doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thread Like Summary - How many true American sidelocks?

Just when I think I've got something figured out, new information comes along and forces me to reconsider things. I am just starting into something of a project gun here (1891 LC Smith transitional Quality 1 gun, 2nd year production at Fulton, NY.) when I leaned that another American sidelock used the camed/torsion bar system to cock their guns as well. Thanks to an old (2020) Dr. Drew post on Trapshooters.com I've "discovered" that the Meriden/A. J. Awbrey hammerless guns (another sidelock) also used a cocking rod system very much like the Syracuse and Fulton guns. Not sure why but I'm a little bit gobsmacked by all that. Just how many American sidelocks were made in this country and what other design oddities am I unaware of?

Meriden, Crescent, Tobin, Baker, Lefever and others made sidelocks here. Were they all farmer-grade conventional or did they too have variations on the theme? Another presumption I've operated on was that the Smith guns were likely the best of the American offerings. Is that fallacious as well?

Edit to add that I do know Lefever sidelocks were very well-made as well, but are they really "sidelocks" or more of the gas/electric version, a hybrid design? They're also never seen anymore ( or very seldom). I haven't seen one being hunted or even shot in probably 15-20 years now.

Lloyd,
This, is an actual side lock:



There was never anything like it produced here in the new world.

Never.

Anything else built here was a simplification of the concept, that retained none of the advantages of the pictured lock (excellent trigger pull weights, intercepting sears, maximum amount of wood left in the head for strength) and brought a few disadvantages unique to North American production guns that claimed to be sidelocks, the criminally weak stock head of the ‘Smith being an example, and the weak frame of the Tobin being another. The only part on the side lock of a Tobin, is the sear and sear spring, everything else is carried in the frame.

What makes it a side lock?

They are, to a one, simple, cheap, designs, built to be afforded by new worlders who frequented hardware stores, not Abercrombie and Fitch. To me, any run of the mill English box lock is superior for regular use to any so called side lock gun built in the US during the golden age of doubles claiming to be a side lock.

Good luck with your project gun. You might need it.

Best,
Ted

This has elegant side locks. It is a Westley Richards 10 gauge on a massive frame with Kilby barrels and Stanton side locks. The sidelock has all the screws timed and all internals are highly polished…

The question was sidelock. If the lock parts are mounted on a removable plate, not in the frame, it is a sidelock. Doesn't matter if it is a Crescent with a bent spring steel mainspring --



or a British Brasier, it is a sidelock! Intercepting sears, stocked to the fences, etc. are superfluous to the question.

Just to clear this mess up, it’s not a true sidelock unless it has intercepting sears? That’s a crock of sh*t! Intercepting sears is an added bonus to quality of grade.

The Tobin and Lefever guns are not sidelocks. They have just some parts like the sear and sear spring on their sideplates.



My favorite American sidelock doubles came from the little shop at 214 W. Pratt St. in Baltimore --



These may be the finest sidelocks built in the U.S., but only a handful have been made --





https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...steners-round-body-.cfm?gun_id=102423112

You can explain the differences, but, there are those that just can’t grasp them.

Pretty gun, by the way.

Best,
Ted

I don't see an interceptor on Vicknair's lock.

I think what we get sidetracked-by here is the distinction between "good" and "fine" guns (or even "best guns"). Mass-production of anything provides both benefits and detriments. In this "New World" as Ted has identified it (I.E., the United States, post 1850 & our Civil War or the... "War of Northern Aggression") was a period of rapid growth and industrial development in this country. For better or for worse, there was a huge need for tools and other implements (which included firearms) as the vast interior of these United States became more settled and domesticated. The mostly hand-made guns (that we so-dearly love here) were only being produced in very small numbers and for a very select audience, namely the wealthy and the then-growing middle-class of both Great Britain and the Continent. A natural outgrowth of both our Revolutionary and then Civil Wars here was a nascent firearms industry, which besides millitary weapons also began produced sporting and hunting arms for our rapidly expanding country (and our economy). A gun in those days was more "tool" than art and was arguably a critical necessity. Having the means for procuring such a "necessity" wasn't guaranteed in any way and many folks went without (unless you were part of our own growing middle-class, which by the 1880s-1890s was becoming something of a force here too). The Golden Age of American Double-guns (late 1880s to the 1930s?) was a natural outgrowth of American industrial might (& wealth) and the expansion of our own "middle class" to the point where we became consumers of better and more-refined hunting implements. Mass-production was arguably the only way that burgeoning demand could be met and boy...did we ever. Some of our "Golden Age" guns were pretty spectacular, as Dewey Vicknair points out in his discussion of the subject (referenced here earlier) but they never have (nor will) approach the level of design and build-quality of the guns of Great Britain in their great sporting "Epoch", which largely ended with the First World War (when so-many of their skilled working-class men, and of-course their customers, were killed or maimed). The forces that produced the Purdey sidelock are not the same as the ones that produced the LC Smith hammerless gun. Comparing them is arguably a fool's errand.

Edit to add that you can fully appreciate each of them for what they are (and are not) and... it's not a heretical act. Both examples are getting rather-old now and have become cherished artifacts from a rapidly-departing age. Both were clearly designed with a very-specific purpose in mind, and seemingly both gun-designs were very successful. And finally...there is still room in my gun cabinet (& life) for examples from both of these worlds and I remain immensely grateful for that fact. May it ever be so.