|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,498
Posts545,406
Members14,412
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114 |
That engraver has probably never seen the inside of the Hunter Arms Company factory. One wonders-- the Fox or Parker factories either. Is this another "upgraded gun from the "Cattle twister"- aka- Turn-Bull?
"The field is the touchstone of the man"..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,487 Likes: 394
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,487 Likes: 394 |
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.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 916 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 916 Likes: 1 |
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
Last edited by Gunflint Charlie; 10/31/15 04:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dewey Vicknair
Unregistered
|
|
Dewey Vicknair
Unregistered
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 916 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 916 Likes: 1 |
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
Last edited by Gunflint Charlie; 10/31/15 07:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,892 Likes: 109
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,892 Likes: 109 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dewey Vicknair
Unregistered
|
|
Dewey Vicknair
Unregistered
|
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.
Jay 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dewey Vicknair
Unregistered
|
|
Dewey Vicknair
Unregistered
|
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. There is the primary reason that best makers used chopper-lump construction, massive surface area for either soldering or brazing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,982 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,982 Likes: 106 |
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?
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 916 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 916 Likes: 1 |
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.
Jay 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. 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
Last edited by Gunflint Charlie; 10/31/15 09:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
