Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter?

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***

Double Rifles, Single Shots & Combinations >> Double Rifles

Pages: 1
edmhunter
.224 member


Reged: 16/03/07
Posts: 26
Loc: Ill.
Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter?
      #82270 - 12/07/07 03:58 AM

Sidelocks seem to be "best" guns but are the more reliable than a boxlock? If you had the money which would you rather have? I always thought sidelocks were not as reliable as boxlocks. I am talking about british DG guns.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
empirevr
.375 member


Reged: 03/09/06
Posts: 614
Loc: England,but now Italy.
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: edmhunter]
      #82273 - 12/07/07 04:20 AM

OOH,

For pose, a sidelock, for work, a boxlock.....

The tech stuff one of the other guys will be able to give you!

I still havent figured out why anyone would want something 3x as complex to do the same job....

Ben


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered




Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: edmhunter]
      #82275 - 12/07/07 04:55 AM

Quote:

Sidelocks seem to be "best" guns but are the more reliable than a boxlock? If you had the money which would you rather have? I always thought sidelocks were not as reliable as boxlocks. I am talking about british DG guns.




Boy this thread will get alot of opinions I am certain...

A sidelock is more complicated to manufacture, and time consuming to complete, thus the higher evaluation. Reliability wise, certainly a nice Webley long bar screw grip would serve over time the best imo for the money. Though I own 90% "best" sidelocks in my collection, I prefer to take my boxlocks on tough, hot, humid, wet hunts for the obvious reasons.

In regards to choice if one has the means, a "best" British pre-war sidelock ejector hands down.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
enfieldspares
.224 member


Reged: 12/07/07
Posts: 36
Loc: Great Britain
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: ]
      #82281 - 12/07/07 06:29 AM

In terms of quality, for the same cost, you will get a better boxlock than you will a sidelock. It should be remembered that both actions were made in a wide range of qualities. I have seen some awful sidelocks made at the cheapest of costs - notably the BRNO "sidelock" of the 1970s/80s - and some very high quality boxlocks - notably Churchill's "Utility" and Greener's "Empire", or as I have at the back of my cabinet a 16 bore self-opening French Robust side-by-side boxlock.

Reliability is an issue that goes "hand-in-hand" with repairability! Easiest to repair, in that it is easiest to disassemble, is the sidelock. Two screws and it all comes off. If you need to look to see what is broken...and what it should look like when not broken...just take off the other lock!

Although in theory the boxlock should be easier to repair as it has fewer parts. The problem is getting at them in that to repair it the action must be removed from the woodwork.

In the wet, again, in theory a sidelock should be easier to "dry out". Just take the lock plates off.

Having said that for £1,000 or whatever sum, unless you get very lucky, you'll get a better boxlock than you will a sidelock. But there is more to it than that. It also then is necessary to cosider what sort of lever work you have, if you have a "top extension" or "third bite" (an abomination in any standard 2 1/2" or 2 3/4" 12 bore IMHO) and quality of woodwork etc., etc.

A top quality sidelock will if in good order be far "better" than a cheap boxlock. And it is on that that many people say whether one is better or not. That is wrong. For a top quality boxlock will be better than any cheap sidelock.

My advice? Get the most gun you can for the money you have and don't be "hung-up" on the sidelock vs boxlock dogmas. If your budget is £20,000 choose a top London, or Birmingham, sidelock. If your budget is £2,000 choose a top London or Birmingham boxlock.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
empirevr
.375 member


Reged: 03/09/06
Posts: 614
Loc: England,but now Italy.
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: enfieldspares]
      #82283 - 12/07/07 06:50 AM

Welcome Enfield!

I'll take that boxlock DOUBLE RIFLE for £2k if you know of one!!!

If its harder to make its harder to fix...

Thats like comparing a Valjoux 7750 to a quartz....(watch movements) the only trouble being that in this case both do the same job to the same standard, no? i.e. the boxlock will be as reliable or more reliable than the sidelock, just as tough and so on.....apart from show what is the point???

Ben


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
3sixbits
.224 member


Reged: 11/07/07
Posts: 41
Loc: Alaska
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is better? [Re: empirevr]
      #82284 - 12/07/07 06:59 AM

In no way is the stock on a side plate gun going to be as strong as the stock from a box lock.

This should stir the pot some. No box lock is stronger than Fox's rotary box lock, no rifles to my knowledge have been built using this action.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
577express
.275 member


Reged: 18/02/07
Posts: 67
Loc: U.S.
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: enfieldspares]
      #82286 - 12/07/07 08:25 AM

um Im not sure I get that rambling off topic answer but nice try anyways.

I beleieve they were discussing best guns not the rest of the muck. I would agree that a webley long bar is the strongest for DR's but a nice reinforced self opening Purdey or Rigby rising bite (both sidelocks) can not be beat IMHO.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
enfieldspares
.224 member


Reged: 12/07/07
Posts: 36
Loc: Great Britain
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: 577express]
      #82290 - 12/07/07 09:07 AM

Sidelock is easier to get a better trigger release on and to regulate that pull. Also you can add intercepting sears on the "hammers" or tumblers.

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. On a sidelock you just remove the lock plate and undo the "pin" (metal screw) that holds the hammer in place.

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.

A sidelock is also better to carry broken and across the crook of the arm as it is broader where it counts. It should also weigh less and the gun should have a better "moment of inertia".

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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mehulkamdar
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 3688
Loc: State of Ill-Annoy USA.
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: edmhunter]
      #82305 - 12/07/07 10:59 AM

I have nowhere near the experience that many have here and mine is limited to old British shotguns that were still in India until the late 1970s. None of them were mine - I couldn;t afford to buy them on a radio journalist's pay and I can't now. I probably never will be able to buy one either. Most probably, many of them have been exported since. But all of the guns that the Brits made back then seemed to be nice - the triggers on the Purdeys, though, seemed to be better though I have no idea whether it was because of their bar action sidelock design or because of the extreme care that they put into their guns, or, most importantly, because it was that the particular gun that I shot was in better shape than the Stephen Grant, Holland and Holland and other makes that I had very limited experience with. And again, this could be very subjective as it is personal experiencce and little more.

--------------------
The Ark was made by amateurs. Experts built the Titanic.

Mehul Kamdar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mehulkamdar
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 3688
Loc: State of Ill-Annoy USA.
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: mehulkamdar]
      #82306 - 12/07/07 11:25 AM

Speaking of strength in particular, there have been some brand whores (and that is a mild term considering the morons and their fake login names which they have used to post BS about me personally on some forums) who get their panties in a wad with their members tightly caught inside when mention is made of John Olin's tests where he destruction tested a brand new Purdey sidelock against an AYA and a Winchester Model 21 for The American Rifleman in the 1960s. The AYA took some 50,000 rounds more than the Purdey before it went off the face. The Winchester 21 took 250,000 more rounds and Olin stopped finally stopped testing as it wouldn't give up.

Was it design? Was it the particular gun used for the test? Was the lighter Purdey not really meant to be tested this way? I'll leave that for the experts here to comment on.

--------------------
The Ark was made by amateurs. Experts built the Titanic.

Mehul Kamdar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DUGABOY1
.400 member


Reged: 02/02/03
Posts: 1340
Loc: TEXAS USA
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: edmhunter]
      #82331 - 13/07/07 01:01 AM

Having read the whole string, I find I agree with some and disagree with others! In some cases, with the same person, on different issues.

My preference is for the boxlock, with side plates. This is because My double rifles are for hunting, and IMO, the boxlock, in most cases, is a stronger system. This depends on some different ways the locks are made, but generally stronger, as far as going, “off face”,from flexing. If the locks are drop locks, with a barr sprung tumblers, the box lock is weaker than a box lock with the springs aft, as on a trigger plate, called a BLITZ lock in Germany. These usually have coil springs today, and far less steel is removed from the action body, than the barr action, where both leaf springs, and cocking levers have to be fitted within the steel of the barr. In all cases, other than the BLITZ lock, and true sidelock is much easier to fit, and time than a boxlock. This is because the lock plate is made, and fitted to the action, and stock first. Then the plate is bolted down to a solid stand, and the rest id fitted in the open. This gives the maker a freer access, to the fitting of all the parts of the lock, reducing bench time. The boxlock, OTH, has to be assembled, tried, dis-assembled, and honed, re-assembled, tried, dis-assembled, and so on, and so on! IOW, the boxlock is more work intensive, than the sidelock.

None of this has to do with the so-called “BEST” gun/rifle. That is a total fit & finish from raw steel to selection, and fitting of wood, not the type of action. It is true however, that all, or at least, most, BEST guns/rifles are sidelocks. That , however doesn’t mean the gun/rifle, is necessarily a better firearm, from a use standpoint, or that one is somehow stronger than the other. Like the boxlock, the sidelock can be stronger, or weaker, depending on the type of side lock that is fitted. If the sidelock is a forward sprung type, it makes the action bar weaker, if the side lock is a back action lock, then the stock is weaker, just the same as the boxlock.

IMO, the boxlock action body, with a blitz lock system,utilizing coil springs, with all locking fasteners being the same and faux side plates is the strongest system. The trigger plate locks, are fitted into the action body with less steel being removed, and the wood has less removed, while the faux side plates, clamp the wood in the head tightly sandwiched between the plates. The locks are easily removed for maintenance. If this rifle was finished, as well as the so-called best gun/rifle, IMO, it would certainly be a better, stronger, gun/rifle, that the “BEST” gun with true side locks!

Of course all this is only one man’s opinion, and open to disagreement, without opposition!

--------------------
..........Mac >>>===(x)===>
DUGABOY1, and MacD37 founding member of DRSS www.doublerifleshooterssociety.com
"If I die today, I have had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JPK
.375 member


Reged: 31/08/04
Posts: 734
Loc: Chevy Chase, MD
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: DUGABOY1]
      #82358 - 13/07/07 11:18 AM

"Like the boxlock, the sidelock can be stronger, or weaker, depending on the type of side lock that is fitted. If the sidelock is a forward sprung type, it makes the action bar weaker, if the side lock is a back action lock, then the stock is weaker, just the same as the boxlock."

I do not agree with this statement. The interior of the stocks of the back action and bar action sidelocks that I own have similar amounts of wood removed toward the rear of the lock plates. The back action does require less metal to be removed from the bar however.

JPK


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: enfieldspares]
      #82375 - 13/07/07 03:44 PM

Quote:

In the wet, again, in theory a sidelock should be easier to "dry out". Just take the lock plate off.




If you get water inside the action, that won't be enough. The metal will still have to come out of the wood. My one experience with a Holland Royal in the rain cured me of ever making that mistake again.

I've hunted through many a monsoon rain with well made boxlock double rifles and have never had water get into one.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: enfieldspares]
      #82381 - 13/07/07 04:08 PM

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.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
unspellable
.300 member


Reged: 06/03/04
Posts: 187
Loc: Iowa
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #82405 - 14/07/07 04:16 AM

<< 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. >>

The side lock didn't "become pre-eminent". It was around first, all doubles had side locks, only later did the box lock arrive on the scene.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bonanza
.400 member


Reged: 17/05/04
Posts: 2335
Loc: South Carolina
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: unspellable]
      #82447 - 14/07/07 11:25 PM

I like sidelocks. However, I can't afford a London Best, so I go for a London second Best. The back action hammer lock. It is a true sidelock with all the advantages. The best part is that they are very "affordable".

--------------------


"Speak Precisely" G. Gordon Liddy.

"Life is absurd, chaotic and we must define its purpose with our actions" Abert Camus

"I''m the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude."

"Yo! Mr. White"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Birdhunter50
.375 member


Reged: 03/06/07
Posts: 815
Loc: Iowa,U.S.A.
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: edmhunter]
      #109610 - 13/07/08 12:25 AM

I am not going to get into what is better or "Best Quality", but, I will say from experience that the sidelocks are weaker at the head of the stock because of wood removed for the sideplates and the internal workings. Many sidelocks have very little wood bearing against the metal at the back of the action, so the makers use the sideplates and the tangs to help absorb some of the recoil;. That sounds feasable and it does work, until the head of the stock gets oil soaked from someone putting too much oil on their sidelock mechanisms. Most sidelock plates have a generally tapered profile that gets narrower towards the rear and then terminates in a rounded rear end. After the head of the stock gets weakened from oil or too many hot loads fired, the lockplates start taking more and more of the recoil till the stock splits behind the locks because they are acting as wedges to force the wood apart. To hold up well, sidelocks have to have wood that is denser at the head end of the stock than boxlocks.
Boxlocks, on the other hand, can have more wood left in them at the head of the stock. They are easier to get inletted well than the sidelocks, and as was mentioned by somewone else, they don't get as wet as a sidelock does. One of the main reasons that I feel Americans like sidelock guns is so they can take the locks off and play with them! More damage has been done by hamfisted nitwits playing around with their sidelocks than any other cause. For shear strength and perfect sear construction, the Lefever sideplated shotguns are about the best design, but nobody has bothered to make rifles with that design, yet. I also don't buy the old addage that the sidelock guns are easier to get a good trigger pull out of. All mechanical triggers can be adjusted correcly if they have the proper geometry to start with.
I say all this as a maker of many gunstocks, even though I collect and shoot L.C. Smith shotguns.
Here is a picture to illustrate what I'm talking about, most split right at the back of the lockplates, though. Bob H.





Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rigbymauser
.400 member


Reged: 15/05/05
Posts: 1972
Loc: Denmark
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: edmhunter]
      #109612 - 13/07/08 01:15 AM

Quote:

Sidelocks seem to be "best" guns but are the more reliable than a boxlock? If you had the money which would you rather have? I always thought sidelocks were not as reliable as boxlocks. I am talking about british DG guns.




..Hmmm...A really religious question here...but it have been asked before.

For strength alone the Jones underlever, backtion hammer rifler are strongest...even today if made in modern steel. Read Jack lotts 5 page artical GunDigest 1985. Ohhh....I almost forgot, they are reliable too.

Edited by rigbymauser (13/07/08 01:20 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mehulkamdar
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 3688
Loc: State of Ill-Annoy USA.
Re: Sidelock vs boxlock which is beter? [Re: Birdhunter50]
      #109618 - 13/07/08 02:52 AM

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 . . .

--------------------
The Ark was made by amateurs. Experts built the Titanic.

Mehul Kamdar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1



Extra information
1 registered and 611 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  CptCurl 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 7500

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved