Why are so many J. Dickson round actions sleeved?

Perhaps because they were originally made with light barrels, so you add wear and tear and you get the need for replacement or sleeving.

Further they are lovely Guns and people will buy them sleeved if nothing else is available is affordable.

I don’t favour sleeving, but recognize it as a valid solution if properly done maintaining good handling characteristics

Light barrels, when lapped, are rapidly out of proof.
Sleeving was a relatively economical fix.
It may also be that those are the guns going down the road.
The few Dickson guns that have crossed my path were not sleeved.

the cost of replacing the barrels as compared to sleeving leaves little option to most owners

There were ~2000 RAs made. The sample of RAs is small compared to other guns. Additionally, quite a few were Damascus. There seems to be more RAs available now that aren't sleeved compared to 8 years ago.

Ken

I suppose being made as a light gun has something to do with it. My Dickson, circa 1943 has the original 28" barrels and does have one spot under 20k on one barrel. The gun weighs in at six pounds even.
That is light.
Also it was the thing for other Maker's to do as well. I think Boss struck their barrels down to make them light and balanced.
Also remember that lot's of these guns were made in the hey day of driven shooting when people would spend a week shooting driven birds and the bag was tremendous in those days thus firing hundreds of rounds a week.

They're a good seller so maybe worth sleeving from a financial point of view where you'd not bother with a run of the mill boxlock.
BP and corrosive primers may not have helped the early ones either.

In general, Dickson RA guns had thin tubes to begin with, as mentioned. I would venture a guess that many left the shop with barrels under 25 thou. Lap them out very much and they are a candidate for sleeving...
I have been keeping a close eye on Dickson guns for a few years and the vast majority have quite thin walls if the barrels are original.

Because so many are old and have not been looked after as well as they should have been , same as with most 100 year old gns . But as they were made in much smaller numbers the percentage looks higher than say H&H or Purdey or even Webley .

I think Blue Grouse has hit the problem in the nose. They started out so thin when made they are in effect half worn out before their first shot. Had their barrels been .035 to start far fewer would need sleeving but they would not be such a wonderful gun to shoot with thicker barrels.

To sleeve or to re-barrel comes down to simple money decisions. What does a sleeve job cost a small fraction of a sleeve job? As a Dealer I am sure it is easier to sell a sleeved gun over a re-barreled gun with the difference being thousands of pounds. I have a sleeved gun which if not marked would be impossible to know it was sleeved. Even the blackening is a perfect match, which all too often is not the case.

The only Dickson I owned is made in 1893 and was Damascus barreled. It had been rebarreled by the makers. 6 lbs. 3 ozs.

ALL Brit guns are proofed when new. Proof includes stamping barrel bore diameters in some form. It is then determined if barrels are in proof based on amount of variation from the proof bore diameter. There are plenty of Brit guns with barrel wall thickness at 20 thousandths or even less AND THEY ARE STILL IN PROOF.

My Henry Atkin SLE has thin barrels at about 21 thousandths and it is still in proof. In fact, it was proofed with 'thin' barrels. I am sure as hell not planning to cut the barrels off and graft on new tubes.

It has been I believe well proven & documented that the biggest danger to thin barrels in the forward half of the barrels is not them bursting, but being dented.
When still in proof handle them carefully, don't overload beyond what they were designed to shoot, but no need to go to "Super Low Pressure" loads either. Those loads lower the "Chamber" pressure, not the pressure down the barrel where you are concerned about with thin forward section barrels. Don't use very slow powders ether, use the faster powders they were built to use in light loads & you will have no problems.

In the DRA the distinguishing feature is the Round Action. For that alone most people would forgive sleeving and thin barrels, yet not all sleeving is equal.

A DRA sleeved with Boehler Super Blitz tubes, is a wise choice. If one such comes my way I will not argue about seeing the joint or the blacking difference. But I am no collector and do not understand the collecting thing. I would be OK with that DRA silouet especially in a non ejector that has no visible ejector kicker screws.

What you have to remember is the fact a Dickson Round Action was a premium luxury item - and a step above any London gun.

When Lord So-and-So wanted a round action built as light in weight as possible, that's what Lord So-and-So got. Price was not an object. So if the gun left the shop with .019" walls (I've seem them), that was fine. If the walls became too thin after a few seasons, and the gun was deemed to need new barrels when it came in for the annual overhaul, that's what it got. And Lord So-and-So paid for it (hopefully).

I think a lot of people today do not understand this was the way things were. Dicksons were not built for the po' folks.

That holds true for them even today, Mike.

SRH

Whilst I agree the majority of your post, I don't think the DRA was a 'step above' - more like the 'top step' shared with some London makers. Certainly not lower, but not (in my opinion) higher either.

"Whilst I agree the majority of your post, I don't think the DRA was a 'step above' - more like the 'top step' shared with some London makers. Certainly not lower, but not (in my opinion) higher either."

What distinguishes the Dickson Round Action is not the level of craftsmanship (which is top drawer), but the genius of the design. This was developed by John Dickson about the time Purdey, et. al. were developing hammerless guns. In my book, this brilliant design places John Dickson the man well above other gun makers of the era.

I think there are other clever designs - notably Anson & Deeley and Frederick Beesley (the Beesley (Purdey) self opening action).
I don't wish to suggest John Dickson was any less a great man, but I do think these (and others) were probably equally great. Just a personal view.

So, who is generally recognized as having invented the trigger plate action? Grant, MacNaughton, Phillips, Dickson?

I haven't a clue.

SRH

Some French guy at Manufrance.

Edit: Seriously though, Dickson patent is from 1887. The Ideal was introduced to the market in 1888. My understanding is there were a number of years of development before being produced and sold in 1888. Who know when they first designed it.

I have W.C. Green patent number 2716 of Sept. 3 1868. The British Shotgun, Volume One 1850 to 1870 by I. M. Crudgington and D.J. Baker. page 223. it states that,

"The hammerless gun he designed was cocked and opened by a push forward under lever, which also was the trigger guard. In both actions the lockwork is built on the trigger plate."

This statement aroused my curiosity regarding the price of a Dickson vs other markers:

"...a Dickson Round Action was a premium luxury item."

In 1935, a single Dickson Patent Round Action cost £120. This is according to the Dickson catalog reprinted in Dallas's book.

1938, Abercrombie & Fitch quoted the following prices (all F.O.B. London):

-Boss Hammerless Ejector Over Under: £157-10-0
-H&H Model de Luxe: £157-10-0
-Purdey Hammerless Ejector "Featherweight" 12 gauge: £136-10-0
-Woodward Best Quality Double Barrel Gun: £126-0-0
-Churchill Premier Quality Doube Barrel: £120-0-0

OWD

"When Lord So-and-So wanted a round action built as light in weight as possible, that's what Lord So-and-So got."

This echoes a common misconception about best guns, that they were made for wealthy titled people. The makers' ledgers disprove this notion. The plain Mr's and mid level armed forces ranks far outnumber the nobility. Best guns were affordable back then.

The price list posted above by OWD gives a key. At the time those prices applied a navy captain earned nearly 500 pounds annually, or four times the price of a best. The price of a mid level boxlock was about a quarter of the price of a best sidelock or RA.

There was no collecting or gun hoarding in those days.

A new best today starts at a staggering 38000 unengraved (D. MacKay Brown RA). Interesting that the Royal Navy Captains salary today does not cover a finished best gun, even though modern technology has lowered production costs. Today the price of a mid level boxlock is a stunning 1/50th of a best gun.

Something went wrong somewhere along the line. Personally I see gun hoarding as the main cause.

One may need to consider the factor of the price of running a business in London versus Edinburgh, too.
Don't forget, officers' commissions in The British military were purchased (and they weren't cheap). Money would get you up the chain of command much faster than ability.

I think you misunderstand British society at that time (early 20th Century). Titled people at that time were suffering a decline in wealth. For many, much of their wealth had come from overseas interests in the so called 'British Empire' - sugar, tea, rubber, guano, cotton, tobacco etc. This had much declined as the 'Empire' had shrunk. At home money had mainly come from either agricultural (much of that in rents) and some from industry, but the industrialists were often 'new' money and not titled. After WW1 this became even more so with agriculture in depression and many former 'Empire' areas of the world being more independent, if not yet totally independent (much of that came after WW2).
There were many, many business people (law, industry, shipping, 'city' (like stockbrokers and banking families) who were wealthy, but not titled. They would often have bought from the 'best' makers, but would appear in the gunmakers books as plain Mr. xxx.
I have read that certain makers tended to have a following amongst certain 'communities' the example springing to mind being Henry Atkin, who seemed to have a larger than usual following from banking families. I have also hear it said that Cogswell and Harrison were popular with the military.
Remember also that in the UK (until the late 20th century) many people who served in the military as officers came from wealthy families and it was common practice to retain the title of the military rank on retirement. Where I live, my fathers generation had several Colonels and Majors (Army) and Admirals, Commanders and Captains (Royal Navy) who had long been out of the armed forces, but retained their title in either retirement, or their civilian lives.

Your comment of prices against income is also very relevant. In real terms, motor vehicles, cameras/photography, radio/television most domestic appliances (washing, dishwashing, cleaning, refrigeration) have decreased markedly in real terms - whereas (in the UK anyway) houses/property, professional services (legal, medical and financial) have increased. 'Best' guns fall firmly into the increased category. Guns overall (mainly imports) much more holding line with incomes.

I could never force myself to purchase a new best gun with earned money. Maybe lottery money or inherited money, if I had any...Geo

If I made that kind of money I would have. Take it to South America every year, to Africa, maybe up to Canada and Alaska, to Eastern Europe and it would have the scratches and dings to prove it.

It would be great to open a worn trunk case and pull out a beater Thomas Boss or James Purdey or a John Dickson.

I could never afford a 'best' English new; However I did buy a Beretta SO new - 20 years ago - and that has walked miles with me and shows a fair number of 'use' scars.

I did try to buy (at auction) a 'bar in wood' Dickson round action. These are quite simply the best looking guns I have ever seen - and this example was fully cased with decent original Damascus in nitro proof. It went for considerably more than I could afford (and much more than I paid for my SO new).

IF I had been able to afford a best gun new, I think it would have been a Purdey or Henry Atkin (I like Beesley's patent action), with house extra fine rose and scroll. And most likely I would have bought a used example anyway as I'm mean with money!

Mike, I am afraid your commission purchase remark is dated at best, to dead wrong. The Cardwell Reforms abolished the purchase of commissions in 1871 or so. The Dickson Round Action falls after that.

Your generalities are just too generic.

The British Army has long had a professional officer corps. The Royal Navy set an early positive standard amongst major countries by adopting a system of training and testing officers academically and hands on in order to advance in rank. I think more than 100 years ahead of the Army.

Yes, Michael, I have read about the Cardwell Reforms. But, I believe, things were quite slow to change within the British Army, and perhaps did not really gain real momentum until the Great War decimated the officer corps.
This is a very interesting discussion perhaps sometime.

Commission purchasing in 1930 is a total disconnect with actual history. You need real skills to command and "drive" a dreadnought! At least no one has so far come forth with the notion that RAF pilots could buy their way into a Spitfire cockpit.

Gough Thomas was not wealthy nor titled, he was a an engineer in charge of rural electrification. I am certain he did not "buy" his position with the electricity authority! In the 1950s he ordered a Henry Atkin best sidelock.

Closer to home, our local butcher in London, in the 1960s bought a Holland and Holland Royal for a couple of thousand pounds. Less than he paid for his car back then.

No matter what some want to believe about the hallowed names, there were times when they were affordable, new as well as used.

You know the "Great War" Mike Rowe referred to is WW1, done and gone by the end of 1918. And it's already been established that the Royal Navy was significantly ahead of the rest of the British (and world) military in the creation of a "professional" officer class.

So what he bought his commission? He could use a sword better, shoot better and could beat the hell out of anyone in his regiment.

You guys watch way too many Hollywood movies.

Read something about this guy, Robert Ross (British Army officer)

This doesn't seem like a lot of money in today's terms. But in the 1930s 120 bps was a sizable chunk of change. In 1930 the US dollar was worth just over 4 schillings - and the pound sterling was 20 schillings. The USD equivalent to 120 bps was nearly $600 USD. There were a LOT of families in the USA that would have been very happy to earn $600 a month in 1930.

I recall reading the Shooter's Bible gun descriptions/prices and seeing a new Purdey listed at $1200 - this was in the late 50s! Things change, and the Brand Value of names like Purdey, Boss, and Holland and Holland has increased prices to provide high returns for the companies that now own these 'luxury brands'. In other words, you're paying extra for the name.

Luxury branding has turned many previsouly useful and affordable items into fetishes.

Gough Thomas called the so called "investors" who have turned best guns into fetishes "inflation hedging barbarians".

Most of us have met the type, people who own a droplock but never knew the locks detach, people who outright reject a Dickson because it has no sidelocks for more engraving surface.

High tech will soon reach the point where anything will be precision copiable at a reasonable cost and hopefully that will dissolve this fetish thing.