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

I learn from members when the discourse is lively and informative, as it is here, and it's what makes the board relevant to me. Thank you, Larry and jack.

Shotgun, does the larger batter pick the smaller bat?
The pole vaulter, picks the right test pole for his height and weight.
Do you wear a Beatle jacket to a formal dinner?

Was the Churchill ovaunda an indication that Churchill was "innovative" in the technical as well as the entrepreneurial sense? Seems to me many of the guns&money men also have their name on patents. If you had a fresh approach or a new idea but a draftsmen took the words out of the air and made them flesh with dimensions, geometry and material specs and a mechanic built a prototype, would you be any less responsible for setting the process in motion? Isn't it really a question of which "innovations" are so obviously superior, utilitarian and economical as to rise to nearly universal usage and become the norm? Westley Richards droplocks are not exactly falling off the gunracks in this neck of the woods.

As for the little guns in big hands syndrome, MacIntosh also regales us with the story of a large friend who shot a subminny 28b for the same reason he married a tiny woman: just couldn't believe either would go bang!

jack

Is "Ovunda" the plural of "Ovundo"? A matched pair, perhaps?
Best,
Ted

Olden Rabbit are you thinking Westley? So, does a gentlemen fiddle with his innards - no!
If this is so?
They(drop-locks) are overpriced by thousands then.

I didn't mean to confuse the Churchill "vertical" with the Richards gun but maybe that unintentionally makes the point that Churchill isn't the only gunmaker who has considered that a distinctive name or number pushed far enuf is good for the bottom line. Most golf balls look pretty much alike; the marketing dept. stamps them with a special grace.

jack

...and here all the time, I thought that some traveled a greater distance and were truer of flight.
Besides, golf is for business toilers and rich old ladies - I have no use for neither.

No dough for droplocks, Lowell. Point is: droplocks are "innovation" for pukka sahib niche who felt the need for "spares" like Argentine dove shooters feel need for extra O-rings. Hardly "innovation" in a league with the breech-loading concept but still innovative simply in convincing a minority that they are sliced white bread.

jack

Well, Jack, let's see . . . Thomas and McIntosh made quite clear that the barrel length, in and of itself, is not an improvement--even though Thomas, like you, has a personal preference for the XXV. From the above quote, you're taking what shooters BELIEVE (including yourself), rather than something that can be proven, objectively--like the Model 21's superior strength and the Super Fox's superior patterns--and citing that as proof of improvement, superiority, or exclusive merit.

My dictionary defines "doctrinaire", as a noun, as "someone apt to apply theories without proper grasp of practical considerations". Thomas recognized that Churchill based his XXV on a theory that represented no practical, inherent advantage over guns with longer barrels--although it might work well for some people. Taking that theory and citing it as an improvement, without objective proof, clearly makes you a doctrinaire convert. Nothing wrong with that, any more than there is with Churchill using the XXV theory to sell guns--but it's always worthwhile when one understands one's own shortcomings and lack of objectivity.

Your argument is that the XXV wasn't a mere marketing ploy. We're back where we started. In order to prove it was not--in contrast to statements from people like Thomas (who really likes the XXV) and McIntosh that it was simply a marketing ploy--you need to establish, once and for all, some demonstrable superiority over guns with other barrel lengths. And it has to be a bit better than "Well, I shoot this 25" gun better than I do this 26" gun", which is purely a matter of what works for ONE shooter. No guarantee it will work for most shooters, let alone all (which Thomas clearly recognizes). And by the way, Jack, do you own a REAL Churchill XXV? If not, then you're only talking about some sort of copy of the real thing that happens to have 25" barrels and maybe a Churchill rib. So while you have some personal experience with guns with 25" barrels, if you don't own a Churchill XXV, then you're not aware of the specific advantages of that model.

Unfortunately, both Brown and Macintosh seem to be conflating two separate issues: the 25" gun (i.e., Churchill's XXV) and the marketing ploy (Churchill's extravagant claims for the gun).

First of all, the XXV predated the 1920s market, and Robert Churchill's aggressive marketing. According to Don Masters' comprehensive book, The House of Churchill, Robert Churchill fitted his first gun - #640/2083 - with 25 inch barrels in 1913. The first Churchill gun marked "XXV" - #2098 - was started in October 1914 - long before anyone could foresee post-WWI market conditions. Moreover, Masters writes,

So design and naming of the XXV gun itself, and early Churchill sales of 25 inch guns, were totally unrelated to the 1920s market.

Secondly, Masters states that the Churchill firm was flourishing in the 1920s despite Britain's flagging economy, and points out that in 1922 Churchill was hiring skilled workers from other gunmakers.

So the claimed connection between the gun and the marketing ploy just isn't there. Yes, Churchill made extravagant claims for 25" guns in the 1920s, but no, 25" guns weren't "something new on a flagging gun market," or a "marketing ploy, pure and simple."

I don't like to respond to such peevishness, but I can't pass up this one. I first used a Churchill XXV in Scotland in 1982. It was a dandy and (Larry won't believe this) I shot it quite well. (That's okay, Larry, I was surprised myself!) Since that time I have enjoyed the use of several XXVs at shooting clubs and in the field, loaned by good, trusting and well-heeled friends. These XXVs have all been quick-mounting, sweet-handling guns well suited to the 'Churchill Method' style.

I don't own an XXV, because I couldn't afford to tie up that much money in a gun that is not my choice for waterfowling or wild pheasants. A modest Bernardelli Hemingway 20ga. is the best I can do for a 'specialty' grouse gun. But if I could afford an expensive one-game gun, I'd surely buy an XXV for ruffed grouse.