Two identical SXSs, visually indistinguishable from each other, incorporating all the stylistic features mentioned above re best guns, but,
one is made of traditional materials, ie case hardened mild steel receiver and Whitworth barrels, the other of certified vacuum melted nickel chrome steel, fully tested for internal faults, and Boehler Blitz barrels.
Which one is better?
With such clear differences can the maker's name have any mitigating effect on quality?
There are those that insist on a recognisable name being stamped before the item can be classified as best. Those that really know could not care less about the name, and that is the bind with this best business.
Realistically a well made modern made gun, from a practical user's stand point, is certainly better then what came out of England in the late 1800's and early 1900's, just as a Glock is better then the revolvers and early semi-automatics of the same time period. At least for me and I suspect most of the people who follow this board, the problem is the new guns are just things, items that are easily replaceable, presuming you have the money and have no character or individuality to them.
For me there is something about picking up a gun, made long before I was born and appreciating it's history and in the case of the English hammer guns I prefer, looking at the time and skill a handful of people took to make what is arguably a work of art.
