I agree with Salopian and JayCee, and I think that we are now getting to the meat of this thread and the original question that was asked.
I don't know all the history of the famous London/English gunmakers but from what has been stated by many of the posters on this thread it appears that perhaps even from the beginning many of the most famous hid the origins of their offerings if the forum members are correct. And they are apparantly still doing so, but I suspect that now much, much more is not done in house and in fact not even in England anymore.
By my way of thinking if I am paying the high premium price for a new "English Gun" that is supposed to be the best of its kind based upon the "English" reputation and the famous "English" Maker", shouldn't they acknowledge to a potential customer the source of the gun or its components? Or do they actually do so if asked by a bonafide customer? And even if they do acknowledge it shouldn't an "English" gun if marketed that way at least be "majority" made or parts sourced in England, as that is supposedly what actually made the English gun reputation in the first place. Or am I just dead wrong in my thinking?
If they don't when asked, what are they trying to hide? As Salopian said, profiteering comes to mind.
Browning sold guns well made in Belgium, and Winchester sold guns well made in Japan. Were these secrets at the time that had to be uncovered by the customers, or were these brands proud enough of the quality that they used the origins as part of quality price justification? I seem to recall that Browning didn't hide the Belgian origins but promoted it, but then again I am old enough that I don't always trust my memory.
For those who know the great historical English brands which are the most forthcoming regarding the make-up of their current offerings?
