Which sidelock action is superior to the other for shotguns and rifles and why? Why are both types of sidelocks more expensive than a boxlock action and are they really that much superior to justify their much greater cost? Why do over and under sidelock shotguns utilize back action locks rather than bar action?
Back Action Locks have more around the the breech, and are believed by some to be stronger.
O/Us use back actions because the bottom barrel is more or less where the springs would be.
Rifles use the same because there is no pocket needed in the bar, where strength is needed.
Of course, the downfall of the back action is that more wood has to be taken out of the stock during the sidelock inletting.
A back action is also supposed to be slower than a bar action, and I guess that would be more of an issue for shotgunning.
Needless to say, exceptions abound:
I have a Fraser sidelock double rifle with bar action, and a Beesley shotgun with back action. However, I have never seen an O/U with bar action sidelocks.
Best regards,
WC
Why are both types of sidelocks more expensive than a boxlock action?
One look at a blow-up schematic of both was enough to answer this one for me
I believe it all has to do with cost. The early L.C. Smith Syracuse hammer guns used bar action locks that were used in Fulton until 1897. Just the amount of hours machining the locks to accept the mainspring and the block that was used to hold it in. The receiver had to be milled out deeper to accept the bar action mainspring. They also used a sear spring, which was also done away with in 1897.
As to what is better, I don't know, and as to why side locks with these actions cost more, just look at one and you will know why.
Browning Arms Company has proven to me it should not be that expensive to make a bar action sidelock. Take a look at their BSL which was made in Japan. It utilizes a Holland style lock and the barrels are of chopper lump construction. They are pretty nice guns and can be bought like new for $6000. In this day and age it just makes sense a CNC machine could be set up to easily make these locks. Also, the Spanish have proven it can be done more cheaply. I think part of the cost is the complexity with stocking these things as was discussed in another thread.
The expense is not so much in the making of a side lock action, as it is in the hand inletting of the locks into the wood. This would be for a back action, as a bar action would need more room in the receiver to fit, and would take the same quality of hand inletting of the wood.
Some of the cheaper Spanish side locks also use a coil spring for their mainsprng. Not so good looking on the inside, but if one breaks, chances are it will still work, whereas a flat spring steel one won't.
One advantage a bar action lock gun has over a back action'd lock gun is if a main lock spring breaks'....with a bar action it can't damage the wood because the spring is contained in the bar action.
I am not familiar with other back action, bar actions guns except L.C. Smith hammer guns. I do know that their bar action guns were very similar to the English bar action and other American guns of the time between 1881?-1897.
jOe, in your description, I would say that the bar action would not do any damage because it is surrounded by steel, whereas the back action is in the wood.
I think it fair to say they were a cheaply made copy.
jOe, I guess you meant the English ones.
1884-5 F Gr. L.C. Smith, price then $55.00
A number of guns were made having back action works but a lock plate resembling the bar action. Four which quickly come to mind are the American L C Smith & Baker. A couple I own are a British J P Clabrough & Bros & a German J P Sauer & Son. This later was made as the KnockaBout for VL&D. All four of these are hammerless guns.
Every action has its advantages and also disadvantages. Overall, my biased pick of the group goes to a boxlock made to the highest standards. It does lack the grace and tradition of the sideslappers but it's incredibly simple and strong. Sidelocks often break in the wrist and a boxlock will usually split at the head. That's tic for tac. But it sure is fun to remove a well built sidelock and stare in wonder at the workmanship and all the little parts working together to make it go bang. Aw heck, I like 'em all.
A sidelock is a safer gun than a box lock.
How so, Joe? NO gun is any safer than the man holding it- and the only safety you can trust is the one up between your ears- Now a sidelock with H&H intercepting sears does provide a second safety against either an excessive recoil or being dropped discharge-
I very much like my LC Smiths- most of them pre-1913 ejector guns with the older three position safety- they are not in the same class with the London and Birmingham made "bespoke" sidelocks, but they handle better for me than any other side-by-side I have shot to date. For the best analysis of this 'debate" I defer to Paul A. Curtis and his 1934 tome- "Guns and Gunning" shoot what pleases you, and shoot safely at all times-- "You may kill or you may miss. but at all times remember this- All the pheasants ever bred, won't repay for one man dead"--
Most good English sidelocks have secondary safety sears. My Grants, W.C Scott, Blanch all of them do.
T
Well Tony, there's a lot of great high end boxlocks with the same intercepting sears too. Look at the upper crust stuff Scott turned out. Best I can tell safety is about a draw between the two actions. Actually, the boxlock should inherently be safer since the sear and hammer are much more robust than on a sidelock.
Agreed. I was stating that H&H were not the only sidelock with intercepting safet sears. Definately agree on the boxlock front!
T
I think it is safe to say that most boxlocks do not have intercepting safety sears. Also, some sidelocks don't. I had a 5-pin back action that looked like a bar action which lacked intercepting sears. The 7-pins have int safety sears. I think the bar action sidelock is the most pleasing to the eye and most graceful between the hands of all the doubles IMHO.