Well Jack, it's more than just "one gun writer" (and several people on this thread) suggesting that barrel length was simply a marketing ploy. Michael McIntosh on the subject:
"In the 1920's and 30's, when 28 and 30 inch barrels were standard far among game guns worldwide, Churchill insisted that 25 inches was plenty. Although the whole thing was largely an attempt to create something new that his company, E.J. Churchill, could use to advantage in a flagging gun market, he was right--ballistically, at least."
McIntosh also commented on the rather interesting logic behind the Churchill rib: "He also designed a special rib . . . intended to give the illusion that the barrels are longer than they actually are. The illusion actually does work, but the concept belies the basic premise of short barrels: If short barrels are so good, what's the need in making them look longer?"
And finally, back to Mr. Thomas--who, on a personal level, was an admirer of Churchill's guns. "I count myself among his converts, but not as a doctrinaire convert, for I am sure that the XXV is not everybody's gun." And Jack, you might learn objectivy from this fellow convert of yours (although you appear to be of the "doctrinaire" variety): " . . . there was little originality and no true invention in his 'XXV' gun . . . " So you see, it's quite possible to recognize something for what it was (a marketing ploy) and still admire it . . . without resorting to deflection from the subject at hand (the merits of Churchill's 25" barrels). Indeed, he made fine guns, and his marketing ploy worked very well in the "flagging gun market" to which McIntosh and I both referred. And they would have been (and are) fine guns, even when they don't have 25" barrels. But they would not have sold as well, and that's what the XXV was all about. And making one's company successful, even if that success didn't hinge on any "true invention", is plenty to be proud of.
Good thing we have objective, non-doctrinaire converts--like Thomas--to listen to on the subject.
