Larry - Your original post described - at length - conditions in the British gun market in the 1920s to justify your claim that the XXV was a clever marketing ploy, "pure and simple."
New guns like the ones on the second hand market would've been a tough sell, so gunmakers needed a gimmick: Churchill's XXV
Your clear implication is that the XXV was a
response to conditions in the post-WWI, 1920s gun market. It wasn't.
As your first argument couldn't hold water, you have shifted to Churchill's aggressive marketing, and his claims for "exclusive advantages." As no one is arguing against that, you can declare victory. Congratulations.
Every gunmaker is market-driven. Every gunmaker depends on marketing. Every new design is lauded by its maker and challenged by its competitors. And every new gun design is a risk - how many have been introduced with great fanfare, and then disappeared? Churchill took a risk with the XXV, and it was promptly attacked by traditionalists who claimed that its short barrels would lose too much velocity to be effective. He believed in the merits of his XXV and fought hard; some would say, "too hard." But if he overstated his case - and he did - his opponents did likewise. And in the end, they were the ones proven wrong.
Churchill made fine guns--but he was more of a businessman than he ever was an innovator in the gun world.
As for Churchill himself - his pioneering work in forensic ballistics alone should be enough to secure him a place as an "innovator in the gun world." His "Churchill Method" of wingshooting instruction is widely accepted around the world today. His book "Game Shooting" has gone through at least two languages and eight editions I know of. And, of course, his XXV has won many fans, is highly valued on the used gun market, and has been copied by other gun makers. So I think simply dismissing Robert Churchill as "a businessman" rather undervalues his contributions to the gun world.
