doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com US made Sidelock Shotguns

Ok, thanks

So, we are back to the following:

L.C. Smith
Baker
Meriden
Crescent
Waverly Arms
Clark
Schneider
David Kirkwood
Galazan

Is this correct?

Yet, today if you drill a single hole in an existing action the Fed.gov considers you a firearms manufacturer.

That is only because fools vote for Liberal Anti-Gun Democrats.

Know your enemy!

John,
Not quite. The graded Bakers had hammer blocks, a different concept entirely, and one that is dependant on the gun being in the upright position to function. Intercepting sears function in any position.
If you have ever had a Baker, or, for that matter, any US sidelock apart on a bench next to an English vesion with even a run-of-the-mill set of locks from the makers I quoted, above, you will see a distinct difference in level of finish and quality.

Calling a Tobin a boxlock really isn't correct, either. If you take the worst, and weakest features from both sidelock and boxlock design, and combine them, you have a Tobin. Which, was good enough when all loads were black powder loads.

Best,
Ted

Ted, your thoughts about the Baker with hammer blocks needing to be in the upright position for the hammer blocks to function is incorrect. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but the blocks do block the hammers, in all gun positions, unless the triggers are pulled. When the trigger is pulled, the hammer blocks rotate to the side allowing the hammer to strike the firing pin.

As to the fit and finish of an American gun compared to a British gun, you are generally right. But, don't you think one might expect this, since the British guns cost several multiples of the American guns? You might compare Fords and Bentleys in the manner you suggest. How many Fords can you buy for the price of a Bentley ?

Larry,
I was thinking in terms of good reasons. The shear numbers of guns built on the boxlock design, in contrast to the numbers of sidelocks, that function perfectly, 50-150 years after they were produced, sans maintenance of their "guts", to use your term, would seem to throw so much cold water on the notion that being able to see them more easily is an advantage.

Engraving, much like the "canvas" of the design of gun it is applied to, is very subjective. I have seen stunning examples of engraving on either design, and, much more that was not so. On both types of guns. I wish people who can't do it would stop trying to do gamescene engraving. Not everyone is Winston Churchill

I have seen good, and horrific trigger pulls in all types of guns. I will suggest, that, at least in the case of English guns, a sidelock would have more time spent by a higher skilled worker on it's triggers than you might expect on a keeper's boxlock. There would be exceptions, but, not often. That doesn't mean a boxlock can't have wonderful triggers. Far from it.

A hammerless sidelock is simply a hammer gun with it's hammers on the inside. As to it being the best or not, comes down to who built it, and not the name that is on it. We have seen examples of "name" guns, that are not the best examples of what said name was supposed to stand for.

Best,
Ted

Dayrl,
I saw a basket case Baker action that the blocks would fall out of position when the action was turned upside down. Perhaps the mechanism was worn enough to allow that? Sorry if I mistook that for how they all operate.
In any case, they are not "intercepting sears". Different device, entirely.
Do you have a good photo of a correctly funtioning graded Baker action? I'd love to see it.

Best,
Ted

Ted, you need to start looking at decent guns, not basket cases. I doubt one could wear out a Baker firing pin block in a lifetime, even it one tried. Here's a schematic of the mechanism. Both intercepting sears and the Baker firing pin block perform the task of stopping the gun from firing when the trigger has not been pulled. Maybe a comparison of the two designs might make the Baker more positive in that function.

Thanks for the photo, Dayrl. I'd guess a few parts were missing in the example I saw at a gunshow. That said, one has to look at a graded Baker when one has the chance, in my part of the world. And I've yet to see a Baker that has lockwork on the level of Chilton or Brazier, which, is not to say it doesn't exist, but, that it didn't get produced at that level on most of the Baker guns.

As to the costs of guns, American vs English, you mentioned, above, circa 1912, a Parker D grade was around $100, and a Jeffrey #3 boxlock was 28 pounds, without ejectors. 34 pounds with ejectors. About the same price. If I was selling, today, I'd want the Parker, but, to use, the Jeffrey would be the keeper, hands down. 100% coverage engraving in decent scroll, no stick men or flying turnips in sight, and much better fit and finish, especially to internal parts.

The internals on most American guns are not in the same league with English and European guns of the same era.

Best,
Ted

Ted, boxlocks are less expensive to produce. That's why more of them have been made. Pretty simple explanation. But you can't escape the fact that if you're over in the UK shooting driven birds and it's more than a bit damp--the weather being that way over there--then there are definite advantages to being able to pull the locks and make sure everything is dried out, etc.