Im the sort who when catches a spark of interest in something, usually digs into it rather deeply until some other interest comes along. This winter my current affair has become SxS shotguns. Specifically, European made. Ive learned a lot these last few months that have allowed me to narrow my focus on what Im most drawn to. At present, scaled 16 ga., sidelock, English style straight stock doubles have my heart. I discovered the well-made, typically undervalued Czech BRNO ZP models to be a great working gun, with all the technical attributes of Best Gun doubles such as chopper-lump bbls, scaled side lock actions that incorporate disc set strikers, gas escape valves, coil main springs, and hand fitted components with tight tolerances. Balance, point and swing are wonderful for my fit. Yet, they leave something to be desired in terms of eye appeal. I want something with more artistry as well as build quality, but I dont want to break the bank to get it.
I have always heard how Spanish doubles can satisfy all the technical and artisanal goals and be had at very reasonable prices relative to some other makers producing equivalent quality guns. The catch here of course is equivalent quality. Apparently the standards in Spain through the years have been all over the board depending on a given maker. Thats not unique to Spain, but it poses the challenge of requiring one to pay attention to the details of where and when a Spanish gun came from in trying to evaluate its market value.
So, all this to ask, whats the deal with Union Armera (UA) vs Grulla Armas? I keep seeing guns that were made by UA and marketed as Grulla. Yes I understand that UA was a consortium of 5 makers and started before WWII, and that they did a diverse business of building all grades of guns. They transitioned from the company name of UA to the company name of Grulla Armas sometime in the 80s. So I guess when people say a UA is a Grulla that is why. Yet, Grulla Armas has undergone a significant change in operations toward the type and quality of guns they build compared to those they built in their first decade of operation under that name, and certainly compared to the guns built overall by UA. Grulla Armas of today is focused on Best Gun builds only. The initial workmanship and thus cost of this grade gun is far more than the average UA ever was. Thus my ponderings have brought me to conclude how the heck can I tell if any UA is comparable to the Grulla? Engravings aside, where does one draw a line and say this UA or older Grulla is, or, is not built to the standards of todays Best Gun Grulla? I still have a lot to learnany insight you good folks would send my way would be well appreciated.
Last edited by hspruill; 03/14/15 11:39 AM.
