Forums.NitroExpress.com

Ok, so we know this much:

DBBill doesn’t like these rifles and wants a Searcy and change.

500grains can’t imagine spending that amount of money, and thinks they are for the silk underwear set. We’ll let him be happy with his Searcy, or whatever his choice may be.

CFA wants to do his shopping in Birmingham, rather than a bit farther north in Bothwell.

Nitro476 would opt for a Rigby sidelock.

Bonanza, New_Guy, Tinker, NitroX, and Chasseur want the round-action DM Brown.

Now, what about Curl? I’ll take the Brown hands down.

It is a common perception that a sidelock gun or rifle is “better” than a boxlock and that the sidelock should command a higher price. Whether one is truly “better” than the other, given the same standards of fit and finish, is a subject that could be debated long and hard. Many of us so highly regard the sidelock that its appearance sets a standard in our minds’ eyes. Nowhere is this predilection more obvious than when we take a boxlock and adorn it with faux sideplates.

Given actions of the same general size, it is said that the sidelock action is somewhat stronger than the boxlock because metal is removed from the boxlock action for installation of the moving parts. The internal parts of the sidelock are mounted on the sideplates. On the other hand, it is said that a boxlock tends to have a stronger stock as less wood must be removed from the head, where the stock receives such a bashing from recoil. In my experience, I have seen a lot of cracked stocks, and it seems that boxlocks suffer from cracks in similar proportion to sidelocks.

I am certain that many more man-hours of skilled labor are required to build a sidelock as compared to a boxlock. In his comprehensive book about Piotti, Marco Nobili states that roughly 200 man-hours are required to build the Model BSEE (their boxlock shotgun), while roughly 400 man-hours are required to build the Model King 1 (their sidelock built to the same standards of workmanship as the BSEE). Given this differential, it comes as no surprise that a sidelock commands a higher price than a boxlock of the same quality.

I opened with a discussion of boxlocks and sidelocks because several posts have lumped both of these rifles into the category of “boxlocks.” The Westley Richards is a boxlock, but the David McKay Brown is not. A boxlock has all its internal parts contained within the action itself. As mentioned earlier, a sidelock has the moving parts mounted on sideplates which are then screwed or mortised to the action. The DMB action has all its moving parts mounted on the trigger plate, which is then mortised and screwed to the action. In this sense it is more similar to the sidelock because the moving parts are mounted on an appendage to the action, and not worked into the action itself.

Just as the sidelock is said to have the advantage of more metal in the action (thus stronger), but less wood in the head of the stock (thus weaker); the Dickson design follows closely by analogy. In strength this action would seem to be very similar to a sidelock, but it is claimed to be stronger because there are no mortise cuts into which the sidelocks are mounted. Compared to a bar-action sidelock (where the mainspring extends to the front of the tumbler and is recessed into the bar) the Dickson is much stronger. Both the sidelock and the Dickson have similar mortises for the trigger plate (as does the boxlock).

The Dickson has yet another advantage in action strength. The most significant attribute of the Anson and Deeley design is the manner in which the action is cocked. It was that design that introduced cocking levers articulated by lowering the barrels. These cocking levers are similar, whether used with the boxlock action or the sidelock. In the first instance they cock the strikers that are mounted in the back of the action. In the latter, they cock the tumblers mounted between the bridle and the sideplate. In either event the cocking levers require that a large rectangular passageway be milled longitudinally through each of the action bars. In effect, the action bars are hollowed out so that this cocking lever can be installed and can articulate up and down to cock the action.

The Dickson has no such cocking arrangement. It is cocked by a sliding bar that articulates fore and aft in the area under the mortise where the lumps mate with the action. This leaves the bars largely intact. It also allows the signature shape of the action. The bars can be rounded into their characteristic shape because they do not contain the cocking levers. Thus, the bars are reminiscent of the shape common to hammer guns.

So I believe it when I read the claim on the DMB website that there is an advantage in action strength for the Scottish design.

But let’s examine the tradeoff. Just as mounting the works on a sideplate requires removal of significant amounts of wood from the head of the stock on a sidelock, mounting the works on the triggerplate also requires removal of significant amounts of wood. The removal of wood is at the center of the head of the stock, leaving two relatively thin side members to mate with the rear of the action. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Germans designed a trigger plate action commonly called the “Blitz.” Blitz actions are notorious for splitting the stock. I have owned two Blitz actions – one on a drilling, and one on a double rifle. Fortunately mine were not cracked, so I cannot speak from first hand experience. I have seen a goodly number of Blitz action guns that were cracked, though. Whether the Dickson design fares better with wood than the Blitz, I do not know. It’s safe to say that Blitz guns are far more common (at least in my travels) than are Scottish round actions. I have never owned a McNaughton, a Dickson, or a DMB, although I hope to some day. I do not have any close friends or acquaintances who own one either. So I’m flying blind on those.

In my observation and experience, the McNaughtons, Dickson round actions, and DMB’s I have seen were all built to the highest standards. At the same time, many of the Blitz guns I have encountered were of medium quality. I suspect that the higher grade guns of the former, with top quality wood, impeccable fit and finish, and close attention to detail, would avoid the pitfalls of cracked wood.

Now, having discussed what little I know about the three action designs, let me address my own questionnaire.

1. Which rifle would you rather hunt with?

I think I would rather hunt with the DMB. As mentioned by other posters on this thread, it is hard to answer this question without handling both rifles to see how they fit and balance. The DMB is on the heavy side, but I don’t know what the WR weighs, so can’t make a comparison. The DMB is such a fascinating rifle, I am swayed toward it for that reason if for no other.

2. Which rifle would you rather have in your collection?

The DMB. It is an old design that developed independent of sidelocks and boxlocks. It has beautiful grace and charm. I have no doubt that its workmanship is second to none. The rarity of the design makes it appealing too.

The Westley Richards is a garden variety boxlock. Aside from its unique thumb-lever system, it is no different from a zillion other boxlock rifles out there begging to be in the gun safe. That is not to disparage boxlocks. It is simply to state that the boxlock is the most common hinged action gun extant.

3. Which do you believe would be a better investment?

This is a hard question to answer. Market forces do not always reflect the cost of production or other logical economic factors. Witness the value of rare baseball cards or rare coinage. Demand and market acceptance is a strong factor in price. Quality can take a back seat. Look at the strong demand and high prices paid for field grade Parker shotguns, and look at the insane prices paid for Parkers of grade “D” and above. In quality, fit, and finish those guns cannot compare to top quality English or continental guns, yet the prices are in closes proximity.

Westley Richards enjoys a market acceptance which in my mind exceeds the quality of their product. Make no mistake, some of the guns and rifles they have built are of top quality. On the other hand, I have seen many of average quality; and sadly, I have seen some of inferior quality. Undoubtedly there are quite a few gun buyers out there who do not have an eye for fit and finish and who will buy a known brand and pay most any price in doing so. I have seen this happen with lesser quality Westley Richards guns as well as Hollands and others. Let’s face it, England turned out some pretty rough stuff in the 60’s and 70’s and into the 80’s.

I have no reason to question the quality of the Westley Richards at issue here. From the photos it appears to be quite well made. Its quality, along with the wide acceptance of the Westley Richards brand could make it the stronger contender as an investment. The Scottish design is more of a “boutique” or “niche” design, in the grand scheme of things. When you go to sell it for money, you are addressing a more limited population of buyers.

4. Which do you believe is better made?

I have absolutely no factual basis for this notion, but I have no doubt in my mind that the DMB is far superior in fit and finish than the Westley Richards. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would have to see the proof.

5. Which do you think is better looking, and why?

The DMB, no question. Look at the beautiful flowing lines. The WR looks like a zillion other boxlocks.

6. How do you rate the Anson & Deeley designed Westley Richards as compared to the Dickson designed David McKay Brown?

I think I pretty well beat this one to death earlier.

Of course, one rifle is a .500, the other a .470. In practical terms that should make little difference, but if you want to discuss the pros and cons of the chamberings, by all means, do so.

I like a .500 NE quite a lot. All things being equal, I would rather have a .500 than a .470. But, I would still take the DMB if I had $50k to blow.

When you get done with this little exercise, explain to me why anyone would order a Searcy.

A Searcy would be good for prying rocks off the side of a ridge when clearing for pasture.

Well, that's my opinion. I'm no expert. I am a serious student of double guns, but a sophomore at best. Still studying, though.

Bless you all,
Curl

P.S. – Why don’t you good people on Nitro Express take up a collection and buy the DMB for me for my birthday? Come on, guys.
Curl

--------------------
RoscoeStephenson.com

YOUR DOUBLE RIFLE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.