Chubb Boxlock

[Konor]

3 hours ago, Gunman said:

This is one of C & G's own guns ,based on the Edgar Harrison patent .I understand this  gun action that was an attempt by C&G  to be more "mass produced " in the sense of being more machined and assembled than " built" in the traditional manner . This is quite a nice example , but I have seen some that were very basic and looked it .

Cogswell's do have mix reputation overall , but a lot comes down to lack of necessary care and attention , and yes the earlier guns were quite weak , having been designed in the days of black powder and have been know to crack across the bottom of the face especially  in proof .

Thanks for the information. I traded a 425 Browning grade 6 and an as new 1957 Browning  auto 5 16 bore for it ,together costing me about £1800 ,for it, as I always wanted an English 3 inch magnum but reading negative reports on Cogswell and Harrison’s guns durability took some of the pleasure away from acquiring it. Do you think that the negative comments relate more to the earlier guns and not to the later models such as mine? 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Konor
Adding comment

[matone]

I did own a C & H  `Markor` boxlock for a number of years which was just a Webley 700 apart from the name.A good gun  that one!

[Konor]

50 minutes ago, matone said:

I did own a C & H  `Markor` boxlock for a number of years which was just a Webley 700 apart from the name.A good gun  that one!

That's maybe the root of the confusion. I enjoy owning my Konor and it will never see the 1000s of cartridges that might expose a weakness if there is one but the weakness reputation took the shine off it that only much use and pleasure will rectify, its getting there though

Edited January 10, 2020 by Konor
Clarification

[Gunman]

The older C&G's that had wrought iron bodies rather than the later steel did tend to shoot loose with heavy use and heavier loads . These were designed in the days of black powder so the much punchier nito powders did give them more stress . 

Thing is they did tend to shoot loose and needed to be well maintained , which unfortunately many were not .The action was light weight  with not much thickness of metal in the side walls and  where the face met the action flats and have been known to crack especially if they were not tight on the face and well bolted  down . This was also a problem in reproof .

All this said there are many well maintained example out there that will give years of service if looked after but look for guns made  post WW1 . As with all things there are good and bad and C&G have had a checkered reputation and I would really recommend a close examination by a competent gunsmith before parting with money if you want to buy one 

[Konor]

8 minutes ago, Gunman said:

The older C&G's that had wrought iron bodies rather than the later steel did tend to shoot loose with heavy use and heavier loads . These were designed in the days of black powder so the much punchier nito powders did give them more stress . 

Thing is they did tend to shoot loose and needed to be well maintained , which unfortunately many were not .The action was light weight  with not much thickness of metal in the side walls and  where the face met the action flats and have been known to crack especially if they were not tight on the face and well bolted  down . This was also a problem in reproof .

All this said there are many well maintained example out there that will give years of service if looked after but look for guns made  post WW1 . As with all things there are good and bad and C&G have had a checkered reputation and I would really recommend a close examination by a competent gunsmith before parting with money if you want to buy one 

As my gun is 1956 vintage would it be fair to say it will be steel actioned and so not prone to the weak reputation that C&H guns have in general acquired ?

[Gunman]

Yes.

[Konor]

Thanks that's very reassuring. I can enjoy it now without dwelling on its possible shortcomings