Quote:

---

Mechanically, I can see no reason for the above recommendation. The under-lever; a sliding lifter bar located in front of the trigger guard, was retained until 1882, when it was replaced with the top lever. It seems to be a very misplaced advertisement as late as the 1930's. It may have been competitive marketing that drove the comments to avoid the top lever during the transition phase. A maker of the under lever snap action would want to discredit the top lever mechanism. It is neither stronger nor easier to operate than a top lever. The metals may not have been as strong then and quite possibly they saw some breakage during the camming action of the lever.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

It is a far stronger Mechanism than the Top Lever, and it admits of nearly ten times as much pressure being applied to withdraw the bolt as can be got from a Top Lever

---

The above quote is the most important feature of the Jeffery snap action 600NE IMO.
Because the 600, (even when developing normal acceptable pressures) develops an extremely high thrust against the breech face, it can benefit from having an extremely strong system to withdraw the bolting, especially if pressure is higher than usual and causes some springing of the action.
I don't know if that particular action had any self or assisted opening.
If it did, I think that would have been a secondary feature, the primary feature was having a powerfull leverage over the underbolting.
A system with more leverage than what the top lever can provide.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Some snap action designs (as well as operating the bolting) use the underlever to cock/recock the locks.
I've never had the chance to examine a Jeffery 600NE snap action so I don't know whether the cocking is done by the lever or by the barrels.
Curl will probably know the answer to that I hope.

---

Sorry, I don't know the answer in regard to the Jeffery design.

I do know that the Woodward Automatic was a fascinating underlever snap action design that does cock the locks by action of the underlever. It began with a fabulous exposed hammers design:





You can see a two position switch at bottom of action, in one position upon opening the operating lever, the hammers lift to half cock. In the second position the hammers will lift to firing position.

The design evloved into a lovely hammerless snap action; one of the earlier hammerless doubles:



In this configuration the tumblers (internal hammers) are lifted to full cock by the action of the lever. Obviously there were certain reservations about the safety of strolling around with a rifle at full cock, so Woodward incorporated a positive tumbler blocking safety mechanism and stressed safety in its advertising. Here's a copy of an advertisement appearing in 1882:



If you want to see my Woodward Automatic dissected with its guts hanging out, you can look HERE.

In a post above, somebody expressed surprise that underlever snap action rifles would be offered into the 1930's. Well guess what, they are offered today! Butch Searcy offers the underlever as an option with his rifles. I believe it is offered by English and Continental makers as well.

Curl

--------------------
RoscoeStephenson.com

YOUR DOUBLE RIFLE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

In a post above, somebody expressed surprise that underlever snap action rifles would be offered into the 1930's. Well guess what, they are offered today! Butch Searcy offers the underlever as an option with his rifles. I believe it is offered by English and Continental makers as well.

Curl

---

Yes, that was me! I made the comment because I thought a snap action was something a bit different than what it turned out to be; merely a means to return the locking mechanism to it's locked position upon closing the breech. Indeed you are correct. I would love to have a new under-lever or a side lever and, if it can be made for me by Peter Hofer or Philipp Ollendorff, I will have reached Nirvana!

--------------------


Edited by Der_Jaeger (01/02/09 12:20 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Yes, that was me! I made the comment because I thought a snap action was something a bit different than what it turned out to be; merely a means to return the locking mechanism to it's locked position upon closing the breech.

---

That's right. The Piotti illustrated above locks with conventional Purdey bolts. Nothing whatsoever unusual about it's lockup.

And my Woodward - the same. Conventional Purdey bolts and a doll's head third fastener.



The only thing "odd" and elegant about the Woodward is the use of a roller bearing on the front of the Purdey bolting bar to ride against the rear barrel lump as the barrels pivot down! I don't know anybody else who did that detail.

Now back to the subject of strength. The Woodward cocks by action of the lever. That eliminates the need for any cuts through the action bars for cocking levers to work against the forend iron. Thus, the bars are solid, with the exception of cuts for the Purdey bolting slide. Now that does enhance action strength!



In some ways it harkens back to the amazing strength of the Jones underlever action which also has no cuts through the bars.



Again, I don't know whether the Jeffery .600NE used a similar underlever cocking design. If they did, that would explain the claim of enhanced action strength. It would be a valid claim. Hopefully someone can shed light on this question.

Curl

--------------------
RoscoeStephenson.com

YOUR DOUBLE RIFLE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.

Post Extras: