doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Round actions

I have two DMB�s, a 12 bore O/U and a 16ga SxS with which I hunt pheasant and grouse, respectively. Sorry, I don�t own a Dickson and thus I cannot comment on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two. The main benefit of the true trigger plate action for the walking hunter is the low center of gravity of the design. The ejector springs are in the action, not the forend, and everything is screwed to the bottom plate, keeping the weight low in the hand. The other benefit of the design is how comfortably the action carries in the off hand. I think David improved the mainspring geometry and steels employed as compared to Dickson. They are likely very comparable.

FWIW, handling and "feel" properties are simply facts about any given gun. They are not dependent on who, when, where, how , or why the gun was made. Gun makers tended to shift the properties to better suit the purpose and to conform to current fashion. Actually, handling should be fitted to the shooter much as stock dimensions are for bespoke guns. Much ink has been spilt over optimum guns - a critter that doesn't exist. One man's magic gun is another's pig on a snow shovel. Do not waste any time fantasizing about the superiority of any given maker' handling. The question is does it suit you as an individual.

DDA

The OP's questions have been muddied.

The Dickson is not the same internally as the DMB.
The "Edinburgh Gun" is a bar-in-wood MacNaughton. Not DMB or Dickson.

Each of the designs has evolved over time. I believe they all migrated to Southgate ejectors, for instance, but originally the older guns had other styles of ejectors.

Also, the skeletonized MacNaughton, while beautiful, with it's bar-in-wood design, is prone to stock cracking on the bottom.

A scant few of them have sights!



Curl

To clarify, I think the OP was referring to guns made and retailed from the city of Edinburgh rather than the MacNaughton model of the same name.

IMO true Scottish round actions are undoubtedly very nice and interesting guns. They were beautifully made and can definitely be considered Best Guns. Whether they are any 'better' than a equivalent English gun (all things being equal) is entirely subjective: they both work very nicely thank you if pointed in the right direction!
From a gunsmithing perspective, they are all nice to work on but have their own little quirks which can be REALLY annoying when you are not used to them. For example, Dicksons use an odd double taper on the heads of their triggerplate and breech pins which is challenging to turn up correctly.
I think I am right in saying that all the Scottish round actions have stuck with their bespoke ejectors right up to the present: Dickson certainly have always made a USP of having their ejectors in the body of the action which therefore couldn't be a 'Southgate'. I think DMB also invented his own ejector mechanism but whether he has stuck with it, I don't know.
I really don't have a dog in this fight, I have bought, restored and sold all the above and will happily do so again.

The only MacNaughtons to cock off the top lever are the ones with the long top lever, correct? I think so.

And like usual, Mr. Barclay is correct regarding ejectors.

ClapperZapper, could you please explain in further detail how the Dickson�s internals differ from DMB�s internals (sxs only please).

I own a Dickson round body and it cocks from dropping the barrels and not from operating the top lever. I have seen a MacNaughton that cocked by operating a quite long top lever.

Per Dallas, DMB�s improvements over the Dickson are as follows:

1. Better steels (Alloy vs. Carbon) �the main improvement�
�less distortion in hardening
� internal parts are tougher and more resilient

2. Strengthening the Fore end iron at the rear of the knuckle by using a radius instead of a sharp corner.

3. Constructing the barrel lump slots in the action body without drilling through the bottom of the action. This allows a shorter trigger plate than in the Dickson and more strength.

4. The addition of an integral pillar to the upstanding bar on the lockplate there by strengthening the lockplate.

A Dickson RA gun is a wonder and has several refinements not present on most guns - even 'best' English guns. I owned a Dickson made in 1893 and it is an outstanding gun to handle and shoot. It weighs the same as my London-built H. Atkin spring-opener, also a lovely gun, but NOT QUITE equal to the Dickson in handling - at least for me.

Soooo, basically nothing is different mechanically from the DMB vs. the Dickson RA. I knew that, but I was wondering if Cz had some new info regarding the design that I might have missed. Now take into account the new Dickson�s being built in Dunkeld and all of those �improvements� are sixes. Most gunmakers acknowledge that the old Dickson is actually superior to the DMB version in regards to fit & finishing of internal and external parts. A small bit like a top lever is a good example, the sculpting on an old Dickson is much more artistic and eye pleasing shape to the eye aka it took more time to do it that way.
The old MacNaughtons were indeed lever cockers, that is why the top lever is so elongated....it was to increase leverage to cock both locks. The later guns are/were barrel cockers.