doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com British Boxlock scalloped action: just for looks?

Is a scalloped action on a British boxlock just for looks or is it a sign of a higher quality and superior gun?

Just for looks. Or the action filer hated the guy doing the stocking?

Dustin

Buzz - do you mean to ask whether it had any functional purpose? I think most people would say that because scalloped actions require additional time and attention from the action maker and stocker, they reflect a higher quality gun, just like beaded fences.

They seemed to have been more common on Continental guns and are generally were found on guns with a higher level of finish.

CSMC builds their Foxes with scalloped actions, even though the Philly guns rarely (never?) came with that feature.

The same question could be asked about rebating the action as well.

A scalloped action, on any boxlock, British or not, is meant to add more action to stock contact surface, thus better distributing recoil force and a stronger overall architecture of the gun. Whether this has been proved right along time, I have no knowledge. Maybe Dig Hadoke mentions this in his new book. In any event, the scalloped action looks nicer and certainly it should be more expensive that a straight one.

EJSXS

I don't know about the "stronger" part of a scalloped action. But I do know that the only real weakness of the Ithaca SKB's was their tendency to develop cracks in the head of the stock behind the scallops.

There were many attempts by British makers to improve the 'boxy' appearance of the Anson & Deeley and, later, its derivatives.

Severe, straight, lines were efficient to produce but lacked style. Bow-backs, scalloped backs, convex backs, concave backs, chequered side panels, steel side panels, dummy side plates etc....

All were refinements applied to more expensive boxlocks to add beauty and grace. Like shaped fences and rounded angles, they require more work and the product looks classier.

I believe scalloped receivers to be a sign of increased quality in that it cost more to do (metal and wood).

While I have often heard the argument about greater surface area spreading the shock of recoil, I doubt it makes much difference

Any "V" shape on the rear of the receiver, including the rear of a sidelock, serves to act as a wedge which can, under recoil, split the wood behind it. Poor fitting, bad wood, improper maintenance, and extended use of very heavy loads can increase the incidence of this.

I really like well done scalloping, but for the life of me I cannot see why anyone at Browning thought the rear of the receiver on a BSS looks good. I know it is a copy of an earlier design, but pretty it ain't! I shoot one a lot, but not because I think it is a handsome gun. I guess with the BSS it's "pretty is as pretty does".

SRH

An afterthought, maybe the "reverse wedge" shape of the rear of the receiver actually helps to counteract splitting.

S K B's have bolted stock so if the pressure on the "let ups " is greater than the pressure on the back then you do get splits or cracks .It is not an uncommon fault ,you can see distotion of the shoulders or side panels on a number of O/Us because of this . The box lock or " anson " as it was referred to in the Birmingham trade regardless of the make, had beveled edges to the top strap and trigger plate also on any scallops or scroll backs . The "box " on the trigger plate was also angled so that the pins when pulled up effectively wedged the stock to the action . Scallops and scroll backed guns largely decorative did have the added bonus of keeping the stock head tighter to the action and lessened the chances of the stock moving . That's the theory any way ,but they can be a bit of a pig to stock.

I scalloped the frame on a 20 gauge AH Fox and boy was it tough to stock it from scratch! Bobby

The theory of the greater contact area is sound. The fly-in-the-ointment, however, is shapes and contact that creates stress risers which induce cracks and splitting. If cost was an issue, then I'd rather have a flat joint. If appropriate skill and cost was to be applied, I'd take a "scalloped," or similar, action. by a narrow margin. I have no problem with the flat joint.

DDA