One thing we haven't brought up here is the fact that it's much easier to lump sidelocks together than it is boxlocks. Relatively few truly different sidelock mechanisms on guns made over the last century; a whole bunch of different boxlocks. (Each of the "American classics" was a different design.)
The point that one may prefer sidelock triggers to boxlocks because a higher percentage of sidelocks are higher grade guns is well taken. And there are certainly inexpensive boxlocks with good triggers. However . . . if boxlocks are really a better design, why do some makers--Francotte perhaps most famously, but also V. Bernardelli--make their boxlocks to look like sidelocks?? That would seem to indicate that sidelocks certainly have an advantage when it comes to "pretty".
And you have to love Cogswell & Harrison's euphemism for false sideplates: "ornamental strengthening plates".
Do you like blondes, or redheads, Larry? Pretty is as pretty does, I think, at least when you are talking gun designs. Lets say the blonde is a "high maintenance" type, needs the best of everything. To me, thats a sidelock. The average gunsmith isn't going to fix it, and if you need a new stock, you might as well go find another gun. The redhead who is happy to go for a stroll down to the corner for a ice cream cone would be the boxlock. Any gunsmith should be able to at least diagnose trouble in it, and stock replacement would come far less costly. Parts, too. As far as the fake sidelocks on boxlock guns, well, they are for somebody I guess, but, I wouldn't pay a dime more for a gun that had 'em. I think the makers were banking that someone would.
Make mine a boxlock, please.
Best,
Ted
