Some of those old guns were shot that much. Driven shooting with a name sidelock has always been a very expensive proposition in England, and one that has been available to commoners only since the very end of the industrial revolution. Those that were shooting their guns that much unquestionably had access and the financial means to consult the actual builders for the required yearly service, not just the corner gunsmith.
There are, of course, 75 year old Spanish and Italian guns, that have lasted that long because they were good guns, just not many of them are here. Further, wars on the continent tended to be affairs that involved the overrunning of countries involved in them, and the Spanish had only sorted out their civil war as the festivities from WWII grew heated. Neither of these bode well for a long, uninterupted civilian gun making history. Yes, the English may have built more, but there are wonderful 80 year old Italian and Spanish guns, as well as Prussian, French, Russian, Austrian, Belgian and what-have-you. Deny this, and look foolish at one's own risk.
The blanket assesment of the English sidelock being in disrepair all the time is one I have heard before, but, might be unfair labeling from this part of the world. The very great majority of those guns in service in this country may never have seen the correct ammunition or a decent gunsmith. Further, a self opening ejector sidelock of game gun dimensions is a complicated design that may have been forced into service here for which it wasn't intended. The duck was king in north America at the turn of the century, and freezing overnights in a saltwater sinkbox, loaded with potent waterfowl loads, was the last place an English, sub 7 lb self opening ejector gamegun needed to be.
In fairness, I have heard the same thing about Spanish copies of English sidelock designs. I imagine the same factors could apply.
Kirk Merrington is not required by US law here to mark a gun as sleeved-he does do it if the customer requests it-the customer is the inspector here, not a proof house. That debate aside, I have no question that any sleeving work he has done would pass English proof, including the visual inspection, since the man was apprenticed at Hollands as a barrel maker, worked the trade for years over there, and has a firm grasp of what will pass English proof, and what won't. To imply that his work here in the US should always be stamped or labeled with nomenclature related to English proof laws is unrealistic-the customer determines that. Barrels sleeved by Kirk here in the states are not required by law to be marked, or to pass English proof, so why should they be marked with any form of English required proof house stamping? That action implies something that isn't the case. His barrel work is more than good enough to stand alone.
You may want to keep that in mind, Eightbore. I doubt Kirk is going anywhere, anytime soon. One of the best, quick turnaround, sober, and he is all ours. I can report that he is just as good on other quality guns from Europe, in addition to English made-although, in my case, he may have fixed a French gun or two with clenched teeth, the work was always superb!
Best,
Ted
