of the "carriage bolt oriented azzholers" who patrol these hallowed halls of doublegundumb-- 5 summers ago, Mavis and I, both History buffs, were en route to Williamsburg VA, and AA routed us through Gettysburg PA on our way down. At that time, Dewey was in Liditz, home of the Victor animal trap Co., and that was just a jog out of our way. He was most gracious in extending an invite to stop and visit and see his shop. Time, weather and car problems didn't allow that to happen, unfortunately, but I will always remember his kindness in extending an invite to someone he had not yet met, but shared with some interests (machine shop, welding, and double guns)held in common. Glad you are back in the "gun game" Dewey- good on you!! RWTF

Drew,
You know very well the answer to your second question to Dewey, and I suspect you can get the answer to your other questions from the owner of the Peary gun !

Are you sure he is referring to the LC Smith or is he referring to gunsmiths?

Can't find it but....the Remington double with the name misspelled is one of my favorites.

How 'bout the "The Monagarm Gun"; represented as a Turnbull restored, Cody lettered 1911 20g Monogram Ejector, with the rare and exotic "Whitwroth" barrels






Dick: indeed.

That engraver has probably never seen the inside of the Hunter Arms Company factory.

I am responsible for the restoration of the Peary gun (as well as a Gifford Simonds owned Crown grade) and numerous other Smiths as well as countless repairs to others, but this in no way constitutes an endorsement of the design. The commissions were taken because I had (have) expenses to meet, and the level of workmanship that I put into those was to the same standards that I hold for myself regardless of what I'm working on. Many people mistakenly assume that my finished work is the result of some "passion" for a particular gun. What many mistake for passion is probably really just OCD.

It is entirely the gun.

No one has me "riled". My thoughts about any individual would never color my analysis of a mechanical device (the reverse might be true, however).

I have many years working on shotguns from every industrialized nation on Earth and I can tell you that there is nothing impressive about any classic-era American shotguns. Once one has seen actual high quality, it becomes difficult to make excuses for guns like the Smith.
Once one disassembles an L.C. Smith for the first time, the level of Rube-Goldbergian design readily becomes apparent. To wit,

- a toplever spindle that is supported by the removable triggerplate at the bottom and held in place by a wholly inadequately sized screw

- wood that the gun simply can not spare is removed to make room for the toplever spindle, leaving two narrow vertical webs to transmit all recoil forces through the stock, this entire area is solid in any Holland-pattern sidelock

- both iterations of the safety mechanism are poorly thought-out and sloppily made

- the cocking system is an answer to a question that nobody asked, and it's not a good one

- the first-type ejectors must have seemed like a clever idea at the time

- the agri-locks, I'm sure that someone will post a photo of the lock from and A2 or some such and say how they're the equal of anything English, German, etc….. they're not, not even with the jeweling and "fancy" bridle

- the use of corrosive flux during barrel assembly that invariably leads to the need to strip and relay the ribs, when you're making more guns than everyone else ya gotta cut some corners to keep production up

- the late (single spring) hammergun lock is an abomination with its single-legged and single-screwed bridle which can ( by design) never serve its primary function of stabilizing the tumbler and sear pivots

Ironically, the best single trigger that was ever available in a classic-era American double came in the Smith. Given the overall average level of gunsmithng competence in America, this is unsurprisingly the most maligned feature of the gun.
_________________________

Good to see you posting again, Dewey. Welcome back!

Best,
Ted

Oh, so I guess he did mean the LC Smith. Never mind.

Dewey, I wish you would just please come out and say what you mean instead of beating around the bush. LOL

You may not have meant to, but you sure made me smile reading your post, Dewey. That's what I call a comprehensive mechanical assessment from a highly skilled individual that is also damn entertaining to read.

I knew that decades ago, but someone with experience finally put it in a concise statement. Just look how well American built doubles sell on the international market. We're the only ones that like them or make excuses for them.

Some make excuses for them. Most of these American sxs shotguns have been used for over 100 years and are still going strong with nothing done to them, not even a full cleaning. Most of these guns were used hard in putting food on the table and a small percentage were used in the sporting games of trap and these were used hard also.

I find that I do have to make excuses for them, they are what they are, a mass produced shotgun that filled the bill for the American shooter.

Remember in Europe it is mostly a privilege to hunt and own a shotgun. Also, that Purdey, Boss, H&H does not shoot any better or farther than the cheapest made American sxs.

I, too, am puzzled by the fondness for American guns. Except in a way I’m not puzzled. I believe it’s grounded in emotion and nostalgia, frankly.

A useful comparison would be to American muscle cars of the late 60s and early 70s. The value of those cars skyrocketed once the guys who lusted after them as teenagers finally became old enough and well-heeled enough to be able to buy, restore and collect them. Were they good cars? Gawd no.

So let’s review the bidding. Most folks who hang out here are very likely white males in their 50s, 60s and 70s. (Disclosure: I am all of those and 60.) They (we) grew up in a better time in many respects, living in small towns, near abundant hunting opportunities where, if you were like me, the gun and fishing tackle areas of the hardware stores were better than a movie ticket. And what did we see there? Names like Remington, Winchester etc. So take a big handful of nostalgia for a long-gone era, add a pinch of patriotism that evinces itself as a preference for American made, then maybe add just a dash of old-guy crankiness and there you have it.

Hell: the place where you’re forced to shoot American doubles and fish British fly rods.

Heaven: the place where you get to shoot British doubles and fish American fly rods.

But I still love my country.

Dewey; As an expert gunsmith, would you make critical comment re the Winchester Model 21, the good and the bad? I would appreciate hearing your opinion. Thanks, Buzz

that was a bracing post by Dewey Vicknair. The L.C. Smith cocking levers and the lock layout always made me wonder what the designers were thinking of.

+1 please

Holy smokes guys, stop with the flag waving will ya. Mass produced guns for the American market at a price that the average farmer or coal miner could afford. And lots of them. That's what we wanted and that's what we got.

And what, we produced doubles for a few decades and you're trying to compare them to someone who has produced them exclusively for centuries.


You sound like the newly graduated college kid that shows up for work and tries telling everyone their jobs.

I doubt you will like it, but, it is honest as the day is long. You can learn a lot from the guy who has to fix 'em, if you are willing to shut up and listen.
Most guys aren't.


Best,
Ted

If "we are willing to shut up and listen" will you regale us with your wife's opinion of the Model 21?
Why so nasty Ted?

Thank you for your response Dewey. I am profoundly unqualified to defend the mechanical defects in Alexander Brown's design, but would make a couple of observations, which are discussed in The L.C. Smith "Farm Implement Grades" article by me & Dr Jim, Double Gun Journal, 2014, Volume 25, Issue 2, Page 113.

1. Price comparisons in the 1897 Sears Roebuck & Co. Catalogue:
Parker GH - $51.20
Smith No. 00 - $25
Smith No. 0 - $31.75
Ithaca No. 1 - $26
Remington 1894 A Grade - $33
Baker B Grade - $31.75
Fine guns listed included:
Daly 150AE at $129 and 250AE at $190
Greener No. 3AE at $187.50, Facile Priceps at $93.75, and No. 6 Forester $69.95.
More comparisons here:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1OTND2bQH0vhlbCf7c2sN8H1vzmT7xagUSXhewGB03SE

2. Despite the defects, I'm still using an "agricultural grade" and well used 12g 1906 OO and a 1906 16g OE to shoot 2-4 rounds of recreational skeet every week. Dan Lammers replaced one bushing, tuned the locks, and glasbedded the head of the stock (mostly because it's also my big country pheasant gun) on the 12g; the 16g is mechanically original. I enjoy both almost 110 year old guns, didn't pay much for either, hope they'll last a few more years, and that is what matters at this point in my life.
I'll freely admit that my 1913 Fox Sterlingworth will probably last longer however.

In the words of a respected but eccentric deceased British gunsmith who lived not far from Dewey, "I never saw a Model 21 that would not make me $700." I may be mistaken about the amount.

My wife doesn't know anything about model 21s. If she did, I'd put her on and let her tell you, herself. Then, you would say she didn't know what she was talking about.

Which, is exactly what has happened to Dewey, right here, when he has done the same thing, in the past.

I know Dewey's opinion of both the model 21, and the LC Smith. We have talked at length about those, and other designs. I agree with him on many things, but, our interests are different enough that it isn't 100% agreement. His standards are higher, no question about that. If I was going to venture outside of my comfort zone on a different type of gun, I'd definitely listen to what Dewey had to say before I parted with cash. He has very good reasons for his opinions about various guns. Like many things in life, it isn't "this is the best one of all" type of deal, there are compromises, design flaws, workable shortcomings, and, out and out crap.

A lot of other guys, many of them right here, have an opinion, but not with that level of thought, or scope. They don't fix them, or make them pretty and better functioning, after all. Dewey does.

My comment was a generality, aimed at no one in particular. Remember the lyric "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest"?

Never more apparent than on a hobbiest board, on the net.

Best,
Ted

Dewey, thank you for your honest assessment. I like American guns out of emotional attachment, but i am sure other sidelock actions (holland & holland for example) are undoubtedly mechanically superior. Noone has ever brought back or mimiced the LC for good reason. That said if i could get my hands on my grandfather's crown grade i would trade several of my Jules Bury made guns for it.

There comes a point when shooting is more about feeling than reason and popularity is ultimately about emotion.

I respect your opinion, and moreover your experience.

Many people have asked me for my thoughts on the Smith, mainly because it's the only "good" double that I will no longer work on. That is the main reason for posting my findings.
It was not meant as an indictment of anyone who likes Smiths and I'm not trying to convert anyone away from the gun.
Many espouse opinions about certain guns being "the best" simply because they're American (or British, or German, etc.) and they refer to legend and lore to make their case.
Nationalism, patriotism, faith and other such things have no place in the objective evaluation of a device's design. There is an old saying that "everyone is entitled to their opinion". I personally don't agree with that. I believe that everyone is entitled to an informed opinion. To have an opinion on a subject with no information is to simply display one's ignorance.

Regarding my "expertise", I do not refer to myself as expert at anything. I would say that I'm competent.

Regarding the Model 21,

- The dovetailed lump barrel construction adds ZERO strength materially to the barrel assembly because more often than not the actual fit of the dovetails is quite sloppy. The soft solder joint does most (if not all) of the work of holding the barrels together.

- The rib and forend lug joints fail with amazing regularity. In 25 years, I've stripped and relaid as many 21s as Smiths. Trust me that's a lot.

- I don't think that any well-designed gun should have ANY parts that are held in place by staking alone.

- I personally don't consider the 21 to be "classic" double, it came on the scene very late, is completely coil-spring driven and is made of much more modern materials than the other American doubles (these are good things). It's really a modern double.

I know all about the destruction tests of the 21 against the other doubles and all I can say about that is it's absurd.
It's comparing apples to oranges, and no one shoots proof loads regularly. The 21 is a modern gun designed to shoot modern ammo and the "test" (if it ever really even happened as they say) proved nothing except that all of the guns tested were indeed stronger than they needed to be, for the ammunition and use for which they were designed.
But Americans seem to be obsessed with "strength", whether real or imagined, so I'm sure that that also helped to build the model 21 legend.
If you like 21s, that's great, they're a good, serviceable gun, but to compare them to classic-era (or English) doubles, is an unfair, uninformed comparison.

Just as with my Smith posting, I did not mention aesthetics or handling. These areas are entirely subjective and I am certainly no one to tell another what they should (or should not) like.

Treblig1958's last post summed up the situation quite succinctly.

Thanks Dewey.

One wonders-- the Fox or Parker factories either. Is this another "upgraded gun from the "Cattle twister"- aka- Turn-Bull?

I'm with Buzz. Thank you, Dewey, on both those posts.

I am fortunate in that I occasionally spend time with CJO, a member here some will recognize, who not only has a lovely assortment of classic American and British/European guns in his shop, but is highly skilled in the repair and maintenance of these guns, as those who have seen some of his work (posted here) can attest to. It is wonderful to get an objective lesson about these mechanical designs, relatively free from the influence of marketing (which has been my career for 35 years).

I just spent an hour with Claudio today....not nearly long enough....and learned some more. Handled so many best and near best guns, I left in a mental fog!

Dewey, if you feel up to it, I for one would really enjoy the same kind of assessment on Parker and Remington hammerless guns and the Fox design.

I don't see where anyone was waving the flag of patriotism. I did see posts referring to nostalgia and a preference for American-made simply as reasons that might explain the enduring popularity of American-made doubles.

And a hesitant observation from a M-21 owner with zero gunsmithing or engineering expertise. I appreciate Dewey's unimpeachable credentials and his assessment of the M-21. The only part that surprised me was the extra emphatic all caps in "adds ZERO strength" about the dovetail lump barrel joining. I think this may mean the mass-produced barrel manufacture and joining doesn't lack strength, but would have more strength than needed if the dovetails were precisely hand-fitted.

I'm a little confused about when stronger than needed is relevant and when it's not -- but nothing unusual in me being confused.

Jay

The vertically dovetailed lumps were/are a marketing gimmick, a way to say that the 21 has "something that others don't". This is one of the areas where Winchester played up the "strength" bit. The truth is that, even if the breeches were simply flat and soft-soldered together, they'd be just as strong as with the dovetail. With chopper lump barrels (like the 21) the method of holding them together (soft solder, braze, super glue, etc.) actually has little to do with the "strength" of the action. Even if the dovetail were properly fitted, there would be no increase in strength, it would merely make the solder redundant.
The left and right barrels are made of the same material, dovetailing them together does not result in some new, stronger material (Winchester marketing BS notwithstanding).

Dewey, thanks for the additional details.

No doubt Winchester's (and other gunmakers') marketers puffed up their product feature claims into the hype stratosphere. And I have no basis to question your assessment of the methods of joining chopper lump barrels. But I tend to think (we can only surmise) that the guys who designed and built the 21 believed the additional machining to create the dovetail joints made a stronger joint than simply soldering flat lumps. BSA had done it before, and Winchester liked to say they borrowed what they considered the best features of others' guns.

Jay

It has always seemed unusual to me that lower end U.S. double gun manufacturers like J. Stevens --



and Iver Johnson used chopper lump barrels while none of the major players like Parker Bros. Remington, Ithaca, Baker, L.C. Smith/Hunter Arms or Lefever felt the need.

Upon what information do you base your opinion?

The marketing guys can write a lot of stuff but they can't rewrite the rules pertaining to engineering, materials properties and physics.

A manufacturer (of anything) is as likely to adopt a "feature" based upon a PERCEIVED benefit as an ACTUAL one.

The only actual benefit of the dovetailed chopper lump would have been to act as an aid in assembly of the barrels. A benefit to the factory workman, but no benefit whatsoever to the shooter.

I'm well aware of BSA's use of dovetailed lumps and everything about the 21 applies here as well.

Many of the English's patented "innovations" were little more than gimmicks aimed at gaining market share. THAT is what Winchester took from the British when marketing the 21.

If the dovetailed construction was truly a benefit, why has NO ONE ELSE employed it? Especially best makers?
Do they fear treading upon the hallowed ground of the Model 21? I don't think so. Most likely is that their engineering departments came up with a similar assessment to mine, just a lot earlier.

There is the primary reason that best makers used chopper-lump construction, massive surface area for either soldering or brazing.

Dewey; According to Ned Schwing's book on the Model 21, Mr. Frank Burton took out a patent on the dovetailed barrels. In addition, this book makes the statement "Instead of brazing the barrels together, a common technique, a vertical dovetail in a mechanical interlock was utilized. This resulted in no distortion of the temper or strength of the barrel metal." Apparently, this dovetail and the lumps were then soldered using lower heat rather than the higher heat utilized in brazing. Does this make any sense (i.e., protecting the character/integrity of the metal which apparently had been heat treated) as to why they chose this vertical dovetail system and solder rather than going with brazing?

Hmmm ... I'm puzzled, can't see where we disagree Dewey. Maybe you mistook me, as nothing in your response seems to me inconsistent with my suggestion that the guys that built the gun believed the dovetails made a stronger joint. Of course I could be wrong, can't know what they thought. My surmise about what was in their minds is all about perception, and derives from agreement with you on this:

"A manufacturer (of anything) is as likely to adopt a "feature" based upon a PERCEIVED benefit as an ACTUAL one."

I thought I was clear in acknowledging your expert assessment that there's no benefit of added strength. No need to persuade me that advertising hype (of most if not all makers) doesn't affect the reality of engineering. Nor reason to challenge me with a question of why others haven't adopted dovetail lumps -- I didn't and don't assert that the dovetail lumps are better than other methods of joining chopper lump barrels.

Jay

Hmmm...I guess Monday morning quarterbacks always have been low on my list of humans.

Like those who 'know musclecars' and proclaim them to be lousy cars, someone looking back on guns designed 125 years ago and proclaiming them to be junky doesn't strike me as someone too smart. Especially when neither the musclecar expert or the gun know-er never produced a gun or car of his own. Everyone's a critic.....

The 'modern gun', much like the modern car, stands on the shoulders of what was produced 40 or 75 or 100 years ago. Sitting in my Lexus LS460L, it would be easy for me tell you just why the 1957 Imperial LeBaron was an absolute piece of junk. But I don't do that because it would make me a fool as well.

And let's not mention that your average piece of crap LC Smith or Parker has 1000 times more soul than any gun built in 1980 will ever have.

Well, I gotta go. I'm throwing out all my Jimi Hendrix records 'cuz God knows Lenny Kravitz is far more modern and better.

"A manufacturer (of anything) is as likely to adopt a "feature" based upon a PERCEIVED benefit as an ACTUAL one."

Jay, I have been involved, through my work, in both watching and influencing the design and production of consumer products, specifically sporting goods hardware and footwear, where "features" are regularly included that do NOTHING to make the product better but they make the product easier to sell, based on the PERCEPTION of the marketplace. And we all knew it.

Totally agree James, can't see where I've said otherwise, maybe created an unintended inference. My suggestion that Winchester engineers in the 1920s may have thought there was real benefit in the dovetails might be wrong. Maybe as Buzz suggests in the Schwing reference there's a theoretical benefit that's of little consequence. As I said, it's surmise, none of us can know for sure.

Jay

Although I have found it interesting reading the reasons why certain features may be of poor design according to a knowledgable and experienced smith, I would find it even more interesting learning which manufacturers and designs he considers the best and why. That way I will know what to look for the next time I am in the market for a new gun and perhaps I can avoid some of the pitfalls Dewey has mentioned.

The timing of this post is perfect. I was at a rife range early this morning to correct the ills of a bad tumble last November and I noticed (while being beaten silly by over 20-rounds old Weatherby technology) that I had the only wood-stocked rifle on the range. Canvasback has done his work well.

My support of L.C Smith shotguns is based looks, fit, feel and accuracy. I guess everyone on this board has a favorite mine is a Smith. Anyone want to sell me there junky High Grade Smith I'm your man.
KWD

I don't have much experience with LC Smith guns I've owned about 5 and still have 2. I disassembled an old 20 ga a friend was going to through out and discovered it was my brother's gun he had loaned someone for a USO show in the 60's and never got back.
Regarding Dewey's comments on the inside of the two I have had open, he is right on about the gun's design and manufacture.
I find I can shoot my "NO Grade Custom Order" 12ga at trap and break as many as I can concentrate on. The gun shoots very good patterns and is now 102 years old. It is deadly on doves.
All of this calls to mind a conversation I had many years ago with an Olympic shooter and a Hammerli rep. He asked the man the life span of the gun in rounds fired. The Hammerli guy looked at him like he had a 3rd eye. Joe went on to ask him if it fired the typical 60 rounds a week in the European shooters regimen,how long would it last? Then he pulled out a Hammerli with a mushroomed bolt. Joe commented that would not happen to a Smith 41 in a million rounds.
I got an earful about American guns being made as tools to never see the inside of a repair facility while the English might fire 10,000 rounds in the "season", they went back to the gunmaker every year for renewal.
This is not as true today as it was 100 years ago but we have to realize that the shooting level of the general populace was very high then. Then, shooting match reports were a feature of the front pages of many urban newspapers and most everyone could tell you about Capt. Bogardus and Annie Oakley.
The guns of the day were made as well as they could make them and
sell them at a profit. Same as today.
I like the Parker guns but I shoot the Lefever or LC Smith better.
Just my $0.02.

Character and soul... Ducati and Triumph owners have been trotting out that tired excuse for years. Machines, like humans, have no soul. Anthropomorphizing of machinery is
a weak substitute for comprehension.

If you're going to call someone out on what they "haven't done", you might be willing to share some examples of your work.

You are in no position to know what I have, or have not produced.

LOL! Sadly Lloyd, never involved with firearms except on a personal level.

If you have bought my product, then sales and marketing guys like me love it. But if you are onto the other guys stuff, it's a [censored]. Because facts will have little influence.

Sorry.

All are completely valid reasons to like a shotgun. As I stated, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, nor am I passing judgement on anyone for the kind of gun they like. People have asked for my thoughts on Smiths and I posted what I've found.

Communication error on my end Jay. Sorry

Thank you Dewey. I come here with lots to learn. With little knowledge to offer, it may be better to keep my keyboard quiet.

I like my M-21, and guess I like to think those 1920s Winchester engineers weren't always taking direction from the guys in marketing. Since the gun was a favorite of John Olin, it seems likely to me that his perceptions influenced what the engineers produced. I have no idea whether he was more oriented to marketing or substantive product quality.

Jay

I will listen to your experienced judgement of shotguns all day but I'll put my own experience in here if we get to talking about motorcycles. I've owned over 20 Triumphs and and I don't know how many Ducatis ranging from a 250 Desmo single to a 750SS ,which I raced in the 1970s. Since then I have owned about 15 or 17 more but stopping around the 916 model. A friend says "Having a Triumph is like having the clap:they both run but the Triumph is harder to fix".
I have owned the triples, twins and singles. They all ran if you worked on them but if they sat so did you.
The Ducatis were more finicky in the old days but the new ones are just plain joy on two wheels. They are reliable and great fun to ride in my old age-I'm 73.
I'll ride them until cancer kills me or some shotgun mishap takes me like John Speke.

Dewey I did not mean to insult you . I've really enjoyed your knowledgeable posts. Please don't mistake my post.
Motorcycles were the passion of my 30s and 40s. Shotguns intruded in the 50s to my 70s.

I've got a little bit of experience with motorcycles.
motorradwerkes.blogspot.com

Nonsense! Civilized discourse is the heart of the Socratic method; inquiry and discussion. As I stated earlier, My experience repairing these guns is IN NO WAY an indictment of those that like them. I think that there is a danger that some will take my findings as a personal insult. Unless anyone here is the designer of any of the things that I've listed, just relax.

None was taken.

Excellent thread all around and the type too seldom seen on this board in recent years. And I applaud the courtesy and restraint all participants have shown. Well done!

MR Vicknair, I'm a little late to this post but went to your website to have a look at your work you have posted on your gallery. I was a little surprised to not see any English guns pictured. In fact all were American guns. I'm guessing this is due to as you pointed out you have expenses to meet. Just surprised because of your earlier comment:

"I have many years working on shotguns from every industrialized nation on Earth and I can tell you that there is nothing impressive about any classic-era American shotguns."

I would not even start to argue about the quality of of the many fine guns made outside of the USA, but it Just goes to show you there are still guys like myself still willing to have our American turds polished, but sometimes we like to think the guy doing the polishing likes our turd.

First, if you wish to question my CV, please do so in a straightforward manner.

Second, would second-rate (or worse) work from a gunsmith who likes your particular brand of gun (or at least professes to) be preferable to first-rate work from a gunmaker who is indifferent to your brand?

It is refreshing to read well formulated opinions from someone with lots of experience. I would not take offense at any comments Dewey has made concerning design qualities of American doubles, in fact, along with canvasback, I would greatly appreciate his comments on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the other American classic doubles. For example, much has been made of the fact that a Fox's lock work is so simple, with so few parts, and how that supposedly makes it more reliable and longer lasting, without as much need for "tune-ups", as the Parker, which has been described by gun writers as being "hellishly complicated". Have you actually seen that to be the case in your work, Dewey?

Your ability to write well and convey real life experience puts you in a small pool, Dewey. Could you possible share some more of your thoughts on the other American designs?

SRH

Stan, it is exactly those common perceptions about Parkers and Foxes that prompted me to ask Dewey for his thoughts.

Remington's I just like so I thought I'd throw them in too. Lol

Couldn't agree more with your descriptor......"Refreshing!"

He's not the first here to point out the design flaws on American doubles although with his talent and experience his opinion certainly pulls the most weight. No one called them 'junk' no one called them 'a turd' all they did was point out the design flaws.

Get over it guys because your gun isn't, "The bestest one in the whole world."

I wish I had taken pictures of a Smith stock that was given to me to dispose of. I took it to a band saw and cut it in one inch or less segments noting how thin the wood got in each segment. In a couple of places it was just a fat Popsicle stick in thickness. Mass produced guns are in-let more than needed in some places. If hand inlet the amount removed would be less but the cost go way up. The Smith in-letter had to do five, ten or more a day not one a day like a custom stocker. Hence extra wood needed to be removed because time did not permit otherwise. And they lasted under normal use for years before cracks became an issue otherwise they would have been forced to make changes to keep selling new guns.

Smiths crack because the wood left after in-letting is too thin to transmit the recoil from the action to the shoulder. It compresses, it flexes, it cracks. Not all the time, but a very high percentage of stocks will fail. Add loads with excessive recoil, over oiling and failure to do routine maintenance to keep everything tight as possible and cracks are inevitable.

Other guns have similar problems. Remington 1894 and 1900's split at the head at a very high rate. The repair is fairly easy and last, but a better inlet design and change of how the wood fit into the back of the receiver could have eliminated this issue. I suspect half of those I have seen have split stocks and every one I have pulled the stocks on have them (cracks), wither seen from the outside or not. The cracks are there even if you do not see the stock spreading.

To me a Smith crack is almost a bargaining point to a buyer. Drop the price because I see a crack in the stock. You know they are there and look for them. They are not so bad the gun can not be shot so are as much a cosmetic problem as a functional one.

"Character and soul... Ducati and Triumph owners have been trotting out that tired excuse for years. Machines, like humans, have no soul. Anthropomorphizing of machinery is
a weak substitute for comprehension.

If you're going to call someone out on what they "haven't done", you might be willing to share some examples of your work.

You are in no position to know what I have, or have not produced."


One main difference is I'm not spouting off over how poorly designed certain products are. When you do so, you are putting yourself in the firing line.

Your production output? What I do know is I can't find on any car lot a Dewey for sale. I can't find a single Dewey side by side for sale. It's ridiculously easy to produce one-off items of high quality; let's see you put that same item into mass production and have it turn out anywhere near as well. You fight it out with the government, suppliers, production planners, accountants, marketers, distributors, and end users and see how much of your original design is left.

But I'll repeat the part of my post you ignored...hindsight is 20/20. It's a gratuitous exercise to look back on what someone did 100 years ago and hand out judgment.

There is one fact that can't be argued - 100 years from now there won't be a single person arguing over whether or not the Dewey side-by-side shotgun was really that good or not.

KY Jon, Had to laugh at the accuracy of your comments re: Remingtons split even if you can't see it. Someone up here just asked for advice/assessment on a 1894 A grade. I told him the stock is split....can't see it but it's split. Sometimes people don't want to hear that but as you say, a potential bargaining tool. I'm not done buying Remingtons but I expect every one I buy to have a cracked stock.

A gratuitous exercise because hindsight is 20/20???

Without looking back and dispassionately assessing something, how do we progress?? It seems to me you are missing the point.

I don't need to be a car company to recognize that a BMW is a better designed and better made car than a Ford Fiesta, with one exception (depending on who it's marketed to). The Ford is cheaper.

There are more than a few good gunsmiths that dislike working on Smiths. Ask Abe Chaber & Paul Hodgins what they think of the design. I know Paul won't even consider taking on any work when it comes to Elsie's and I'm pretty sure Abe is the same. And before you go off on Paul for being a gunsmithing snob......he absolutely loves colt 1911's, browning superposed, Winchester lever actions & pump guns, etc. He actually likes some American doubles too, although he usually refers to the inner workings as crude (which many of them are, let's be honest), but he can appreciate the ingenuity and simplicity. Parkers & Remington's he thinks are very good.
I had a conversation with Freddy Bruner years ago and even he had a few negative things to say about them (I had a field grade Elsie that needed work, top lever spindle screw broke), and if your a Elsie guy, you know who Freddy Bruner is.
Anyone with half a brain can understand why we like our American doubles. Why are they important to us despite being simple and crude and at times inferior to other gun designs? Well, because they're ours I suppose. We are nostalgic bunch and while we look at, use and enjoy them, our minds undoubtedly go into a mode thinking about the past, "the good old days", a hard working blue collar first generation American making guns in an old factory. A small farm tucked away in the heartland, the farmer walking a weedy patch with his prized nitro special hoping for a rooster to flush...a guy sitting on a central flyway marsh in the early 1900's with a long barreled, American made double, probably a 00 Elsie taking a limit of Mallards or even a goose for Christmas dinner, the old timey pics of the group of guys on the prairie, model A in the background, holding their prairie chickens with old American made doubles cradled in their arms..it warms the heart and makes us happy and proud, that in itself is more than enough to justify our passion for our American made guns.

Well said, indeed.

I'll ask again, what have you done? What of Gregsy's will be around in a hundred years?
Is your bitterness born of a lack of talent or ability? Failure perhaps, or never failing for fear of trying?

No matter child, go away while the adults speak.

As requested, more grist for the mill.

American Boxlock Strengths and Liabilities

H&R - Strictly from a quality standpoint, the finest shotgun made in America, at the time. This was the only gun actually built under license from Westley Richards rather than designed to get around a patent.
Sadly, there are too few of them to be concerned with.

Parker - All hammerless:
Referred to by gun writers as America's "best" and "hellishly complex". From the standpoint of quality of fit, finish, materials and workmanship, these guns are second only to the H&R. I believe that
the Parker company's making of generally high-quality consumer goods directly influenced the quality of their guns. From a design standpoint, I would never refer to one as "hellishly" complex but they
certainly are needlessly complex. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the designer got paid by the part. The early guns used a complex, multi-piece linkage to translate the toplever motion to the single under bolt.
With all of the pivots and contact points in this linkage one would imagine that wear would "stack up" and result in much play in the mechanism. One would be correct. The latest guns and the Repro dispensed
with the linkage all together and operated the bolt directly by the toplever spindle. The cocking system remained unchanged throughout the guns production (and reproduction) run. This is a system in which
a spring-loaded hook in the barrel lump rotates a rocker arm in the frame that causes a slide in the bottom of the frame to rotate the hammers via hooks below the pivots, when the barrels are opened.
This design also requires an entirely separate mechanism to disengage the cocking hook when the forend is removed, this so that the barrels may be removed from the frame.
The cocking mechanism (and the need to house it) is the reason that small bore Parkers look out of proportion. Regardless of gauge, the action remains roughly constant in size.
It is in the ejector mechanism that I would use the "hellishly complex" description. An entire book/manual could be written about this mechanism. I'll spare you. A common problem with ejector Parkers
is that even though the gun is tight on face, the joint will be loose when open. This is caused by the forend iron wearing the forend lug at the point where they come into contact. This area experiences
accelerated wear due directly to the pressure of the ejector mainsprings. For all of its complexity, Parkers really do hold up and other than the aforementioned issue with the forend, failures seem
rather random. Most of the repair work that I perform on these guns is fixing the mistakes of others.
Lastly, the single trigger. Most of the American makers offered a proprietary single trigger and Parker was no exception. There were two versions, both mechanical-shift with an inertia safety block.
The late style was a fairly simple and reliable design and was used in the Repro guns.

Ithaca - Flues model:
a very simple design that was clearly optimized for mass-production with is round bolt (easier to drill a round hole than cut a square one), coil springs and simple cocking mechanism
that sees (basically) the barrel hook directly rotate the tumblers. This system is identical in principal, and similar in execution, to the way a Fox cocks its hammers. Unfortunately, accommodating
these internal parts didn't leave an excess of material in the frame. Flues models with cracked or broken frames are not a great rarity.

NID:
The ultimate Ithaca double with a rotary bolt (a la Fox and Smith), cam and pushrod cocking system (used in whole on the Model 21) and a whole lot of metal everywhere.
Clearly, this is a simple and strong design that should withstand much use and not a little abuse. The factory single trigger that was offered in these guns was actually a Miller trigger, built by Ithaca
under license. The Miller design stands out as maybe the simplest single trigger ever devised and they are trouble-free as long as they aren't messed with by incompetent fingers.

A.H. Fox - All:
I'll start at the top and work down. This design uses a rotary bolt, same as the NID (in fact, part-for-part, the design is identical) and the Smith. Where Smith decided to support each end of the toplever spindle
in separate parts of the gun, Fox (and Ithaca) supported the toplever spindle wholly in the frame of the gun. The result was much more rigid and compact. The Fox cocking system is simplicity itself and while
it shares the direct-acting principal with the Flues model, the execution is that used by W.W. Greener in their Facile Princeps box lock. The hammers are still directly lifted by the barrels but that part of the hammers
that actually engages the barrels has been "jogged" inward toward the centerline of the gun. This serves two purposes. First, it makes room for the coil mainsprings and the plungers and struts that drive the hammers.
Second, it allows the action bar to be rounded, again mimicking the Greener. Stepping out of the analytical and into the aesthetic for a moment, this is what I believe gives a Fox its superior "proportions" and shape.
The Fox uses coil springs throughout with the exception of the sear spring which is s leaf spring. Fox used a derivative of the Baker system for its ejectors, very simple and easy to time and repair.
Fox's "house" trigger was the Kautsky. THIS was the trigger that should have been in the Smith. A Rube-Goldberg fantasy of cams and levers that is the single most difficult trigger to regulate that I've ever encountered.
Perhaps it's poetic justice that the Fox and Smith used the triggers that they did. The Fox is not without flaw however. The opening of the barrels is checked by the cocking portion of the hammers stopping against
the inside of the action flat (I loathe the idiotic term "water table"). When the barrels are allowed to simply fall open, this puts great stress on the frame at that point and often results in cracking of the frame along the
barrel hook opening. Obviously this would be considered abuse but it does happen.

I wholeheartedly agree there, RWTF.

I own a 28 Ga. 2- barrel set Parker Repro and appreciate the info. Thanks Dewey.

Dustin,
When I look at those old, tin plate photos of guys with model T's and A's and a line strung with game, it isn't the doubles that I notice, but, just how often they have a repeater in the photo.
Even really old photos, there seems to be a guy with an 1897 or maybe a 1912 Winchester or model 29 Remington (Hard to tell in the photo, other than it is a pump).
A repeater, in the form of a pump, must have seemed like an F4 Phantom compared to a P47, to those old guys out in the field who grew up with doubles.

3 or 4 or even 5 honest to goodness shots in the gun? Hallelujah!
When we find an old double in too good a shape for it's age, and celebrate that, as double gun guys do, I wonder how often we owe that fact to some forgotten repeater?

Best,
Ted

PS Dewey, thanks again. The very best analysis is always cold, highlighting the good, and the bad, without emotions involved in the process.
That said, there is something about handling a Nitro Special that makes me want to go shooting!

The L.C. Smith has taken a bad rap for cracked stocks and as KY Jon has noted, the wood between the locks is thin, even more so on a gun with a Hunter One Trigger.

I have been collecting serial numbers for the Syracuse made hammer and hammerless L.C. Smith along with pictures and I have hundreds of pictures of both and I don't ever recall seeing a crack behind the locks in any of these. I also have some pictures of the pre 1913 "elsies, but not many and in these I don't see as many cracks as the post 1913 ones. Why would this be? I believe it is because of the use of American walnut in the lower graded Smiths. I don't believe it is as dense as the French and English walnut used. In L.C. Smith catalogs of 1884, 1888 and 1889, describes the wood used as English and French walnut and the higher the grade the fancier wood. The early Hunter Arms catalog also mentions English walnut and after 1913 lists just selected walnut but no mention of where. Naturally the higher grades from Specialty on up had choice walnut.

I do believe that most of the cracks are from negligence, either loose screws and the biggest is using modern high velocity loads in the 1300-1400 fps range. The wood just could not take it. Many of these guns were passed down and were abused as were many other guns.

As to the design of the locks, it worked from November 27, 1884 until the close of the gun works. As to the changes made in the hammer gun lock that Dewey brought up, all leads to man hours and man hours means money. An F grade hammer guns went for $20.00 with Royal steel barrels in 1906. That was their last design that started in 1906 and lasted until the hammer gun was discontinued in 1932 and amounted to 43,353 of this design built.

Decided to add a picture of the bridle that Dewey was talking about. Really didn't make sense to replace the 3 pin one as no machining of the lock plate was needed to capture the mainspring. The bridle encapsulated the mainspring. In the last design, the 2 pin ( actually one screw and the other is the axle for the sear.) the lock plate was machined half the width of the mainspring to hold it in.

Dewey, thanks very much for taking the time to provide your assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of some of the vintage American doubles. You make me hate myself even more for passing up the opportunity to buy a gorgeous A Grade Harrington and Richardson when I was building my house and money was a bit tight.

I note from your website that you have restored some Syracuse Lefevers and would be very interested in your thoughts on them. I already know about the weaknesses in the stock fingers and the tendency they have to crack and break.

I'd think that the people who built Yugo's probably thought they were building a good car, but it was the people who repaired them who had a better understanding that they were crap.

With all due respect sir, you know not what you are speaking of. I have handled and shot Dewey's creations as a good friend of mine had commissioned him to build them. They are unique in design and flawless in performance. In a hundred years people will still be admiring his attention to detail and craftsmanship.

Daryl

WW1 devoured a great deal of American black walnut- gunstocks, airplane props- etc. I think there was a tad more
hand work in the fit and assembly of the earlier Smith guns than post 1914- Wonder how that might have been different if the Brothers Hunter hadn't lost their working capital from the gun business to cover their investment losses in other schemes- even the Wilson era had it's Ponzi/Maddoff crooks-

They do handle nicely especially in the sub gauges but look so damn clunky .... the Ithaca Lefever A grade, a lipsticked up version of the same gun, is has much nicer fit and finish .....and the sub gauge Hunter Arms made [hammerless] Fulton handles like a dream and is very nicely fit/finished despite it odd action design....all these red headed step children from the major manufacturers if not abused or shot to hell can take you on a real nostalgia trip,.... if you let them....

I really should have noted subgauge with the Nitro point. But, I was a 30 year old guy once upon a time, and THAT guy didn't care if it was a 12 or a 16 or a 20.
But, I do, now. Either I've evolved (doubtful!) or grown less resistant to gravity. Or, a little of both.

Not pretty, indeed. But, useful, humble, durable, relevent, and usable in the game. Beyond good value in pricing. Something honest in the use of a gun like that, but, I'm not poetic enough to spell it out in readable form.

I think it is OK to like good, and, not so great, doubles.

Thanks for pointing out the very correct notion that a subgauge is sweetest.

Best,
Ted

Thank you , Dewey, for taking the time to relate all that. More than I had hoped for, and appreciated. I will save it for future reference. Lots of stuff in there that I've never read from the "gun writers".

Much appreciated.

SRH

From Mr. Vicknair's business letter dated 1 January 2013 :

In closing, I would like to sincerely thank everyone for the opportunity to help preserve these great old guns.

After reading through the different design faults he listed here I ask Mr. Vicknair if still thinks they are great old guns?

Really? Well, I guess I've been put in my place. I have never produced anything worthwhile that was ridiculously easy.

SRH

Perhaps Mr Vicknair wrote that letter because as a business owner he has a little class and respect for his customers, those he was communicating to in that letter.

Class is something that is sorely lacking in just about every post I have ever read from you.

It's a social convention known as being polite.

It appears that there are at least a few on this board who, rather than take insight based upon almost 30 years of gunsmithing experience, for free, and educate themselves, would rather attempt to assassinate my credibility by trying to "catch me in a lie" or some other such nonsense.

I posted an unbiased assessment of the design of a specific gun.

If any are offended by that, that's their problem. If your personal identity is so closely tied to a few pieces of wood and metal that what I said upsets you, perhaps a change in the dosage of your medication is in order.

Far too many on this board would rather be right (in their mind) than educated (in actuality).

Hey Gunut, I saw your post before you deleted it. Have we had any professional dealings? Care to post your actual name so that I know never to deal with you? If you prefer to hide behind your username I understand.

thought it over and decided that I really don't care if a smith likes a particular type of gun or not, as long as he is reasonable in his pricing and proficient in his repairs....

There in that statement you have it.
Designed to get around a patent.
I live in Australia & here we have almost one of everything from anywhere imported to fill the needs of the growing market from 1788 onwards.
One of my interests is antique stationary engines & these were made in the millions the world over to fill a hungry market that wanted them NOW. The manufacturers came up with all sorts of devious devices to do carburation, injection, ignition, every one different just to get around patents & get a product into production & onto the the market.
Were each one of these devious devices the best thing since sliced bread ? No.
Did they do the job ? Yes.
They put the product on the market to serve & work for the consumer at a price they could afford & that the manufacturer made a profit on. Thereby they all made a living.
I love to see the ingenuity of design that this situation created.

We all know that if we took all the best design features of every shotgun, car, stationary engine or bike that we would have a very good bit of gear. This is why some of us do vehicle modifications & mix & match parts to build a hot rod.
Just remember that the manufacturers of our old gear did not have this same liberty.
O.M.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and what gun they desire. The ultimate test of a gun is whether you hit consistently with it.

None of my 5 LC Smiths are for sale, I shoot all of them-with RST shells-Hunter Arms was the first American gun company to use the AISI 6150 Chrome Vanadium steel (that Henry Ford discovered on a business trip to France about 1904-- never heard of a cocking rod in a Smith breaking-they were made from 6150-- the only leaf spring that can crack or fracture is usually the top lever spring-anchored with a small set screw in the trigger guard plate, a tricky bit of business to position correctly when re-assembly is required I will admit, but as the trigger plate is anchored "for and aft" in the receiver floor and at the rear tang with a machine screw anchored to the top rear tang, seems like a solid enough design to a layman like me. Smith frames are in proportion to the gauge of the gun, something not quite the same with the carriage bolt doubles many seem to favor. I started collecting shootable Smiths in 12 gauge because (1) they shoot well for me and my shooting habits, and (2) due to the law of supply and demand- more Smiths and Ithacas available, especially in 12 gauge in my marketing base, than M21's, Parkers (except the durable Trojan series) and A.H. Fox guns- all have their strong and salient points in a ever-shrinking shooter/collector market, you pays your $ and you takes your choice- But I appreciate a craftsman like Dewey Vicknair, who is willing to answer questions without subterfuge- try to get that from a gun "dealer"--not a gun master craftsman--

Anyone questioning Dewey's statements about the strengths and weaknesses of the guns he has outlined is kidding themselves.

His statements are completely spot on and are based on years of experience in actually working on the guns. Anyone who actually works on any of those guns a lot will say the same thing that he is.

Yes, but, it is really nice to have the gun you hit consistantly with hold together until you are too old to shoot it anymore. A little knowledge is power, and hopefully you get involved with a design that will be durable, rather than just hoping it will be so.

Best,
Ted

Why the personal comments? Question asked and answered. You can agree or disagree, but don't get so nasty over opinions unless you lack facts and reason to support your own.

I find his comments to be supported by facts and reasons. I might agree or disagree but the man gave his reasons and you can refute them with your own facts or reasons or grow up. It's like a bunch of children around here sometimes.

I don't know why it happens: Here I am getting a a free education and then something good is turned into something sinister---It's a lie!

Is it desperation by someone who lacks something the other has a lot of, trying to separate who is valued here and who is not?

That why you choose Mossberg ?

I have set silently through 10 pages of this discussion so will now add my ¢ worth. Is Mr V correct about the top lever being a poor design, Absolutely. The cocking cranks ???. Does he have the right to refuse to work on one if he chooses not to, Absolutely. Would his choice not to work on on influence my decision to own & shoot one Absolutely NO, I can (& Have) taken some of the contrary things apart & put them back together without damage to either me or them.
Do I like an L C Smith, Yes, just happen to like Lefevers better so currently do not own a Smith. (Have in the past)
Given the choice between a Smith & comparable grade & condition A&D Boxlock which would "I" choose. The Smith Every time.
Why; I guess there truly is no accounting for taste. I just like sidelocks better & Yes I am fully aware hat my chosen Lefevers are not true sidelocks but the have the features of one which make them desirable to me.
Might say that Yes I agree with everything Dewey said but bottom line is I'm sorta like the old Owl, I Don't Really Give a Hoot.

what about jp sauer box locks, my favorite gun? any comment pro or con?

i particularly like the pre ww1 made guns.

Most likely he was referring to L.C. Smith guns being a poor design.

jOe, that was intended to be humorous sarcasm. Dewey was rather clear about what he meant.

Thank you Dewey for an insightful look at American double design.

Simplifying design, increasing robustness, while retaining the essentials of handling and ergonomics were never priorities of SXS designers and makers.

There are few SXS equivalents of the OU Brescia action, something simple and robust powered by coil springs. The Chapuis, Fabarm Classis, are two that come to mind, but they are discounted because they are not sidelock or boxlock.

And we still have ribs on doubles! Masochism seems to be involved in there somewhere.

Shotgunlover, The Manufrance Ideal is coil spring powered,robust, and is quite simple in comparison to several of the American guns discussed here, but it may qualify as an "anomaly' as suggested by the title, at least in this country.

Duplicate post....I'm an idiot!

WagonWillie, the Ideal may qualify as an anomaly in NA, but not in it's home market of France, where around 100,000 Ideals were made (and some unknown number of Ideal-Robusts as well as Ideals sold under other names, using the same action) over about 100 years. And, as you say, simple in design, extremely strong and coil spring powered.

No flash in the pan but a design tested over 100 years of production.

Canvasback,
Too bad that more Manufrance Ideals didn't make it to the USA. Lots of them still in France, but it's not easy to get them imported, unfortunately, as you and I have discussed.

Viva La France- Tourjours La Audace--por Les Chasseurs!!

WW I hear you!

Subconsciously, or due to manipulation, we accepted the English designs, the sidelock and the boxlock, as the standards in SXSs.

We forgot that these were developed for a static type of driven shooting, not active hunting, even though most of us will never shoot driven game. Thus we feel obliged to either look down on other designs or be apologetic if we happen to choose them. "It might not be a sidelock but it is X".

But some of us choose some designs precisely because they are NOT sidelocks. My next SXS, if I find one, will be a Robust Ideal. If for no other reason than the "I" sectioned rib which is the only rational rib design ever devised and secondly for the coil springs. I have been burned more than once by broken V springs and unstuck ribs.

To the best of my recollection since I bought my very first double barrel shotgun 61 years ago I have been "Burned" by exactly one mainspring failure & it was a coil. It didn't break but lost it's "Spring" so only one barrel would fire until it was replaced. I have had a couple of V top lever springs to break, but so far not a Main Spring.

On the same gun in two consecutive hunts I had a broken Southgate ejector spring and a main spring. The spring job was simple compared to the dismantling and those engraved indexed screws, no plain axles on this gun. Experiences like these tend to influence choices.

The local general spring maker can copy any coil or wire spring for a few Euros. V springs are a different story. I was lucky with the boxlock's plain Vs, well lucky insofar as it was not a sidelock.

Mr. Vicknair may express some disrespect for American guns, but he has addressed my particular problems with these guns as well as problems with high grade Italian sidelocks and London made sidelock guns. My list of "solved problems" with various guns thrown at Dewey is a long one. My very impressive big Vicknair project gun is pictured on another site.

James and I are hard at work correcting this shortcoming.

Wingshooter16 That's sounds very intriguing! Tell me more. Are you taking orders?

One other question for Dewey regarding the '21 forend lug joint failure.

In your opinion, is the main cause of this failure due to people putting the barrels back on the gun without having the hammers cocked?
Any comment appreciated.

Dewey,
sometimes people just don't like to hear the answer. I think you presented an assessment of a design clearly and based on your experience and being your opinion. You were asked and gave forth.
while others may disagree with your assessment, they are entitled to their opinions just like you and I are.
What I don't understand is why folks here want to call you a heretic because you have given what you were asked.

I say "good job".

We're putting Dewey "through the paces" with all these questions, but I have so many, and it's so rare to be able to get opinions developed through long experience fixing these guns.

If we've not worn our welcome too thin, Dewey, I have a question about your opinion concerning the failure rates of V springs compared to coils. Most today assume that coils are superior, due to their ease of manufacture and their so-called ability to continue to function even after breakage. Perazzi guns continue to use V- springs in their locks, and get hammered for it by K gun shooters. I'd be interested in your opinion of that.

Kim Rhode, Olympic shotgun medalist who has shot Perazzis for over 16 years, stated that in shooting 500-1000 rounds a day for 16 years she has never had a malfunction in practice or in competition. I have never had a breakage in the two I have owned. My idea, and it's only an idea, is that the life of a V spring is much more highly dependent on the quality of the spring than with a coil spring. Said differently, it's enormously easier to produce a quality coil spring than a quality V spring. Am I all wet?

SRH

Email me. Address is in my profile.

There are multiple causes of failure in a non-fusion type joint. Some of them are as follows:

- Poor fit of the parts to be soldered, in a non-fusion joint the strength of the assembly will be at its maximum with a gap of about .001-.004". As the gap between the parts grows beyond that, the strength of the joint will drop off sharply. At some point the strength of the joint will be no more than the strength of the solder (or braze) material itself.
This is NOT the problem with the Model 21. All of them that I've ever relaid had very well-fitted forend lugs.

- Poor "wetting" of the area to be joined, any surface contamination will prevent the wetting and thus, the bonding, of the contaminated area. This is why an acid-based flux is used for the tinning stage. All traces of acid flux are washed away in a solution of baking soda and water before a coat of rosin-based flux is applied to all tinned surfaces. The ribs , lugs, etc. are then fixtured together and the rosin facilitates the joining of all of the tinned areas with no danger of corrosion.

- Improper solder or braze selection for the particular application. (see below)

- Degradation of the solder, THIS is where I believe (I must STRESS that this merely a theory of mine, I do not present this as fact) the Model 21's problem lies. All of the 21s that I've ever relaid exhibited solder joints that were grainy, crumbly whitish powder. This is exactly similar to the way really old pure lead bullets look. The solder that is used in the assembly of doubles is generally much heavier in tin content than lead. I suspect that Winchester used a solder that was just the opposite. Whether this was a mistake or it was done purposely as a part of an effort to apply the absolute minimum amount of heat to the barrels during manufacture, I can not say.

Many 21s have beavertails (as do many other guns) and the inertia of the beavertail, combined with the fact that the shooter generally actually holds a forend of this type, conspire to greatly stress the forend lug joint.

A 21's forend will always be easier to install when the gun is cocked but doing it without the locks being cocked should not place any undue stress on a PROPERLY soldered forend lug.

Despite the unfortunate disagreement in parts of this thread, one thing has become completely apparent; Mr. Vicknair is one of the stars of this bulletin board. Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge with those of us who just want to know!...Geo

Dewey, thank you for taking the time to explain in thorough detail.

Jay

I wouldn't worry too much about razzing from anyone who shoots a German-made Remington. Before the lynch mob forms, that's humor, FFS.

I'm pretty sure that Perazzi offer both coil and v-type springs, at the buyer's discretion.

On to springs. This is going to be a bit long but when I'm done, you will see that there is no answer to the question of which is "better", V or coil. It all depends upon the application, the available materials, the available craftsmanship and the consumer's perception.

First some theory. It isn't readily apparent to the casual observer but what we are really talking about when discussing coil (or spiral) springs is in actual fact a torsion bar. A torsion bar is a spring in the form of a (usually) round shaft in which one end is anchored and the opposite end is free to rotate about the longitudinal axis. The spring rate (or stiffness) becomes less as the length is increased, and the rate increases (becomes stiffer) as the length is shortened. A coil spring is nothing more than a clever way to package a long torsion bar in a short space. As a coil spring compresses it is actually twisting through the wire cross-section throughout its length. For a given material, wire diameter and pitch, a spring with more coils (longer torsion bar) will be softer than one with fewer coils (shorter torsion bar). If you cut a coil spring, it becomes stiffer. At this point I will address everyone who has ever cut a spring to "make it lighter". You did not make the spring lighter, you made it stiffer. What you DID do is to decrease the spring's length and therefore, its INSTALLED PRELOAD. Less installed preload gives the illusion of lighter spring. This is easily demonstrated and therefore proven with a pair of sidecutters and an old 1911 recoil spring. Stick a loose-fitting dowel through the spring and compress it by hand, you'll be able to move it pretty far. Now clip 4 coils off and try to compress THAT piece (good luck).

V, or leaf, or flat, springs are in actual fact beams and simple beam theory will suffice to explain their operation. Imagine a solid beam, supported at each end on the bottom, with a force applied at the middle of the upper surface.
The forces that the beam is actually experiencing are as follows:
- Compression along the top surface
- Tension (stretching) along the bottom surface
- Cancellation of both forces through the neutral axis
The neutral axis is the cross-sectional midpoint of the beam. If the beam is a simple 2x4 stood on edge, the neutral axis would be at one inch from each edge, or the midpoint. The opposing compression and tension forces steadily diminish as they reach the neutral axis. This is handy and applicable when designing a wing spar because we know that material can be safely removed from the area around the neutral axis, saving weight while maintaining adequate strength. When it comes to a mainspring, we're not so concerned about weight but knowledge of the forces involved is still useful.

A flat spring will behave EXACTLY like the beam described above, but what about a V-spring? A V-spring will behave exactly like the above beam, plus its mirror image. When a v-spring is compressed, Its entire outer surface is in tension and its inner surface is in compression. As one might imagine, a surface imperfection in the tension side of a V or flat spring may well act as a stress-raiser and give rise to a crack. The same holds true for a torsion bar, whose entire exposed surface is in tension.

Thus, a spring, of any form, made with completely defect-free material and a completely defect-free finish, properly heat-treated and never subjected to a load that exceeds the material's tensile limits, should last forever. This is what I try to achieve with every spring I make. It doesn't always work out the way I'd like.

Excellent explanation. More than I had hoped for.

Thanks again for all you contribute to the double gun community.

SRH

Stan- re Kim Rhode's Perazzi, she stated that it was an MX12 she was using, the model with COIL springs.

Dewey above states the engineering and physics of springs accurately. The point though is that in most cases it is easier and much less costly to deal with a broken coil than a V spring.

Price estimates for the replacement of the more exotic springs, those of Beesley actioned sidelocks and the Dickson Round Action equal the price of a fine condition used Perazzi MX8.

Stereotypes and anomalies is perhaps apt for a situation where SXSs has stopped developing. Ideally we should be able to get a modern SXS with the feel and handling of a best gun, minus the luxuries, at prices which are as affordable today as they were in the early 1900s.

Best guns were always costly. Yes, but they were affordable. I wrote about this before but it bears repeating. A Royal Navy captain earning 450 pound annually could afford a 100 pound best gun in 1920. Today the same gun, (Stereotpye?) made using cost cutting CNC machines, costs more than the total annual income of a captain (Anomaly?).

Nice explanation of Hook's Law, Dewey.

It's in the manufacture of springs that the statistical evidence of failure is most observed. Coil springs are easier to make, more consistent in result, and thus cheaper, than v-springs.
It's prudent for a maker to choose an item that has a much lower likelihood of failure during destructive cycling tests.

You can buy boxes of springs guaranteed for many millions of cycles for a fraction of the cost of a box of v springs. It's just a more advanced, standardized technology.

I purposely leave out every other reason why another type of spring might be chosen or used other than dependability.
Money flowed into manufacturing coil springs, not as much into v springs.
One of our job shops makes us coil springs to spec in a couple hours. And that includes their runners time back and forth.

In one machine shop I worked in some years back we had a manually operated coil spring winder. A piece of wire was fed through adjustable rollers for size & spacing etc. Once adjusted you could then crank out a continuous spring limited in length only by the length of wire you were feeding it. I made a few springs on this implement. By adjustment you could make either a compression or expansion spring. As I see it the action of a coil spring is probably a combination of beam & torion but more beam than torsion. nothing wrong what-so-ever with a good coil spring but I am shooting shotguns well over 100 yrs old with their original v springs still going strong, obviously there wasn't much wrong with them either. I think it boiled down primarily to a matter of "Economy". The coi is as stated cheaper to build. I have noted over the years that when some method provides a suitable result with better Economy, It seems to be immediately promoted as having Far Superior qualities, though that is not always totally true.

Coil springs are very simple by nature. Some v springs, with legs, arms, hooks and rollers attached or as part of their original design are very complex machines. I know it's a bit of an over statement that you reach into a bin for a coil spring and open up the entire shop for some v springs. But not by much. There are just no off the shelf v springs to speak of, so replacing them is a more major task by nature. The plus is that both types are extremely durable so replacing them is a very rare thing. And some designs just can not be done with coil springs. For those a v spring and that complete shop are a must. Also someone like Dewey to make it. Good thread as long as we are dealing with guns.

There's room in my world for outrageously complicated, difficult to make, difficult to maintain things. In fact I prefer it that way.

However, after shooting a Purdey 28, I swear to God it operated like a Baikal. Probably not the place for a Beeseley action. I thought I was breaking it in two after every shot.

PM me if I can be of any assistance. There is a small but growing group of Ideal enthusiasts. Don't want to divert the topic any more.

Mike

this thread caused me to pull out charles askin's book "modern shotguns and loads", first published in 1929...

very interesting evaluations of american shotguns and their makers...

according to askin's, a major advantage of coil springs is that they make guns easier to open and recock...

Ed, did you know they use coil springs in those semi-automatics that you'd like to see severely restricted in the U.S.?

But they use flat springs in the large capacity magazines that you would also like to see severely restricted. What conclusions can we draw from that?

ANTI-GUN POSTS by ED GOOD

keet: did you know that your post here has nothing to do with the topic of this thread?

It proves that Ed Good
doesn't know shit from Shinola- Askins book was written when gun makers had different metallurgy and machine shop practices at hand- Today we have CAD-Cam, cyro-metal treating, aluminum and other non-ferrous alloys for receivers, etc. Askins, like Paul Curtis, were fine gun writers for a different era--many of the "fine" gun makers of that era have been out of business for decades, what does that tell you? Bugger off, Ed..

foxie: much of this thread is a discussion of the pros and cons of pre ww2 era classic american made sxs shotguns, which is the topic of much of askin's book...perhaps it is you who should bugger off?

Please do not take this as an insult, but the way you see it is not only incorrect but also impossible. All coil springs, be they tension or compression type, experience ONLY torsion during compression or extension. The laws of physics are quite immutable and the operation of coil springs isn't debatable or open to interpretation.

The diagram shows a part of a compression spring that supports a compressive load P and a section of the wire cut by axial plane. The part of spring shown in the figure is in equilibrium under the action of the two forces P and resisting torsional moment T.

Ed, I am a welder by trade, and thanks to my grandfather and father, both master machinists, I know metallurgy and metal fabricating techniques.I know that anytime you or some other NE based idiot also named Ed use an oxy-fuel torch, with a neutral flame temp. at the cone of almost 6000 degrees F--to 're-case-color (or colour if you are fucking-up a British made double gun I suppose, that indeed, you don't know shit from Shinola about double guns and the gunsmithing skills required to properly care for them. The shotguns of the Askins era are not up to handling the shotgun shells of today's mass marketing ammo companies, with the exception of the RST shells, made for lower pressures and chambers less than 2.75" inches. One of many reasons my 5 LC Smith 12 gauge guns are in first class workig order is that I only shoot RST shells in them.The other reason is that I bought them over the past 20 years from private owners- men who, like me, believe in "wear with care" and would never be a customer/client of Doug Turnbull or the DelGrego clan, because they believe, as I do, that "restoration" of a fine older double with careful usage wear allowed for, is th vade mecum--abd Askins was not a gunsmith, he was a gun writer, ditto Curtis- they could have cared less about gun repair/restoration, they were rich and had qualified gunmakers at their command. Bugger on!!!

ok foxie, you da man...

Dewey;
I have springs on items from the 1850's thru 1870's (Not gun related) which are I believe called convolute springs. These springs are wound in a cone shape from flat stock much like a clock spring. They however work by compression & not by winding up as in a clock spring. So, what action would you call them, I see absolutely no evidence of torsional movement as they are compressed & this should show on the wide, thin cross section if it were present.

Now we're into some different stuff! What you're referring to are called "volute" springs. These are basically a very thin "beam" wound into a spiral coil. When compressed, one "side" (it's wound in a spiral) is placed in compression while the opposing side is placed in tension, thus mimicking beam loading but not in a planar fashion.

Dewey;
Correct, volute not convolute. I am still not convinced that a common wire coil spring does not have some of that same beam acton, along with the torsional action.

Sorry 2-P, I can't help you there. When belief conflicts with fact, I always choose fact.

It has been noted that at least in a compression application, a broken coil spring would still function, whereas a leaf type would not. It stands to reason though that the function would be affected by the broken coil spring being effectively shorter in length and thus stiffer?

Mike

It functions only because it is entrapped- no where to open to full uncompressed length-no other reason.

Please don't quote my posts and then modify them so that the results appear to be my words.

I have nothing at all against the French, for the record.

Sorry, le faux pas es moi, mon ami. I have midget respect for the French en tot, their metallurgists and some of their non-miltary gun makers like Granger-- I recall what America's best field General- George Smith Patton Jr. once said about the French- "I'd rather have one French division ahead of me that 3 French divisions behind me"--and Patton spoke fluent French-go figure

I've grown fond of hammer guns of late, but I would also be curious to hear Dewey's opinion of Dan Lefever's self compensating bolt mechanism and adjusting screw, which no other maker to my knowledge has fashioned. I'm not sure why, because whatever faults Lefevers may have, shooting loose isn't one of them...

Some years back I bought a Lefever H grade with twist barrels as a "Parts" gun. According to the seller it was all there but didn't work, price was extremely low. When I picked it up he stated he had "Fixed" it & it would now work. guess that depends on one definition of "Fixed". Problem had been the trigger plate screw had been replaced with a Too Long screw. This screw projected up inside the frame & prevented the cocking hook from seating so the gun would not bolt up. He had fixed it by backing out the ball hinge screw until the end of the barrels would tip over enough for the bolt to engage. One barrel had a crack in it & the stock was busted. Showed a lot of use & a good bit of abuse. With the trigger plate screw shortened so the cocking hook would seat & the hinge screw re-adjusted it locked up real tight though there was bolt wear which allowed the lever to go left I actually then tried t with the ball hinge completely removed with just the doll's head & bolt securing the barrels & it still bolted up tight.
It is hard to convince me that a well fitted doll's head is a useless adornment & especially this square shouldered one of Lefever's design. Still haven't needed a part off of this one though, nothing has broken on my others.
Viva Lefever

Oui- bon chance La Le-Fever!!

Isn't the Lefever a modification of the earlier Webley Screw Grip?