Boxlock or sidelock?

28 May 2003, 02:43

mete

The side lock is an older design . The lockwork is attached to the side plate which when removed exposes all the parts for inspection and cleaning. The drawback is that there are 4 thin fingers of wood that hold the locks to the stock and this makes a more fragile stock. The box lock eliminates this problem, the lock work is contained inside the 'box' like receiver . Some of the fancier guns may look like a sidelock but are actually boxlocks with side pieces that give more room for engraving and have a traditional look.

28 May 2003, 03:06

Pete E

Perhaps the most important difference is that in a side lock you have two independent locks/triggers. Should one cease to function, the other should work ok which is obviously desirable in a DG gun. In a boxlock, there is a possibility that a single failure could prevent either barrel being fired. The best sidelocks were also "hand dettachable" meaning they could be stripped and cleaned easily without special tools in the field/camp if required. Generally speaking, a true side lock represented the upper end/most expensive of a gun makers stable while the box lock was a cheaper (relatively speaking!) often "working grade" gun. Like everything in life there are exceptions to the rules. For instance, I have a mass produced bottem end SxS Bruno shotgun which is also a true sidelock, but it is miles apart from a Purdy or a Boss sidelock!

[ 05-27-2003, 18:08: Message edited by: Pete E ]

28 May 2003, 03:09

500grains

I have heard that box locks are generally more reliable than side locks. Is that true?

28 May 2003, 05:46

<Axel>

500grains, I have heard that too! I have heard the sidelocks split out stocks too frequently and often fail to fire due to all kinds of ridicules problems with their locks. I have also heard tell of detachable sidelocks coming off the gun during recoil!!

The boxlocks never have these problems! [Roll Eyes]

Axel

28 May 2003, 06:10

Lar45

What I've read is that the sidelock is supposed to be stronger because you don't need to remove metal from the action for the lock works. I have a sidelock shotgun that looks like it might be effected by the stock if it was to swell. My boxlock shotguns look like the stock would be stronger with a flat engagement surface on the reciever and not being hollowed out as much for the locks.

No practicle experience here, just my thoughts?????

28 May 2003, 09:30

MacD37

quote:
Originally posted by Pete E:
Perhaps the most important difference is that in a side lock you have two independent locks/triggers. Should one cease to function, the other should work ok which is obviously desirable in a DG gun. In a boxlock, there is a possibility that a single failure could prevent either barrel being fired.

Pete E, the above statement is absolutely not true! All double rifles are two intirely seperate rifles on the same stock, as long as they are not fitted with a single trigger!

The fact is the side lock rifles are more expensive, but not necessarily better! the side lock, as already stated takes too much wood out of the weakest point in the stock. The weakness stated on the strength, or lack there of, of the Box lock, was once true. Today,with modern steels, and manufacturing process', however, the box locks are actually stronger than a true sidelock. If you want the fancy looks of the sidelock, then side plates are the way to go. The side plates, actually srengthen the stock at this weak point.

There is an index of gun phrases that will explain the technical differences between the two, I don't have it handy here, maybe someone here can supply that web address! If not, I'll find it and post it later. [Cool]

[ 05-28-2003, 00:38: Message edited by: MacD37 ]

28 May 2003, 11:09

Atkinson

The stock on a Side lock will break over a Lions head, I know that! Not sure about a box lock, will have to get back to you on that one [Eek!]

28 May 2003, 14:12

Mickey1

Mac

The trouble with sideplates, IMHO, is that they look cheap and cobbled on. The line formed at the front cannot be hidden by any engraving.

A true sidelock has all kinds of uninterrupted space for engraving and with out the big screws in the bottom. WR excluded.

Also there is a dainty, almost femine aspect to a good Sidelock. The Boxlock has a bulky purposeful appearance in my mind.

28 May 2003, 14:41

RIP

www.hallowellco.com/abbrevia.htm

28 May 2003, 17:26

ALF

28 May 2003, 20:36

Pete E

Mac,

I stand corrected! I always thought the cheaper box lock had commom components tucked away in there...

I would love to know, in terms of design/construction, how my cheap Brno side lock compares to the sidelocks used on the top end rifles and shotguns. I have often wondered whether is was a suitable action for conversion to a double rifle...

Regards,

Pete

28 May 2003, 22:27

500nitro

Pete,
I sold my old Brno to a buddy who is now a PH. He is also a qualified tool & diemaker by trade. He had a heavier stock and forend made and then he built up from scratch a new lump and fitted a set of barrels in 450.
Took him awhile but he has made a beautiful job.
I will try and get some pics and post them for you.

500

28 May 2003, 22:41

Pete E

500,

I know very little about shotguns and I bought that on the strength of its name more than anything else although I had read a review which had described it as a good " Game Keepers" gun. It was relatively cheap (ï¿½110) and bought to go on a fox drive. A mate of mine tried it and now refers to it as the Fence Post so I gather it does not handle as well as the cheep AYA's do! [Big Grin]

Regards,

Pete

[ 05-28-2003, 13:45: Message edited by: Pete E ]

29 May 2003, 11:44

MacD37

quote:
Originally posted by Mickey1:
Mac

The trouble with sideplates, IMHO, is that they look cheap and cobbled on. The line formed at the front cannot be hidden by any engraving.

A true sidelock has all kinds of uninterrupted space for engraving and with out the big screws in the bottom. WR excluded.

Also there is a dainty, almost femine aspect to a good Sidelock. The Boxlock has a bulky purposeful appearance in my mind.

Actually the side plate box lock has less interuptions than a true sidelock. The true sidelock has three or four places where the studs, that hold the lockworks, inside, come through. To top that off the true sidelock, is attached to the main action body in the same fasion as the side plate, and has the same lines as the true sidelock. Unless you know, it is imposible to tell the difference till you look very close, and find there is only a through screw at the rear, and the screw holding the plate to the action! For the side plate only enough wood is removed to inlet the thin plate, while a large amount of wood must be chizeled out to make room for the lock works on the inside of the plate of the sidelock. By the way there is no screw in the BOTTOM of a side plate!

Take a look at the pictures for this at:
www.hallowellco.com/abbrevia.htm

www.hallowellco.com/boxlock.htm#Boxlock

www.hallowellco.com/blitz_action.htm

The Blitz being to most obtrucive of all the action types, with a very large amount of wood removed from the weakest point in the stock! [Roll Eyes]

[ 05-29-2003, 02:58: Message edited by: MacD37 ]

29 May 2003, 12:36

Mickey1

quote:
Originally posted by MacD37:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mickey1:
[qb]Mac

By the way there is no screw in the BOTTOM of a side plate!

Take a look at the pictures for this at:
www.hallowellco.com/abbrevia.htm

www.hallowellco.com/boxlock.htm#Boxlock

www.hallowellco.com/blitz_action.htm

The Blitz being to most obtrucive of all the action types, with a very large amount of wood removed from the weakest point in the stock!

I was referring to the bottom of the boxlock action, not the sideplate.

Don't agree with you on sideplates. Do you have any pictures of sideplates that look as good as sidelocks?