Why didnt airguns designers put more things in their butts?

[Jerry Cornelius]

I sprang for one of the Bonehills in the recent Gavin Gardner auction and I’m very taken with it

It got me wondering: why don’t you see more cylinders in the butt? (Are there other examples?). As a sort of Edwardian/inter war bullpup. It does make for nice and firearm like lines.

I suppose there is a limit to how long or wide a thing you can stick in your butt, so it’s possible you couldn’t get to the uk limit, but power isn’t everything.

The recoil wouldn’t quite be in line with the bore which could effect accuracy, but I wouldn’t think the misalignment would be much. (Far less than a pistol with the spring in the grip). And anyway so long as it behaved predictably the end result should be accurate enough

So why was the design not replicated?

[Josie & John]

I've often wondered this myself - with the piston behind the trigger the Britannia is indeed a very early bullpup, used before the term was coined.

I agree a similar design brought up to date would make a very attractive little carbine.

John

[cringe]

"There is a limit to how long or wide a thing you can stick in your butt" !!!!! NO,NO NO ! stop it! behave.

[tomdavies9]

I think nowadays it’s more to not compromise the grip area of a rifle. Having the piston run directly behind the action means you lose the opportunity to have thumb up positions, makes having an adjustable cheek harder (but not impossible), and also would place your cheek on the action.
Granted this isn’t enough to put a lot of buyers off but probably enough to make a dent in sales that manufacturers don’t want to risk it.
Having the action run through the rifle stock/grip would still give you the difficulty/expense of making a stock to fit, whilst also adding in the physical restraints of size/proportion/position, as the rifle would still have to work well and feel nice to a prospective buyer.

Whilst being a PCP, the PH Phoenix had a neat solution with the bottle hidden inside the grip/rear stock, but never really caught on in droves. I also have a Baikal MP60 (IZH60) with the action running into the cheek which whilst I love shooting, I wouldn’t think would handle as well up near the 10-11Ft/Lbs Mark.

Short version of this is unfortunately manufactures don’t want to take risks, and are happy to throw out the same tried and tested (and endlessly replicated) design.

[ccdjg]

The Gem air rifles tend to follow this design to some extent - in that the cylinder made up about half of the stock and was at an angle to the barrel. They were obviously very popular for a long time, made in huge numbers, and appeared to have no problems with accuracy.

[Lakey]

I think it is probable that the Britannia took the shape of the popular Gems as a starting point for the overall shape, as by 1900 they were a popular and proven air rifle shape. However most aspects of the Britannia improve on the Gem's design, not least of which is the Anglo sure shot's magnificent stirrup barrel catch that cleverly takes up any wear, thus preserving the tight lock up. Also you have to admire the twin power arrangement and the integrated spring guide and bayonet end plug for the spring. A very capable rifle of its time. If the makers had more money, and a larger marketing department, like rival BSA, it is interesting to speculate if the Britannia's novel design could have dominated the market like the BSA underlevers did.


Lakey