There are sidelocks and there are sidelocks. Some like Purdey's Bar action locks were designed to give the most superlatively crisp trigger pulls but had somewhat less action and wood strength than others. Others like the Holland and Holland back action design were made for brute strength for big rounds in double rifle calibres. And Greener made their three teardrop five pin bridle lock to reduce the amount of wood removed from the stock. The post war years saw more sidelock design modifications by Dumoulin and Fratelli Ruzzini and people like Tony White in the UK have developed boxlocks much further than the original designs, good as they were, could hope to be.

In the end a fine gun made by any name gunmaker should be more than adequately capable of doing what it was built for. And it is a good thing that we have this constant competition because this means that people would continue to get the best that there is.

Rigbymauser,

I spoke to a British firearms historian who is a member here though he hasn;t posted for some time about the Jones underlever and the later Jeffery snap forward underlever designs and he is of the opinion that the now almost standard toplever design became as popular as it did because it offered the convenience of opening and reloading faster than the earlier methods, and nothing more. Then, when the switch was being made to toplever actions, the major gunmakers were as aware of the difference in strength as now. However convenience forced the change is what my friend said.

Now for someone other than Manfred Wutti to make underlever guns . . .