Since my dream rifle would be a 577 WR Droplock I have no choice. In actuality you will not hurt either with proper loading and can ruin both with improper ones.

I don't believe one is "superior" to the other, but rather a personal matter of which you prefer.

Both are easily removable for cleaning/maintenance, so that's a moot point.

Speaking very generally, any box lock is probably going to have a stonger stock than a sidelock...not nearly so much wood is cut away in stocking the box lock design. Dismounting the locks is just about the same amount of "work" with either the Holland or WR hand-detchable designs.

I have owned both, and for "grace" prefer the H&H. For a sturdy "working" gun I prefer the WR.

Don't worry about value retention or appreciation, regardless. Unless you are a speculator who is not really a gunman, that's not why you buy a quality double.

The drop lock is superior because of it's less wear on the wood of the rifle because of removal, and re-installing of the locks. All mateing surfaces on the WR drop lock are steel, while any sidelock wears the wood when being removed, and re-installed. As far as the lock it's self, both are quality, one equal to the other.

The WR drop lock is not exactly a BOX LOCK,because the locks are seperate from frame, as are the side locks. A true Box lock has all the action parts attached to the frame, by pins, and screws. The DL, and SL simply attach to different parts of the rifle. Far less WRIST wood is removed for the drop lock, than for the sidelock!

Two replies posted on a British forum to a question that I posted there some time ago:

Link

One opinion: Quote[In my humble ... if you don't mind me going off the subject ... side clips, cross bolts, and treble grips were obsolete by about 1900 because at that time the minimum specifications for any breechloading gun had been clearly defined. These items were cosmetic and their continued use was purely for marketing purposes. The use of bolsters on rifles over .400 was probably unnecessary too.

And another thing ... you can tell what sort of a mood I'm in ... at that time sidelocks were only bought for "cosmetic" purposes. Nobody who really needed a gun took a sidelock to the ends of the earth. Boxlocks were recommended. If it ever needed repairing, any half qualified gunsmith could repair a boxlock in a day or two with a hacksaw, a drill and a file. It took a fully qualified gunsmith a couple of weeks to fix a sidelock - and by that time the lions and tigers would have eaten again!] End quote

Another opinion in response to this one: Quote[ I hope you`re still in the same mood John because here comes my five pennyworth.
The reasons that the English side-by-side ( boxlock and sidelock ) had evolved into its` modern form by around 1900 are that it had achieved a combination of elegance, functionality and simplicity that was difficult to improve upon. After that any deviation from this form was regarded as eccentric - and eccentricity doesn`t sell many guns. A shame in many ways as gunmaking inspired some glorious eccentrics.
I absolutely agree that post c.1900 there was no need for the inclusion of sideclips, cross bolts or any other form of third bite as actions were/are strong enough to cope with any cartridges used in them - and that - as well as the use of bolsters - probably applies to double rifles of over .400 calibre. Their inclusion has more to do with tradition and to ease customers fears than anything else...... ( Don`t tell messrs Greener though. ) To be fair I don`t fancy using a big double rifle that didn`t have a `third bite` ..... imagine how it would feel if it started to shoot `off the face` !!!
Tradition and safety worries do play a large part in the design of guns. There were plenty of people who just could not accept that the new-fangled `hammerless` guns were safe and for that reason gunmakers were still taking commissions for hammer guns well into the 1930s.
The Greener Facile Princeps action is not an `eccentric` design - it was/is a premium or de luxe design and its` reintroduction marries sensibly into Greeners contemporary projected market.
Purdeys` reintroduction of a hammergun has nothing to do with economy of production or efficiency of design - it is aimed at wealthy American collectors and as such is an `extra` gun in the range - an extra gun to sell in other words.
I suspect that much of the bias against sidelocks on the grounds that they are unnecessarily complicated is a form of inverted snobbery. The lockwork in a sidelock is invariably more accessible and easier to work on that that of a boxlock.
Yes, a competent gunsmith can repair a boxlock with a hacksaw, drill and file....and an appropriate piece of metal HOWEVER that applies equally to a sidelock - especially as by far the most common breakages are of a striker or spring which are common to both. If a coil spring breaks it doesn`t matter whether the competent gunsmith is in `darkest` Africa or central London - he still won`t be able to make a replacement - the gunsmith in central London does have superior access to a replacement though.
I have never had a sidelock `fail` - I have however had several boxlocks break on me. Whether this is due to the greater attention lavished on the manufacture of a sidelock and, because of the greater capital cost, the subsequent increased care in maintenance is subject to debate.
There were boxlocks built of comparable quality to the best sidelocks and that applies to every current bespoke boxlock built in the UK. The subject of best boxlocks is something that I intend to raise at another time - and on the appropriate `board`.
If that Tiger is heading for me with a hungry expression on its` face and I have a choice of guns I know which one I`ll be picking up - and it won`t be the `cooking` boxlock !
- "Having ignited the blue touchpaper, retire..................."] End quote.

Both posters are acknowledged Britihs experts and dealers in fine guns who sell them to several of the best "name" dealers in the USA.

Cheers, gentlemen!

I prefer a sidelock but it is only a personal preference.

I don't believe that Mac is correct about wood wear, but its something that has me curious enough to look into it.

JPK

As a matter of logic one has to go along with Mac's view.

In theory, I don't think it makes that much difference. In terms of long term durability though, what Mac says is true. With regard to the use of the HD feature, it should properly be more of a sometimes thing with the sidelock, for the reason given. I also agree with the comments about the comparative robustness of the stock heads. However, quite a few best sidelock rifles have the Baker extended top tang, which helps to offset this some.

For a rifle to hunt with, I'd pick the droplock. I like the HD feature of the droplock better than that of the sidelock. For a rifle to look at, I'd get the droplock, because I have a strong preference for the aesthetics of a best boxlock. For a rifle to impress friends with, go for the sidelock.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Thank you all for your voting and comments. FOR VISUAL BEAUTY, I FEEL THE SIDELOCK WITH TOP NOTCH ENGRAVING WINS HANDS DOWN BUT I remind all participating, the question is about MECHANICAL SUPERIORITY in a .45 or larger calibered rifle. No bragging rights, no beauty contest. I'm just a guy who MIGHT POSSIBLY be able to squeak into A SEARCY before his price increase FEB. 01, '06. As a custom project fantasy, I'd love a drop lock action, but NO dolls head third bite, if there had to be a 3rd I'd want the PURDEY style, SEARCY says no third fastener is needed, I'd want it TRULY PLAIN to save on cost, and if possible as a further cost savings measure VALMET style barrels just SxS not O/U. I want to limit the money going into the rifle to have more left for the cost of the HUNTS. I am convinced that in facing DANGEROUS GAME a hunter is SAFER with a big bore SxS double than he would be with a big bore Bolt Rifle, as long as he has hundreds of practice rounds under his belt and many of them have been practiced with quick firing techniques and quick reloading techniques. If a guy is well to do he has all the options, but the guy in my line of work has to get the most from every dollar! Thanks again to all.

I'll take both please. That would be a nice battery.

BigFiveJack:

I agree with the two gentlemen that Mehul posted up to a point. I don't agree that a rib extension of some kind isn't desireable, but am ambivalent about third fasteners. However, it depends on the type of third fastener used. Assuming the options cost the same (they don't) I would take a plain boxlock with doll's head and screw-grip third fastener over a droplock with no doll's head or third fastener in a heartbeat.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

My dream DG rifle is a D/B Westley Richards Drop Lock in 500 NE.
I think, but know of no test which shews, that the boxlock is stronger than the sidelock.
Any one who has a WR and or an H&H they would like me to test, then I'd be delighted to do so. All results would be published here on AR.