doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Sidelock non-ejectors

When i think of a sidelock i normally think of a gun of excellent quality fit and finish, with all the bells and whistles, made for the creme of shooting sports, eg driven pheasant or grouse shooting.

I was looking at a gun of good quality recently, british made, made around 1900-1910, one of a pair, lovely walnut, great fit and finish, and a non-ejector.

The non-ejector spec puzzled me, as i would have assumed anyone ordering a very expensive pair of guns would naturally have wanted ejectors. By the time the gun was made i would assume ejectors would have lost any reputation they might have had as being "new fangled" or unreliable long since.

Anyone any notions as to why a non-ejector ?

There were many applications of British sidelock shotguns, not just driven bird shooting - and therefor different weights and proportions of guns.
There were sportsman who wanted hammer guns when hammerless became the norm, and no doubt extractors when ejectors became widespread.
Last, there would be a price consideration for not having ejectors.
The British gun market was responsive to any taste and pocketbook.

True saskbooknut, but its a bit like ordering a rolls royce....with cloth seats, if you have the money to buy one, then the extra cost should not be a problem. Also as a pair, i would have thought their main usage would have been driven shooting, and of course standing there while your loader fumbled out empty cartridges in order to reload, seems pointless.

There were also guns for overseas which often had lesser engraving but made to a quality standard.
I guess I'll leave the speculation for some other voices now.
It is pretty hard to be definite a century after the fact.

Same way people order their high grade guns with double triggers. Less to go wrong. Heck, in that era your gun was built (1900 t0 1910) I don't think people were all that convinced about breechloaders let alone a breechloader with ejectors.

Friends I shoot with think its strange that I prefer DT's and extractors. Like you said Treb, less to go wrong. 2 of my guns with ejectors have the springs removed.

Bill

Perhaps less to go wrong?
For a rough shooting blue collar guy who had been saving up for a nice gun,a non ejector of fine quality would be just fine...
I see what you mean about being one of a pair though...
Perhaps he had the worlds fastest loader, or perhaps was in no great hurry,lol
I imagine a vintage non ejector should be priced less than the ejector...but would of course depend on the gun..& all things being equal ....fat chance
You buying it?
Good luck...post pics if ye do
cheers
franc

I have been studying SLs from William Powell & Son.
Some of their non-ejector sidelock's were pigeon guns.

Yes- and I own one. You always fire both barrels on box birds, also on columbaire birds- and you have all the time in the world to open the gun, extract the fired hulls, reload, close and call for the next bird. Most of the hammer guns owned by my friends from the Fruitridge Farms Hunting Club are English made, and extractor guns, and of course, two triggers. A Southern gent and fine writer, last name is Nicholson- once said: "Any gun with two barrels should have two triggers" and I agree- 100%-

Some Birmingham made "sidelocks" were just as rough and ready as as any boxlock .The Rogers as a good example with a two piece lock and coil spring.
First gun I ever stocked was a cheap Williams sidelock non ejector .Quality it was not .