doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Charles Lancaster "0" prefix in serial numbers

Justin,
Nice gun. First "Beesley" marked "wrist breaker" I've ever seen. I believe it to be a rare and special gun, not too many people can claim to have ever seen one, thanks a million for posting pics of it!

The "wrist breaker" design was patented in 1884, patent number 425. The patent block safety used on the gun was also patented in 1884, #14488.
With these dates, it's hard to imagine that Thorn took out a patent in 1881 for something that pertained to Beesleys gun of 1884.
Thorn was granted a patent for an improvement to the Beesley design...this was #7242 of 1894. It is my understanding that Lancasters made after this date are in fact different from earlier "wrist breakers", this goes for both the sidelocks and body action guns.

Going back to how Companies bought designs outright, the cycle seems to have been repeated when Lancasters bought the 12/20 design from W. Baker later on down the line.

I would like to read about patent #499 of 1881.

Dustin

Thanks Dustin, There is scant mention of the 499 patent Baker refers to it on pg19 of vol.2 of the British Shotgun and Masters mentions it in the Lancaster chapter of the AGL opus. It was a provincial patent only so may not bear on this discussion at all.
I don't understand the "wrist-breaker" nickname for this patent. The Beesely closes as easily as can be with that distinctive"clink" of the flat spring.
Maybe when Joe from Charlette gets home he'll tell us more about his gun. I think there is more to this story.

Justin,
I don't think your gun shares the internals with the 'wristbreakers' that I have known, eg. Joe from Charlotte's gun. These guns are very stiff to close as you are tensioning the main spring while doing so. They also are self openers as the only thing that is keeping the springs tensioned are the barrel flats pushing down on the rocking 'spring tensioners' pivoting in the bar of the action.
One result of this feature is that you can not fire off the locks without the barrels fitted and closed.
As I remember, the main spring acts as a cocking lever by being pressed rearwards by the forend iron as the gun is opened but I may be mistaken.

Toby,my gun has two dogs protruding from the front of the bar,which are the ends of the mainsprings. They insert into channels in the forend. There are two "rocking spring tensioners" and you can see in my picture the small lug,attached to the barrels flats,coming down on the tensioners. The gun pops open when the top lever is pushed,and,it seems to me, That the springs,while bent under the pressure of the open barrels act as an assist in closing the gun up. What's not to love.
Judging from the picture of patent #425,I've seen this is what the gun ius built on.
So,what's up with that?

Sounds like a "Wrist-Breaker" action to me, the "dogs" protruding that far into the forend, the cam pin is in the right place on the action, the compressor bar on the barrels.. sounds like the first series of guns built using patent #425. If you are comfy with the idea of pulling the stock, please take some pics of the internals, and take a pic of the action flats if you can too. When I get my body action gun back from the gunsmith, I'll do the same. I do not understand why your gun is so easy to close though? And you say it feels or acts like a "assist in closing the gun"? That one baffles me!! A pic of the guts would explain alot. I will say, for some reason my 1896 body action gun closes much easier than the 1890 side lock, its still stiff, but its not as stiff as the sidelock to close and in no way does it act as an "assist" in closing! You're still fighting that mainspring tension when closing the gun.
Justin, your gun is extremely interesting to say the least!

Dustin

I can only echo Dustin, I can't understand how it can be a 'wristbreaker' but be 'assisted' in closing. A 'normal' wristbreaker is powered open by the main springs and as soon as one starts to close it one feels the, usually, heavy resistance of those same main springs. In fact if one isn't quite vigorously with one's closing effort, the gun bounces right open again. I wonder if your gun has an interesting variation of the 'normal' mechanism. It may be a lot rarer than you think!
I'll post a few pictures of the internals of Joe's gun that I took when restoring it for him sometime soon.

Here are the action components:
[img:left]http://www.heritageguns.co.uk/Lancaster%20BLE/Lancaster%20BLE%20Action%20600[/img]
Here is the Block Safety:
[img:left]http://www.heritageguns.co.uk/Lancaster%20BLE/Lancaster%20BLE%20Block%20Safety%20600[/img]
Here is the ejector work (a nightmare designed to get round the Southgate patent, the spring was once described as a 'snail of acid')
[img:left]http://www.heritageguns.co.uk/Lancaster%20BLE/Lancaster%20BLE%20Ejector%20600[/img]

Yikes, I'll never go exploring inside my Lancaster. What a bunch of cool little bits for me to foul up.
The gun has functioned perfectly since Toby's restoration. It is tough to close. I find by holding further out on the barrels when closing gives enough extra leverage to close-n-cock without too much effort.
I have noticed after a round with the Lancaster, my standard pattern guns "fly" shut. It does take a few stations to readjust to the norm of cock on open.
I couldn't find anymore data other than what has been posted. (Still loooking)

Joe

Joe,
Your Lancaster DOES cock on opening, not on closing like a Purdey. When a fired Wrist-Breaker is opened the front end of the spring/lever is depressed and the rear end rotates the tumbler/hammer back to the cocked position. When the gun is being closed, the cocking dog is raised and since the rear end of the spring/lever is now being held up by the tumbler, which in turn raises up the front of the spring/lever causing the middle portion of the spring to bow down. The cams machined into the action flats are there to increase the bend of the mainspring. In a nutshell, thats how the system works.

Dustin

Toby,all the parts seem the same. I thought that with the barrels down the tension on the spring helped lift the barrels up,when the barrels lifted high enough the springs were no longer under pressure so the little lugs bearing down on the cams needed less muscle to bend the springs. Not knowing this was the "wrist-breaker" patent I beleived what I was told when I bought the gun,some years ago.
So,if this is the same lock work as the sidelock Lancaster with the "lamb chop" lockplates,what is behind those plates? Would you have a picture of that to post?
Dustin,my gun dates to 1886 with no other info available. I don't know how to pull the stock,but it sure looks like Toby's pict.