doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Why are SXS's more expensive than O/U's?

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.