Yes. I'm definitely learning all the time. I’m having these discussions both here and on IGC. It seems that at the time this rifle was made gunmakers were experimenting with different types of safeties, and adoption of a certain system may have been justified with various reasons among manufacturers, and all of those reasons can be valid.

O.K. It’s time for further questions. Can you explain how the original cartridges in this kind of early centerfire breech loading doubles were loaded? In this particular rifle the powder charge was 3½ drams of Lawrence No. 3 (equalling some 96 grains), and the round bullet weighed approximately 1/16 ounces. I have wondered what has been the seating depth of the bullet, and what kind of wad was used in the original cartridge? As I measured, 96 grains of FFg takes up only half of the case, so there must have been a wad of some kind if the ball was seated to the case mouth and not deeper.

Also the right chamber seems to have been ringed at some point in history.

I’ve experimented with light loads of fast burning powders in 45-70, but so far I’ve been scared away from the use of fillers due to the stories of people ringing their chambers with wrong filler material or incompetent use of fillers. Furthermore, I have very little experience on black powder in any kind of firearms, and I do not know anything about its tendency to promote chamber ringing if there is air space behind the bullet or if a wrong kind of filler/wad is used. This may be a silly question, but what you think is the most probable reason for chamber ring in this case. Is it just typical in these old BP guns in general, or has someone goofed around with smokeless powder, or what?

Another thing relating to the load is the question of regulation. When we speak about regulating a double rifle, we have sort of a common understanding of what we mean with that. Keeping this in mind, what can you say about barrel regulating of these early doubles (1875-1880)? Were they regulated A) at all; B) “to some extent”, or C) similarly as more modern side-by-sides? Or are these rifles just regulated by adjusting the charge?

I ask this because I’ve noticed that there isn’t any kind wedge or any other ‘system’ between the muzzles that could have been used for a true regulation. The inner sides of the muzzles are just filed flat and joined together, and there is only a thin vertical seam.

Of course, if it shoots apart it is possible to carefully adjust the muzzles closer little by little, and then stop as soon as the POIs starts to be close enough, but that doesn’t sound reasonable. On the other hand, if these rifles were not regulated, what is the point to have even a 200 yard leaf in the rear sight? Is it just pure optimism?

Sorry about the long post, but it seems that one question just leads to another. Oh well, it’s after midnight again. My intention was to work on an article on bear management that I am supposed to finalise and send for publishing before Christmas, but here I am again thinking about these things… And I decided to take just a QUICK peek on these forums before I start with bears.

Regards,
Saku