doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Remington 1894 vs. 1900

The ACGG did a spectacular custom on a Remington Hammerless Double as their raffle gun a couple of years ago.

Gunmaker what cartridge would you consider for the rifle barrels?

I had a friend who made a set of barrels for a Spanish double years ago based on the .444 Marlin. It was an inspired choice as it turned out. With a scope mounted for regulation it would place both bullets into a figure eight at 75 yards. At a hundred twenty five yards, his range max. distance, the pair was under four inches group. His goal was to have double gun for woods conditions and most shots would be under fifty yards.

I placed four shot into the end of a soda can at a hundred yards. When finished, with open sights it still could place both shots into any reasonable target or game within reason. He shot three deer every year with it until he died. Never found out where the gun ended up.

He did go through the action and either replicate and replace all the parts or harden them. The Remington would not require such work. In those days Spanish doubles had a well deserved reputation of have poorly made parts or soft parts which wore very quickly. All the new or improved internal parts ended up with jeweling and were gold plated. Told him it was the perfect gun for a Puerto Rican prince. His response exaughsted his knowledge of four letter like words which was quite impressive. A militarty background was not wasted on his education. I do miss the man, his gunsmithing ability and his strange sense of right.

Id have to do the math on the action face to see how large of a case head I could get on it and still have .200" wall thickness.

Something like .405 Winchester might be good. The 1894 has adequate locking mechanisms; the double underlugs and top snap/rib extension fastener. My only real concern is the thickness of the standing breach and the firing pin hole size on rifle cartridges. It would have to be bushed. All that being said we have a Westley Richards det-lock action in the shop that is chambered in .470. The standing breach cant be any thicker than the 1894, the WR is just an adapted A&D boxlock afterall with similar locking mechanisms as the 1894. Obviosly the top snap and rib extension is a little different.

When I regulate a double I try to get it shooting parallel at 50yds.

The firing pins were bushed on this one as well. In fact he remade them, the firing pins, to decrease the striking surface. Large pins, large holes for them to pass were not a good combo if primer failure occur. Also a gas diverting line was milled onto the face of the gun. It was intended to direct the gas away from the face in the event of a pierced primer. Never knew of any to fail but prevention is a smart thing sometimes.

One round that was considered was .303 but he had more faith in the .444 for use in heavy woods hunting situations. A list of rimmed rounds has several interesting ones to choose from. Either match round to use or select based on ballistics and easy of brass and reloading. It is a custom job after all and the options are half the fun. For plinking and light varmints I have thought about .225 Winchester but that may be because I have more brass than I care to count or even load. Ease of brass location restrict some rounds as too hard to load or find.

That gun did place both bullets into a horizontal pattern with about half of them cutting a sideways eight. If real careful you could get them almost into a single ragged hole. I made several calls this morning to try to locate it but have had no luck so far. That guns' basis was one of those frightful "Pride Of Spain" doubles that flooded the market in the '70's and ruined all Spanish makers name for decades. Often referred to as POS which has a less noble meaning to may of us. So I think that the Remington as starting basis give you a much stronger platform with better metal and a less inherent problems to overcome.

Might I add Gunmaker that is incredible work you did on that Remington!!!

Wouldn't the Remington doubles, both the 1894 and 1900, be a bit to light for a double rifle?

Basically the only thing you would use for a custom is the action and action components. The weight of the Remington action is the same as any other boxlock. Plenty of double rifles have been built on boxlocks, WR being common.

When buidling a rifle you want the majority of the weight in between your hands. manufacturers do this by keeping the barrels thick near the chambers, them quickly tapering the barrels down to .100"-.125" wall thickness at the muzzle. This keeps the handling lively while keeping enough weight to make recoil manageable. All thats left is to build the stock to proportions and dimensions that fit the caliber and shooter.

Also KY, a small caliber like a .303 on a 12ga frame would make for an awkward handling gun. Its best to fit the largest case head/bore size onto the action face so the end result is a correctly balanced gun thats weight fits the caliber. If I was to build a .303 it would be on a 20ga frame size, maybe even 28.

Quite right about that. I still have the POS 20 somewhere around here that was going to be used for the .303. Was going to sleeve it with .303 barrels and duplicate what was done for the .444. Too many projects and too few years left to do them. After seeing how much work was done to correct the flaws of the POS I would rather find another donor gun for that type of a project. I know many choose Brownings for the purpose. Perhaps a LC Smith 20 instead. I doubt that I ever get around to that job.

Thanks for the compliment treblig. I wished I would have had my new camera when that Remington was finished. Now my pictures are much better.