THE FRAME
The frame of a gun is that part to which the barrels are jointed at one
end and the stock attached to the other. The frame, together with the
mechanism which it contains, is mechanically the most important feature
of a double hammerless shotgun. The life of a shotgun, its strength and
continued soundness, are directly dependent upon the bolting mechanism,
while the locks must be of such temper and quality as to fire thousands
and thousands of shots without weakening.
The frame itself is made of a solid block of drop forged steel which
is then milled out to contain the working parts, filed into shape,
polished, and case hardened when finished. There are at the present
time two types of frames in common use, the box-lock and the sideplate.
These will be treated more fully under the heading of locks. I have
never known the frame of a shotgun to break down, and it need only be
said of them here that they should be as light as possible consistent
with strength. A heavy frame is a great handicap to a gunbuilder who
is trying to maintain the correct balance of his weapons in all
weights, since a heavy frame and a light, short barrel are sure to
result in a butt heavy arm.
LOCKING BOLTS AND FASTENINGS
In the first models of breechloaders made the barrels were locked down
on the frame by a bolt actuated by a lever under the fore-end. The
lever swung out to drop the barrels and this model of gun was known
as the Lefeucheux, a French invention. Then the English improved upon
this by swinging the lever about under the guard and giving it double
bites or bolts into the lug. Subsequently the bolt was placed under the
standing breech and was withdrawn by a side lever. Some of the early
American arms were made with this side lever. All of these models of
shotguns are now obsolete and need not be dwelt upon here.
The top lever now came into use of practically the same shape as those
we now have. When the top lever was invented there was but one bolt
which engaged with a lug under the barrels and was withdrawn to the
rear. By and by this bolt was made to lock into two lugs in place of
one and the arm was said to be double bolted.
Use and wear soon betrayed the weakness of these underbolted guns.
The construction of the bolts was such that they could serve but one
purpose, that of binding the barrels down to the frame, but as at
least half of the strain in shooting is in the direction of driving the
barrels away from the standing breech, there was nothing to withstand
this except the joint which wore rapidly and the gun became loose. To
guard against this the rib of the gun was finally extended to dovetail
into the breech and was known as the
EXTENDED RIB
The original extension rib was termed the doll’s-head from its shape.
It proved a great reinforcement of the simple underbolts, effectually
preventing the barrels from springing away from the breech so long as
the lug bolts did not wear and permit the rib to rise in its socket,
giving it a play that allowed the arm to become shaky eventually. I
have known guns fastened in this way to rattle after two years of
service. But others remained tight and sound a good ten years. It
is much a matter of quality of steel and the strain to which it is
subjected. However, just as surely as steel grinding on steel will wear
eventually, so will guns shoot loose that are simply fastened by lug
bolts and a doll’s-head extension rib.
Inventive genius was not content, and a tapered or wedge bolt was
placed in the rear of this extension rib to prevent it from rising.
Many guns are still constructed with this style of fastening,
especially those built in England and on the Continent. A further
improvement, for such it undoubtedly was, placed a cross-bolt entirely
through the rib, engaging with the frame on either side. This is the
famous Greener cross-bolt much liked in Europe and adopted in this
country by the Remington people for their highest grade of guns. It
is a very efficient bolt, yet not beyond criticism. It is claimed
that owing to the long bearing of this bolt in the frame considerable
friction is entailed. This would not matter unless sand or rust gets
into the action when the bolt may stick and require the services of a
gunsmith to open the piece. In justice it should be said that such a
contingency happens very seldom, and the cross-bolted gun should give
general satisfaction.
The latest European addition to the lug bolts and the Greener
cross-bolt is the Purdey side-clips, a projection of the frame to cover
the ends of the barrels, designed to prevent all lateral action. The
side-clips have never been used on an American arm, neither are they
very highly regarded over here, the bearing of the lugs in the frame
and the deep extension rib being quite as well adapted to withstanding
lateral strain. The celebrated Continental, quintuple fastening as
found on the Daly, Francotte, Cashmore, Sauer and other guns, consists
of Purdey side-clips and Greener cross-bolt, with shoulder bearings to
the extended rib and double underbolts.
THE ROTARY BOLT
It remained for America to have the final word in bolting mechanisms.
Our clever mechanics early discovered that the lug bolts were in the
wrong position mechanically. The joint of the barrels acts as the
fulcrum of a lever upon which the barrels rest and pry at the bolts.
It is easy to understand, therefore, that the closer these bolts are
to the joint the more leverage the barrels have and the stronger the
bolts must be. It takes three times as much strength in bolts to
withstand the pressure if they are placed an inch from the joint as
it would should the fastenings be three inches away. This and other
considerations led American builders to take their locking bolts from
the lugs and place them in the extension rib which is undoubtedly the
right position for them mechanically.
[Illustration: Ithaca bolting mechanism]
Our manufacturers also wisely concluded that one bolt or fastening
in the rib was enough _provided_ it could be given such strength and
bearing as never to shoot loose. This fastening was at last found in
the heavy Smith rotary bolt. This tapered bolt rotates and is driven
through a square opening in the rib with the full strength of a heavy
spring. As the bearings wear, this spring automatically drives the
bolt farther in. It is the only locking mechanism in the world that is
guaranteed never to loosen with use, lack of use, or misuse. Experience
bears out this claim and the writer has no hesitation in saying that
throughout the world no other locking device should be used on a
shotgun save the rotary bolt. It is now in use on the Smith, Fox,
Stevens, Baker, and other guns while the Ithaca has adopted the same
principle in a slightly different form.
I am persuaded from the experiments of myself and others that no great
strain is put upon the locking bolts of a shotgun by firing it with
ordinary charges. Taking away all bolts and simply fitting the arm
with a doll’s-head extension rib, it has been discharged while merely
holding the barrels in place with the hand. The barrels have also been
tied down with a thread which remained unbroken when the piece was
fired.
It is not so much the strain of discharge that finally loosens a gun as
its constant manipulation, the opening and shutting, the prying weight
of the barrels against the bolts when the weapon is being carried and
jostled, the dropping down of the barrels with too much force. The
steady grinding of steel on steel must wear in course of time whatever
the hardness or quality of the metal, and provision should always
be made for taking this up mechanically. The rotary bolt does this
automatically and with absolute certainty. An English gunsmith said
when examining a rotary bolted gun that had been in use some years:
“Why, the piece _is_ loose but you can’t tell it because of the bolt,
you know.” The rotary bolt is a good thing for the owner of a gun but
is not calculated to throw much repair business into the hands of a
gunsmith.
THE BOX-LOCK AND SIDEPLATE LOCK
American shotguns are made with either box or sideplate locks. The
latter is very much the same as the old hammer lock except that the
striker is placed inside instead of out, and provision must be made
for the barrels raising the hammers in place of by hand. Indeed this
lock is a survival of muzzle-loading days and, though simplified and
improved, is not essentially different from those used on the flintlock.
Many believe that the sideplate gives the arm a better and more racy
appearance. This can be judged from the engravings of the two styles of
frames. Certainly the plate gives the engraver more latitude, and he
has no ugly and square lines to deal with. It also permits a lighter
frame which is an advantage.
[Illustration: Sideplate lock]
On the other hand, the box-lock admirers contend that the plate lacks
both the strength and the easy, certain manipulation of the box. This
is for the reason that part of the pieces constituting the plate lock
are contained in the plate while others are fastened to the frame.
Should the gun become wrenched or the wood swell from exposure to the
weather the pieces may not come together accurately, thus leading to
jar-offs or other trouble. A few go so far as to contend that every
plate lock should be fitted with an extra tumbler safety in order to
guard against the probable jar-off. I believe myself that a better
cheap gun can be made with a box-lock than with plate, but where the
weapon is carefully constructed I have never known any trouble to occur
of any kind, neither would I give the matter of a box or plate lock a
great deal of consideration when purchasing a gun of a reliable maker.
Certainly the plate lock has one decided advantage in that it can be
taken off for examination, cleaning, or repairs very readily, while
the other form must be taken to a gunsmith. This has been given so
much consideration by the gunmakers that one of them has invented a
hand-detachable lock for his box-frames. However, good general advice
to the amateur is to let his locks alone so long as they are attending
to business. More locks have been injured by the novice tinkering with
them than have ever been hurt by wear or weather.
When the embryo gunsmith feels like experimenting with his gun locks
he had best buy a cheap arm for that especial purpose. It may not be
any more worthless when he gets through than it was before, but he will
probably find himself in the position of the tinker who took an old
fashioned clock to pieces and never again could find room for all the
parts. He said it looked just as well as ever when he got it together
and would have run except that it refused to tick.
In passing, one advantage of the box-lock should be noted. It can be
and generally is used with a coil mainspring in place of the flat.
These coil springs are guaranteed to last forever, while such guarantee
could hardly be given with a flat spring, or at least never has been
so far as the writer can recall. One English gunmaker who uses flat
springs recommends that an extra pair of locks be purchased with every
gun (at an extra cost of fifty dollars) so that if one should break
another will be at hand. To many it might appear good sense to buy an
unbreakable lock in the first place. The ability to use coil springs
may ultimately predispose people to the exclusive use of a box-lock.
Nevertheless, in fairness, it should be said that the majority of well
finished guns are shot a lifetime without the breakage of a spring.
COCKING DEVICES
The hammerless gun is essentially an arm that cocks by some device
through which the barrels in opening lift the hammers. One of the
earliest and best of cocking mechanisms was that of Anson & Deely. It
is still in use on some American arms and many of those made in Europe.
In this mechanism levers are pivoted in the front end of the frame with
one end projecting into the fore-end and the other resting under the
toe of the hammer. As the barrels turn on their joint in opening the
forward end of the lever is depressed while the other rises, carrying
the hammer to cock, the whole action being performed very smoothly and
reliably. This cocking system has been criticized as being generally
used with a short frame in order to obtain greater leverage.
One of our American arms has a modification of the Anson & Deely
cocking levers. This is a rod running straight through the frame from
fore-end to hammer. This rod is fitted with a crank at either end,
so adjusted that while one of the cranks is carried down by turning
barrels the other rises, pushing the hammer to cock. The gun works
without undue force and the parts are unbreakable.
THE COCKING HOOK
A number of our guns use a peculiarly American invention in the shape
of a cocking hook. This has variations in the different makes of arms.
The Baker raises the hammers by means of a bent arm which is pivoted
under the standing breech. One end of this arm hooks to the barrels
and the other has a crosspiece which thrusts directly against the
hammers, pushing them back until caught by the sears. The Parker has a
hook which actuates a slide, pulling the hammers to cock. The work is
accomplished with as little friction as in any American arm.
The most modern cocking device, the simplest and what appears to be
mechanically the best, consists of connecting the toe of the hammer
directly with the lug of the barrel. The hammer is thus its own lever,
and as the toe rises the striker drops back until caught by the sear.
No lost motion is possible and very little friction is entailed. At
present it is hard to see wherein this device can be improved. The Fox
and Ithaca guns are lug-cockers.
SAFETY BOLTS--TUMBLER BOLTS
When hammerless guns appeared the old guard of conservative veterans
naturally set up a roar. Here was a muley gun that was not only at full
cock when game was afoot but remained so every blessed minute of the
time you were afield. It was regarded as certainly a dangerous weapon,
likely to kill somebody at any time. No matter how careful the gunner
might be about accidentally pulling his triggers, there was nothing to
prevent a jar-off such as had happened with hammer guns more than once.
The assurance of the makers that jar-offs were practically impossible
and that the arm was really safer than the piece with outside hammers
did not silence the outcry, and only years of use, fully bearing out
the claims of the manufacturers, at last ended it.
[Illustration: Tumbler Safety, Baker Gun. Illustrates also the trigger
safety bolt]
The absolute safety of the hammerless gun was secured by means of two
bolts, the safety or trigger bolt and the hammer or tumbler bolt. The
first only was necessary as proved by experience, but the latter was
needed to silence the kickers.
The safety bolt is pivoted in the frame in a perpendicular position;
the upper end of this lever is attached to a slide on top of the
tang, just behind the top lever; the lower end comes snug against the
triggers, absolutely preventing them from moving while the bolt covers
them. In order to permit the triggers to be pulled the top end of this
bolt, connected with the slide, must be pushed forward, throwing the
other end back off the triggers. This bolt, so adjusted, is known as
the non-automatic safety for the reason that it only bolts the triggers
when the slide is moved by hand.
In order to make the trigger bolt automatically assume its position
over the triggers, a piece was fixed in the frame extending from the
safety bolt to the post of the top lever. Every time the top lever was
turned in opening the arm this bar mechanically shoved the safety bolt
over the triggers. This is called an automatic safety.
The tumbler safety is a bar that rises directly between the strikers
and the firing pins. This bar is actuated by the triggers; and, unless
these are actually pulled, it retains its position preventing the
hammers from striking the firing pins. It will thus be seen that
should the hammer be accidentally jarred off the tumbler safety would
catch it and there could be no accidental discharge. It would appear
that no further safety devices could possibly be necessary on a gun
than the automatic trigger bolt and the automatic tumbler bolt.
However, many regard the tumbler safety as really a bit of useless
machinery. It has been demonstrated that with honestly made locks the
hammers absolutely cannot jar-off while the bolt is on the trigger.
Experiments have been made of the most radical nature to prove this.
With triggers that pull at the ordinary weight, the arm has been
dropped on a stone floor repeatedly from an increasing height until
the stock was smashed, and yet the hammers refused to jar-off. It has
been proved that jar-off when it does occur, as in a gun whose trigger
pull is set too light, comes from the movement and play of the trigger
against the sear. Triggers are necessarily so fixed as to move easily,
and a heavy jar like dropping the gun gives even such a light piece of
iron as the trigger some momentum which acts against the sear the same
as the pull with the finger. Moreover this play and force of momentum
cannot act if the triggers are solidly bolted, though it might were
there merely a tumbler safety controlled by the movement of the trigger.
Granted the foregoing is true, if the trigger can actually move the
tumbler bolt out of the way in the case of a jar, then the tumbler
safety is a useless encumbrance, only put there in deference to
prejudice or ignorance.
In addition, it is argued that if the trigger is set to pull at three
pounds, one-half of the weight will be used to release the sear from
the hammer and the other pound and a half to move the tumbler safety
out of the way, hence the gun is no safer against a jar-off with a
trigger pull of three pounds and a tumbler safety than it would be with
a pound and a half pull, exerted entirely against the sear. There is
some truth in this, no doubt, for some of the force of the trigger pull
must be exerted in moving the tumbler bolt out of the way, and this
detracts just that much from the strength with which the sear engages
the hammer.
Personally I have never been partial to the automatic safety,
preferring that my gun should only be safe when I set it so. In a hot
corner, when birds are rising in every direction, I wish to shoot
without the trouble of shoving up the safety every time the arm is
reloaded. I never yet knew a man with an automatic safety who did not
lose occasional shots from forgetting to shove it up.
Nevertheless, I believe that where it is to be handled by a novice
the piece had better bolt automatically. Should the bolt cause him to
lose occasional shots he will yet be the gainer through the increased
security of himself and companions. Besides should the gun have a very
light pull-off it might be wise to have the triggers invariably bolted
while the shells are being placed in the chambers and the barrels
snapped down perhaps with great force. With the non-automatic safety
the triggers are rarely bolted while the arm is being reloaded.
Individuals differ and what might be wise for one would not be safe
for another. For myself I have never yet had a gun jar-off either when
being loaded or at any other time except when the trigger pull was
set too light and the recoil of one barrel jarred off the lock of the
other. No kind of safety could guard against this.