doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Round Action vs. SLE

[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