doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com do NID's suck or what?

They're all "machines" and all machines need maintenance and eventually some form of rebuilding to keep going. NID's seem to be about in the middle of the road on that from a design standpoint (I only have one). Yeah, a Pgun or Kgun will hold up to bazillions of rounds, but try carrying one of the target models that can make that claim on a 5 or 10 mile day hunt! Even Pguns wear out and need rebuilding. I don't know of any game guns that can go forever without some maintenance and often rebuilding. Is that a reason to discredit the design? I think, Mr. Bomb, you are in the minority on this one.

CB - kindly note that I have neither claimed superiority for NID nor have I disparaged any other brand/design/model. I have only given you a reasonably well known datum for a gun of known history. So, considering the three you saw, Mr. Ken's gun, and mine, you have a sample of five. 60% are of unknown history and and 40% are known to have performed very well by about any standard for a long time. Expand you sample size and I think the 40% will go way up.

You can, of course, dismiss Mr. Ken's and my observations as unreliable. But, if you do, the I would wonder why you asked the question in the first place.

An 80 year old gun, such as my 4E, would need average only 1,250 shots a year to reach 100,000 - 50 rounds of trap a year. That would be a lot of shooting for a game gun, but not a lot for a target gun shooting generally mild target loads. By the end of WW I, mechanical design, craftsmanship, and steel technology were entirely satisfactory for firearms. There are some better modern alloys, but not by a large margin. Were I planning to shoot high volumes of targets, I'd opt for a more modern gun. However, with some maintenance, I think the NID would be good for a lot more targets - vastly more than I'll ever shoot.

You state you've seen 3 NID's with 'looseness' and 2 were already center punched on the barrel lock extension...and that you've NEVER seen that with a Smith or Fox.....
>
Sounds like you've seen seen a total of 3 NID's that happen to have been swell worn or perhaps also abused NID's and have never seen any LCS's or Fox's subjected to the same conditions. Anyone who would center punch a bolting system to tighten it up is certainly not giving the gun it's proper due in repair. That in itself is abuse. I've seen plenty of loose, off the face LCS, Fox guns. As well as Parker, Winchester, Ithaca, Lefever, European, Brit. and just about any maker you want to name.
Any of the several bolting systems will wear out and become loose. They all will need repair/rebuild at some point given enough rounds and use. That coupled with poor maint. and just general abuse of the action will accelerate the wear. They are machines and machines wear out. To believe otherwise is to be taken in by some grandiose advertising claims, which perhaps were more common but less able to be backed up at the time these guns were made than now.

cherry bomb

Crawl back under the troll rock. Your few post will not be missed and stirring the pot with a stick adds nothing except proof of your limited knowledge.

If you had any real knowledge about NIDs, which is doubtful, you seem to think that three is a large enough sample to make statements about the entire number of NIDs ever made. Three abused guns, that had been improperly repaired, mean nothing.

I have seen more than three cracked Sterlingworths, more than five K-80's with blown barrels, more than a few loose Brownings. All of these guns were decent guns but things happened to them that were extreme and they failed. But such a small number sample means nothing. And if a gun fails the first thing to do is try to find out why, not to assume that the gun design is the problem. Heavy loads and reloads have damaged more than a few guns. Poor lube or grease with dirt on the hinge pin will cause a gun to wear much sooner than expected. Most loose guns have been abused and neglected, not worn out from shooting.

You asked for proof that they could last thousands of rounds and got proof from a person who has a solid track record for stating the facts. You then questioned how anyone could shoot that many rounds and not be a registered shooter. As the ATA and the NSSA are finding out the vast majority of shooters do not shoot registered and will never shoot them. Registered shooters are not on the increase and have been in decline for many years. Most shooters are not out for glory or rewards. It is a hobby for them and they like to shoot and meet fellow shooters.

Hunt Master -Jaeger Meister- Ja?? What do you guys mean by a "graded" gun as opposed to a "non-graded" gun- Thanks

RWTF,
Field guns vs. engraved guns, basically.

CB. My field grade NID sucks so bad that it functions perfectly 80 years and many uses after it was made. Unfortunately I can provide no emperical data to validate my theory, so in actuality it may not suck. Hopefully these comments don't negatively impact the value of my Fox, or the meaning of the word "suck".

mr bomb did you do the repairs on the NID's

The vacuum effect around my field NID seems to suck those targets into pieces. Researcher's gun can uproot trees with it's mighty sucking. Walt's gunsafe has sucks so much, it's created an Ithaca Black Hole.

Sucking it up

But can it bend light?