doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com How do you define a best gun?

I think 'Best' is more of a consensus. Many folks have been slammed here for showing or mentioning their 'bespoke' gun. The original fellow may be deathly afraid of how an acquisition is perceived by others, rather than how much he likes it, the fit or how it shoots.

I'm not sorry, I'm thrilled I like the British guns I can actually afford as opposed to really liking hammerless sidelocks or round actions I'll never be able to afford

[quote=Shotgunlover]"That said to best is first a gun that fits the shooter, properly choked for the shooter's style of shooting and type of game, 100% quality engraving, good wood, excellent to near prefect metal to metal and to wood fit, checkering done as near prefectly as can be seen, and balanced."[quote]

The "balance" part is a bit of a problem. There is no "balance" characteristic that is a summative for handling. Nope, none, nada. Balance is, indeed, one of four significant handling characteristics. It is the distance from the teeter-totter point to some reference; (front) trigger being the most convenient and useful. The other three are weight, unmounted swing effort, and mounted swing effort.

There has been a pervasive myth that "best" guns had some special, magical handling that was never duplicated in lessor guns. Nonsense. Any handling profile (set of the four characteristics) can be measured and then duplicated in another gun. The most sensible approach to handling is to think of the handling characteristics in the same way as a set of stock fit numbers. Unfortunately, the Brit gun trade, as well as all other trades and makers, failed to identify and measure swing efforts. So, they obsessed about weight and balance, the only handling numbers they measured. A lot of ink and paper were wasted on essays about the ideal weight and the optimum balance. Truth - there is no more one ideal/optimum handling than there is one optimum set of stock fit dimensions. Handling dimensions need to be fitted to the shooter just as much as do stock dimensions. BTW, the average Brit "best" game gun handling is as follows: 6 1/2# weight, 4 1/2" balance (forward of front trigger), 1.45 unmounted, and 6.4 mounted. Most shooters like lighter/lower/faster handling numbers but shoot better with heavier/higher/faster numbers.

Above said, handling is not an attribute unique to "best" guns.

DDA

My MOI database provides an opportunity to do just this in the basic comfort of your own home. With over 700 guns, most people can find reasonable comparables. The protocol is determine about what are the profiles of your current guns. Then, you work on which you enjoy shooting and which you shoot best. Future purchases can then be based on which way you want to move or what you wish to experiment with.

Questions?

DDa

Rocketman,

The term Balance over in Europe covers what you call handling in the US plus a fair share of general ergonomics. Gough Thomas coined the term Eumatics to cover these qualities. He also described a dynamometric contraption to measure swing dynamics, which a physicist friend copied and the results were fascinating.

Best guns inocrporate these characteristics. They feel lively, despite the weight, are easy to manipulate, and are pleasant to touch too. I would say they do not fight you when you use them and offer sensory pleasure in all phases of use. At the risk of being denounced by a SXS crowd, I found the same tactile qualities in some smooth pump guns.

Yes you can get these qualities in a "lesser" gun, but you expect them in a best, if for no other reason than you are being royally charged for them.

Personally I pay little attention to the balance point etc. From experience with many (possibly thousands) of guns I found that when each major part is center heavy, in the disassembled state, the assembled gun tends to be a lively handling one. By adding weight to the right place it is possible to alter the feel up to a point.


Darne doubles, regardless of quirkiness or not, are among the best handling doubles because the design favors center heavy parts, and the absence of a bottom rib helps too.

I am eager to handle an Alex Martin Ribless some day, to see how the absence of ribs affects its handling.

Craigd you have a point.

"The original fellow may be deathly afraid of how an acquisition is perceived by others, rather than how much he likes it, the fit or how it shoots."

And the big test is the unsigned gun with obvious quality work but no recognisable name. I have come across a few of these, all British, bearing the right proof marks but no name. The reaction of both afficionados and dealers is fascinating to watch. They want them, but are afraid to commit, like a cat stalking strange prey!

Shotgun lover,
Not ALL Darnes were built sans lower rib-you could get them how you wanted them, at all points in the history of the company. I'm guessing few people ever went to the trouble to order a fitted Darne, based on used guns I see, at least in the USA, at any rate. During the 50s, 60s and 70s, the people that ran the company did attempt to ramp up production to keep guns in inventory for stocking dealers, a disaster as far as I am concerned, with a design that is as fit critical as a Darne.
It is when someone attempts to use a non-fitting Darne we get the ignorant comments like "Darnes stink". There is precious little one can do to get a Darne to fit better, as the steel rod in the wrist doesn't allow for adjusting bend.
My 12 has an under rib, and I suspect the gun was built for export, and not a custom order, as it is marked "Made in France" in English, on the top rib, and I believe the under rib was put there to help keep the gun from feeling "whippy" with the 26" barrels it was built with. A fact not often mentioned is the good handling and balance requirements of any given gun are going to be different depending on the human expected to use the gun-my ideal will no doubt be a bit different than your own.
What Gough Thomas said about the Darne, in the era he said it, in the country and to the people he said it to, borders on courageous. He would have been roundly criticized by those he knew for mentioning anything from France as having any improved qualities worth considering.
But, he did. For good reason.

Best,
Ted

Ted,

I know what you mean. I grew up in England and for some time drove a 2CV!

It is fascinating to compare attitudes in Anglosaxon and non Anglosaxon cultures. In my parts A V22, a Purdey and an Ideal would be ranked about level by buyers and sellers. Any such suggestion in an Anglosaxon environment would elicit some rude responses.

As for the ribs, I have seen about equal proportions with and without bottom rib. Being a rib hater I guess the ribless ones leave a more lasting impression.

Once you have an understanding of the handlings characteristics, comparisons are available.
DDA