Britannia

[Jerry Cornelius]

A comment/question at the end of one of Matts videos (I think) got me thinking. Yeah, what if BSA HAD got their hands on a Britannia instead of a Lincoln Jeffries?

Thé basic layout of compression chamber in line and behind barrel must be the most efficient as thé air flow is unimpeded (sorry, webley fans). I think it’s fair to say the BSA established what an air rifle “should” look like (sorry, Webley fans). If Cox/Bonehill had got into mass production first would we have seen 100 years of tidy little break barrel air rifles with the chamber in the butt?

For my money a Britannia is a little tail heavy, and perhaps for that reason a BSA layout is a little easier to shoot accurately, but from an engineering point of view (I am not an engineer) I can’t see any inherent weakness in the layout over the bsa? Cox seemed to have solved the problem of wear and lock up of the barrel right out of the traps.

[Unframed Dave]

I've not spent any great time shooting one, but what about the direction of the recoil?

Dave

[ptdunk]

I was quoting John M’s question in my video,
As I also mentioned a BSA prototype from the1920’s based on the Britannia did surface, and had a note attached saying ‘has no advantage over the Cox Britannia’ (NZ Airgun 1987) so it sounds like they tried but couldn’t improve it, which I find intriguing. It ended up in Ian Alcock’s possession but I couldn’t track it down.

Recently our own RobertJ made several modern remakes of the Britannia but again couldn’t vastly improve on the performance, (seems Fred Cox got it right) but Robert did work out a very clever trigger mechanism that meant it couldn’t fire whilst in the ‘open’ position… the Cox Britannia trigger is the weak point for me, because if adjusted too light it can go off while you are loading it. And speaking from experience that can be a truly terrifying experience.

I find that for standing shots the Britannia is the most accurate and well balanced vintage rifle I own, and I don’t really agree that the angle of the compression chamber makes it less consistently accurate than an online arrangement (I think that’s vintage airgun Chinese whispers)…but the BSA is a lot more user friendly and less scary. Also very accurate.

I bet if it had been in devepement for all these years we’d have some awesome bulpup springers.

Cheers,
Matt

[ccdjg]

Thé basic layout of compression chamber in line and behind barrel must be the most efficient as thé air flow is unimpeded (sorry, webley fans).

This is a comment that is often made about 'barrel over cylinder' pistols, but I wonder how true it is? A sudden change of direction certainly causes measurable energy losses in the movement of solids, but gases and liquids are a whole different ball game and fall under the heading of hydraulics. As an example, the rate of flow of water under high pressure through a hose pipe is not perceptibly changed by introducing as many loops or U-bends in the hose as you like, as long as the tube diameter is kept constant throughout. Just as well really, as our central heating and car breaking systems would be in trouble. Gases, being even less viscous than liquids, should be even less affected by path that the tube takes.

I supect that if you could set up a sensitive experiment where all the parameters were equal, the muzzle energy difference between and in-line air rifle and a barrel-over- the -cylinder air rifle would be immeasurable. But I could be wrong

[Jerry Cornelius]

This is a comment that is often made about 'barrel over cylinder' pistols, but I wonder how true it is? A sudden change of direction certainly causes measurable energy losses in the movement of solids, but gases and liquids are a whole different ball game and fall under the heading of hydraulics. As an example, the rate of flow of water under high pressure through a hose pipe is not perceptibly changed by introducing as many loops or U-bends in the hose as you like, as long as the tube diameter is kept constant throughout. Just as well really, as our central heating and car breaking systems would be in trouble. Gases, being even less viscous than liquids, should be even less affected by path that the tube takes.

I supect that if you could set up a sensitive experiment where all the parameters were equal, the muzzle energy difference between and in-line air rifle and a barrel-over- the -cylinder air rifle would be immeasurable. But I could be wrong

I must admit as I typed it I thought to myself, is it true. If the job of the piston is simply to place high pressure air behind the pellet does the small additional velocity imparted to the air by the piston make a difference

What would make a difference is dead volume, which all other things being equal must be greater is a u bend arrangement than a straight tp

[45flint]

Though I will probably never be able to own or shoot a Britannia, Matt’s video gave all of us great insight into the rifle. I would love to own this ingenious design. But I think it is not perfection? I think having the trigger being part of the cocking mechanism is not the best? Bottom line I think these discussions tend to ignore the perfection of the BSA design? It looks right shoots right and has been the basis for many modern rifles for a reason? It’s not that BSA never produced a Britannia design rifle for the public?

[Robert j]

I don't think it is the shooting performance of the Britannia but the overpriced design that this rifle didn't make. Usually a larger group of people opt for a lower priced air rifle even if it performs less.
From my experience, the angle between the barrel and cylinder provides a more consistent shot. During shot, the barrel is pushed down slightly (due to the inertia of the internal moving parts) giving a fixed direction to the flight of the pellet. When the barrel and cylinder are in line, during shot the gun will jump in all directions.
Because it is almost impossible for me to get an original Britannia over here, I have built two replicas. I have a small collection of vintage air rifles and shoot different models on a daily basis but the Britannia continues to perform the best.
The balance of the rifle is phenomenal. The only downside is that the rear sight is a bit too close to the eye.

[dvd]

I could shoot a fairly straight column group with mine when I had it many years ago. At the time I put it down to it's angular cylinder which I don't think helps. Lock up was very good and the column group did reduce appreciably with weaker springs and lower velocity. Perhaps I did not persevere enough to adjust my technique to this design layout.

[Dutch]

I was recently blessed with a fine example for my indoor range, with huge thanks to JB (& Paul)! It was on my list for ages, but the urge became strong after seeing Matt's excellent video on his awesome rifle.

Its has become my go to rifle for a plink session as it is an absolute joy to shoot. The ease of use, balance, ergonomics, shooting cycle (probably had a bit of a tune), the solidness and the way it sounds & clicks made me wonder why it was not fully embraced by the shooting community at the time!? Even in spite of the arguments mentioned earlier.

This is compared to my collection of pre war air rifles, including the finest specimens of Diana, BSA, Webley & Haenel. It is a bit undersized for current standards. My 12 year old also prefers the Britannia over his perfectly tuned Diana 23, in spite of its weight. Couple of shots here (sorry, had to share)

[45flint]

I think we collectors and enthusiasts make things too complicated. It didn’t succeed because it looked odd and dated. Marketing success is not always about mechanical excellence? People often buy with their eyes?

[Jerry Cornelius]

I think we collectors and enthusiasts make things too complicated. It didn’t succeed because it looked odd and dated. Marketing success is not always about mechanical excellence? People often buy with their eyes?

I would have thought back in the day it would be the Lincoln Jeffries that looked odd. The Britannia looks like a single barrel break open shotgun, which the Edwardian shooting man would have been very used to

[45flint]

I would have thought back in the day it would be the Lincoln Jeffries that looked odd. The Britannia looks like a single barrel break open shotgun, which the Edwardian shooting man would have been very used to

Maybe in 1905? but the design that would be most influential in how people look at a rifle would be military rifles. Especially during the years leading up to WW1 and after. The BSA looks pretty at home with it Military version. The look of the Britannia at that point is just dated and odd? I think as a outsider to the UK it may be for evident? The Germans certainly chose the BSA form to copy but I’m sure the more military look seemed pretty natural to them to say the least.

Don’t get me wrong from a collector enthusiast point of view the Britannia checks all the boxes. Without Matt’s video I would have never really appreciated this treasure.

[Lakey]

Rather than suggesting that there was anything wrong with the Britannia, or it was a dated design etc. I believe that the all conquering success of its biggest rival, the BSA underlever, was due to better marketing, advertising, and an already established dealer network. As well as an infinitely bigger marketing budget. BSA made the sport of Bell Target their own ( as is evident by the number of teams using BSA's at all the major competitions), and that success would have simple steamrollered all the opposition away.

I don't think that the Britannia could compete. Bonehills were a successful Birmingham gun manufacturer, but nowhere near the scale of the Birmingham Small Arms factory.

We are just fortunate that the build quality was so good that a reasonable number still survive, so that we can enjoy this unique gun.

Happy Christmas everyone.


Lakey

[45flint]

Rather than suggesting that there was anything wrong with the Britannia, or it was a dated design etc. I believe that the all conquering success of its biggest rival, the BSA underlever, was due to better marketing, advertising, and an already established dealer network. As well as an infinitely bigger marketing budget. BSA made the sport of Bell Target their own ( as is evident by the number of teams using BSA's at all the major competitions), and that success would have simple steamrollered all the opposition away.

I don't think that the Britannia could compete. Bonehills were a successful Birmingham gun manufacturer, but nowhere near the scale of the Birmingham Small Arms factory.

We are just fortunate that the build quality was so good that a reasonable number still survive, so that we can enjoy this unique gun.

Happy Christmas everyone.


Lakey

So what you are saying is that if BSA had produced the Britannia with its marketing and resources the UK would be shooting Britannias into the 1920-40s? I just don’t think that’s true? The Lincoln Jeffries design was just too good and cost effective to be denied. BSA by that decision may have made other companies very competitive?

[Geezer]

The Britannia would indeed have felt more familiar to shot gun users than the BSA.

It also looked and worked a bit like a big Gem, a known quantity.

The LJ/BSA may have had the advantage that it looked new and different, helped, as said, by marketing that rightly suggested it was a brand new and better design than what had gone before.