Following early development of breech loading shotgun, many
users and makers alike, showed concerned over the strength of the barrel/action mechanism.
Prior to the breech loader, muzzle loading was the only option. In spite of its
limitations concerning slow loading, potential safety issues with accidental
discharge during rapid reloading, etc, time had proven this to be a solid construction
method. The breech
loader, in turn, offered many advantages over the muzzle loader but the strength
of the breech mechanism raised concerns. Nowadays, testing such a design using
computer aided design systems and modern engineering simulation techniques would
show designers/engineers what occurs during the explosive discharge but of course this
technology would have to wait another century to appear. Victorian gunmakers
therefore had to rely on the solid engineering techniques of the day and hence
why many differing solutions for breech mechanism would undergo trial and
developed.
Gunmakers developed or indeed adopted alternative designs such as the rotary
under lever, sliding breech, swivel breech and so on. Stephen Grant (one of my
favourite English gunmakers) often utilized the side lever principle but what
became the principally adopted design would be the Purdey sliding bolt in
combination with the Scott style spindle and top lever. For wild fowlers, the muzzle
loader offered a degree of strength that allowed the shooter to increase his
powder and shot load (within bounds) to increase range or pattern coverage. For
the breech loader similar opportunities for increased loads also became
available through proliferation of alternative cartridges, but the increased
explosive pressure in the breech raised concerns about bursting.
A
further concern of the breech loader was the flexing of the
action, particularly when discharging heavier cartridge loads. A common belief
at the time was that flexing occurred between the action face and the barrel
breech, potentially allowing discharge of gases through the normal tight fitting
face of the barrel/action. This flexing effect in the longer term potentially
could lead to fatigue and eventual catastrophic failure of the action (normally a
crack between the action face and flat). Again, in today's world, modern
computer simulation would allow an understanding of the stress endured by the
action during the process of cartridge discharge, but in the 1870's makers could
only rely on a combination of good physical design and trial & error! Because of
the heavier cartridge loads generally used in live pigeon shooting competitions
and wild fowling, some makers decided to employ an additional feature
referred to as 'clipped fences' which attempted to reduce potential sideways
barrel movement. Here small extensions or ears protruded from the edges of the
action fences which engaged with chamfers cut off the leading edges of the barrel
face. In reality it is unlikely this design, to any great extent, effected
sideways flexing of the barrel breech.
With these concerns in mind, to increase the strength of the breech mechanism,
some makers developed what is often referred to as a 'third bite'. This
was in addition to the Purdey sliding bolt mechanism and was affected through an
extension off the front face of the barrel, effectively a rearward extension of
the top rib. Again, gunmakers created different designs to overcome the safety
concerns of their Victorian customers. For example, the Birmingham based maker,
Greener developed the cross bolt mechanism, which in combination with the Scott
style top lever passed a sliding bolt though a hole in this top extension.
Similarly, Scott (later Webley & Scott) developed a similar third bite to
Greener but with a square sectioned cross bolt. This third bite in combination with the Purdy sliding bolt
gave the breech loader considerable additional strength, the design concept
finding its way into the construction of many express rifles and of course the
live pigeon gun of the latter 1800's, the users of which often preferred heavier
3" cartridge loads.