I would say "best guns" applies to best guns only and they are Sidelocks of the highest order.


As Zephyr said, their have been some superb Box Lock's made.

As far as I know, nobody made me the judge of all things best grade. I just gave you my opinion. After a few scotches you might be able to swing my opinion the other way...

In all seriousness, this is one that will never be resolved...

Best grade to me means the best that a particular maker produced or produces. So Yes, a Parker A1 Special is a best grade. I still wouldn't have it in the same category as the best British Best Grade Sidelock. It was certainly better than lots of other lesser grade maker's best attempts at a Best Grade Sidelock.

I think I'm starting to chase my own tail, so I am going to stop now.

what's the verdict from everybody on sidelocks versus boxlocks strength?

Red

The early Holland and Holland action with banana shaped locks was supposed to be extremely strong.
I just cant remember what it's correct name is.


Let me put it this way, if the correct action is used, how many of either have broken ?

H&H reinforced their action after a certain time,
not sure of the exact date.

Cyril Adams wrote quite an extensive book on what "he" considered best guns. I believe Michael McIntosh also had much to say about the subject.

In general, "best guns" differ amongst makers,and what may be a best gun for Purdey is not the same as a best gun for JP Sauer. Mostly it's all BS, to the hightest degree.

If anyone tries to tell me that a Purdey action is superior to a classic JP Sauer action, they are looney toon. Are the Purdeys more valuable? Of course, but that doesn't make them better.


The Brits and the Europeans have had a long running battle as to who makes the best gun, which calibers are the best, etc. etc. etc.

It's all non-sense. The best makers all made best guns, and in best calibers for their clients.

As much as I love British (and more preferably Scottish guns), I have to admit that the Germans probably built better quality guns if your intention is to shoot the gun for the next 200 years without having any major work administered to it.

If your criteria is the lightest possible game gun for driven birds, then by and far, the Brits / Scots have it hands down.

Thankfully I purchased myDavid Murray 12 Bore Hammer Gun, Stonehaven, Scotland,in 12 bore / 30" barrels for $2500 in 2001. It is still my favorite all around bird gun. But is it as well made as my Merkel 447SL? NO. No where close. The Merkel is built to last forever without any maintenance in the classic British style (add the Greenor cross bolt and Arabaic engraving.

I need to add another Rigby to the list of fine firearms owned by the Maharajah. According to a factory letter I received 13 July 1999, from J. Roberts & Son, my 450 rising bite was purchased by the Maharajah of Udaipur.
Seems the rifle was sold April of 1903 and is described as a "Best, top lever VB (vertical bolt) hammerless ejector, pistol hand stock with anti-record pad".
The rifle currently fits the description from Rigby records.

Please post pics of yours! I love the rising bite actions. thanks.

Red

I'm no photographer but I think these pictures will well illustrate an original 450 Rising Bite. This rifle was no safe queen. I had to restock her, all the wood was worn below the metal due to hundreds if not thousands of tiny scratches from being carried thru heavy thorn.
The stock is to original dimensions which had a very small pistol grip,perhaps for small hands...



http://photobucket.com/JMAPLESCO

Getting back to the questions that 505G asked, here is a picture of the action with the doll's head. It is a treble bite. The extension at the back of the doll's head engages the top lever as the third bite. It does operate in a similar way to the screw grip. So, is it a screw grip? Sort of. They are labeled as Clutch Grip in our ledgers...



And the profile showing the doll's head extension.



The barrels were supplied by Vickers, but there are no notations regarding the action supplier.

quote:

Originally posted by John Rigby & Co.:
The Rising Bite design debuted as a black powder shotgun action and while it is certainly one of the most beautiful designs ever created, it really isn't the strongest action.

The screw grip and doll's head treble bite are much, much more suited for rifle calibers.

In regards to SxS rifle action strength, is this industry claim by Mackay & Brown,...accurate/true?;

"The Scottish Round Action side by side satisfies all the requirements of a double rifle in strength, reliability and ease of handling. The action body is without doubt the strongest of all designs."

explanation of the strength of the Triggerplate round action, from McKay Brown:

"Strength is obtained by a solid action body with only two small ejector holes. Other actions (side lock) have larger rectangular slots passing through the body."

The MackayBrown SxS rifle, also appears to have a barrel or rib extension that protrudes into the action and is locked or clamped down.

The Scottish round action is basically a Dickson improvement[patented].. of the MacNaughton trigger plate action.
David Mackay Brown once worked for John Dickson & Son, using the knowledge he gained to then make his own version of the Dickson round action.

I have also heard the claim that the W.W.Greener 1880 patented 'Facile Princeps' treble wedge-fast[boxlock]action,
is actually the strongest type of breech/break open design SxS.
The Greener design came about when Greener was inspired to design his own action in order to avoid paying Westley Richards to make actions for him based on the Anson & Deeley design.
Westley Richards launched the world’s first successful hammerless design cocked by the fall of the gun’s barrels,
that being the A&D design boxlock of 1875. William Anson & John Deeley worked for WR.

The Greener facile princeps boxlock was far from inexpensive to manufacture,and despite several court challenges from WR claiming a technical function/likeness to their A&D design,
W.W.Greener won and went on to prove that a Boxlock could be every bit as "best" as a Sidelock.

It was unfortunate for Greener that people continued to carry the perception that a sidelock was superior to a Greener FP boxlock, unconvinced that the Greener design was worthy & justified of its high cost.

Two points from her in England:

quote:

I ahve a question - we lots of dolls heads, greener cross bolts, "sccrew grip" etc in box locks. How come these features are non-existent in the higher grade sidelocks? (the occasional rising bite execpted)

Actually they are non-existent in ANY AND ALL high grade guns, be they boxlock OR sidelock. At best they are an attempt to re-assure a gullible customer that it, somehow, adds strength and safety. At worst a useless "excresence" that hinders and interferes with loading the gun and lessens the area of any ejector or extractor that is in contact with the cartridge rim.

Greener himself tested many and found that they actually DID NOT provide any benefit to the gun. Unlike, arguably, sideclips.

If they were any good? Well the three TOP RANK makers of side by side guns and side by side rifles would have used them. To whit Boss, Purdey and Holland. That second rank makers chose to use them confers on them no merit.

quote:

Can you have a "Best Gun" Box Lock there have been some spectacular box locks made

Yes, very much so. In fact a "best" boxlock is far superior to any lower grade sidelock in terms of finish and quality of workmanship. Also of relevance, although less so, is the quality of the wood used for the stocking. You do see some AWFUL sidelocks here in England and some real "dogs" from the lesser Spanish makers even today.

There are some really nice "best" boxlocks by quite a few makers, Churchill for example, and I'll grudgingly admit, Westley's "Heronshaw" and their detachable lock models of boxlock. Even BSA made a "best" boxlock version of their standard interwar boxlock ejector.

Indeed there is also a disticntion between any "best" sidelock in that a "best" sidelock will ALWAYS be stocked right up to the fences. Another difference is in the quality of the (top) lever work. There are better quality forms of lever work and lesser forms.

Another difference, in both sideloack and boxlock is the presence of intercepting sears on the tumblers. Most "best" sideloacks will have them and indeed the maker of the lock itself is and indication of the quality of a gun or not.

And the quality of the steel used in the barrels from Whitworths to Jessops at the top end.

Webley's ledgers are FULL of lesser quality guns, a LOT for Evans, noted as "Fourth Quality ENGRAVED AND FINISHED AS FIRST QUALITY"!

A "best" boxlock will be, within the constraint of its design, built and finished as well and from as high quality materials as ANY "best" sidelock. Engraving, quality of stocking and the wood itself, quality of the barrels, lever work, Anson rod etc, all will be on a "best" boxlock of the ACME.

The "Best" gun implies a very high level of fit and finish, best materials available at the time, and a suitable design.
The sidelock,boxlock or trigger plate design, can each be made to best work standards. Not all are. So, you must judge each specimen on its own merits.

But they each remain a suitable design to base a "best grade" build on.
Higher priced best versions typically have chopper lump barrels.
Searcy begins by offering monobloc barrels on his Sidelock and Rising Bite SxS rifles, with chopperlump being a $5k option.

If anyone shares the logic that the typically more prestigious & expensive to produce Sidelock is ultimately more " best" than a "best" boxlock,..should probably also apply that same view to bolt rifles using the M98 [vs] the more simplistic & more economical to produce M70.
However, people generally agree that the M98 & M70 are each suitable designs to build a "best grade" bolt rifle on.

quote:

As much as I love British (and more preferably Scottish guns), I have to admit that the Germans probably built better quality guns if your intention is to shoot the gun for the next 200 years without having any major work administered to it.

VERY NICE !!!!!
:-)

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
If they were any good? Well the three TOP RANK makers of side by side guns and side by side rifles would have used them. To whit Boss, Purdey and Holland. That second rank makers chose to use them confers on them no merit.

Ok, but in many description of vintage H&H's and Purdey's for sale I read mention of a "hidden third bite"

But in my internet searching I haven't found a description of how it works nor any good pictures.

As this seems to be the only bite the top two really employ - I was curious if anyone had good pictures or good descriptions of thier use...


.

Today, it is generally accepted that the need for a third bite is unnecessary providing quality gunmaking techniques and materials are employed.
During the Victorian era, makers could not be sure of the strength of their actions, failure could spell great danger, even potential death to the user and as a result of failure, commercial difficulty for the maker, in both legal claims and a bad name. To this end, gunmakers aired on the side of caution, Purdey for example developed their own third bite system under Patent 397 of 1878.
This design incorporated a hidden extension which protrudes from the barrel above the extractor mechanism. The concept was to still retain the presence and hence strength of the third bite but one which was hidden from view. Hence the creation of the hidden third bite or hidden fastener as it is often referred to in the USA.

The design requires a slot to be formed in the vertical face of the standing breech but not so it protrudes through the top surface of the action itself giving onlookers the impression that the gun does not possess a third bite.

The mechanism functions in a similar manner as the Webley Screw Grip, by producing a downward force on the top side of the extension via a sprung loaded cam onto the shoulder of the extension, ensuring total closure of the breech occurs. Perhaps not as elegant solution as the Webley Screw Grip design but did provide the design with the hidden "from view" element.



Spanish AYA with HTB.

The problem with this "third bite" and the picture posted by TRAX shows it well is the same as other extensions.

The ejector or extractor has only one thurd engagement on the cartridge rim. Also the ejector has only ONE leg from it going into the rear of the barrels.

This means that eventually the ejectors can (as the little "nib" at the top wears) twist slightly. Such that they can move or ride over the cartridge rim.

You then get failure to eject, but worse, the ejector has gone over the top of the cartridge.

My late father's G E Lewis twenty bore had this problem. On the right side ejector. Eventually the only solution was to have a new ejector made.