Has there been a thread here on AR specifically dedicated to the pros and cons of owning a boxlock vs. sidelock doubles? If so, can someone kindly point me toward it? If not, let's start one now.

Besides the obvious differences in price....I'm interested to learn about the differences in strength, reliability, longevity, etc...

Wade, I love the look and tradition of a sidelock, but if you look at who shoots them A LOT, you rarely see a sidelock shotgun in clays competition....and those guys shoot more in a weekend than we do in several years.

Sidelock:
+more area for engraving/embellishments
+locks may be designed for easy disassembly in the field to replace main spring or for cleaning
-more wood taken away for the stock's head can weaken the area
-far more pricey
+less metal is removed from the bar so it is stronger in this area
-less weatherproof
+many sidelocks have secondary sears
+generally, sidelocks are considered higher grade arms.

Boxlock:
+more simple and perhaps reliable
+ and - opposite of the above.

Hope this helps. Info taken from the chapter of double rifle definitions in my upcoming book (plug).
Cheers,
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by Eland Slayer:
Has there been a thread here on AR specifically dedicated to the pros and cons of owning a boxlock vs. sidelock doubles? If so, can someone kindly point me toward it? If not, let's start one now.

Besides the obvious differences in price....I'm interested to learn about the differences in strength, reliability, longevity, etc...

Wade, as you already know there is a very large difference in price between the types of double rifle systems. That is justified in most cases, because of the extra very skilled fitting involved. However, simply because a double is a side-lock doesn’t always justify the cost difference in price, and in some cases the well made box-lock is actually more valuable that a poorly made side-lock in practical terms!

The best of both worlds is a well made and fitted box-lock with side plates. The reason for that statement is a true side-lock has to have copious amounts of wood removed from the wrist area of the rear stock, at it’s weakest point. This area is the weakest single point in the whole of a double rifle, no matter what lock is fitted. However that point is weaker when the wood is removed for the true side locks, and is stronger even in a box-lock if side plates are fitted, because the side plates strengthen this area, and less wood is removed for the box lock for the internal trigger bar, and cavity for the tumblers.

The Box-lock has more steel removed from the action than is removed for the true side-lock, but IMO, if material must be removed, I would think it is better removed by a smaller amount from steel than the more wood removed from the weakest point in the rifle.

I know that what I’m saying here will draw fire from some, and I understand that! I own both types of doubles, and the side-locks I own are both back action, and bar action types, and the box locks are both standard, and with side-plates. Both types are fitted with as little material removed for fitting as is possible for each type. So what I have written here is only my opinion, but one based on knowing both types intimately.

...............Please hold your fire till I dig my fox-hole!

While there may be more wood removed at the head of the stock for a sidelock, the area of wood to metal fit is greater, which, in theory, provides for a stronger wood/metal transition, assuming the sidelock is very well inletted - or so I have read! [On that front, I have read that the trigger plate round actions have the strongest wood to metal transition, because of the greater wood to metal contact area.]

With metal removed, a box lock stock and a sidelock stock have nearly opposite heads, the box lock more wood removed from the center, the sidelock more removed from the outside right and left.

I have also read that a sidelock is essentially two rifles "welded" together for completely independent actions right and left, where some box locks won't function if the right barrel lock mechanism goes down. I know this is a fact with some recoil set shotguns, don't know, but would like to, whether this is true regarding double rifles.

I have never seen a sidelock rifle that didn't have intercepting sears, but have seen box locks with and without.

I have also read, know from experience, and been told by JJ that a sidelock's triggers can be made with a finer, crisper pull than a box lock, both because of the geometry and nature of the action and because of the intercepting sears.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Wade, I love the look and tradition of a sidelock, but if you look at who shoots them A LOT, you rarely see a sidelock shotgun in clays competition....and those guys shoot more in a weekend than we do in several years.

I believe that it is costs that is the driver there.

Some of the advantages of the sidelock or drop lock have been built into some of the high end competition shotguns as well.

And then, the fellows who did all of the volume shooting in the early 20th century were wealthy and almost all selected side locks.

If you attend even a regional shoot there will be several gunsmith/armorers there fixing guns. There were none attending Lord Grey's shoots!

JPK

Are false side plates something that can be added to a boxlock after it is built....or must it be done during the building process?

They can be added later but it is easier and more cost effective to do it whilst being built.
Cal

I don't disagree with Cal very often. In fact I can't think of a time when I have. BUT! False side plates to me are as bad as white line spacers on recoil pads. It is like putting a Ferrari name on a volkswagon micro-bus.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I don't disagree with Cal very often. In fact I can't think of a time when I have. BUT! False side plates to me are as bad as white line spacers on recoil pads. It is like putting a Ferrari name on a volkswagon micro-bus.

465H&H

465:
No disagreement here, mate. I just answered the question as to when they can be added. I don't like them either.
So, are we still batting 100%?
Cal

Boxlock vs. sidelock?.

I`LL take a backaction!.

It has been covered pretty well here.

The boxlock requires much more metal be removed from the action. For a shotgun it really doesn't mean too much because they operate at relatively low pressures. But in a large double rifle it takes extra metal away from a critical area. That critical area is along the action where the face meets the water table. Westley's droplock is a wonderful action that allows one to quickly remove the locks for cleaning, oiling, repair. Obviously, Westley Richards bulds their guns and rifles with ample strength. However, their droplock is also the best example I can think of to show how extra metal is removed around an important area in the boxlock.



When a double is shot the pressure "tries" to open the action. Moreover, when the right barrel is fired then forces work to try to twist the barrels left and open the action on the rifle. When the left barrel fires it works the action the opposite way. Of course the action is built to resist these forces and to that end third fasteners (of various type) are used and bolsters are added on the sides to increase the width and amount of steel where the action face meets the water table.

The sidelock requires more wood to be removed. Again, the guns and rifles are obviously made with remaining wood of ample strength. How that is handled by the maker is very important to just how much wood and strength remains. The first action below is an example of wood removed in a relatively expedient manner. Some makers will use machine cutting to save costs. The second action below shows how hand fitting an action into the wood will take away only that wood that must be taken away, leaving as much as possible for strength. Of course hand fitting costs more and is only found in better guns but more wood left in the stock is better than less wood.





Regarding strength, if made properly guns of both action types are amply strong. The main advantage boxlocks have is that they are simple and require less hand-work to assemble and that means they are more affordable. The main advantage sidelocks have is their wonderfully crisp triggers and their easily accessible locks. But it takes extra hand-fitting to get the sidelocks to function properly and to properly inlet them into the stock and that means they are less affordable.

A sidelock is basically a hammer gun with the locks turned outside to inside. It used to be said that if there had been no hammer guns there would have been no sidelocks but only boxlocks.

There are sideloacks and there are sidelocks. i have seen some Czech...yes BRNO...sidelocks that actually worked off a coil spring and other sidelocks that were English but of cheap materiel.

Webley made SEVEN GRADES of sidelock shot gun and you'll sometimes see in their register...for William Evans...the note against a gun "seventh grade...engraved and finished as first".

There's also boxlocks and boxlocks. Yes you'll see so called BEST boxlocks. With chopper lump barrels, easy of self opeing actions and maybe even the Westley with its drop locks.

But in the main most boxlocks are a plain basic design that will always be cheaper than a sidelock in price.

But. If the costs are equal then the boxlock will always be better built and of better materiel. So a well made boxloack will always be better than a cheaply made sidelock.

And yes, they do exist! As some people want a sidelock at ANY price and were happy to have a lower quality gun just because it was a sidelock and not a boxlock!

then you get all the variants in ejector types, top lever types, and barrel extensions.

My nightmare gun would have a Westley type top lever, a Deeley or snap on forened and with a dollshead top extension and then be heavily engraved with deep chisel work. And a straight line across the top of the breech between the fences and the barrels engraved at the breech. Oh and sideplates! Like some awful Cogswell & Harrison guns were.

Ugh! Yet to others it'd be heaven in a gun!

So there are differences of opinion.

But whilst a plain boxlock looks functional and who can argue that a Colt 1911 doesn't do the same, a plain sidelock looks as if you can't afford to have the job finished off properly.

Horses for course. But I'd have confidence in either but would choose any gun I had to have a Scott top lever, no barrel extension, a standrad tag slide forward safety, Southgate ejectors and an Anson rod forend.

Afyer that sidelock or bocklock I'd not much mind.

Others may even reject both and expound the virtue of the trigger plate action gun, or round action, that was much favoured by the great Scottish makers such as Dixon.

Choose the best in terms of materiels and workmanship that you can afford and that has the faetures you like and none that you don't. If it is a sidelock or a boxlock it matters little in terms of dead game!

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
Boxlock vs. sidelock?.

I`LL take a backaction!.

I agree, Jens. That's the best of both worlds.

Stronger (in theory) because it leaves more metal in the action and has the triggers and easy disassembly of a sidelock.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
A sidelock is basically a hammer gun with the locks turned outside to inside. It used to be said that if there had been no hammer guns there would have been no sidelocks but only boxlocks.

There are sideloacks and there are sidelocks. i have seen some Czech...yes BRNO...sidelocks that actually worked off a coil spring and other sidelocks that were English but of cheap materiel.

Webley made SEVEN GRADES of sidelock shot gun and you'll sometimes see in their register...for William Evans...the note against a gun "seventh grade...engraved and finished as first".

There's also boxlocks and boxlocks. Yes you'll see so called BEST boxlocks. With chopper lump barrels, easy of self opeing actions and maybe even the Westley with its drop locks.

But in the main most boxlocks are a plain basic design that will always be cheaper than a sidelock in price.

But. If the costs are equal then the boxlock will always be better built and of better materiel. So a well made boxlock will always be better than a cheaply made sidelock.

And yes, they do exist! As some people want a sidelock at ANY price and were happy to have a lower quality gun just because it was a sidelock and not a boxlock!

then you get all the variants in ejector types, top lever types, and barrel extensions.

My nightmare gun would have a Westley type top lever, a Deeley or snap on forened and with a dollshead top extension and then be heavily engraved with deep chisel work. And a straight line across the top of the breech between the fences and the barrels engraved at the breech. Oh and sideplates! Like some awful Cogswell & Harrison guns were.

Ugh! Yet to others it'd be heaven in a gun!

So there are differences of opinion.

But whilst a plain boxlock looks functional and who can argue that a Colt 1911 doesn't do the same, a plain sidelock looks as if you can't afford to have the job finished off properly.

Horses for course. But I'd have confidence in either but would choose any gun I had to have a Scott top lever, no barrel extension, a standrad tag slide forward safety, Southgate ejectors and an Anson rod forend.

Afyer that sidelock or bocklock I'd not much mind.

Others may even reject both and expound the virtue of the trigger plate action gun, or round action, that was much favoured by the great Scottish makers such as Dixon.

Choose the best in terms of materiels and workmanship that you can afford and that has the faetures you like and none that you don't. If it is a sidelock or a boxlock it matters little in terms of dead game!

VERY well said! Especially what I took the liberty to put in bold.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
Boxlock vs. sidelock?.

I`LL take a backaction!.

I agree, Jens. That's the best of both worlds.

Stronger (in theory) because it leaves more metal in the action and has the triggers and easy disassembly of a sidelock.

Thanks!!. All my doubles is backactions, and my next one too is also a backaction.
Ofcouse the best is a backaction with a Jones underlever. But that would be another talk in another thread.

Sorry for the crappy photos, taken for insurance purposes, but this is also a back action sidelock:



And this one too:


JPK

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I don't disagree with Cal very often. In fact I can't think of a time when I have. BUT! False side plates to me are as bad as white line spacers on recoil pads. It is like putting a Ferrari name on a volkswagon micro-bus.

465H&H

465:
No disagreement here, mate. I just answered the question as to when they can be added. I don't like them either.
So, are we still batting 100%?
Cal

YUP!

465H&H

Do the mainsprings go forward into the bar of the action or rearward?

quote:

abridged and edited from Hallowell & Co's discussion of locks:

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).

Back-Action - Note the rearward-facing mainspring. This layout requires less steel to be removed from the bar of the action than does a Bar Action. It is consequently stronger---more suitable for use in double rifles.

Bar Action - Note that the leaf mainspring runs forward into the bar of the action. Capitalizing on the swivel fitted between the lower hook of the mainspring and the forward arm of the tumbler, this layout allows a faster lock time than with a Boxlock (or back-action sidelock). The swivel allows the direction of force applied to the hammer to change as the hammer falls, maintaining pressure and even increasing it as the mainspring's energy is released. The bar action sidelock can typically be made to look more sleek than a back action sidelock.

If the question was directed to me, regarding the two photos of the rifles I posted, both of those rifles have Holland & Holland Royal pattern back action locks.

The pin pattern on the Thys confirms the back action locks (and I've had the locks off too,) the other is an Abbiatico & Slavinelli, FARMARS, and, while pinless, it has back action locks as well.

I will try to post a photo of the pin pattern of a bar action for comparison.

JPK

The link below to the Hollowell site provides photos of the pin locations for bar action and back action sidelocks. Perhaps the easiest to see pin determinative of bar or back action is the mainspring pin at the bar end of the lock, which confirm a bar action lock. (but don't confuse the two locking screws on the Holland rifle photo showing a scope mounting block on the rifle as the mainspring pin, that is a back action lock.)

http://www.hallowellco.com/sidelock%20definition.htm

quote:

Perhaps the easiest to see pin determinative of bar or back action is the mainspring pin at the bar end of the lock, which confirm a bar action lock.

In rare cases however it is a "dummy". So in 99.99% JPK is 100% correct. But I have seen some where it is a "dummy".

This is often the case with, equally as good quality, have no doubt, say the lancaster, Grant or Powell 12/20.

But I've also seen it on cheaper supposed sidelock guns too. These "false" or "dummy" pins. To give the impression of more expensive lockwork.

Or as in the 12/20 to somehow disguise the fact that these are basically back action lockwork guns. Which seems odd as their quality is of the first rank and needs no supposed nod to another system of lockwork.

last, again now quite unusual, Robert Churchill did at one tim emake so called "pinless" guns where the pinds did not come through the lockplates. The idea being that the engraver the had a clear surface on which to work his skill.

I prefer a boxlock. I lust for a droplock!

Grateful if someone knowledgeable would add to this discussion the trigger plate action for a double rifle. Dickson, McNaughton and McKay Brown make mainly shotguns using the trigger plate action, but have made rifles.

I have back action sidelock rifles and trigger plate shotguns, but know little of trigger plate rifles.


Regards, Tim

quote:

I have also read that a sidelock is essentially two rifles "welded" together for completely independent actions right and left, where some box locks won't function if the right barrel lock mechanism goes down. I know this is a fact with some recoil set shotguns, don't know, but would like to, whether this is true regarding double rifles.

I must disagree that the above is true of almost all big bore double rifle of the side by side persuasion!

A double rifle is rarely made with “recoil re-set” cocking system, and the ones found with this type of system are usually shotgun conversions with single triggers or sometimes with O/U combination barrels that also use a set of double rifle barrels and double shot barrels. Most of those use single non-selective triggers. If a double has a selective trigger it means the both barrels are cocked when the rifle is broken open for a reload, and allow you to select which barrel you want to fire. I have never seen a side by side double rifle that was fitted with a recoil re-set system.

Most double rifles are made with completely independent mechanically cocked tumblers cocked when the rifle is broken open. This is with single or double triggers both. The single triggers are properly of the mechanically switched to the other barrel when the trigger is pulled whether that barrel fires or not. The problem that is associated with a single trigger that is not “SELECTIVE”, so if one side breaks, the trigger can’t be re-selected to fire the other barrel first so each time the rifle is broken for a reload so the rifle can still be used as a single shot!

quote:

I have never seen a sidelock rifle that didn't have intercepting sears, but have seen box locks with and without.

I have also read, know from experience, and been told by JJ that a sidelock's triggers can be made with a finer, crisper pull than a box lock, both because of the geometry and nature of the action and because of the intercepting sears.

I can see no reason a box lock trigger set action can’t be made just as fine and crisp as a side-lock. I wouldn’t tune them too light with either type, because it simply isn’t necessary on a big bore double rifle. That is the reason you never see a “SET TRIGGER” On a big bore double rifle above 9.3X74R regardless of action type.

The intercepting sears are there only to avoid a mechanical double discharge under recoil. The have nothing to do with the triggers, but are simply a guard against a recoil, or dropped rifle induced double discharge. Intercepting sears will not guard against a “STRUMMING” double discharge because the back trigger was actually pulled accidently.

The whole idea of a double rifle is that they are two completely independent single shot rifles, on the same stock and most of the things that negate that concept are usually in small chamberings, not in DGR chamberings with nitro express big bore doubles!

………………Just my opinion, and worth exactly what the reader paid for it!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

I have also read that a sidelock is essentially two rifles "welded" together for completely independent actions right and left, where some box locks won't function if the right barrel lock mechanism goes down. I know this is a fact with some recoil set shotguns, don't know, but would like to, whether this is true regarding double rifles.

I must disagree that the above is true of almost all big bore double rifle of the side by side persuasion!

A double rifle is rarely made with “recoil re-set” cocking system, and the ones found with this type of system are usually shotgun conversions with single triggers or sometimes with O/U combination barrels that also use a set of double rifle barrels and double shot barrels. Most of those use single non-selective triggers. If a double has a selective trigger it means the both barrels are cocked when the rifle is broken open for a reload, and allow you to select which barrel you want to fire. I have never seen a side by side double rifle that was fitted with a recoil re-set system.

Most double rifles are made with completely independent mechanically cocked tumblers cocked when the rifle is broken open. This is with single or double triggers both. The single triggers are properly of the mechanically switched to the other barrel when the trigger is pulled whether that barrel fires or not. The problem that is associated with a single trigger that is not “SELECTIVE”, so if one side breaks, the trigger can’t be re-selected to fire the other barrel first so each time the rifle is broken for a reload so the rifle can still be used as a single shot!

quote:

I have never seen a sidelock rifle that didn't have intercepting sears, but have seen box locks with and without.

I have also read, know from experience, and been told by JJ that a sidelock's triggers can be made with a finer, crisper pull than a box lock, both because of the geometry and nature of the action and because of the intercepting sears.

I can see no reason a box lock trigger set action can’t be made just as fine and crisp as a side-lock. I wouldn’t tune them too light with either type, because it simply isn’t necessary on a big bore double rifle. That is the reason you never see a “SET TRIGGER” On a big bore double rifle above 9.3X74R regardless of action type.

The intercepting sears are there only to avoid a mechanical double discharge under recoil. The have nothing to do with the triggers, but are simply a guard against a recoil, or dropped rifle induced double discharge. Intercepting sears will not guard against a “STRUMMING” double discharge because the back trigger was actually pulled accidently.

The whole idea of a double rifle is that they are two completely independent single shot rifles, on the same stock and most of the things that negate that concept are usually in small chamberings, not in DGR chamberings with nitro express big bore doubles!

………………Just my opinion, and worth exactly what the reader paid for it!

Mac,

Thanks, wasn't sure of the recoil set situation wrt box lock double rifles. If I understand correctly, a proper DG box lock DR has two completely independent locks and triggers, assuming it is a double trigger rifle. Right?

As for the triggers, the side lock's geometry allows for both lighter and crisper triggers. On why the box lock cannot provide the same, well, I listened to JJ for some time on the topic but all I recall is geometry and sear engagement. Perhaps ask him for the mechanics on it.

You are missing an important function regarding intercepting sears. The intercepting sears prevent each barrel firing unless that trigger is pulled. So it prevents the rifle from firing when the rifle is dropped and the primary sear disengages, or from doubling due to recoil as you point out, or any other time the trigger is not depressed. That feature goes hand in hand with lighter, crisper triggers.

The intercepting sears on my rifles and shotguns are released by depressing the appropriate trigger, so, even if the main sear were to have been disengaged by a fall or through recoil, the rifle or shotgun will operate as normal. FWIW, I have tripped the sears on my elephant rifle and pulled the triggers to release the intercepting sears. The pull was longer, a little creepier and not so crisp, but not a lot heavier. It was very usable, and I'm not sure with a buff or ele at 25yds I would have noticed I was releasing the intercepting sear and not the primary sear. I used snap caps, but the hammer fall sounded crisp and sharp, no differently that as if the main sear had been tripped by the trigger, and I am sure the rifle would have fired.

On trigger pull, the old formula was, as I have been told, 1/2 the weight of the rifle for the first barrel and about 3/4 for the second. That is too much for a 10 or 11lb rifle, imo, and deprives the shooter of achieving all of the accuracy the rifle may be capable of. With intercepting sears, there is no issue with 3lbs for the first and, say, 1/2 the rifle weight for the second. FWIW, 3lbs is as light as I will go on any hunting rifle, but all of my hunting rifles have 3lb triggers, at least for the first barrel on my doubles.

With 3lbs on each trigger (first of a double,) it makes no difference if I am holding my 243, 257R, 30-06's, 375H&H's or 458wm. The trigger pull is the same weight, and all are pretty similar for crispness (or they get fixed.)

JPK

quote:

On trigger pull, the old formula was, as I have been told, 1/2 the weight of the rifle for the first barrel and about 3/4 for the second.

No wonder the trigger pull on my 4-bore is so stiff. The rifle weighs 22 pounds (23 with two cartridges in it!).
cal

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
You are missing an important function regarding intercepting sears. (*1)The intercepting sears prevent each barrel firing unless that trigger is pulled.* So it prevents the rifle from firing when the rifle is dropped and the primary sear disengages, or from doubling due to recoil as you point out, or any other time the trigger is not depressed. That feature goes hand in hand with lighter, crisper triggers.

The intercepting sears on my rifles and shotguns are released by depressing the appropriate trigger, so, even if the main sear were to have been disengaged by a fall or through recoil, the rifle or shotgun will operate as normal.

quote:

Origenally posted by: MacD37
(*1)The intercepting sears are there only to avoid a mechanical double discharge under recoil. The have nothing to do with the triggers, but are simply a guard against a recoil, or dropped rifle induced double discharge. Intercepting sears will not guard against a “STRUMMING” double discharge because the back trigger was actually pulled accidently.(*1)

JPK we are simply echoing each other with different words! You bare correct that even when the main sear is dislodged by recoil or dropping the rifle that barrel will still fire as normal because the intercepting sear captured it, and a trigger pull will release that interceptor and allow the rifle to fire! That has nothing to do with the main sear being crisp or not. If either main sear is cut too light, so that it will fire from a normal recoil of the other barrel it was cut too light regardless of lock type. Dropping is another matter, almost any rifle without intercepting sears is likely to fire when dropped!

I have big bore doubles with the right trigger pull being a very crisp 4#, and the left trigger pull being 5#, this on a 11.3 pound 470NE, and it doesn’t double on me. That rifle has a inertia operated sear block on the left barrel to avoid a double discharge when the right barrel is fired. This however is not an intercepting sear, but a block so the main sear can’t disengage.

None of this has to do with any particular lock type, but does with or without intercepting sears. All trigger must be cut to engage properly regardless of lock type. Properly means so it is not prone the disengage because of the recoil of the opposite barrel.

By the way JPK where have you been for the last couple of years? I haven’t seen you posting for some time! We missed you here! Welcome back!


..................................................................................

Mac,

I wasn't disagreeing with you regarding what the intercepting sears do, only pointing out that they are released via the trigger, just like the primary sears.

Your post could have been interpreted a number of ways when you wrote, "The have nothing to do with the triggers, but are simply a guard against a recoil, or dropped rifle induced double discharge." For example, that the rifle wouldn't fire with a tripped main sear - but engaged intercepting sear - via the trigger.

Light, crisp trigger pulls, those are achievable by the superior gunsmith/gunmaker while maintaining adequate sear engagement to prevent doubling, or any AD. But, as you know, there is a limit to this. Three or four pounds is readily achievable in a sidelock without introducing the potential for tripping the main sear without intent (with the exception of the "strumming" error you mention,) and according to JJ and others I have discussed this with, less often achievable in a box lock. Why? I heard it but don't remember it.

FWIW, I read often on this forum (AR, but not necessarily within DR's) of fellows who proudly announce that all of their rifles have 2lb or even lighter triggers. I flinch when I read that. After drop testing a number of rifles with the simple Winchester style triggers I can tell you that it is uncommon to trip a 3lb trigger, but all too common when that trigger is adjusted to 2lbs. Moreover, in the field or even at the bench, there just isn't enough difference between 3lbs and 2lbs to incur that additional risk of AD, at least imo.

One source of the problem is that that trigger is adjusted by reducing sear engagement rather than means that maintain sear engagement while cleaning up and reducing pull, like honing, or altering the angle but not the area of sear engagement. I fear the all too common less expert smith might do the same, i.e. reduce sear engagement, with a DR or shotgun, which is an error.

For some time I was as busy as a one arm paper hanger, and then a change in circumstances gave me some time to enjoy my other great passion beside elephant hunting, which is marlin fishing. So, I bought another boat and have been hard at it for a bit, since the change in work circumstances. Hard core marlin fishing is both time intensive and awfully expensive, it make safari hunting look like a cheap bargain. The season for billfishing on the east coast, when you include traveling south, is all but year round, and last year the boat traveled south to Mexico and through the Bahamas before returning to MD. This year, the boat is sitting out of the water in a boat yard in NC, awaiting completion of some work and awaiting the arrival of some giant blue fin tuna to target before marlin season.

When I'm heavy into fishing I avoid AR and all other sources of big game hunting scoop, and when I'm into safari hunting I go equally cold turkey on the fishing side, I cancel all magazine subscriptions, because I fear being infected by the two bugs at the same time - like I am now!!!

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Mac,

For some time I was as busy as a one arm paper hanger, and then a change in circumstances gave me some time to enjoy my other great passion beside elephant hunting, which is marlin fishing. So, I bought another boat and have been hard at it for a bit, since the change in work circumstances. Hard core marlin fishing is both time intensive and awfully expensive, it make safari hunting look like a cheap bargain. The season for billfishing on the east coast, when you include traveling south, is all but year round, and last year the boat traveled south to Mexico and through the Bahamas before returning to MD. This year, the boat is sitting out of the water in a boat yard in NC, awaiting completion of some work and awaiting the arrival of some giant blue fin tuna to target before marlin season.

When I'm heavy into fishing I avoid AR and all other sources of big game hunting scoop, and when I'm into safari hunting I go equally cold turkey on the fishing side, I cancel all magazine subscriptions, because I fear being infected by the two bugs at the same time - like I am now!!!

JPK

Sounds like some real Kick in the head fun!

I love fishing, but have never done any salt water fishing. I almost took a charter off Maui for bill fish a few years ago, but got tied up with other things with my family and missed my chance!

On the trigger pull, I've never had a trigger cut lighter than 4# on a big bore double rifle. I do have a couple of doubles that have set triggers on the right barrel. The main trigger pull on those is 5# and only about 1# when set. Both those doubles are 9.3X74R and 8X57JR and it makes precise shooting when set. None of my big bore doubles or bolt rifles for that matter have triggers that are lighter than 4# and none have a set-trigger feature, yet all are creep free and crisp triggers.

Good to see you back JPK! I thought you may have had some health problems being the reason for your absence. Good to hear that was not the case!

Thanks Mac, good to be back (I think!)

If you plan to visit the Mid Atlantic are of the east cost, let me know, we'll get you on some billfish!

JPK

What's Sabatti? Sidelock or boxlock

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Thanks Mac, good to be back (I think!)

If you plan to visit the Mid Atlantic are of the east cost, let me know, we'll get you on some billfish!

JPK

Thanks JPK, that is a very generous invitation, however I doubt I'll be anywhere near the East cost, but I thank you sir!

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
What's Sabatti? Sidelock or boxlock

Let´s start from the beginning...What is Sabatti? Sounds like a pasta dish with cheese..!?.

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
What's Sabatti? Sidelock or boxlock

Let´s start from the beginning...What is Sabatti? Sounds like a pasta dish with cheese ..!?.

Yep, definitely CHEESY!!

Great thread!
Peter.

I figured, someone will take the bait.
Sabatti, say Cheese...
You guys cracked me up.
BTW, I own two.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
What's Sabatti? Sidelock or boxlock

Let´s start from the beginning...What is Sabatti? Sounds like a pasta dish with cheese ..!?.

Yep, definitely CHEESY!!

I some cases that is an insult to cheese!