doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com "Not In-House" British gunmakers.

Here's a possible answer to why from a previous post on this thread:

"Some here act like out sourcing is some dirty little secret. It is not. Known about for years. From the name makers, retailer and makers who make some grades in house and buy others from outside and finish in house it makes good business sense."

A hundred years ago it would have been outsourced from outside London but still within the U.K. Today it is much more probable to be outsourced from a country in the Mediterranean

Here's a question to our English forum members.

If you had available and paid the large amount of Pounds Sterling plus VAT to buy a brand new London gun for yourself, would it make a difference to you if you actually knew that, except for the quality control and finishing, the gun was almost entirely made for that London maker by a firm outside the country?

It would bother me if I bought a Turkey in disguise.

Some members are taking a little bit of info re outsourcing and extrapolating that if a a London firm outsource work they are omly one step away from paying Purdey prices for a Yildiz with the famous name on the locks.

Holland and Holland did not even have a factory until 1893. all their guns from 1835 until then were made by others. The quality control was applied by H&H and that was the foundation of his business. Many of E.J churchill's guns were made by others (like A.A Brown) london firms were outsourcing their work to John robertson throughout the 1880s. Customers never knew. Nor did they care. The firm selling the gun assumed responsibility for quality control and for delivering the product specified.

Many gun smiths moved and still move between firms as well as working as outworkers according to the economic climate.

Asprey guns were made entirely by outworkers. The best.

The need to see that a gun is being assembled in one building is an irelevance when the issues of importance are investigated. The gun trade has always been like this.

We all love our guns and we all thirst for information but I think at times we are prone to too much naval gazing.

If I was to buy an English 'Best' I would expect it to be made in British workshops having an affiliation and employing craftsmen.Otherwise I would source the provider and pay them direct.I respect craftsmanship no matter what nationality provides it but I hate profiteering with a passion.
This subject is very difficult to address, for instance the H&H O/U bears more than a passing resemblance to a Perrazi or Gamba! so I would have a gun made by Perrazi probably of their SO series.William Powell clearly states their guns of the lower quality are made in Spain and finished in B'ham.British sold AYA's are finished in the UK.Walnut is sourced in France, Portugal, Turkey, California, but it is cut and shaped here in Britain.The Steel industry is practically all based in India.Colour hardening cannot be traditionally done in Italy because of legislation connected with Animal Rights, so all your quality Beretta's, Perrazi's, etc., if they want colour hardening send them to Ray St.Leger here in B'ham.I think it is all a matter of how much outsourcing is done.
For instance we now have Webley & Scott wholely produced in Turkey & Italy, even Proofed in Italy bearing the legend 'Webley & Scott' then in smaller print 'of England'.To me that is rude.
Hold on to your hats for a whirlwind tour of 'Joseph Manton of Disneyland'

Dear Peter, you have hit it on the head!


Very well put.

JC

No, I don't think so. It's important for any buyer to be knowledgeable when shopping for a best gun, especially at a best gun price, or obtain help from someone who is.



It most certainly is not, and that's the source of the misunderstanding here. I've asked the question many, many times, often of people in the trade that didn't know me from Adam. They've been uniformly forthcoming.



Again, that simply isn't true. I have a friend, who is not British, who owned and ran one of the famous London houses for many, many years. He's since sold the company, but is still active in the British gun trade, and still knows most of those involved. He knows, and he isn't shy about disclosing "insider secrets" - because they're not. I've bounced the answers I've gotten off him, and he's usually able to confirm them.



I don't know of anyone that does that and represents or prices them as best guns. If a major name did so, it would not be secret for long, as the trade is just too porous, and their reputation would be fried. The example of Powell that another poster provided is a good one - they're specifically identified as being sourced from Spain and are marketed as price guns, not top price bests. Likewise Rigby during the '80s and '90s. Rigby marketed both shotguns and rifles built on actions from Arrizabalaga, barreled in Ferlach, and stocked and finished in the UK. Paul Roberts didn't know me from Adam when he showed them to me for the first time. As he handed them to me, he explained precisely where they were from. Again, they were marketed as price guns, not bests, and were priced much, much lower than their British built guns.



You're kidding yourself.

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?

True.



That isn't true, and when they are sourced outside of the country, it isn't hard to find out.

The British gun trade was always something of a cottage industry, even in the old days. As the gun trade began to contract after WWI and on through the loss of empire after WWII, it became even more so by necessity. As I said before, failing to understand the nature of the trade won't change it, and making baseless assumptions about it won't help you to understand it. If you don't like their system, then don't buy a gun from them.

Look at Harley Davidson the high dollar American Bike.Front end from Japan,brakes from Italy,battery from India and tires from who knows where. There is even some talk the frames are now being made in Mexcio. Folks know this and it now takes more metric sizes than the 10mm wrench they have needed for years. Do people realy care when the drop the cash on a new H/D that cost twice as much as a Japan bike of same style,NOPE.Your buying a image and in my case its all I can ride.