IMHO it is in reality an aesthetic decision for the individual.
Some would argue that they are stronger in the bar of the action and weaker in the head of the stock.
I think in the first instance, this is true if one is comparing two very similar cross section action bars but they rarely are unless they are masquerading as bar actions, back actions often have lovely (to my eye) slim rounded bars so most of the advantage has probably been lost and anyway, how many shotguns of any design have you seen with bent action bars?
In the second instance, I think the amount of wood removed is irrelevant as long as it is being braced by a long top tang and a sturdy trigger plate. Any failure will most likely be through the hand pin area (or beyond), I have never seen a stock broken through the action area unless driven over (shudder!).
The truth is that back actions were GENERALLY not finished to the same level as a bar action. There are obvious exceptions but I would guess that some 80% of back actions are middle to low quality while probably more than 75% of bar actions where of middle to high quality. The figures may be way off but you get the idea.
Buzz is quite right, O/U generally use back actions as, unless they have very deep or wide in the action, there is no room for the mainspring to run alongside the lower barrel.
Last edited by Toby Barclay; 12/06/11 04:00 PM.
