In terms of technical advantage given best quality of make (H&H, Purdey, McKay Brown, Dickson) which is technically superior and why in comparing the Round Action vs. SLE?

I know that the small gauge Purdey SLE will beat out all in retaining and growing in value. I am interested in terms of mechanics.

I think the head of the stock is considered somewhat stronger in the RA vs a sidelock.
That said, IMHO, if the hammerless boxlock had come first, neither design would have been bothered with.
That is the technically superior design.

Best,
Ted

It's my opinion that the trigger plate round action is of superior design to the boxlock and sle. Like already mentioned the stock head is stronger than both the boxlock and sle, the action body is also more solid than a boxlock or sidelock. this allows one to reduce action body size of desired creating a more petite gun all around whilst still retaining strength.

I'm in the mindset that if the Dickson had been made in England it would have been more popular and copied more.

For these reasons I'm actually in the process of producing round actions in rimmed rifle calibers and shotguns.

In my opinion the Round Action is superior because the ejector work is not in the fore-end but is part of the action on the trigger plate, thus keeping the main weight between the hands leading to a better balanced gun and better handling.

Hmmm. I would argue that the stock, especially in the head area is the weak part of the round action/blitz design. So much wood has to be hogged out to accommodate the trigger plate, etc. The "fillets" of the stock are often very thin and prone to damage. The stock design doesn't allow much error for bending either....kind of like a Darne, if the RA stock doesn't fit, best to move on.
The hallmark of the Scottish RA is the strength of the action and its beauty.
Rimmed double rifles have obviously been built and have proven to be very successful on all the listed actions, so that point is moot.
I think (from what I've seen) that the head of the boxlock has more points of contact and broader points of contact with the action than the other two mentioned actions, therefore it would be the stronger head design of the two.
The less parts a gun or machine has the more reliable it will be, the easier it will be to produce, the parts can be built more robustly, etc. There in lies the technical advantage from one type to the next.
Depending on the type and design of SLE, like comparing a Rogers action to a Beesely/Purdey action is like comparing apples to oranges. One is actually pretty simple, the other is a beautifully executed Rube Goldberg that is very difficult to produce and maintain.
Boxlocks are pretty much the same across the board with a few exceptions of course. I think boxlocks beat out both in terms of design, function, reliability, ease of maintenance, manufacture of parts, assembly, strength, etc.
If we are discussing aesthetics and beauty....both the SLE, hammergun, and RA easily beat the BL. :-)

I think if one action type was very superior to others, then the rest would have faded into history. The anson and deeley boxlock is probably inferior to a lot of sidelock actions, but yet it is a popular, strong, probably easier/cheaper to produce and adequate for shotgun pressures.

The Rigby/Bissell rising bite action is extremely good, being strong enough for double rifles as well as shotgun usage, but fell from favour as it was very expensive to make.

Each has its merits and its disadvantages . Holland pattern side lock is know every where and is simpler to repair as is the standard pattern Anson & Deeley boxlock. Round action guns and guns like the Purdey self opener are more complex and more difficult to repair and need a greater depth of knowledge and experience in doing so .
As to personal choice, handling and shootabilty I have no comment .

I'm inclined to agree with Ted - and go for an Anson & Deeley boxlock.

Both the round action and the best grade SLEs (H&H, Beesley/Purdey) are superb work, but as an all rounder, the A&D is really hard to fault.

Of the Beesley based SLEs, the Henry Atkin 'Spring Opener' version of the Beesley is often considered (including by Gough Thomas) the finest version of that action.

As I recall virtually ALL the guns we have seen with cracked frames have been box locks. there is a lot of steel hogged out in the action body of a boxlock.

Yea but it was the sidelock that did all the work, exploring continents, protecting settlers, leading the way. Then the boxlock showed up and tried to grab all the credit. Credit grabbers and Johnny-come-latelies, that's what boxlocks are.

And a boxlock is way beyond ugly. An old scrubber woman that cooks and cleans well enough but walks around the house in old grungy socks and combat boots.

Now a sidelock is a super model that's also a gourmet chef!!!!

[quote=LeFusil]Hmmm. I would argue that the stock, especially in the head area is the weak part of the round action/blitz design. So much wood has to be hogged out to accommodate the trigger plate, etc. The "fillets" of the stock are often very thin and prone to damage. The stock design doesn't allow much error for bending either....kind of like a Darne,

Interesting I had a conversation with Dan Morgan today. He is one of the top US gunsmiths for Scottish round actions. He was saying the wood on the old guns was fit superbly by excellent craftsmen and he has never seen a round action split at the head from the stress of recoil. He routinely uses his to shoot trap, skeet and clays. He also mentioned you can't bend them so they are what they are in terms of cast and drop.

No design has a lock (pun intended) on desirable handling properties. That is like saying the round action/sidelock/boxlock has better stock dimensions. "Desirable handling properties" are a function of purpose of the gun and the individual shooter. Clearly, stock dimensions can, and should, be adjusted to fit the physique of the individual shooter. Likewise, handling properties can, and should, be adjusted to suit the individual's strength, muscle speed, and shooting style. Low weight and fast handling are no more the hallmarks of a fine gun than are short LOP and little drop. "Weight between the hands" is a red herring. It translates "very compact" which implies low swing effort (small MOI). Weight, balance, unmounted swing effort, and mounted swing effort should be matched to the individual shooter regardless of the action type.

DDA

Interesting that a round action stock can't be bent. My Dickson was sent by Robin Hollow to David and Cathy Yale out in Yellow Jacket, Colorado. David made my 1912 right handed RA into a left handed RA for me (a very significant bend that has held for nearly 15 years now)and Cathy did an excellent leather covered pad for it.

In the grand scheme of things, we haven't actually seen very many broken guns. The Coggy "Avant Tout" models are gaining a bit of a reputation for failing recent English reproof, but, other than that disquieting fact, a broken gun is rare. I think recent English reproof is pretty high, higher than those guns were ever intended to see. A few Yank models will develop cracks, if abused.

There were likely 10-20 boxlocks built for every sidelock. I'm guessing the bit about sidelocks getting more frequent, and better maintenance might have something to do with longevity, as well.

I'm a lot more concerned with how well I shoot any given design, than any asthetic considerations. They can all be pretty if they are finished up nicely, and, I shoot them well.
It really doesn't matter how beautiful a London sidelock is if I can't shoot the thing worth a damn.


Best,
Ted

"if the hammerless boxlock had come first"

It did. The patent for the Anson-Deeley hammerless action dates from 1875, the Beesley action used by Purdey from 1880, the Round Action from 1881, and the Holland Royal was later still.

The Boxlock is the the older action, it is the watershed that shifted SXS design from lever cocking to barrel cocking, the principle on which all other "great" guns are based. All other SXS owe a lot to the lowly Boxlock.

The Round Action in my opinion is the best looking SXS ever built, but there is more to it than aesthetics. It combines the desired 90 degree sear to tumbler engagement, a solid bar, intercepting safeties in a package that is more compact than a sidelock.

Stocking is sensitive point in guns with grip screws. Stock bolted round actions, like the modern Chapuis prove that stocking can be as strong as any other double gun. The Chapuis can be counted a true round action as it has a trigger plate lock and rounded bar.

I have seen and fixed cracks in all of the above. Loose screws and oil soaked wood can undo the best of designs and craftsmanship. They all need proper maintenance and use of proper ammo. Neither seem to be all that common.

Um, the boxlock really didn't come first-the hammerless sidelock is a hammer gun with the hammers inside. They, hammer guns, that is, were in full bloom well before the boxlock. The hammerless Beesley action is several modifications and enhancements to a hammer gun, nothing more, or less.

Generalizations are dangerous territory when speaking about double guns. See below.

A Darne is lever cocked (after a fashion, at any rate) and not "barrel cocked".

I find them to be great guns. If they owe anything to the lowly boxlock, I don't know what that would be.

I love examining and shouldering RA guns, but, honestly, every one I've ever seen was quite old, a bit creaky, and very expensive. Not sure the care and feeding of one would be my cup of tea, regardless of all the advantages the design allegedly offers. I feel the same way about a lot of old sidelocks, however.
Had one, that was a money pit. I don't, anymore.

Best,
Ted

A very interesting thread.
A couple of observations I would make:
I have recently collected a 1890's Dickson RA from my most trusted stocker and he has done a wonderful job. However, he did declare it a real pain in the a*** to do and he observed that he really can't see the point in the layout of the design which requires very substantial amounts of wood to be removed from the head of the stock. He didn't describe it as weakened just incredibly fiddly, time consuming and hence expensive.
Talking a few days later to someone who specialises in restocking RA's (and whose charges are about 33% more!), he agreed that they are challenging to do but once one becomes experienced with them they are no more troublesome than many more 'mainstream' stock types if you are not familiar with their foibles.
Shotgunlover, no Dickson I have worked on has had intercepting sears, just a normal block on the trigger blades. Maybe they were introduced on post-1900 models but not in my experience on pre 1890s'.
Redgrouse, the weight benefit of not having the ejector mechanism in the forend moves about 1oz of metal from 1 1/2" in front of the hinge pin which I really don't think is going to alter the balance of a well built gun in any useful way. Plus, the entire gun has to be stripped to get access to the working components of the ejectors. As someone who has spent hours regulating this system, I would vote for a Southgate or Deeley box every day of the week.
RA's can undoubtedly be very pretty guns but then so can boxlocks and sidelocks.
Their main attraction to me lies in their relative rarity not superior design nor aesthetics. Beauty in the eye of the beholder etc IMHO

Ted,

Shotgun design till 1875 was based on lever cocking inventions, culminating in the Murcott Mousetrap in 1871.

The hammer gun is outwardly similar to the sidelock, yes, but internally they differ. The sidelock lockwork departs from the simple tumbler with a safety bent of the hammer gun enough for the differnces to be called radical, in my opinion.

The step from hammer gun to hammerless sidelock is described as "evolution", a word alluding to a gentle process. Considering that it was due to the advent of barrel cocking, a new forend (again the workd of Anson) which made it possible, the word evolution does not really fit. It was more like a revolution which bypassed the problems inherent in lever cocking actions, especially ejector actuation.

Personally I love lever cockers, the Darne, the Ideal, even the low end Tarzan, are firm favorites. There is something fascinating about packaging all the action in one self contained assembly actuated by its own lever rather than mixing in the barrels to do the work. However, the market voted for barrel cockers.

Re the stocking issues of Round Actions. This is an issue with the Dickson design, not all trigger plate actions. There are plenty of trigger plate lock shotguns out there, almost all Over Unders have that system now, and the stocking issue has been bypassed by the stock bolt. naturally the stock bolt would not go on a best gun, even though Greener had positive things to say about it.

I would say the sidelock was a slow evolution, the revolution was the boxlock. A LOT of things had to happen, to allow either design to progress to where it was, circa 1900. Few of those things happened all at once. Or, in one place. I don't think any single development, ie, the self contained cartridge, or theLefaucheux break action, taken alone could be held up as the single thing that allowed sporting firearms design to change to what we now know it as.

But, the boxlock comes close.

Best,
Ted

This is one reason I've become so fond of back action hammer guns. Round body ergonomics, wonderful lines and aesthetics, and little wood removed at the head, so they are usually just a big flat face of wood butting up against the action body. What's not to like?