This has been thoroughly hashed (and by better men on the subject than I) but... here's my 2 cents. Better in my orbit (upland game hunting) means clearly different things. Weight, fit, function, and dependability seem to lead the pack of considerations. Art of execution is also a significant consideration, but it comes behind the others. Affordability is also a major component, and may arguably be the first. I've seen several guns over the years that I coveted because I knew, almost innately, that they would be excellent bird guns but....they were clearly out of reach of my financial capacity at the time. While I could probably now afford to pursue some of them, I wouldn't because I've solved the equation with arguably lesser guns. I would have liked to of owned some of the "classic" American versions of what I was looking for (Fox, Lefever, Smith, Parker, etc.) but the numbers of guns made here that would of fit my needs were and are very few, and their prices reflect that reality. In the end, I settled on English guns, specifically pre-WWII boxlock doubles, to meet my primary needs. Does that make them better guns? Arguably yes, but only from my rather narrow perspective.
| 