Forums.NitroExpress.com

Max, and others interested in this,
Many people, including some who should know better, get self openers and easy openers confused; some don't know the difference between the two. A self opener springs open just as smartly after firing, as it does when locks are cocked; easy openers do not. Only four true self openers have ever been developed and made in numbers: 1. the first and most significant by Frederick Beesley (his first design used, of course, by Purdey right up to the present day); his second concept, a modification of his original design, used by Charles Lancaster (Lancaster modified it again later, so at that time it became strictly a spring cocker with no cocking levers, 2. Holland & Holland design that was adaptable to boxlock or sidelock, 3. The Charles Rossen design, almost as adaptable as the H & H design. 4. the rarest design of all, by Gough Thomas. Naturally, other gunmakers made self openers, but most are variations of the Rossen concept. The Beesley design stands alone in being completely integral with the mechanics of the action and lockwork. It is unique in the way he integrated the functions of opening and cocking---all other systems use separate mechanisms that have no other function. It was a brilliantly integrated system, three separate and different functions, cocking, firing, and opening, ALL ACTIVATED BY A SINGLE SPRING, THE MAINSPRING within the action! References to the original Beesley/Purdey concept in many standard reference books are not accurate: J.H. Walsh, The Modern Sportsman Gun and Rifle, W.W. Greener in The Gun and its Development, Sir Gerald Burrard in The Modern Shotgun ALL GOT IT WRONG. Gough Thomas got it right, in his Second Gun Book of 1972.

I have now had a chance, over years of use, to get familiar with, and use extensively, self opening double guns and rifles! As a result, I am now of the opinion that the overused cliched criticism that they are hard closers is, in reality, of no consequence to one used to operating a gun of this type, once one learns the way to do it properly. I know others who have come to the same conclusion. ONCE ONE USES AND GETS USED TO GUNS OF THIS DESIGN, NOTHING ELSE FEELS QUITE THE SAME. THE REASSURING SNAP CLOSING OF ACTION IS MISSED WITH OTHER SNAP ACTIONS. Self opening guns are much faster to operate than are conventional guns, for four, six, and eight shots, based on comparison timings of a given shooter. The opening is easily done with the right hand only, while the left hand is preparing for instantly reloading. I am of the opinion that self openers are the end result of the highest evolution of the double gun, a mechanical system that has been refined until there is nothing left to improve, what Gough Thomas calls "the aesthetic appeal of a perfected mechanism."

David Trevallion, and others, have said "self openers can be a bit stiffer to close than conventional guns," but Travallion says that those who make the most fuss about this are usually people who have never shot much with them, if at all, or who haven't learned how to use them properly." THAT, EXACTLY, HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE TOO! Further, he says that "self openers can be a great joy to use, and they really are faster in operation." However, a few gunmakers, of course, have tried to make the self openers less stiff on closing, including Stephen Grant (lifter on only one side of the action bar). I believe that I recall at least one gunmaker striving to make a more balanced opening/closing, by having one lifter cocking on opening, and the other on closing of gun.

Gaugh Thomas (Gough Thomas Garwood), the English gun writer, was a highly educated engineer who was quite gifted and clever with mechanics, also able to think outside the box. He was a profound fan of self opening guns, so much so that he designed one himself (specifically for a boxlock gun)! David Trevallion said that Gaugh Thomas knew his stuff, in the technical history of gunmaking as well as engineering. Gaugh Thomas said that "the self opening system confers a further advantage in that keeping the bite of lump right up to its locking bolt, stops the gun from shaking loose as soon as it otherwise would do." Travillion, in response, said that "as we have yet to find an instance when the old boy was demonstrably wrong on a point of engineering, we reckon he's right about this one too. Certainly we know from long experience that a Purdey can absorb an enormous amount of use before it needs to be rejointed."