...If anyone will ever become in doubt what´s best, he ought to read Jack Lotts artical from Gun Digest from 1985...it will leave no questions asked

A truly "best" gun is one that you love, own free and clear that shoots well and that you shoot it well.


Dutch

I think I put it to rest, Ma.

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
...If anyone will ever become in doubt what´s best, he ought to read Jack Lotts artical from Gun Digest from 1985...it will leave no questions asked

Come on, you cant't throw the hand grenade without posting the article.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
...If anyone will ever become in doubt what´s best, he ought to read Jack Lotts artical from Gun Digest from 1985...it will leave no questions asked

Come on, you cant't throw the hand grenade without posting the article.

Yea, no fair striking the match and not providing the tinder!

JPK

My scanner is on the fritz or I would scan it in and post it for you. It really isn't about box lock OR sidelock, but rather the superior strength of the external hammer screwlock (Jones Underlever) as compared to any of the internal hammer doubles, sidelock or boxlock. Lott liked it because of it's strength and the ability to cock the rifle silently vs. the sliding safety of the internal hammer rifles. FWIW...DuaneB

quote:

Originally posted by DuaneB:
My scanner is on the fritz or I would scan it in and post it for you. It really isn't about box lock OR sidelock, but rather the superior strength of the external hammer screwlock (Jones Underlever) as compared to any of the internal hammer doubles, sidelock or boxlock. Lott liked it because of it's strength and the ability to cock the rifle silently vs. the sliding safety of the internal hammer rifles. FWIW...DuaneB

Duane is on the right track here

Jack Lotts artical is about the strong and superior points of the Jones underlever, backaction, rebounding hammer doublerifle comparered to any hammerless doublerifle.
Yes,the artical isn`t really about "Box Vs Side"..but a very educating artical from Jack Lott who have owned all types of doublerifles, even those of "best quality", and yet the end of his gun/hunting carrier makes his conclusions. It could be very interesting if this artical could be scanned, and posted on this forum

On the other hand, Lott or otherwise, this article undoubtedly will not make anyone change their minds about their favorite double.

Most of the NE rounds are operating at low pressure, and whether one double action is so much stronger than another has little relevance in the life of a rifle that sees most of its use in hunting situations, where I suspect most rifles are shot relatively little before they see their owner kick the bucket and it gets passed off to the next guy in line.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
On the other hand, Lott or otherwise, this article undoubtedly will not make anyone change their minds about their favorite double.

What Will said above is absolutely true! It is almost impossible to convert a shooter to anything other than what he first thought to be superior! This is demonstrated by the deer hunter's loyalty to the Remington 700! Lott is no different from anyone else, in that his opinion is HIS, and though informed, not necessarily gospel!

I tend to agree with Lott on this subject, with some reservations. Like his idea that the Screw type lock up is strong, but it is made in several ways, and all are not equal. What I mean by this is, this depends on how the female part of the system on the bottom of the barrels is attached to the barrels. If, say, it is a chopper lump then it is stronger, than say a dovetail lump, or a shoe lump. Generally it is a strong design, but the rest of the rifle must be taken into consideration as well, to say definitively that the "RIFLE" is stronger because of this design. The strength of the rifle, depends on all it's parts, not just the method of attaching the barrels to the action body. One must consider the weakness of the wood in a critical place in the wrist, in a heavy recoiling double rifle, as well. Too much wood removed from this area, and another problem shows it's ugly head! The back action requires a lot of wood to be removed for the locks. This is why you see so many old pictures of this type double rifle with tin, or rawhide repairs to this area, with those pictures taken when those rifles were relatively new. I believe it is better to remove steel than wood, for over all strength. This applies to most side locks, as well.

I have some doubles with the Jones under lever, and also with back action hammer locks. I have rifles with back action hammer side locks, but with the top lever, Purdy bar & bites within the action bar, along with a so-called Greener cross bolt, and this rifle, being over 100 yrs old still will not close and lock on a cigarette paper, and it is chambered for the 8X57JR, and comparatively high pressure round for it's day.

The rebounding hammers on a well made double have several advantages! One was mentioned by LOTT, the ease of silent cocking! This is a definite plus where cats or Elephant are concerned. The hammer gun also opens, and closes silently, because it isn't cocking the locks. Few of this type were fitted with auto ejectors, so no click there either.

IMO, a Jones under lever, with properly hardened chopper lumps, and a very well fitted doll's head, fitted into a well shaped action, and over the nose , and down to the grip cap tangs, with as little wood removed as is possible, would be about as strong as most other types, even today, if all were made from modern steel.

Still, as Will says, all doubles today are made to work with higher pressures than most NE rounds, and are, contrary to many's beliefs, strong enough for the modern high pressure rounds factory chambered in them, regardless of the action type!

...............What ever type you prefer, is fine with me, but I, personally, prefer a well fitted box lock working rifle every time!


.............................

I know that modern DRs like Searchy or Heym, are made to shoot highpressure rounds than early cordite loaded cartridges ever could develop. What I liked about the artical was the way (and information ofcouse)Jack Lott descripes the strong points of the hammer double with jones underlever, in compare to the hammerless, namely because, I myself, allways thought the hammerdouble as a weaker gun in all perspectives(I am a little wiser now), and here Jack Lott says in between the lines the hammer screwaction double are the Mauser 98 of doublerifles As I stated...its a very educating artical, with "lotts" of information about british doublerifles in general also, in which I believe everybody who has an interst in this, could really benefit from reading it. I will see how I can get this artical scanned and posted here on the forum.

before you get too excited about Jack; remember how he led his life and how he died. And think about what he did for a living...
If you want to quote him as anything except a personal opinion, then subscribe to the whole package.

Rich
DRSS
Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost...

IS,

Care to elaborate?

IS!

jack Lott did not shared his "secret and dark" life in the 1985 GunDigest artical....merely just his knowledge. If you know something regarding a morale issue about jack Lott that would compromise his name ever mentioned again in all future, here on AR, I would natually find it wise ofcouse.
Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost..

I don't know squat about Jack Lott but I do know that the path to righeousness is a back action hammer gun in any BPE round! I really, really regret selling mine.

Buy and shoot what you like

Same here. Not a day goes by that I don't regret selling mine, even if it was to raise funds to build a new one. Some day she'll come back to me. Her name was Rigby.


Dutch

If someone was so kind as to offer me an nice sidelock or a box lock, I would surely take the sidelock any day, any how...

That said, I have owned mostly box locks, because of the cost involved with owning sidelocks, and it bothers my Scotch heritage to pay that much for a hunting gun...

Perhaps the stock to metal with a sidelock is not as strong, but I never had any desire to own a $50,000 club anyway...I will shoot them with my sidelock and club them with my box lock I suppose...

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
If someone was so kind as to offer me an nice sidelock or a box lock, I would surely take the sidelock any day, any how...

That said, I have owned mostly box locks, because of the cost involved with owning sidelocks, and it bothers my Scotch heritage to pay that much for a hunting gun...

Perhaps the stock to metal with a sidelock is not as strong, but I never had any desire to own a $50,000 club anyway...I will shoot them with my sidelock and club them with my box lock I suppose...

This post is a hoot!

JPK