doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com English Bests

Obviously--since both Purdey and H&H use modern machinery--they'll tell you that the products turned out by those methods are better than what they used to produce. Can't think of many companies that would admit they're now making widgets that are inferior to the widgets they used to make. Not even Don Draper on "Mad Men" could make a good ad for a product based on that premise.

As for the trend in the direction of lighter guns after WWI . . . true, but not because they're "better". Think of all the sons of well-to-do families that engaged in driven shooting who ended up buried in Flanders. That put quite a few guns on the secondary market. Makers of new guns, like Mr. Churchill, had to come up with some sort of gimmick to separate what they were selling from what had been the standard prior to the Great War. Not that Mr. Churchill didn't believe in his XXV barrels, but more than anything else, it was an effective marketing ploy for him. The 2" 12's were another effort to offer something different. But whether lighter or shorter is better . . . I think 25" guns, especially 25" 12 bores, have a pretty limited following on this side of the Pond. Less interest than they generated maybe a couple decades ago. Probably because more sxs fanciers these days are using their guns for Sporting Clays, and the trend there has been in the opposite direction: longer barrels. There are some "rough shooting" upland hunters that like short barrels because of the weight reduction, but that's usually in 28's and 20's for pursuits like grouse and woodcock hunting, rather than stubby-nosed 12's. I think most sxs dealers would tell you that, assuming the same gun, they'd rather have a 12 with 30" barrels in their inventory than one with 25".

What we need is another Olin destrucion test to see just how well built these new steel SXSs are! Assuming a retail cost of 100 000 per gun, and that it would take at least five makers' products to make an interesting comparison group, plus machinery and proof loads, add refreshments etc, about a million should do it.

What would be really interesting to me would be a longevity test between Perazzi, Kreighoff, Kolar, Blaser, etc. I'm betting there would be some fantastic numbers compiled. Most of us have heard the rumors of the Perazzi that the Army shooting team put over a million rounds through.

What does best" mean, anyway, in this context? Best wood and engraving, best polishing, best handling characteristics(that's very subjective), longest life, or maybe best advertising ???????

SRH

Thinking cynically one could say that "best" is closely tied to best brand management Because looking beyond the guns, to the non gun merchandising, everyday objects suddenly multiply in price because they bear the prestigious brand. Obviously the gunmaker did not make the thermos bottle, the Indian damascus knife, the picnic set etc. OK the brand is valuable and confers a sense of prestige, but often at ten times the regular retail.

Shotgunlover, you've strayed into the "apples and oranges" realm with your last post. Usually, when we think of the classic British guns, we're thinking of game guns. Sub-7#, works of art in terms of both metal and wood. They were not built to be target guns. But the Brits have built pigeon guns and wildfowl guns, both of which are heavier, more rugged, etc. If you were to ask Purdey or H&H to build you a target gun similar to those used in top level competition, I'm sure they could do it. What you'd end up with would be a gun with heavier barrels, a heavier frame, heavier wood, and through which you could shoot heavy loads. (Worth remembering here that in International Skeet, they only shoot 24 gram--7/8 oz--loads. Faster for sure than many 7/8 oz target loads, but pretty light stuff nevertheless.)

I'm sure such a gun would hang with a Perazzi or a Krieghoff in terms of punishment . . . but it'd cost a lot more because it would be a one of a kind deal rather than mostly machine-made. And if it's a sxs, the question would be whether the shooter could score as well with it as with an OU. Maybe, if he or she were sufficiently accustomed to shooting sxs.

Today I've got a AKAH catalog from 1908 and found that quality always was a tender subject...:



it were these kind of guns who have been compared to english guns which cost more than double and of course the german guns were better... ;-)



Hope not boring you with this stuff!

Kind Regards,
Gunwolf

The word "Best" is nothing more than a marketing term. When I hear it, I don't assume that gun is of "the best" quality but rather in the top bracket or range of quality.

I have compared 2 Purdeys side by side that varied in the quality of the engraving.... but yet both guns were "BEST" guns.... so how can they both be "best" when one is better???

Because you liked the engraving on one better than another - the man who ordered the gun and you may not concur.

No offense intended to anyone, but the "best" handling issue is one that has had my attention for some time. I have come to the conclusion that there is no particular "best" handling. There is is a wide range of handling dynamics within guns that are usually considered "best." So, it is not at all unusual to find one that meets your view/preverence for handling and another that doesn't. The "doesn't" is no less a "best gun," it just had handling dynamics that suit someone else and/or suit a different purpose.

Consider a Purdey game guns and Purdey pigeon gun. Not likely that anyone will argue that either is not a "best." Likewise, nobody is going to argue that they handle the same. If you study the subject, you will find that preceived handling depends on a number of factors that are not part of the dynamics involving muscle effort. That is to say, most people are influenced by such factors ar their view of the brand name, the aesthetics, etc. Handling preference is like stock dimensions preference --- individual!

DDA

Hey, I guess my original question was do you guys see any difference in quality, engraving, fit, finish in pre-war guns versus ones made between the two wars.
All I have heard is that was the best years for English gunmaking.
I am told English Best Guns are all judged by those made during that time.
I have owned two pre WW1 Purdeys, one made 1902 and the other early 1880's, a Hussey made 1915, a Grant made in 1911.
I know have an Atkinmade in 1924 and a Purdey made in 1929.
As far as I can tell I can not see any better quality in the newer guns than the older guns. In fact I have see many guns made pre WW1 that were engraved more ornately and looked fantastic.