Esteemed Mob,

I'm getting ready to order a double rifle.

Which is the better bet: Box, or Sidelocks.

I don't care which is prettier, or what is historically "correct". I'm after performance and durability.

What say you?

Jeff

For reliability, price and strength of the buttstock, boxlock is better.

For looks, engraving, and class, sidelock is better. But sidelocks leave only a thin panel of wood above and below the lock which is known to break.

Boxlock

quote:

But sidelocks leave only a thin panel of wood above and below the lock which is known to break.

Yes, that's true re: cracking... for L.C. Smiths.

The argument is that too much wood is removed from the stock in a sidelock, but there's a lot of wood removed from a box-lock as well, it's just done in the middle of the stock where you can't see it.

I would not give that any concern. If a new Sidelock does split, then the maker should make it right. If it splits after 100-years of use, then you probably won't be around to worry about it.

What maker's rifle are you ordering?

There are some sidelocks out there worth the extra money a sidelock typically commands - then agian - there are some sidelocks out there that are sidelocks, just for the sake of being sidelocks.

Here are two interesting, yet a bit conflicting, opinions from Hallowell & Co on the issue of whether a sidelock or boxlock is best.
For what it's worth, my double rifle is a sidelock though my shotguns are boxlocks. Given the choice, just because of their classic nature, I wish they were all sidelocks.


Sidelock - A type of action on a break-open gun where the lockwork (hammer, sear, mainspring etc) is mounted to the back side (inside) of a plate (or pair of plates for a double gun). A sidelock is superior to a boxlock because: 1. Less steel needs be removed from the bar of the action; the action is therefore stronger. 2. The lock plates provide a larger canvas for the engraver's art. 3. Sidelocks have generally been considered a more aesthetically pleasing form. 4. They are often made with secondary, or intercepting, safety sears. 5. Trigger pulls theoretically may be adjusted more precisely. 6. Because of all the above, most makers building a range of guns have usually reserved the sidelock action for their better grades of guns; this last being the most relevant reason why sidelocks are generally considered superior to boxlocks.

Boxlock - A type of action (receiver) for a break-open gun where the lockwork is contained within a box-shaped housing. (see also: Sidelock). A boxlock is superior to a sidelock because although more metal needs to be removed from the action body, less wood needs be removed from the head of the stock---and wood is generally more vulnerable than metal. The Anson & Deeley boxlock, patented in 1875, the simplest, most reliable and most successful action design, is identified by two pins spanning the width of the action, one at the bottom rear and one slightly forward and higher, upon which the sears and hammers, respectively, rotate.


A Hand-Detachable, Back-Action Sidelock with right-hand lockplate removed to show internal mechanism. This layout requires less steel to be removed from the bar of the action than does a Bar Action. It is consequently stronger---suitable for use in double rifles.


A Bar-Action sidelock removed from gun. Note that the mainspring runs forward into the bar of the action. This layout allows a faster lock time than does a Back Action.

I have a question rather than any information to provide. I have heard that a sidelock is essentially two seperate and independant trigger mechanisms. If one fails the other will still work, providing redundancy. Sort of like having two single barrel guns in one setup. Is this also true of a boxlock?

Boxlocks are boasted as the working gun....I am not sure I buy that, there are a lot of 100 year old sidelocks still floating around and have served their tenor in Africa...

I am a boxlock man by finances otherwise I would be hunting with a Holland and Holland Royal sidelock .470....

Taken care of sidelocks will serve you well but hey that applies to boxlocks as well, take care of them and they work...

remember the real purpose for sidelocks was that they could be removed and cleaned easily . many years ago this was an important feature with black powder etc. not so today. while I dearly love my sidelocks and the workmanship, for using I'll go with the boxlock.

Butch will be making my gun. It's getting down to the "Nut-cutt'n" and I'm about to go out to see him and put it on paper, so to speak.

I'm planning to pound the S#!t out of this gun.

Think I'll go for the "Deluxe" boxlock as it has double intercepting sears and is mighty brawny.

Ray???

JW

So it's a Searcy, let's consider your options...

IMO Mr. Searcy's boxlock is largely considered a "working gun" as opposed to a "fine gun" and I believe that's really his sweet-spot. He saw a niche in the market and has filled it well - and at an affordable price.

Now, step up to $18K (for his sidelock)and there are a lot of other options avialable that better fit that price gap.

For example: Here's a WR in .470 that (I'm sorry, Butch) but I'd feel a alot better about putting $20K in.



Or a Manton at $18K



So, if you want to spend 10K on a gun and are sold on the Searcy - then get the boxlock - again, he does this well.

Want to Spend $20K, well that changes the equation a bit.

Surely even Ray would agree with that logic?

I'm partial to boxlocks on all side by sides

He, hee!

I knew this would get a good thread going!

But, the case is closed.

I'm getting the Searcy "Deluxe" sidelock for competition and found a Rigby "1920" for nostalgia's sake.

Next, want one of those Westly Richards "Drop-locks"...I-carrumba they're nice! Sexy!

Boxlocks all the way....must be those Scottish "Blue-collar" genes in me!

Thanks all!

Jeff

If I was spending all that money, I'd go first class and buy a Holland and Holland Royal sidelock...All others fade by comparison..

Looks like someone got fancy on that WR comb!! I really like the Manton.

Codger,

I looked into those H & Hs...Think that H&H stands for "HIGHER than HELL"!!! Yeah they're Damn'd sexy, but I got both rifles and have the $$ to spare to go hunt in Tanz. next year...and the year after. What did you do, trip on a rock and hit a gusher a-la "Jed Clampett" - H & H! (just jacking with you - with all due respect)

Got me an H & H 12 ga...that's plenty (they're el-cheapo compared to those double-groovers) BTW,plus the H & H rifles (new 100K ones) are a bit aristocratic for my tastes (sidelocks)...Yikes!!!

Maybe if Mr. Blair follows more of "W's" playbook they'll get more realistic pricewise. Meanwhile, Westley Richards rifles (of late) are nicer in my opinion.

Guess this subject is like opinions on women - in the eye of the beholder, Reckon?!

Nah, guns are more fun...NOT!

JW

Oh, and forgot to mention. When I buy a gun, I like to look the man that made it in the eye, and, well, that's enough said.

I'm an old horse-trader and like handshakes and integrity.

Searcy is a hard-knot, salt-of-the-earth guy - makes his own stuff and at the end of the day that's what really matters to me. Takes a lot of guts to do what he does.
(this is not a paid-for advertisement, BTW) There's more to guns than brand names in my eyes!

I'll be more proud to own a 15K Searcy than any 100K-plus H & H (no offense H & H your stuff is cool) for reasons cited above.

Kinda like hunting...Some guys are just after the "BIG" racks and that's that.

Others want the total experience; buddies, BS stories, she-done-me-wrongs, and all that stuff - that's me.

DISCLAIMER: For the record I have no quandarance about liking "Big Racks", (esp. those on them trophy wives I saw scads of at the SCI Reno show - Sheist!)

Great forum, great debate, GREAT GOD! it's past my bedtime!

JW out!