doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lefever Ball and Socket hinge....

I have a couple of Lefevers with the ball and socket hinge and the setup works so well that I can't figure out why it didn't become the standard method of joining a double. Did any other makers ever try this system? Can anyone see a drawback to it?

Yes, Joe, they are inherently inferior. That is why no one copied them. Send me the Lefevers,and I will send the Scott.

How many of us have seen a Lefever with the doll's head slightly proud of adjacent metal? How many of us believe it was finished that way from the factory? What's the relationship of the bolt to the slot in the extension when you see this condition? Where is the lever on these guns? Drawback might be potential for over-adjustment creating novel relationship between barrels and breechwall.

jack

I disagree with Jack's suspicions. All guns that are messed with by idiots get out of whack in some way. Yes, early Lefevers had too many adjustments. However, as Joe suggests, the ball socket is the most user friendly method of compensating for hinge wear of any of the guns we covet. Parkers, Smiths, Foxes, and Ithacas were made with the idea that the factory and factory trained gunsmiths (as well as parts) would always be available. Too bad it isn't so. In the early days, promotional literature glowed in the fact that "our guns are still working after 20 years of use" and such testimonial evidence. Who in those companies would have thought that we would be shooting competitive events with these guns 125 years later? I would love to have my Parkers converted to the ball joint rather than doing what has to be done to them to keep them tight. No, Joe, in fifty years of messing with Lefevers, I haven't found a drawback to the ball joint except that they are a bitch when they rust shut. Dan had a better idea.

Lefever was a "adjustment nut" in the early years. He made provisions for the adjustment of multiple things on his guns that no other maker did. Triggers, hinge etc.. . As time went on he dropped all of these but the ball joint. Were these other items not needed or just so rarely needed that provisions for them were pointless?

The ball joint is a very interesting design. But to me it is a lot like the Darne design. Very interesting, but a little copied design, which could have had a major impact if it came along earlier. If the first practical doubles were a Darne design or for that matter a Lefever ball joint how many more of the same type would you see today. It is very hard to get anyone to change from the "norm" once it is established and the hinge pin, as we know it, had been in use for 20-30 years before Lefever came out with his "improved" design.

Raised dolls head I suspect are more a function of metal being deformed while the action is loose rather than from being over tightened. It is hard to get the action to close if it is over tightened but metal will quickly deform if allowed to slam against the breech face because it is loose. But as our old friend Russ would have said BICBW. I see raised dolls heads on guns without the ball joint that must have gotten that way because they were shot when loose. Put a loose gun back on face and you often see the dolls head has been deformed.

Since the relationship of the doll's head to the frame is determined by the adjustment of a screw, I wonder if these raised doll's heads could be caused by tinkers. I've never seen one but that reflects only my experience and proves nothing.

Cary

The only other place I've seen the ball & Socket hinge is in the Three-Barrel Gun Co. and Royal Gun Co. single-barrel trap guns. They were, of course, brought from Ohio after Uncle Dan died by Frank Lefever when he moved to the Wheeling/Moundsville area to be plant super for these successors to Hollenbeck Gun Co.

I don't see how the adjustable ball & socket hinge could have an effect on the dolls head which was fit to the action at the factory with the barrels flat on face. After market tightening of the ball couldn't move the barrels further back than originally done. However, I've sure seen a number of doll's heads that have been screwed up by dropping, etc. And I wonder if a quick way to tighten an action wouldn't have been to just bang the doll's head up with a hammer or in a vice. Probably was done.....

The doll's head standing proud is not an indicaton of deformation. I've seen a couple with upset metal on one side or the other. If the doll's head is high all around, it isn't seating completely in the socket; if it's not seating completely, it's being stopped by interference and that interference is between standing breech and barrels possibly due to a heavy adjustment to the ball and socket hinge pushing the breech ends of barrels aft. Doll's head proud; extension slot higher, bolt doesn't shoot as deep; lever stops further right. I stand by my statement because I can and have produced precisely this condition on a Lefever FE. I also undone it which proves I guess that even tho I don't know what I'm doing, I do know what I've done. If you haven't broke one free and turned same, maybe you don't! I do understand why eightbore does not consider it a "drawback"; you wouldn't abandon distributers because some people can't set the dwell.

jack the tinker-er

Apparently the whole extension rib assembly come loose on some early Lefevers. My Grandfather's pigeon gun has a poorly finished repair at the extension rib and first three inches of rib area. Just last week, someone posted about a similar repair on a Lefever he owns. If the repair is not done correctly, the doll's head could protrude after the loose piece is soldered back in place but not quite back in place. My gun's doll's head is in place, just poorly cleaned up solder joint in the rib area.