| 400NitroExpress |
| (.400 member) |
| 13/07/07 04:08 PM |
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter?
|
Quote:
Sidelock is easier to get a better trigger release on and to regulate that pull.
You can't get any better than perfect and perfect pulls are regularly achieved on good quality boxlocks.
Quote:
Also you can add intercepting sears on the "hammers" or tumblers.
Many boxlocks have intercepting sears.
Quote:
It is also easier to access the strikers on a sidelock if the tip or "firing pin" part should break. On a boxlock, unless these are disc set you will have to totally strip down the gun.
Moot point with double rifles. Bushed pins are a pre-requisite for nitro double rifles. While some of the really cheap junk may be built without them, I can't imagine why anyone would want one of those.
Quote:
In terms of strength the stock of any sidelock will be stronger than any boxlock. It has to be. Less wood is removed at the head of the stock when stocking a sidelock than a boxlock and the locks themselves, being connected together across the stock by a screw, add reinforcement.
I have to disagree here. Even in good quality guns, I see far more sidelocks with cracks and other serious stock head problems than boxlocks.
Quote:
British gun makers could have made any action for their customers. It was the insistence of the customers to have the best handlong, strongest and best balanced action that caused thsoe makers to favour the sidelock. So the sidelock became pre-eminent was because it was the best solution to the customers requirements.
Come to think of it, you're right, they DID favor the best action. Thats why they built so many more boxlocks than they did sidelocks.
