doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com What Do You Look For That Says This Is a Well Made

All this talk of the smell of fine old furniture brings to mind the apartment I once furnished while in college. One of the roomies had the bright idea of trash pile furnishings. Oh the smell!

Sorry I brought that up...Geo

"What Do You Look For That Says This Is a Well Made Gun?"

In reference to doubles I first look for my shooting student and double gun mentor, Joe Wood, and ask him.

When he isn't sober enough to talk then I look for metal to metal fit on the floor plate and, if a sidelock, how well the lockplates fit into the action. I look for timed screws and how well they fit the surrounding metal.

I also look at the wood to metal fit, the quality of the engraving, and the quantity of the engraving. I look at the quality and quantity of checkering. I look for overruns in the checkering. Is the checkering flat topped? I look for borders around the checkeriing. I look for the corners of the outside of the pattern to be cut accurately with no overruns or undershoots. Joe taught me to look at the engraving and finish of the fin on the thumblever.

I look at the fit and finish at the muzzles. I look for keels in the muzzle. I look at the finish of the water table and the barrel flats. I look at the quality of the engraving on the rib and on the barrel flats.

I look to see where and when it was made. If it was made in England between WWI and WWII then I just assume it is was quality built. If it says Parker, Fox/Philadelphia, or Ithaca I assume it is built well. Haven't gotten around to the owning the Elsie's yet. If it says Beretta or Winchester I assume it to be well made.

With the gun closed, I look at the gap between the water table and the barrel flats towards the butt end of the gun.

Edit: If it was made in Germany before WWII I assume it to be well made.

You are absolutely correct. However, maybe you missed seeing that I was speaking about evidence of "excellent condition" as well as build quality. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear. I do realize that is two different categories.

I saw the comment about the top lever engraving being a tell-tale. That's a new one for me and I will definitely put that to use, as well as the others.

I think in many cases with older guns that show character, as the old saying goes, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I can understand an appreciation for the evidence marks left behind by a gun's handlers. While some may find a knot in a piece of wood unsightly, I may find it appealing if in the right location.

?
I'd rather not see broken or missing wood, but this could be a sign that a gun was fiddled with. To me there's nothing wrong with a little shrinkage on a good condition hundred year old unaltered stock. The appearance that someone tried to 'improve' the condition doesn't always work out so well.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to define "high quality" as applied to double guns and rifles.
Engraving and the amount of coverage is not necessarily an indicator of objective quality. At the risk of being tarred and feathered as un-American, I will say this, there are many highly engraved, "high grade" American guns that simply do not stack up against their English/German/Italian counterparts when viewed objectively. This is not meant to be an insult to anyone who likes American guns, it's simply the truth, and it's due to completely different philosophies regarding design and manufacture (and marketing). It also doesn't mean that I do not like American guns, in fact, the Fox gun is the only gun that I'll use as the basis for a custom project. English and European best-quality guns are simply designed, fit and finished to a level (both INSIDE and out) that American makers have never equalled (until today, CSMC's Boss-type O/U, for example). This is to say nothing of weight, balance and the subjective quality of handling. I don't believe that this is because American workers aren't able, but because American makers relied so heavily on automation in comparison to there counterparts "across the pond".
Also keep in mind that because of the collectors' market, the monetary value of many guns simply doesn't mesh with their inherent "quality". Things like rarity, special configurations, previous ownership by some long-dead magazine writer, etc. all conspire to drive values upward, irrespective of objective quality.

Examining the quality and quantity of engraving on European guild guns has some value. Although they could, most makers didn't put a lot of high quality engraving on a poorly made gun.

Now if someone is trying to decide which Parker DH 12 gauge to buy by divining the quality of one to another based on the quality of the engraving on each, no useful information there.

I like English and American guns. I boast that I have a tween-the-wars London sidelock 20 bore. And also brag on my high grade Parker 20 gauge. The fit, finish, and engraving are all superior on the London sidelock. The Parker is still a beautiful, quality gun,

The American guns do run a little heavier, gauge to gauge, than the English and the European guns. But the standard cartridges do too. Standard load for a US 28 ga is 3/4oz, UK 5/8oz. US 20 ga is 7/8oz, UK 20 is 3/4oz. US 16 ga is 1oz, UK 16 is 7/8oz.
12 gauge 1-1/8oz compared to 1-1/16.

I am a big fan of the Fox XE grade guns. The engraving on them, though not up to the standards of a higher grade Scott or Beesley or Imman. Meffert, compare very favorably in my eye to those guns. The pattern and engraving style give the Fox XEs a needed boost I think.

I defer to your expertise on the internals of the different categories.

It pleases me that you find the Fox mechanics strong and well designed. Again, I just don't know much about the internals. I really like the Fox guns. And the Parkers. And the Ithacas.

I think the German pre-WWII guns have to be the biggest bargain on the planet in terms of quality per dollar.

Best,

Mike

Eightbore the bar in wood was built by Purdey and over its considerable lifetime it has been subject to all sorts of mistreatment. It does not have any original finish because it was rescued just in time from being scraped at that time it was considered valueless, you could say what original finish it did have has been removed by time use misuse and the old enemy rust so it is lucky to be still with us in a usable condition. And at the end of the day its Purdey build quality kept it together and working through it all.

I think you make a great point regarding the difference in European and American standard loadings. Lighter build guns generally do not hold up as well to heavy loads as heavy actions do. Thus we find shot often/carried little pigeon guns likely built on more robust (heavier) actions than say the shot less/carried more light weight upland guns. I think any build quality consideration should be put in context with the guns intended use.

I knew this question would potentially open a can of worms given the subjective nature of "quality built". Realizing that when we look past the aesthetics, and handling characteristics to the engineering/materials, and attention to detail of fit/finish, I think we can generally touch on more objective points. I'd like to see more points regarding these considerations. As an engineer by trade, I'm attracted to these elements as much as beautiful wood and tasteful engravings.

High quality is not subjective.
If it were, it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to claim that a Rossi coach gun or a 311 or an L.C. Smith are the equal of a Prussian Daly or a Westley Richards or a Holland & Holland.
They are not.
Value for money is subjective but that's not what the OP asked about.
The gun's intended use is also not a factor in quality, using heavy loads in a light English game gun would be nothing short of abuse.
The fact that the lighter gun would eventually "shoot loose" is not an indictment of its quality.