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

I have limited experience on this but have done 5 safaris, I don�t know a PH who wouldn�t have a double rifle by Holland in .470 or .500 AS A BACK UP over any other, if they could afford one. A working rifle is a different thing but when in the thick stuff, I�ll take a .500 double. As J.A.Hunter said (over 1000 Rhino and 1200 Elephant all on control) "I have many friends in Nairobi cemetary who put their trust in bolt action rifles, I prefer my pair of .500 Hollands and if they had once let me down I would not be penning these words"

When you consider that H&H and Purdey are owned by large conglomerates, you have to wonder how that affects internal cost/pricing decisions. Not that ye olde gunmakers weren't motivated by profit either, but the corporate approach to making a profit tends to focus on cost-control - and is often short-sighted and internal (not customer) focused.

It would be a fascinating exercise to have a top-notch gunsmith compare current "best guns" from corporate owned makers vs. some smaller, independent makers like AA Brown, DMB and the like - a real fine toothed comb review that looked at the arcane details of gunmaking that might reveal the difference between a "best gun made without consideration to cost [and profit]" vs. a "very high quality gun that can be sold for a respectable profit." And to make it even more interesting, include some of those ne plus ultra guns from some Italian makers like Rizzini and Fabbri into the mix.

Dover - that's a very interesting point you make. However, there are other examples of large companies making luxury goods. Think Van Cleef & Arpel and Tiffany or Patek Philippe. Certainly there is profit motive but when a company is manufacturing goods for the very high-end consumer they do not screw around. These are not products for the working class bloke and the stakes are too high to have "quality creep" set in. I suspect that corporate "squeeze" comes in with Remington or Mossberg but the stakes aren't that high - those buyers don't expect perfection (by and large). In the case of H&H or Purdey or Boss and others of this ilk, the products are to a large extent price inelastic and anther ten grand in price won't screw an order. Add 50 bucks to the price of a Mossberg and there might be a fall-off in sales.

Shotgunlover, a sleeved Purdey may have started life as a best, but it's no longer a best once it's been sleeved. New set of barrels from Purdey . . . then it's still a best.

And while there can be debate on triggerplate actions and the "best" designation, I don't think there is where boxlocks in general are concerned. That's why they're usually qualified with the "best boxlock" designation.

This discussion was supposed to be about "best guns", so let's get back to that. This includes mostly London makers and one or two others such as Hartman & Weiss and one or two Italian firms.

It generally takes about 450 to 650 hours to build a gun and there are 7 major trades people who work on each gun. In London, average wages for gun trades people is way over %50,000 per year with benefits. Factory overhead, machine tools, materials, WIP parts, inventory, staff personnel, advertising, sales expenses - it adds up fast. It is no wonder that a best gun begins over $100,000 today. Add engraving other than in house rose and scroll, gold embellishments, extra finish, and the price can approach and exceed $200,000. Even at these prices, best gun makers hope to break even or may make a modest profit. Purdey and Holland make more on their clothing lines and accessories than on guns. If it wasn't for the big pockets of their corporate parents, most best gun makers would have gone the way of Woodward, Grant, and so many others.

These guns are for the very few - or are they? How many of us know of others, or posses ourselves, expensive motorcycles, boats, two or three vehicles, a vacation home, etc. A "best" gun is within the realm of availability to more of us than we may think. It just depends of an individual's priorities in life.

That�s what we are talking about, �Best� guns and why they are considered best guns regardless of who first used that term to describe that gun. I, for one, read about the guns and rifles developed during the muzzleloading period and have noted a whole lot of English named guns, still being produced today, that have killed a whole bunch of big frickin animals that could have very easily and in a blink of an eye stomped your guts into the ground.


Just giving credit where credit is due, that's all.

As it is already mentioned above, the two great London Makers are daughters of some of the worlds greatest luxury labels. ��.
As I started writing about fine Gunmakers, I thought H&H and Purdeys beeing the lonesome stars in the double gun sky. However, after some time of interviewing and watching gunmakers at work I've learned, that there are indeed differences between the big english names and a few small makers, in my case here in Germany. (Hartmann& Weiss, Max Ern) But in a different way as I thought. As mentioned, the London firms all have employees, what means costs, and this is the one big difference to Max Ern and others: He, for example , is working on it's own together with his son and his wife (engraver) and they work on their own private ground. This means, costs are minimized, it doesn't matter, that, for example, his CNC machines are not working around the clock. It means too, they are working, because they want it and they love their work. They are living their gunmaking. Of course they have to earn money, but this is not the true or only motivation for them. The motivation is, making guns. Not only guns but best guns. They always try to improve their work. They always have an eye on the best of the best and they work hard to be on the top. Above is mentioned that it needs at least 400 - 500 hour to build a gun. I saw a 400/450 double rifle in the white which will need 2000 hours to be finished! And of course it will cost nearly as much as a double rifle of H&H, P. or whatever english maker.
But since I watched the fire in the eyes of Max, the skills of Max jun., modeling the bascule of a double rifle like a sculptor and since I saw the soulful engraving of Evelyn I have an uneasy sense of what they are really doing. And if I ever would have not only the wish but also the money to own a very best gun, I think I would play this card.

Kind Regards,
Gunwolf

Shotgun lover, I'm well aware that most Beretta SO guns are of monoblock construction (the SO 10 guns are demiblock by the way so what does that tell you as Beretta attempts to move upmarket with the SO 10) & while they are nice guns I don't think "most people" who appreciate fine guns consider them "best" guns. The joint line at the monoblock is visible & ugly. It's so visible it's like they were proud of it.

A sleeved best gun is just that; a once best gun that has been compromised by a more economical repair rather than new barrels of the original construction.

Anyway, this thread is way off topic from the original question of if British best guns built between the wars were superior to those built earlier.

Personally I think guns built between the wars had the advantage of the improved metallurgy available, well developed designs & manufacturing techniques while labor costs were still comparatively low & each gun received lots of attention from skilled workers. Also the economic crisis of the 1930's meant competition between makers for business was fierce so it was likely you would get their best effort.

That said, I've seen some wonderful examples of British Best Guns from all eras & that includes the late 1960's thru 1970's period when workmanship & quality were definitely in the decline, so as always each gun needs to be evaluated on it's own merit but I do think the between the wars period is an excellent place to look for an example of a "best".

"there can be debate on triggerplate actions and the "best" designation"

debate on what grounds? The sear-tumbler geometry is superior to sidelocks, the action bar is more solid therefore stronger. The stock to action joint is stronger in round actions. Since the advent of the Round Action the debate should go the other way, whether sidelocks by any maker can still lay claim to the title.

In the words of Gough Thomas: "for sheer thoroughbred lines the Dickson Round Action yields nothing whatsoever to the finest sidelock ever built."

I might be wrong, but I frequently perceive an American reverence to anything bearing the dubious title of "London best" and inevitably the sidelock action because is what the London makers made. Had the Round Action been able to show a London address no doubt it would also be equally revered. It is useful to remember that vital bits, like locks were made by Stanton and Brazier far from London, while prestigious guns like the Lancaster 12/20 and the Holland Dominion were made entirely in Birmingham.

As for pricing and profit. The standard of living attained by James Purdey the Younger, detailed in Richard Beaumont's book, stands as evidence that a fair amount of money could be made in this trade.

The value of a prestigious gunmaking firm to a big conglomerate is in its client book, not its turnover. Just think how valuable is a real time updated list of people who have repeatedly spent the price of a house on a gun!

And to remind us all yet again, a Ferrari with a bluprinted V12 engine, ie lots of handwork, sells for 150$ per kilogram, while a best gun goes for 30 000. Some people obviously know how to exploit our passions!

Shotgunlover, the debate comes in the initial definition of "best", which required that best guns had to be sidelocks. It can be argued that in some ways, boxlocks also have advantages over sidelocks. As for Mr. Garwood, he tended to give praise where he thought it belonged rather than going with "tradition". Re fretted barrels, as seen on French guns, Thomas wrote:

"With resleeving now thoroughly established, it seems remarkable that no British firm has adopted the fretted barrel, with its possibilities for combining greater strength with a reduction in the cost of producing double guns." So, if monobloock/fretted barrels have superior strength, should we not then be talking about them as belonging on a "best" rather than chopper lump? After all, one can do some nice engraving to pretty up the joint.

And I may be missing something on Lancaster, but my sidelock 12 (not a 12/20) carries London proofs and a London address. Lancaster was always a London firm, even after it was acquired and eventually became part of Atkin, Grant and Lang. I wouldn't doubt that Lancaster, like many London makers, had boxlocks made for them in Birmingham. But I've seen 12/20 sidelocks, and always thought they were London guns.