Just when I think I've got something figured out, new information comes along and forces me to reconsider things. I am just starting into something of a project gun here (1891 LC Smith transitional Quality 1 gun, 2nd year production at Fulton, NY.) when I leaned that another American sidelock used the camed/torsion bar system to cock their guns as well. Thanks to an old (2020) Dr. Drew post on Trapshooters.com I've "discovered" that the Meriden/A. J. Awbrey hammerless guns (another sidelock) also used a cocking rod system very much like the Syracuse and Fulton guns. Not sure why but I'm a little bit gobsmacked by all that. Just how many American sidelocks were made in this country and what other design oddities am I unaware of?

Meriden, Crescent, Tobin, Baker, Lefever and others made sidelocks here. Were they all farmer-grade conventional or did they too have variations on the theme? Another presumption I've operated on was that the Smith guns were likely the best of the American offerings. Is that fallacious as well?

Edit to add that I do know Lefever sidelocks were very well-made as well, but are they really "sidelocks" or more of the gas/electric version, a hybrid design? They're also never seen anymore ( or very seldom). I haven't seen one being hunted or even shot in probably 15-20 years now.

Depends on how broadly you define side lock.

If you mean “Hammerless” and all lock parts on a removable lock plate, well then,

The list is quite short.

Ok, I'll bite....how short?

Lloyd,
This, is an actual side lock:



There was never anything like it produced here in the new world.

Never.

Anything else built here was a simplification of the concept, that retained none of the advantages of the pictured lock (excellent trigger pull weights, intercepting sears, maximum amount of wood left in the head for strength) and brought a few disadvantages unique to North American production guns that claimed to be sidelocks, the criminally weak stock head of the ‘Smith being an example, and the weak frame of the Tobin being another. The only part on the side lock of a Tobin, is the sear and sear spring, everything else is carried in the frame.

What makes it a side lock?

They are, to a one, simple, cheap, designs, built to be afforded by new worlders who frequented hardware stores, not Abercrombie and Fitch. To me, any run of the mill English box lock is superior for regular use to any so called side lock gun built in the US during the golden age of doubles claiming to be a side lock.

Good luck with your project gun. You might need it.

Best,
Ted

Damn, Ted....that's mildly blunt. Don't hold anything back now, tell us how you really feel. Who's lock is that btw, it's gorgeous.

Crescent
Baker
L c Smith
Meriden
Aubrey

Might be a Union firearms, but have never seen one in the flesh.

The Tobin and Lefever guns are not sidelocks. They have just some parts like the sear and sear spring on their sideplates.



My favorite American sidelock doubles came from the little shop at 214 W. Pratt St. in Baltimore --



These may be the finest sidelocks built in the U.S., but only a handful have been made --





https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...steners-round-body-.cfm?gun_id=102423112

Well, you specifically said “true”.

I believe that is a photo of a Purdey lock, pulled from Hallowell’s website, under the definition of side lock.

He didn’t use a photo of an American gun. Not an accident, I’m guessing.

Best,
Ted

good thread...

brings us back to where we should be...

Those American makers named above produced machine made, hand assembled shotguns, farmers’ guns for the most part purchased from the hardware store or Sears and Roebuck. If you want a real sidelock you need to buy one from Britland. Those project guns seem like a good thing but end up otherwise.

"There was never anything like it produced here in the new world."


This is just a farm implement tool but how close does this come to being a true sidelock?

[img]https://i.imgur.com/cW8FEKV.jpg?1[/img]

Nothing new under the sun, hope Ed is happy, you know for prosperity and all.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=490974&page=1

Where are the intercepting sears?

I can’t help but notice the sad state of the screw heads. Someone managed to pooch every, single, one of them.

Best,
Ted

This has elegant side locks. It is a Westley Richards 10 gauge on a massive frame with Kilby barrels and Stanton side locks. The sidelock has all the screws timed and all internals are highly polished…

You can explain the differences, but, there are those that just can’t grasp them.

Pretty gun, by the way.

Best,
Ted

Where are the intercepting sears

Intercepting sears in my opinion were put on those guns because of the type of shooting where you had a loader take out the empties if needed, load gun and hand it back cocked and ready to fire hot with no safety on. Who knows how many times these guns were dropped and went off.
If American gun manufacturers thought intercepting sears were important they would have put them in.

One thing about the English guns is that at the end of the season the gun/s were sent back and everything looked over and fixed if need be. Not a practice here in the States.

Dewey builds the finest hammerless sidelock ever made in America. Genius. Far better than those Galazan kit guns.

https://vicknairgunsmithing.blogspot.com/2021/02/handmade-unique-guns.html

OWD

What’s the price of admission for that? I’ve been afraid to ask.

I don't see an interceptor on Vicknair's lock.

I just noticed your DogsandDoubles.com website. Neat place!! I'll keep an eye on that!!

Just to clear this mess up, it’s not a true sidelock unless it has intercepting sears? That’s a crock of sh*t! Intercepting sears is an added bonus to quality of grade.

That may be the finest, but it sure isn't pretty. It does look very 21st century though.

I would just like to know why you call the Galazan side-by-side a kit gun I thought they are gun manufacturers and make everything there. Would you please going to detail

Baker guns also had the frame mounted "Baker Safety Blocks" that blocked the hammer from reaching the firing pin unless a trigger was pulled. They were standard on higher grades but I have a lowly B grade so equipped. I'm not saying that it compares with a good British lock with intercepting sears but it is clever and shows that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Go back, and take a good, hard, look at the pictures of the Tobin and the Lefever that Researcher posted, and, tell us how those guns square with your “true side lock” theory.

Best,
Ted

________________________________________________________________
If it ain’t Scottish, it’s CRAP!!!!!!

The question was sidelock. If the lock parts are mounted on a removable plate, not in the frame, it is a sidelock. Doesn't matter if it is a Crescent with a bent spring steel mainspring --



or a British Brasier, it is a sidelock! Intercepting sears, stocked to the fences, etc. are superfluous to the question.

Thank you Researcher, sorry Ted

I think what we get sidetracked-by here is the distinction between "good" and "fine" guns (or even "best guns"). Mass-production of anything provides both benefits and detriments. In this "New World" as Ted has identified it (I.E., the United States, post 1850 & our Civil War or the... "War of Northern Aggression") was a period of rapid growth and industrial development in this country. For better or for worse, there was a huge need for tools and other implements (which included firearms) as the vast interior of these United States became more settled and domesticated. The mostly hand-made guns (that we so-dearly love here) were only being produced in very small numbers and for a very select audience, namely the wealthy and the then-growing middle-class of both Great Britain and the Continent. A natural outgrowth of both our Revolutionary and then Civil Wars here was a nascent firearms industry, which besides millitary weapons also began produced sporting and hunting arms for our rapidly expanding country (and our economy). A gun in those days was more "tool" than art and was arguably a critical necessity. Having the means for procuring such a "necessity" wasn't guaranteed in any way and many folks went without (unless you were part of our own growing middle-class, which by the 1880s-1890s was becoming something of a force here too). The Golden Age of American Double-guns (late 1880s to the 1930s?) was a natural outgrowth of American industrial might (& wealth) and the expansion of our own "middle class" to the point where we became consumers of better and more-refined hunting implements. Mass-production was arguably the only way that burgeoning demand could be met and boy...did we ever. Some of our "Golden Age" guns were pretty spectacular, as Dewey Vicknair points out in his discussion of the subject (referenced here earlier) but they never have (nor will) approach the level of design and build-quality of the guns of Great Britain in their great sporting "Epoch", which largely ended with the First World War (when so-many of their skilled working-class men, and of-course their customers, were killed or maimed). The forces that produced the Purdey sidelock are not the same as the ones that produced the LC Smith hammerless gun. Comparing them is arguably a fool's errand.

Edit to add that you can fully appreciate each of them for what they are (and are not) and... it's not a heretical act. Both examples are getting rather-old now and have become cherished artifacts from a rapidly-departing age. Both were clearly designed with a very-specific purpose in mind, and seemingly both gun-designs were very successful. And finally...there is still room in my gun cabinet (& life) for examples from both of these worlds and I remain immensely grateful for that fact. May it ever be so.

It was a simple question with simple answers.

If the advertising for shotguns in America from the debut of steam, until the Great Depression is any indicator, Americans just wanted cheap guns. And Manufacturers filled that demand.

You can divide our history into two parts, before the civil war, and after. Our population grew 400% between 1865 and 1900, mostly poor people wanting cheap shotguns.
If you wanted to make guns, and it wasn’t rifles for the military, that’s where the money was.

Our social structure is/was different.
We didn’t have a worldwide empire, nor layer upon layer of a rich leisure class to consume the finest of everything all day every day.

We had the craftsmen, but no market.

Study enough, you’ll see Americans tended to put the effort where you could see it. Aubrey being the most obvious.

CZ: Amen to all of that. It looks to me that the Aubrey guns even borrowed the Alexander Brown top-lever fastener from LC Smith as well. Finding photography of an Aubrey gun isn't easy anymore (as Photobucket has wrecked many an online repository of knowledge). At this stage of the game, you can't really fault them though as lots of those top-lever fasteners are still going strong after 130 plus years.

Not seen yet, Colt 1878. A true side lock hammer double. Nicely done for an American made production gun.

Capt. Chas. Askins wrote in one of his books that the hammerless sidelock gun was just an evolutionary step from the hammer gun, most of which were sidelocks, to the hammerless boxlock.

Some U.S sidelock hammer guns --

Baker Model 1897
Colt
Crescent
L.C. Smith
Meriden Fire Arms Co.
Parry
Parker Bros.
E. Remington & Sons
Remington Arms Co. (Probably the most common U.S. hammergun)
Sneider
Wilkes Barre (follow on of the Parry)