I really intended that comment more on our perceptions of what is quality based on a name, rather than actually looking at the quality of work.
I agree that a best gun should be one that you can rely on the quality of manufacture without having to actually look at the gun. And very few companies held this quality of manufacture throughout there entire line of guns. Even among those companies with sterling reputations, it is necessary to look at the particular gun to acertain what level they were working to.
It does seem that many of the english guns were built on the same basic reciever. I assume that most companies bought a rough reciever and finished it rather than actually forging their own actions. Some companies engraved less or didn't use third bite fasteners, probably to build to a price point. And very few of the companies spent time jeweling or gold plating the internal parts that would never be seen by anyone except a gun smith.
