I’m always amazed at how the double gun community snubs the Remington doubles, yet so many extol the virtues of the Ithaca or Parker. Now, Parkers are some of the most attractive doubles ever built, so I can understand their appeal; but mechanically, they’re not nearly as robust as the Remingtons. Ithacas are perhaps (at least to my eye) the most unattractive doubles in existence (ok, that’s a gross exaggeration, but they’re not good looking guns in my book).
Now we come to the Remingtons, which have very strong English roots. The 1889 is a nice hammer gun and the 1894 is a straight up A&D boxlock, and a good one. My only complaint about the Remingtons is they are perhaps the worst offender of having stocks with too much drop. Other than that, I really find little to criticize.
So guys, what am I missing here? Why are Remingtons such second class guns?
