Hi all, ok, so we all know what some of the features are for a SL Best Gun.

So.......what features do you think defines the difference between a run of the mill BL and a BL "Best" gun?

Curious to see what some of you think.

Thanks so much!

Greg

Funny, I just wrote a book about that!

It would be a 236 page post to reply though!!

it's fit and finish once you get past a basic over built no frills tank- say a 311 savage/stevens

look at the difference between a Sterlingworth and the best grade Fox - or a VH Parker to an AHE

the hand work to fine tune what is basically the same action

Hi Dig, looking forward to getting it, loved your first book. So can you expound a little about page 236?

OH, Yep, fit and finish, that's one, what do others say? Engraving, wood, checkering etc?

What say you?

Thanks again!

Greg

Well,

Try looking for one or more of the following:
Intercepting safety sear, double dog cocking limbs, gold washed internals, chamfered mainsprings, Scott leverwork, chopperlump barrels, dickie bird safety mechanism, quality of action filing and engraving, wood to metal fit, chequer quality, wood quality, gold inlay etc....

A Stevens 311 does not belong in any discussion of best boxlocks. I can say that because a used Stevens 311 in 16 ga was my first shotgun that fired more than one shot. I acquired it in about 1956 @ age 12& even at that age I could recognize that it was crude, had poor handling qualities & was not as good a bird gun as the trim little 20 ga Savage 220 single shot it replaced.

I too am looking forward to Digg's book. IMO some boxlocks give up nothing in comparison to the very best sidelocks & I've talked to quite a few gunsmiths that think quality boxlocks are more trouble free than quality sidelocks.

What about boxlocks by Westley Richards and W.W. Greener?

Did those makers include intercepting safety sears on their boxlock designs?

OWD

Hi all and thanks! Thanks Dig, great info. The one problem for me with some Brit BL/BLE is the gradeing. Without a catalog or model number/name it can be difficult to determine if the gun is a Best Grade, 2nd quality etc. I've seen some guns that are considered 2nd quality, but yet still has wonderful engraving, great wood etc. With American classics you can generally go by the model/numbering system. It seems that smaller makers are the ones that one has the worst time with, as most of the records are gone due to the Blitz bombings or destroyed for some reason or another.

Oh, the English trade, frustrating yet lots of fun!

Thanks again!

Greg

No American classic is a best. Period. NO 311, regardless of the time spent on it, could ever be a best.
Intercepting sear boxlocks can be spotted from about a half dozen paces, if you know what to look for. For those who don't ( you know who you are) look for the pin near the top, at the back of the frame, which allows the intercepters to hang.
If you are still unclear, The photo of the T Newton scroll-back action boxlock ejector, with intercepting sears, on pages 29, 30 and 31 of Volume 21, issue 4 of the DGJ should help clear things up for you.

Best,
Ted

well that was misinterpreted - i said the 311 was the low end example of box . I do disagree that a hand fit graded Parker is not a best boxlock,

and intercepting sears are nice



but not a requirement to be a best, I see few British boxlocks with them

A few more hallmarks:

Scalloped action
Retaining pins (top lever, hinge pin)
Cocking indicators

Pre-war Germans knew how to make best quality box locks - the high end Sauer box locks (e.g. Model XVIII) are beautiful guns, even if the engraving style does not suit everyone's tastes.

My comment re. the Stevens 311 was meant to be "tongue in cheek" & I should have said "unless you use a Stevens 311 as an example of what not to look for in a best boxlock"

I don't think intercepting sears by themselves put a boxlock into the best catagory but they are one feature along with chopper lump bbls that are often found on "best boxlocks".

It's not so much certain "features" but the subjective fit & finish, styling, & handling qualities that make a gun a best be it a sidelock or boxlock. Except for very early guns the one feature that will normally be present in a "English made best gun" is chopper lump bbls.

and that says it well - its a best because basically beyond quality materials- the care was taken to make it one.

There were best guns before chopperlumps and best guns made without chopperlumps when they became fashionable. IMHO, the presence of chopperlumps should not be in the criteria for Best guns. 99% of "Best" damascus was dovetail lump. There was a very obscure patent for chopperlump damascus, but extremely rare to encounter a set.

A Best gun should be the best that the manufacturer of the gun could possibly produce, period. Whether that be a boxlock or sidelock.
Seems to me that makers like J. Harkom made many more best boxlocks than they did sidelocks. The boxlocks from Harkom are absolutely impeccable.
I've seen boxlocks by C.G. Bonehill (a maker not noted to be a manufacturer of best quality guns) that were outstanding in every facet too.
This is another one of those threads that can just go on and on. :-)

Dustin

Note I said 'choose from some of the following', not 'this is a list of everything it should have'.

English guns were made by various grades and listed by the makers in their catalogues but then often finished in house to higher degrees than the base model by the end user.

Few, like Greener, put the grade on the gun.

You have to define quality grade by observing the quality of work.

Purdey stamped their boxlocks on the action 'B' 'C' 'D' or 'E' Quality.

Hi all, so would you consider this Bonehill a best?

http://www.hillrodandgun.com/picture.php?id=12641

Thanks!

Greg

Greg, I have owned two Bonehills like that and I would consider them among the Best in their somewhat unusual design, great fit, decoration and finish on metal and wood.

How long is a piece of string ? If you can answer that then you can define a "best gun" of any description .There was a story of a Birmingham maker who advertised his products as "England's best". Based on the fact that the owners name happened to be Mr England . Companies like Westley ,Webley and Scott , Greener , Bonehill , Pape , Powell, etc. etc. made some very high quality guns . They also produced some very basic guns that bore no resemblance to those magnificent examples of the gunmakers art. One company's best may have been another's standard ,were as the reveres is that others basic is better than someone else's best .There are as has been stated certain things to look at but that said I have seen beautifully finished guns based on a rather low quality actions . Names are important but again I had in the shop recently a gun built in the late 1890's that in its day must have been a candidate for best gun status signed by a "maker" of which I can find no record .Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the whole question comes down to over all quality of workmanship and finish .

I agree, a 1950s 'best' Gallyon was no as refined or highly finished as a 1900s Joseph Harkom. Quality is where you find it and 'grades' are a loose description at best.

What about boxlocks by Westley Richards and W.W. Greener?

Did those makers include intercepting safety sears on their boxlock designs?

OWD

Yes, both often used intercepting safety devices of various type - for example, Greener had one of his own patent and WR had a trigger block which stopped the second trigger being fired by recoil when the first shot was fired (useful in very powerful double rifles)

Chas. Lancaster Body Action or "0-grade" were also built with intercepting sears or "block" safety. Unless one has been inside of one or shown the mechanics, you'd never know the system was there.

Just put in my order with Amazon Senor Hadoke best

Yep, thats a Beesley body action spring opener with very different sprigs to an A&D gun. One of many variations which look like an A&D externally but operate quite differently.

The later Webley & Scott guns were graded--speaking of the 700 series here--but not marked on the guns. But those clever Brits wanted to confuse us poor Yanks, because the ranking, if you want to call them good/better/best, were: 700, good; 702, better; 701, best. Whether a 701 is truly a "best boxlock" can certainly be debated, but by its finish, quality of wood, engraving, etc, it was clearly the best of that particular series of guns. And so priced.

Grading systems are confusing and actually not very helpful when comparing one with another.

For example - anyone now considering a Churchill 'Utility' would be hard pressed to know where it fits in the range as compared to a 'Field' or 'Regal'. Churchill used a grading system with names but the names and grades sometimes changed or swapped places over the years.

Cogswell and Harrison also used a name system - 'Blagdon' and 'Sandhurst' etc.

Greener model designation indicated grade but also mechanical differences. A DH35 was and A&D 35 guinea gun, an FH35 was a Facile Princeps with Baker type forend ejectors for the same money.

Gallyon ran D1 - D8 model boxlocks of inclining quality.

Lots of trade makers ran model designations in scales of quality but these were never indicated in the same way by the firm which sold them.

Rigby sold boxlocks, not indicated by model designation but listed in the work books as 'C' or 'D' quality when ordered from B&P or W&S etc.

W&C Scott 1980s 'Chatsworth' 'Bowood' and 'Kinmount' models were quality variations, but a Chatsworth was nowhere close to the quality of a 1900 Bonehill of highest finish.

Holland & Holland 'Cavalier' models were touted as best London boxlocks but they don't compare to a lot of the guns Wilkes made much more low-key.

All just examples. Best boxlocks do appear all the time and were made in good quantities but here is no simple model designation or list of features to use and a short hand key to discover the absolutes as to what is what.

I think a long list of "must have" attributes won't catch some of the best guns, and suggest that the fit, finish and inherent quality of handwork is a key aspect.

In a boxlock of Anson and Deeley type, I find it hard to knock on this basic action for lack of safety sears, for example. I do think there are lots of modifications to this basic action type that can take this basic design to "best" status, but know also that this is quite subjective.

For example, this 16 might not be "best" to some, but it is to me:

Intercepting sears may be sign of "quality but some were just a pain in the arse .Bonhill had there is in a box that screwed to the back of the action ,most have been removed and thrown away . Webley and Scott guns ,no matter whose name they bore fitted them to some. Be aware that as the actions were all machined the same some may have pins behind the fences that may make you think they had interceptors fitted ,but they never were . The pins are only to fill the holes, rather than fit plugs .I also other guns that have had intercepters removed for one reason or another .

And a side plated boxlock Optimus or Thousand Dollar grade is chopped liver? I call Shenanigans.

Look at Dig's list of things that denote higher grade guns, and tell us which were applied to either gun. I can't see where the Webley and Scott 700 series guns Larry brought up fit in the picture, either-I've seen a few that were pretty rough.
What the great majority of folk in the US don't understand is that the term "Best" is as much a historical term that applies to English SXS guns as it is a descriptive term. Most of the refinements that developed in double guns happened there, and whether we North Americans like it or not, they get the credit for it.
A "Best Gun", is a British thing. Sorry.


Best,
Ted

Ted, in that context, I see the point of your explanation. I was looking at it from a descriptive standpoint rather than a historical one. Thanks.

Thats it for you Ted, You done burnt the bridge...Its all over between us...

Since asthetics has a lot to do with "Best" personally I could call no gun with a Flat Back a "Best". I've shot a bunch of flat back boxlocks in my time, but not because they were best, but because they were cheaper.

Understand, the connotation of "Best" doesn't imply what will work best in a given shooting situation. It simply describes the top level to which a British game gun can be produced.
My hunting conditions, for example, would be best described as "rough" or "quite rough" by a proper English shooting party, and I would forgive them completely if they chose not to partake. There is little reason to drag a highly finished English double into a frozen cat tail slew in pursuit of late season, wild pheasants, that have a doctorate in survival (though, I have in the past).
To confuse the terms is to further muddy the study of the double game gun.

Best,
Ted

Don't confuse available technology and choice of mechanism with the quality of the product.

Whether it has a flat back to the action (which early Westley Richards A&D guns of very best quality did) or a half-moon, scroll, concave or other fancy back was a stylistic choice based on prevailing trends. Nothing to do with quality.

What you or I now decide we like is not an objective criteria by which to judge a gun. You need to look at the care and quality built into it.

Hi Dig and thanks again! You hit the nail on the head again. Look at SL guns, while it's common belief that a Best gun must be stocked to the fences, early Best guns were not, just that fashion changed. I have a Henry Atkin with a makers letter stating that the gun was a Best grade gun, yet it's not stocked to the fences as an example.

When I first wrote this post it was one to get a discussion going and see what thoughts others have on this subject. It's been interesting.

I think most of us here can tell a quality gun from lower quality ones, just a matter of having the gun in hand and some other features.

As been said, fit,finish, engraving, wood all play a part in determining grades. But........like everything else in the trade, there are no absolutes! Brit guns are a fun journey with plenty of twists and turns.

Thanks again all!

Greg