Maybe it's just what I am noticing, but it appears that SXS's are usually much more expensive than O/U', even by the same maker. Since they are both doubles, with what I think are similar design requirements and manufacturing challenges, why is this?

Because they are not even close in sales volume.

Like Jim said.

Yep. Kinda makes ya go huh? Thus the RBL. Anyone want in this game? Also, makes ya wonder if the O/U is a better idea? Shudder!!
Jake

SxS's are better looking, handle better, have a better sighting plane and were made for wingshooting besides all the good points...the manufacturers know that people that shoot SxS's will pay more for a gun than those e'flicted people that like O/U's.

When you talk about SxS's being more expensive....will that statement hold up when you are talking about high grade English O/U guns such as Boss and Purdy ?

I believe one would not have to look too hard to find some Italian O/U guns which are rather pricey. But the premis is I think accurate that even those manufacturers have sxs that are more expensive. I will note that in my small shooting circle/life that the really top shooters always shot O/Us. Sorry for the blasphemy. Jake

From the manufacturing point of view, the costs of making an O/U and a SbS are the same (all other things being equal). Of course, a classic Anson-Deeley with colour case hardening and lots of hand fitting might be loo expensive to produce now? but the world is full of great SbS designs, that are as easy to turn on a machine as anything. Prior to the WW2, O/Us like Superposed, Rem. 31, Merkel, cost twice or more as much as SbSs of similar quality.

So it's all, as suggested above, about the sales volumes - but the sales volumes are, in turn, a by-product of certain myths shared by gun manufactureres and the general public. Myth #1 is that a SbS has to be expensive to be good. Than't why gun manufacturers believe that an attempt to mass-marlet a SbS at mass-market price is a guaranteed flop. And they are right - because the customers aren't going to believe such a gun will be any good. How many of you reading this are ready to assume that a Spartan 210 may actually be worth its price tag?

A British gun will cost more in o/u form than in SxS form. the difference at Purdey is around £25,000.

Traditionally, a hand-built o/u is a longer, harder job: one reason why so few made it here. Even Holland's had to scrap their original o/u because despite being by far the most expensive gun on the market, they still sold it for less than it cost to make!

Your thinking too Victorian/Edwardian!
Our British shooting lad today, would have a pair of McKay Browns made-up for him. A 75-100 year old Purdey sxs might still be within our reach, but a new Purdey o/u!
They're for the real moneyed, and not us rustic players.

Great news....once again my taste leads me to fall in love and choose the most expensive thing I could among relatively comparable alternatives.

The hand built O/U was an expensive proposition and still is. It was generally built in high original quality grades. There was nothing approaching the volume, and specialized industry to support it, of the SxS in Britain. The Browning Superposed was something of an interim step in combining a mostly machine made gun with enough hand work to make it widely acceptable for original quality and price.

Looks to me like the SXS did not get a manufacturing technology update because it was an existing product with dedicated factories in existance. The O/U appeared at a time wherein it got the advantages of big leaps in metal working technology. Cheap autos and pumps were the bain of the SXS, but they left open a market for a "better" gun and the O/U could fill the void at an acceptable price. Fortunately for the O/U, heavier guns make generally better target guns; clay target shooting didn't really hit its stride until post-WWII. The last 50 years has seen the same kind of creativity lavished on the O/U as was the case for the SXS in the last half of the 19th century.

I find no significant difference in the artistry of fine SXSs and O/Us. I find no significant difference in the shootability of either pattern of gun when in equal purpose built configuration. The current handicap for the SXS is playing catch-up in manufacturing technology - we will know if this is possible based on Tony's bold RBL experiment and Ruger's Gold Label.

In the mean time, I plan to shot game guns when I'm out for fun and target guns should I get serious. BTW, my Ithaca NID 4E (trap configuration) is fully competitive with anything that shows up at the club where I shoot. Hal Hare pretty well settled the issue for skeet with his M-21. IMO, shootability is more about first learnings and fashion that real advantages.

sorry to disappoint you Lowell, we Brits now go for High Grade Superposed's, they are the only thing that will stand up to high volume shooting, are well put together, and more importantly in the right spec handle like an english double ;-)

Jonty

Price check, pre-WWII OU's vs sxs. OU's first (1940):
Rem 32: $127
Browning Superposed Grade 1: $90
(Both the above with SST and ejectors.)
Marlin 90: $40
Savage 420: $35
(Both the above with DT and extractors.)

SxS:
Win 21: $106
Parker VHE: $170
LC Smith Field Grade: $74
Fox Sterlingworth: $87
(All above with ST and ejectors)
Fox Model B: $26
Hunter Fulton: $30
Hunter Special: $35
Win 24: $30
Iver Johnson Hercules: $35
(All above with DT and extractors)

So pre-WWII OU's wern't necessarily more expensive than sxs, if you compare guns with similar features. But Jim's got it right: Back before WWII, production volume favored the sxs; it now favors the OU's, by a HUGE margin. That's the main reason they're cheaper.

As Dig points out curent Brit prices favor the O/U, sometimes by a horrifying margin: (All prices in 1'000 GBP)

SxS O/U
DMcKB 26 33
Boss 55 75
Holland 49.530 60.375

I do wonder why H&H price at such a granular level. Knowing them, I'd bet you could bargain the 375GBP off the price of a Royal O/U if you asked REALLY nicely

If everyone could strip away the romance, the tradition, the old-fashioned look, the perceived aesthetics - in other words, the emotional claptrap - surrounding the SxS, and judge it purely on the basis of utility, there probably wouldn't be any SxS guns made today.

Try showing up at a serious competitive shoot and see how many SxSs are in use. Folks who put many thousands of rounds through their guns every year are more concerned with results than with 'aesthetics.' They have voted with their pocketbooks, and the O/U has won hands down, worldwide.

The emotional "claptrap" is why I shoot. If judged on utility, what is the basis for shooting? Utility would be to defend or to feed myself and family. I haven't had to use a gun for either recently. The high from winning a competition is equally emotionial claptrap.

The utility question for a gun is: "how well does it do what it is made to do?" Shotguns are mostly made to shoot flying or fast-moving targets, and apparently O/Us do it better than SxSs. Whether or not you need to shoot at all is a different issue.

The fact that virtually all guns have some form of embellishment (fancy wood, engraving, polish, attention to lines, coloring, etc.) tells me that there is more to guns than simple utility. If I only went shooting to break flying or fast moving targets, I'd stay home. I go to enjoy some socializing, the aesthetics of my gun and the guns of others, taking in some fresh air, laughing about targets hit and missed, and to clear my mind of the every-day. A gun that suits my sense of aesthetics does this better.

I suspect that if a world class shooter were provided a world class endorsement to shoot a sxs, he would shoot world class scores with it. Within reason, skill is a more important variable than equipment; world class skill especially so.

I think that is true generally of most "good" shots as well. I suspect there are any number of us on this board who shoot the same general scores on clays with whatever we uncase, so long as fit and function are adequate. It has certainly been my experience.

Were there an economic incentive (sponsorship), I think I could guarantee you sxs's in the champion circle of virtually any shotgun shooting discipline one would care to name.

Rocket's right... as usual. Just for hitting stuff, an 1100 or 391 tops the list. But... there's more to it than that.

My take is that 'production' SxS guns are more expensive than similar quality O/U guns because the barrel set is more labor intensive to build. Look at the problems with the Ruger, and listen to the bitching here about low to moderate priced SxS guns having problems with point of impact.

Currently the A. Galazan over/under starts at $50,000 plus engraving, while his side-by-side starts at $40,000.

That O/Us are better than anything for shooting clays, is beyound questioning. That partly accounts for larger sales volume and sales appeal of them. But is an SbS inferior for hunting? I doubt that.

The current stock of new guns at Audley house shows 11 O/U's vs 5 SxS's in 12 bores. 20 & 28 bores are even showing 6 & 1 of each.

About a 3/2 ratio total. H & H shows the same in London.

This whole thread is based on a mistaken premise. SxSs are not more expensive than O/Us. Both appear in just about every price range. The Turkish guns and offerings from Boito etc cover the bottom. Spanish guns like the base grade Ugartechea and some of the utility grade Italian guns are a notch up where the new Ruger comes in followed by the RBL and so on up through Arrieta, Aya on the price ladder. Top end of the price ladder seems to be the O/Us from Purdey,Fabbri and Filli Rizzini and a handful of other British and Italian makers. Just have to purchase within your selected price point.

I do not believe that is true. As I said in my previous post, I think a competitive shooter could shoot virtually any discipline with virtually any gun (so long as fit and fnction were comparable) and win if he were incentivised. I think most simply have more experience/confidence shooting an O/U. I am hardly a county class shooter, much less world class, but my clays scores 40+/80+ are about the same whether I am shooting a Birmingham boxlock or a Beretta (or a Super Black Eagle for that matter).

Only the invited put their guns thru high volumn shooting. The other 99.9%,(uninvited) could give a hang and can't wait to sell 'em off to America.

The premise is quite valid in the lower price range. One can purchase an O/U shotgun of good quality for $1,500 brand new from Browning or Beretta. These are solid, proven designs that shoot where pointed and will last the user at least one lifetime. There is no comparable SxS. The Ruger which is now unobtainable was at least 25% more. The also unavailable RBL had a base price higher still. A 471 is close to 3 grand now.

There is no comparable price SxS that approaches the quality or durability of a basic Citori or 680 series Beretta for the money.

That's exactly why I originally posted my question, you hit it on the head. I look at the Citori and Beretta O/U's and say to myself, I should be able to get a SXS of similar quality for near that neighborhood, but you simply can't.

Although you called this the lower price range, and correctly so, there are a lot of other shotgunners on this forum site that think anyone considering spending $1,000 on a new smoothbore is crazy. All I can say is that if I measure the first new shotgun I ever bought while in my teens (Winchester M59 @ $120), in terms of tankfulls of gasoline I could have purchased at the time, most new decent guns today seem to be outright bargains to me.

Once again, Jones, that price differential is mostly due to volume of production. How many gazillion 680 series guns does Beretta make, compared to 471's? And Browning no longer makes any sxs--other than a few pretty high dollar sidelocks which are "finished" for them, in Belgium, by Lebeau-Courally.

One rather obvious answer to why you don't see sxs at serious competitive shoots is that almost no sxs are made as purpose-built competition guns. Lots of OU's are. Also, when you're shooting competition, you're likely to shoot what you're most familiar with. Very few shooters these days "grow up" shooting sxs. They may start with a pump or an auto, but because there are lots of moderately-priced OU's around (with single triggers, no less--so you've got a similar "sight picture" plus a similar trigger configuration to the pump or auto you started with), it's fairly easy to make the transition to an OU. And you can start with an OU field gun, like a Citori or a Beretta, and switch to a competition version of the very same gun. You start with a sxs field gun, and you pretty much finish with a sxs field gun--because that's pretty much all there is available.

I don't know that there's any advantage to a sxs over an OU as a field gun, although some would say there is--but I don't think there's any disadvantage either. And because it's easier to find sxs with the superior double trigger configuration, that's certainly one advantage over OU's in the field--right, Jack?

Ah, yes, Larry - although if anything, DTs are even less popular in the field than SxS. It is instructive that DTs on O/Us are even harder to find than STs on SxSs.

Fortunately, some of the more progressive gunmakers did build SxSs with STs for folks like me who, while accepting the burden of romantic claptrap, also insist on cold weather utility.

Larry, I agree about the market being there for a target grade SxS. A sporting clays ready 12ga 30"bbl at 7lb, 12oz would sell well even at $5K.

I think the gentlemans name is Hal M. Hare who has put up a pretty good showing in competition with a CSMC Model 21.

I believe Ugartechea would make you one for less than that, but I don't think they've been overwhelmed with orders.

SXS cost more, like other things that cost more, because they are worth it. They are worth it to those who buy them. And nothing sets the real value like the market. Try to sell a used gun and you will find out right fast what it is really worth.

Larry is right that volume make many O/U cost less per unit but no maker would build a gun at a loss for very long. Prices are because that is the max. that sellers are willing to pay.

Maybe SXS are slightly more labor intensive, maybe not.

After reading your post I wonder why we are hear on a SxS forum.

Makes total sense on the lower price scale that O/U's will cost less than SxS's due to supply/demand and the cost of production scale. When one gets to the hand made bespoke firearms are SxS's any different in cost to make than O/U's? Are the man hours the same? Are the material costs the same? I think there's no significant difference.

The production cost of a double-barreled shotgun doesn't depend on the plane in which the barrels are joined - that's what I've heard from engineers employed at a gun company.

The dominance of O/Us on the clay ranges is the product of evolution and survival of the fittest. Even in the '60s, at Trap and Skeet World Championships, about 30% of participants used SbS's, 10% - repeaters, and the rest 60%, with O/Us, mostly took top places. The O/U won the clay world because more people were winning events with them. (yet it all was probably just because you don't burn your hand as so can shoot more rounds, I think ;))

The large brace counts were shot with the Sle sxs, period!
Year in, and year out with the same set of guns.
Not just one trip to South America for high volumn dove shooting with a Browning o/u.
Oh ya, "aesthetics," are for the boring months ahead.
...and target games, are just that!

Jack, an old gent like you should be sitting by the fire, dreaming up more reasons why ST's are better than DT's--rather than out there in the cold, where you might frostbite your fingers or have a coronary. And I understand that as one ages, circulation problems increase, causing one to feel the cold more--especially in one's extremities. Yet another reason to wait for warmer weather--and shoot the more reliable and more sensible DT.

If you take a company like Merkel--which seems to make more sxs than OU's (or at least exports more sxs to this country, by a healthy margin)--then the price thing does a flipflop. Merkel sxs are a good bit less expensive than the OU's.

Back when the Cynergy came out, I had a chance to ask the Browning people how come they didn't have Miroku making sxs for them any more. The response was that all the employees who had worked on sxs had retired. The Ruger experience with the GL shows that while it might not be any more difficult from a technological viewpoint to produce sxs when you're already producing OU's, the process is very different. And even with guns that are largely machine-made, you still have to set up the machining and have the people that know the process. When you start from scratch (as Ruger did) and are looking at a much smaller volume than on OU production, then you have to factor in startup costs--which have to be recouped in the price of a relatively small number (in comparison to OU volume) of units produced.

SxSs, 16gauges, DTs all sing the same songs. I imagine that girls who aren't invited to the prom have lots of explanations for why they weren't chosen, too! But I have to admit that a DT SxS is fine for you fair weather hunters.

And people say that automatic transmissions are an improvement over the stick shift . . . until they try to pop the clutch on an automatic, to start the car. Popularity does not = superiority.

Probably true in Iowa, Larry. Most places nowadays, we have starter motors in our vehicles.

Gosh, Jack . . . most cars do have starter motors. And batteries too! And popping the clutch still works, in a pinch, when either one of those doesn't work. Sorta like how you can still shoot with a DT gun, should you get a late flushing bird before you've reloaded the first barrel. But I know you never face such situations in Minnesota--never cold enough to cause battery problems, not enough birds to result in multiple flushes.

Oh yeah, I remember clutch-pop starting, back in my college days when I could only afford to drive junkers. I suppose DTs are the same for SxSs - useful if you have gear that tends to break down. But now that I know about your affection for clutch-pop starting, I can more easily understand your preference for DTs.

Jack, you forget that I've seen you shoot a sxs. And from those observations, I'd say that if the combination of an OU and a ST help you hit more targets (or birds), then that's certainly what I'd recommend!

Ah well, Larry, I have never pretended to be a good shot. But you forget that I have hunted with you. I will politely refrain from comment. These little pi$$ing contests don't reflect well on either of us.

Pi$$ing? Heck, I'm just trying to offer helpful advice to a fellow shotgunner . . . and since you've declared the superiority of the OU and the ST to the sxs and the DT, seems that if you were to use anything else, you'd be contradicting your own declaration . . . n'est-ce pas?

Why are O/U's more popular than SXS's?, IMO (based on people i know that shoot O/U's) MOST people cut their teeth on cheap single shots, pumps and auto's. When they get serious and want a gun that can have two chokes in play at the same time, an O/U presents the same picture that a Single barrel gun does and therefore offers familiarity. Looking down a SXS is a whole different animal and require getting used to. I've been told this many times when I ask people shooting O/U's why they chose it over a sxs. I believe this to be true because I've shot nothing but SXS's and to pick up a shotgun with just one barrel looks and feels un-natural to me. For whoever it was that discounted the value of tradition, asthetics, romance etc, and place the only "real" value on cold efficiancy, that's fine. However, I gotta say, I feel sorry for those types for there is SO MUCH that life has to offer that is lost on them. The old adage "it's not winning that counts, it's HOW you play the game" comes to mind.

Cody

I cut my teeth on cheap single shots, and I suspect most others here did the same. So I think "familiarity" has less to do with O/U popularity than the fact O/Us offer more gun for the money, and that most world-class shooters are using them.

People choose SxSs for reasons other than efficiency or cost, which is okay too - they don't need lame excuses to justify their choice.

Jack and Larry:

Your "pi$$ing match" should be archived. I don't think you can copyright this old schtick but you do it in the great tradition of smooth, seamless and grammatical. Makes me miss Jack Benny.

jack

jack rabbit - kind of you to say so. But these "my choice is better than your choice" debates go nowhere and help no one. People should be able to justify their own choices without putting down others. I haven't "declared the superiority of the O/U and the ST," just stated the facts of popular choice and competitive performance - yet that seems enough for some folks to man the barricades.

Clearly, my own preference for SxSs and STs depends on neither popularity nor performance, but simply personal choice. And that should be enough justification.

(After opening the door, I stick an ear in and hear all of the commotion, then quietly turn and head back down the sidewalk.)

Camphorated vitrol is an aquired taste, I suppose. The analogies are nice. Standard transmissions have gotten more expensive with less volume sold. That was what this was about I think or something to do with guns?

jack

If O/U's are superior and the choice of the people,
i.e., more in demand, shouldn't they be MORE expensive
than SxS's?

JC(AL)

JC - This would be so except that economies of scale in meeting the greater demand significantly reduce the cost per unit of O/U production, and competition among producers limits how much they can charge.

I rather doubt that someone moving "up" from a cheap single or pump to a double is attracted to OU's based on what world champion shooters shoot, any more than I worry about who drives what in NASCAR when I go to the local dealer to buy a vehicle. My guess is, said individual walks into a well-stocked gun store. He sees a whole bunch of OU's, guns he recognizes from the range and/or from magazine ads perhaps, with names he recognizes (Browning, Beretta, Ruger), at around the $1,000 price range, give or take a few hundred. Sxs . . . he may see some very cheap ones, less than the price of a really good pump; and he may see some priced at 2x or more what he would pay for an OU. Plus, with an OU, he'll almost certainly get screw-in chokes. Far less certain with a sxs. Plus, with an OU, he's going to get a single trigger--which he's also used to. Far less certain with a sxs. So, his brain tells him--unless he's been hanging around doublegunshop.com, reading Double Gun Journal or maybe Shooting Sportsman, where he would learn more about sxs--that OU is obviously the gun for me! Plus, if he hangs around the range much (unless it's an unusual club, like one where I hang out and we occasionally have an entire skeet squad armed with sxs), he will have seen lots of OU's, likely very few sxs. He's likely had the chance to handle some of those OU's, perhaps even having shot a friend's Beretta or Browning. So price, familiarity, what he perceives as preferred "options" (ST and choke tubes) . . . why on earth wouldn't he pick an OU?

Popular choice is quite obvious. Facts of performance . . . the vast majority of sxs are field guns, not competition guns. It's darned hard to prove "competitive advantage" in a field situation. I can determine, for example, that the DT gives me a definite advantage over the ST, because I know that every season, I kill birds by instantly selecting the tighter choke--which I could not do with a ST. Whether someone else sees that as an advantage (and there's at least one person here who doesn't) . . . well, that's a matter only each individual can decide.

Charlie, sorry, I was just being glib (as in:
glib[adj] marked by lack of intellectual depth; "glib generalizations"; "a glib response to a complex question")

JC(AL)

JC - Regrets about my weak glibbiness detector!

Why are O/U's less expensive then SxS's... blame John M. Browning.

That darn John M. He not only invented more guns and mechanisms than anyone, the ones he didn't invent he messed up. Jake

A little OU trivia: What was the first mass produced OU to be both designed and made in America?

Remington Model 32?

That's a common opinion, RM--but the 32 is pretty much a ripoff of the French Petrik.

So, the Ruger Red Label? Or the Marlin forgot the model?

We're somewhat missing the point here.

Agreed single triggers and one barrel to look over are the rule in the U.S.

Agreed you will see more purpose built target guns in O/U.

But most guys who like SxSs have the preference for two different reasons. The first, that it is different, has nothing to do with function. The same people often wear mechanical watches and make no apologies for their inaccuracy relative to electronic versions. The second reason is relative to weight and dynamics. To build a 12ga. O/U at the 61/2lb. mark and not use an alloy receiver becomes problematic. A true O/U game gun, new or used, is not going to be any cheaper than the same thing in a SxS.

The SKB by Ithaca? My 20ga is a true game gun. Ooops, not made in America.

O.K., but how does this explain the demise of the sbs in other countries?

And speaking of the missed points, a gunmaker marketing a sbs today would have to compete not only against other brand-new offerings, but also against numerous classic used (or should I say vintage?) guns.

Besides, it's next top impossible to make a balanced 12 gauge 6 1/2 lb. double today, with all that hi-pressure slow-burning-powder ammo.

Marlin 90, from 1937. Savage 420/430 followed shortly thereafter. Just goes to show, OU's have come a LONG ways since then--although the Marlin 90 has some interesting features, like straight line strikers which are not seen on many OU's.

My opinion...
1- much less of them made, so they are more expensive then o/us
2- built better, point better and make for a quicker more accurate shot, target shooters (and I am one) like 0/U/s because you know where the target is coming from, I hunt with a sxs because I do not know, and they have a better sighting plane for quicker shots.
3- they are a hell of a alot sexier, and everyone knows sexier means more money!!

HD, good questions and good points. I suspect that a great deal of the interest in O/Us in other places and the US was a result of post WWII economics and advertising. It was after the war that the SP took off. I started trap shooting in the mid 60's and took it up again in the early 70's. At that time the SP was the only mass market O/U with any real presence. The P guns had just started to appear and there was the occaisonal Ljutic, SO Beretta and Kreighoff. The SPs were considered expensive and the others off the charts. Other than the SO most people perceived the Berettas, correctly or not, as "cheap" Italian guns. The P guns did a lot to change this. Field guns were much the same and the SP was still considered a premium gun. Almost no one even knew what a Woodward or a Boss was. In the 70's the SP went south and Beretta started to make inroads. Browning brought out the Citoris and a number of good Japanese and Italian guns followed. Winchester jumped in a little later with the 101s. All were heavily advertised and the darlings of the shooting rags. Prices were affordable and the economy made them moreso. The SxS was all but forgotten by all but a few. I'm sure that it was much the same in western Europe.

The change cane in the mid 80's. We were out of the recession, there was lots of money around and some goods developed status. This is when the Rolex, European cars, etc. became symbols of sucess. About the same time the price of vintage US guns started to take off closely followed by English guns. The appreciation of dynamics in a field gun took even more time. Though many would hate to admit it, most of the lower grade US vintage doubles were pretty clubby, hence the interest in the Fox, LC, and Parker O frame 16's.

O/Us may dominate the mid to higher end market but the SxSs are obviously making a comeback. It may not be the golden age but it is certainly the rennaisance of the SxS. The choices available today are the broadest since before WWII.