doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Churchill's 25" Barrels - Thoughts On

salopian: no 'war' of any kind, nor any offense, intended. But with all due respect to your father, I suspect he was having you on a bit. His yarn plays off the reality of Churchill's aggressive salesmanship (and occasional 'economy with the truth'). But it is the kind of spiteful rumor that grew out of Churchill's bitter public battles with The Field and some of its readers - battles which became quite heated and occasionally bordered on slander.

As noted, shorter guns were 'old hat' by the time the XXV was designed, so the notion that Churchill's gun was inspired by a hacked-up repair job is about as plausible as Newton's apple. But if your father seriously thought that an experienced shooter could be gulled into accepting his gun back from repairs with the barrels 3 inches shorter and the chokes cut off - that Churchill was willing to risk his family firm's reputation by trying it - and that Harper would go along with it - you are most welcome to believe it.

Salopian - drop by at the CLA I'll give you some new recipe stock oils and red oil to try.I have had some mixed results and have been experimenting with application and rubbing off times. Will be good to compare notes once again.

Jack, you remain the Arthur Murray of the BB, dancing all around the key points.

You are not paying enough attention to two key words--one from your own posts, one from mine. First, yours: prototype. Just because Mr. Churchill built a prototype in 1914, that does not tell us--unless you can come up with further documentation, to include samples of his advertising and production records--that Churchill actually promoted the XXV, and started producing them in any kind of quantity, until AFTER WWI. Production of an item does not automatically start immediately following the development of a prototype--and in fact, quite often does not. He didn't have to think of it as a "marketing gimmick" when he built the prototype, but he quite clearly touted the merits of his 25" barrels, over guns with barrels of other lengths, once he actually started producing and marketing the guns. Do you really think he was doing that before the end of the war? Any proof?

And now to "exclusive". Did Mr. Churchill suggest that Hellis' 26" guns were an advantage over the more common 28-30" barrels, or did he go directly--without passing go and without collecting $200--go to a different (and unique) barrel length, for which he claimed EXCLUSIVE merits? He certainly could've made 26" barrels, just as Hellis had been doing. So why didn't he? To set his guns apart, as having EXCLUSIVE merits and as being unique. And that, Jack, is the very definition of a marketing ploy. I learned to drive on my dad's 1958 Dodge, with "push button" drive. Was push button drive any better than the common "three on the tree" automatics offered by Ford and GM? No . . . they all did the same thing. But by doing something different, Chrysler gave itself the same sort of marketing ploy Churchill did with his 25" barrels.

Jack, we all accept that Churchill made fine guns--but he was more of a businessman than he ever was an innovator in the gun world. So says the late Geoffrey Boothroyd: "Although not a practical gunmaker, Robert Churchill had some firm ideas about sporting guns . . . The appearance of smokeless powders, which did not require lengthy barrels for complete combustion, meant that the concept of a short barrelled, lightweight game gun could be advocated by Robert, and this he did with some considerable success."

So if you want to argue that Churchill's XXV didn't have more to do with marketing than it did with any other aspect of the gun business, Jack . . . well then, you only need to stand against two of the foremost British shotgun authorities on that issue: Boothroyd and Thomas. And once again, that does not mean that they aren't good guns--although not the best choices for all shooters, and there certainly isn't any "exclusive merit" to 25" barrels over 26" or 28" or 30".

Jack Maloney, I have a question, if I may.
How do you post and reply to several quotes on one post?

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."
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.

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.

So Jack . . . no proof of Churchill either producing or marketing his XXV before the war ended? Thought not. The way he MARKETED the XXV was clearly a response to the gun market in England as it existed following WWI.

And his opponents were proven "wrong" on only one issue, which was their claim that the XXV was deficient in velocity when compared to guns with longer barrels. But that does not prove Churchill's hype of "exclusive merit" for his guns--unless you are going to tell us that the XXV is inherently "better" than a gun of similar quality with 28" barrels, based on nothing other than barrel length.

Claiming exclusive merit for a minor modification which is not an improvement over existing designs is the very definition of a marketing ploy. Churchill found something to set his guns apart (a different barrel length) and promoted them as being superior, based on that difference. That's good business--and that's all it is.

Forensic ballistics has to do with solving crimes; shooting style can be applied to any type of shotgun with any type action, let alone barrel length. He was no more an innovator in the gun world than Bob Brister, although the latter certainly deserves recognition for his work on shot string, involving moving targets. John Browning was an innovator in the gun world. There is a fairly significant difference.

And who is to say the XXV is not an improvement over existing designs?

Many shooters believed - and still believe - it is. I certainly found it to be so, for ruffed grouse shooting. And the quotable Shooting Times columnist, Gough Thomas, seemed to think so as well. He said the XXV delivers "a heady draught of those qualities of lightness, balance and speed in action which have hitherto been found only in best guns of any greater barrel length, and never those of 30 in." Sounds like an improvement, to me.

In an article on the Churchill XXV, Thomas opined that the short-barreled gun might even be "the final step in a long evolutionary process - the process of delivering the sporting gun from all barrel weight and barrel length in excess of that necessary for ballistics and for the proper handling and direction of the weapon." Pretty heady praise, for a "gimmick."

Of course, Thomas rightly criticizes Churchill for the sweeping claim that the XXV "handles like a 20 and shoots as hard as a 10." If that sounds familiar, it's because "handles like a 20 and hits like a 12" is a traditional boast of 16ga. enthusiasts. But to be fair, the "exclusive merit" phrase on which Larry is hanging his argument du jour may not even be Churchill's - it appears to come from Gough Thomas himself.

Robert Churchill's place in the gun world is solid and lasting. The Churchill Method, the Churchill rib, the Churchill XXV keep his name alive when other gunmakers of his time have been forgotten. His guns are highly valued, and his XXV has been widely imitated - the most genuine of compliments.

Every change in gun design could be called a "marketing ploy," as every gun is designed for the marketplace. And every aspect of every gun has equally passionate partisans and critics: 12 ga. v. 16ga v. 20ga.; DT v. NSST v. SST; ejector v. non-ejector; manual safety v. auto safety; magnum v. standard loads; and, still, 28" v. 26" and 25" barrels. You pays your money, you takes your choice and you shoot what works for you - fair enough.

But the unfortunate fact, demonstrated all too frequently in this forum, is that some partisans seem incapable of affirming their own choices without bad-mouthing the choices of others.

Too bad you chose to wander into the area of what some people choose, Jack, because that's not what this is about. And it's a poor attempt to deflect from the issue at hand. If an XXV has "exclusive merit"--then show me the proof of same, and I will concede that it wasn't just a marketing ploy for Mr. Churchill. (And there's nothing wrong with it as a marketing ploy--but it seems that some people have to search far and wide for nonexistent proof that it's anything other than that, just because it's what they happen to like. Touche, Jack.)

Let's compare Churchill's XXV to a couple other marketing ploys in the side by side world, from approximately the same time period: The Super Fox's extremely tight patterns from Becker-bored barrels, and the Winchester 21 "violent proof" test. The fact that the Super Fox with Becker-bored barrels threw incredibly tight patterns was indeed used in the company's ads (and particularly touted by Nash Buckingham, one of the leading outdoor writers of the time, and his own Super Fox, "Bo Whoop".) Likewise, Winchester proudly proclaimed the fact that their Model 21 digested over 2,000 proof loads without any damage--long after all the other doubles tested had failed. The difference is that both of those "marketing ploys" were fact-based. The only "fact" Churchill could proclaim about his XXV was that established in tests conducted by "The Field", which is that it was not inferior to guns with longer barrels in terms of velocity. "My guns are just as good as the rest . . ." Pretty easy to understand why he didn't use that as the basis of a sales campaign!

So Jack . . . all your bombast and pomposity won't get you there. You want to establish "exclusive merit" for the XXV--as Fox and Winchester clearly did, for their guns in the marketing ploys they used (Super Fox patterns tighter, Win 21 is stronger)--then back it up with demonstrable fact. Higher scores at skeet, maybe, for people shooting 25" guns? (But wait . . . the trend has been to LONGER barrels, not shorter ones.) Better results in the field . . . well, that's pretty much impossible to measure. So all we have is your hot air, and Mr. Churchill's--which makes the XXV exactly what it was: a marketing ploy without any exclusive merit behind it. Sorry, but you'll just have to live with that, Jack.

And before you get carried away with the "widely imitated" thing, you might want to check various dealers that specialize in British guns, and see how many 25's they have in inventory. You might want to check the guns currently being produced by the Spanish, who copy the British game guns more than anyone else, and see how many 25's they're making.

No argument here that Churchill made good guns. No argument either that he had a very clever marketing ploy, which gave him a leg up in an unusually competitive period in the British gun business. But let's not give him credit for inventing sliced bread--or anything else with demonstrably exclusive merit.

Anyone reading Larry Brown's "exclusive merit" mantra ad nauseam in this discussion might assume Churchill actually claimed "exclusive merit" for the XXV. But there is no evidence for this. I know of only one time the phrase was used for the XXV, and not by Mr. Churchill. Here is the original source of Larry's fixation:

So one gun writer only inferred - on the scanty evidence of the 'XXV' label - that Churchill was claiming "some exclusive merit" for the barrel length.

But I'm sure Larry will explain, at length, why he felt that phrase "exclusive merit" was worth repeating more than a dozen times in this thread.

Jack, I don't really care about you and Larry's fude. I just would like for you to answer my queastion above about how it put more than one quote in a post. Please?