doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com the bad rap on english guns

many say the classic english sbs's cant handle the stress of a typical competition year held in the states.
ive always been drawn to westley richards shotguns but hesitate because of this. i know WR guns have been used in olympic matches, but did they hold up?
so, what is the main issue with english guns? is it the lock up? the triggers? all the little hand made parts breaking?
help me undo this fear of owning one.....and shooting it a lot.

News to me. 90% of my stuff is either English or Scottish.

I don't have that opinion of English guns, but so many of the ones you see for sale are game guns and not heavy enough for continuous targeting, IMO. Give me a 8 lb.+ waterfowler, stocked properly for targets, and I could be happy with it for lots of clays

IMO once again, the other issue is not that they are necessarily fragile, but when a part DOES break you will spend big bucks having a custom made part fabricated by a master gunsmith, and waiting no telling how long to get it. That's just not an ideal situation to place one's self in when you are depending on a gun for competition.

Typical off the shelf American ammunition is unsuitable for older English double guns. This is amplified when the age of the English double is pre war, or, older. Many old English guns that ended up here had the chambers lengthened to 2 3/4” or, 3”, without another thought, and were used up. Just because an English gun has a 2 3/4” chamber does not mean it has been proofed for 1 1/4oz loads, either.
Old guns, like old dogs in the field, bring their own issues to the game. Expecting an English gun built about the same time as the Titanic to be your ATA gun for a year might be an expensive decision. While you do run into English fowlers intended for geese, ducks and swans, the light game gun configuration is far more common. Intended to be carried more, and shot, some.

For serious competition shooting, there are better choices.

Best,
Ted

bobski, a question, if I might.

Is the object of your concern to break every target possible, or to shoot an English gun at them?

#2.
fit and feel. perfect swing. a classic gun that feels like its not in my hands, acting as an extension of my eye...that doesnt kick because it was made not to.

yet, has the modern variables like ejectors, sst, and a beavertail forearm.

ive been watching this one for a long time. the lump shoe bbls have me hesitating, yet the impressive feature is that the receiver has been bolstered up.

https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...arrel-trap-droplock.cfm?gun_id=103362241

You have painted a picture with some very high expectations, and I don't see the specifications mentioned that can fulfill them for you.

Fit and feel - no stock dimensions are given, not LOP, not DOC, not DAH.
Perfect swing - no weight is provided. And, you certainly can't know the moment of inertia.
You haven't held or shot the gun so you cannot know the feel. Or, at least, you haven't told us that you have.
It doesn't kick because it was made not to - pretty high expectation there considering you don't know the weight of the gun or the stock dimensions.

And, at $22.5 large, it would all be quite a gamble on a sight-unseen gun.

Just a few thoughts of mine, on the thoughts of yours.

How many rounds would you be putting through a gun in a competition year? Presumably they would be fairly light trap loads.

Then bear in mind that the British game gun was designed to shoot many thousands of game specific rounds through it for driven shooting each season.

It was then expected to be returned to its maker for an annual service and to maintain its reliability in the field.

Given those considerations I feel your concern should be how heavily used that WR trap gun is, what its designed for load is and then whether you like it in your hands. And as has been pointed out, finding a gunsmith trained on British game guns seems to be getting trickier and trickier in North America now. Its not so easy back here in England, either!

Tim

WR now directs american owners to Griffin & Howe for service. At least that's where Anthony Tregear sent me when I had a problem with an older droplock, a year or so ago.

What have shooters seen of English guns that have broken because of high volume shooting? What broke? How many? Were they shooting a lot of over proof loads?

The whole concept seems silly to me.... buy it and use it if you want it ?$#%^# ?????? Just like cars, there in no guarentee a new car won't break down just as fast as a used car, and there is no guarentee an x make of car won't break just as fast as any other. If you have the coin to shoot a $22K gun and you are on this site, then I assume you can easily have a back up if needed. It will still get you from point A to point B if needed. I have had lots of thing break on me, but if I didn't buy or use anything for fear of required repairs, I am not sure what would be left to play with ?

I’m kind of a believer in shooting guns that were designed for the kind of shooting I’m doing.

Well I've had a main cocking spring break on my Henry Atkin Spring Opener, a left lock hammer break on my Stephen Grant. Neither are cheap repairs.

The answer to the OP's question can be answered pretty much by simply using some common sense.


I'm pretty sure the British coined the phrase "off the face". If not, they certainly became aware that it happens. I don't know that any gun spring, no matter how carefully made, can survive an infinite number of compressions. Hammers, firing pins, or trigger components can wear, or suddenly fracture after working perfectly for thousands of rounds. Annual servicing may catch worn components, but it won't catch a hammer or spring that will eventually break due to some internal defect in the steel. Recoil damage to wood can happen due to a single excessive blow, or the accumulated pounding of thousands of shots.

Even purpose-built high volume competition guns that replaced the competition guns of a century ago are known to eventually fail. But as Stan said, some parts are easily replaced with relatively inexpensive mass produced parts. However, it won't be so easy, or cheap, when you need a skilled gunsmith to make a replacement.


It is true that a brand new vehicle may break down, maybe even before the window price sticker is removed. That's why we pay extra for warranties. But nobody should expect that a 2WD El Camino with a light duty frame and suspension will last as long in off-road competition as a beefy 3/4 ton 4WD truck. Trucks, cars, and guns are engineered for different levels of use and abuse. Redline RPM for a Formula 1 engine is 13 - 15,000 RPM, and it may not survive one 2 1/2 hr. race. That doesn't mean that a Corvette engine would be an intelligent substitute for 230 mph racing, even though both are made for high performance. So this advice to have a spare back-up gun when your English Game Gun breaks in a month or a year is valid. I often bring a spare gun on hunting trips. With enough time and enough money, almost anything can be repaired or replaced. Guns are meant to be shot, so use the WR if you wish. Just don't expect it to last as long as your Perazzi or Krieghoff. A serious competitor may not wish to have their concentration broken in the middle of a round though.

Just common sense. Unfortunately, common sense isn't always common. That's why dumb gun owners support anti-gun politicians.

If I remember right, it was Elmer Keith that said, English guns are nice to look at,
but are built to ''Flimsy'' for American Shells.

Dirty Harry

the gun link i posted is what i would be using it for. a good 250 rounds a weekend shooting trap w/ 1 1/8oz handicaps.
i figure if someone took time to custom order a WR with bolstered receiver......he must have known something the average guy didnt.

Very well said. Me, too.

I still think you'd be just fine!! I don't think 250 rounds a weekend is pushing F1 competion! That is a gorgeous gun.

He might have also known that break open side-by-side guns don't have receivers. They have frames. Revolvers don't have receivers either. They also have frames. It's firearm terminology that is very commonly misused, even by people who should know better.

Pump guns, bolt actions, and auto-loaders do have receivers. Some single shots such as falling blocks, rolling blocks, swinging blocks have receivers, while break-open single shots have frames. I'd opine that sliding breech shotguns like the Darne should be considered to have receivers. Receivers have various components that feed ammunition into a chamber. Things like bolts, carriers, floor plates, breechblocks, magazine tubes, magazine wells, feed rails, etc.

This may create a new shit-storm. Dave might even wish to censor any possible arguments before they start, because heaven forbid we upset any thin skinned panty wearers on a gun forum.

I won't lose my mind over anyone's insistence upon clinging to incorrect terminology... like Dr. Wanker's melt-downs over the interchangeable terms "water table vs. action flats." But at least he never said break-open shotguns had "receiver flats".

Let's see . . . . I could name a few things I've used for a long time that have never broken on me.

Benchmade knives
Several vises
A Ford F250 with 215K miles
Many of my American made S X S shotguns
Many of my American made rifles
My Apple desktop MAC
A Chef's Choice knife sharpener, along with a pantry full of my wife's appliances

I could continue with more but, the point to be made is that all the above were USED AS THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE WHEN THEY WERE BUILT.

I read a story years ago that sounds like it could be true.

A British subject who lived in South Africa when it was a colony, was driving his Rolls Royce, and had a spring break. He contacted the company, and they promptly flew a mechanic and a replacement spring to South Africa. It was quickly replaced and returned to service.

The owner waited a few months for an invoice. It never came, so he wrote the company requesting the bill for replacement of his broken spring. Shortly thereafter, he received a letter from Rolls Royce that said "Sorry Sir, but you must be mistaken. Springs do not break in a Rolls Royce."

Something similar happened when I wrote Thompson Center to purchase a replacement for the well worn frizzen on my old flintlock. No complaints, as it had lasted for thousands of shots. They simply sent me a new one free of charge. That's how good reputations are built.

I REALLY like that gun, bobski. Just needs a pistol grip rather than the straight one, but it is what it is. One good thing about it: you can shave the Monte Carlo comb until it shoots where you want it.
JR

Maybe bobski would rasp the comb on a $22.5K gun, but not me.

Hay 'ull no.

You are starting to sound like ed.

Ed is a New Hampshire "southerner".

Big difference. But, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

So much fun, Stanly. So much fun.

I would, Stan, and never give it a second thought.
JR

If bobski likes a gun like that, I have a droplock live bird gun, Whitworth barrels, that I'd sell for less than half of that.

steady boys, stay on course!

I’ve had an ejector spring on a BSA BLE and a right main spring in a Thomas Bland BLNE break. The youngest of the two was 70 years old. I’ve also had to replace the right striker on a Webley and Scott BLE. The striker wore down with use and had intermittent ignition. It was built in 1920. While nothing is inexpensive I think I’ve spent more on parts and repairs of newer guns.

I mean no disprect to any one... I really hope Bobski gets that sweet WR! I still think this has become a conversation as useful as "I don't buy Michelin tires because I know two people who got a flat tire with brand new Michelins"
Stanton - I think my point was: "I expect what I buy to last, but I do not deny something may break- in or out of my control" I bet the list of things you have broken is quite a bit longer? And I would have to think that F-250 is on borrowed time as it is no Land Cruiser!

Clearly some English guns will stand up to sustained competition use.

Percy Stanbury’s gun csn be viewed in Oxford Gun Company’s YouTube video and is reviewed by Michael Yardley in the Field (to whom this picture is credited).

Michael Yardley writes;-

“The Stanbury tanbury side-by-side has a special aura accentuated by the silver ovals on the butt which record his championship wins. The serial number is 95188, which suggests it was made in 1921. It weighs 7lb 71⁄2oz but feels lighter. It has very tightly choked (full and super-full), 30in barrels. These are unusual not just in constriction but because they have a wide, flat and tapered, file-cut rib (and are equipped with a tiny mid bead 10in from the breech). The rib is 7⁄16in wide to the rear, 1⁄4in at the muzzles.

Most unusually, the gun is equipped with a single selective trigger (the special work of Roland Bloomer), and bears Birmingham proofmarks for 11⁄4oz loads. It now shows London 70mm marks for 2006 (and has bores, somewhat enlarged from their original dimension, with proof diameters of 18.6mm and 18.7mm). With an imperial micrometer they measure .732 and .735. The semi-pistol stock is elegantly proportioned (and not the original). The measurements are 145⁄8in for length, with drop of 11⁄2in and 21⁄8in, with about 1⁄4in of cast at heel.“

Percy’s gun has been written about a few times here in the states. I feel that it is much like George Washington’s axe, the head has been replaced twice, and the handle half a dozen times, but, hey, it is George Washington’s axe.

Best,
Ted

i find it odd that english makers only proof guns to 1 1/8oz. why so low?

For the upland birds they had available and in the conditions they typically hunted it was all they really needed. Another 1/8th oz of shot isn’t really necessary for red grouse, woodcock (not even European woodcock, that run much larger) driven pheasants, wood pigeons or anything else. They shot black grouse with the same loads, but, hunting for them was ‘sort of a comical stalk until in range, so I’m told.

Best,
Ted

Elmer Keith spelled it out, they are built ''Flimsay'', to light for American'' shells.
Most of them have very short chambers. Who would want a 12ga. with 2in. chambers
and shooting 3/4 oz. of shot. You might as well shoot the 410ga., the worst of our gauges.

Dirty Harry

Says a guy who never shot a two inch twelve gauge.

I find plenty 2.75 inch english chambers. Elmer was was an idiot about shotguns.

American shotguns are great for clubbing seals. Shooting birds not so much.😁😁

I can confirm from seven years of recent experience that one ounce of English number 6 size shot is all you need to bring down driven pheasant here in England. I usually use the Hull Cartridge company's Imperial Game loads in a 2.5" cartridge.

After Christmas I go up to the number 5 size pellets and to a 1 & 1/16th ounce load, also in the 2.5" case.

Remember that these birds are being driven towards you so usually the head is hit. Any heavier loads are unpleasant in my 6lbs 12 ozs. Webley boxlock.

HB

"number 5 size pellets and to a 1 & 1/16th ounce load, also in the 2.5" case."

Perfect load for wild roosters with dogs as well, my preference in my gun.

Hunting wild pheasants, on public land, in winter, here in the northern midwest, is truly a different game. I would imagine rough shooting pheasants in the UK is similar, with the exception of the downgrade in performance of using ammunition that is often below freezing in temperature when it is fired. Using 1 1/4oz loads is not as unpleasant as watching them fly away, leaving a few feathers to float down to the ground, when an ounce wasn’t quite enough.

I’ve read and experienced a little bit of driven pheasant shooting, but, I’d love to see a bit more on the experience of rough shooting pheasants in the UK.

Best,
Ted

I happen to like the 2". Within their limits they clean and efficient killers. Mine is bored IC and MOD and it can really reach out.

ive heard many say lump shoe barrel blocks are weak. has anyone ever seen one fail?
i know the m21 block is the strongest made, in comparison.

By fail, do you mean like this? Sure:



Strongest made? Not according to this guy:

https://vicknairgunsmithing.blogspot.com/2016/01/an-unbiased-look-at-design-of-american.html

Best,
Ted

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ever wonder that you don’t know what you don’t know?

Bobski, you say "all English guns are proved for 1 1/8 ounce loads". Not true. The Westley you are looking at is most likely proved for 1 1/4 ounce loads, as are Purdey pigeon guns and a whole raft of other UK waterfowl and pigeon guns. I have seen Purdey wildfowl guns proved for 1 1/2 ounces. On another subject, I will assure you and other posters that the Westley in question would fit me just fine.

There are a few 2” chamber English guns running around that were proofed for 1 1/8 loads, same as the 2 1/2” chamber guns. That doesn’t seem to qualify as flimsy.

Best,
Ted

i was not saying (all) english guns.
i was saying some are 1 1/8oz and i cant understand why it would be proofed so low..

And there is at least one really beautiful S&W out there that was rechambered to 2.75" And then reproofed at some ridiculous load that I do not recall. Which only goes to show how even English proofs can be a bit (choose your own adjective).

2&1/2", 1&1/8oz is standard proof for a British 12 bore game gun.

taken from the ad...........


12g steel, 32" Special Steel, shoe-lump barrels and original 2-3/4" chambers and ventilated rib and Doll's Head extension.
Unique to this model were refinements made to the action that was "specially constructed for the most rapid firing" as the firm described it in the catalog from the early 1930's.
Such features were a wider breech opening for loading and extraction, non-automatic safety, and a larger action body that was made to withstand high volume shooting of heavy loads.
This model also had a special stock shape, engraving, and barrel and rib configurations.
This gun has a square back and a raised side-panel bolster on either side of the action body, and fitted with Westley's unmistakable snap lever and Model "C" doll's head rib extension.
One of the main features of the "Special Double Barrel Trap Gun" was it being fitted with Westley's single-selective, "Patent One Trigger".

all these features and all they used were shoe lump bbls? makes no sense.

heres the other im looking at..........

Westley Richards 12GA hand detachable lock (droplock)shotgun
30" ejector barrels with matted rib
2 3/4" chambers
1 1/8oz nitro proof
Chokes: .024/.039 Mod/Full
Bores: .732/.734 proofed at .729/.729
Minimum wall thickness R: 0.028 L: 0.029

re-proofed to longer chambers? Likely I would think.

The seller didn’t post a photo of the barrel flats. This is such a common mistake these days that I usually suspect he has something to hide. I’m usually not wrong, either. If it was reproofed in England, the flats would tell us that. If it is a shoe lump gun, we could see that. The length of the original chambers will be there, as well as any other alterations that were done in England.

I’m not sure a shoe lump is a reason to dismiss a gun out of hand, or, for that matter, to insist on a gun having that feature. Look around long enough, and you’ll find broken guns with barrel construction of all different types. Ditto the drop lock feature. Cool, but, so what?

I’m not the expert, but, 1933 seems like it might be a bit late for model C leverwork. Someone will know. The beavertail and the straight stock look like hot pants on a hooker that has been collecting social security for 15 years, out of place. But, if that is specifically what you are looking for, you do you. As to whether the drop lock feature is worth the premium in price on what is a 12 gauge English boxlock with ammunition requirements that are a bit specific, that is going to be your call.

$22K is a bundle.

Best,
Ted

Bobski,

Ask for a picture of the barrel flats. I think Gulfbreeze firearms is owned by LD McCaa’s father. LD is now running the WR shop in Florida. The gun has a vent rib and a Monte Carlo type stock. The WR C-Bolt is a WR signature on their guns and they still make guns with it today. It is an unusual gun, but it was probably ordered in that configuration. The “other gun” was probably opened to 2 3/4” chambers without a reproof since it shows 1 1/8 oz proof. Again get a picture of the barrel flats.

Ken

I have come to this discussion late and will only comment on guns I know personally. Back in the 90's I shot a J Dickson boxlock , most likely Webley and Scott finished by Dickson. I used it for grouse, woodcock, and clays. It was made in the 60's so 2 3/4" chambers 1 1/8 proof. On clays I loaded 7/8 oz and on wild bird I usually used 1 oz loads. Over 5 or 6 years I think I fired over 15,000 rounds and there was literally no wear. I have a good fried that had owned and shot heavily a David McKay Brown 12 with modern proof loads. He typically uses 1 oz loads although it is proofed for more. I am pretty sure it has digested more than 15,000 rounds and the lockup is as good as when new. My point is with modest ammo, at least in my experience, these guns will last.

id be shooting 3 drams in trap matches and would consider having that old trap gun restocked with a mc prince of wales style pg.
i'll give them a call and get some more pics .

and for the record, i do understand every old gun nearing 100 years old is a crap shoot as far as what will be next.
its just the lure of a WR trap gun strengthened to endure, that caught my eye.
i do thank all the inputs to steer me to a logical decision.