I have often been told the best years of the London Bests were made between the wars. I have two now made in the 20's but have owned others made before say 1918. I have had Purdeys, Hollands, Husseys all made before the end of WW1.
I personally can not tell that the between the wars guns are that much better quality.
What say you guys?
Let see some pictures of your Bests!

Between the wars guns tend to be lighter - with Churchill and the fashion for short barrels and very light guns, guns (12 bore) were often nearer 6 lbs than 7lbs. Some were even lighter.

Very light guns often had the stocks trimmed to a very thin hand, and many may have been broken over the years.

I think quality wise, it varies from gun to gun. I have heard it said that the 'best' quality was just pre the first war when cost was very much secondary to quality. After the 1st war, money was less readily available (Great Depression etc) and makers became more cost concious.

I have an Atkin Spring Opener made in 1911 - and the quality would be hard to better. Its showing the 'fair wear and tear' from 100 years use, but is largely original. Weighs a little under 7 lbs with 28" barrels and a 14 3/4 stock.

I also have an Atkin Spring Opener made 1923. As well as a Purdey made in 1929.

Do you find the Atkin 'smoother' and more easily closed than the Purdey?

Several people have told me this is so. I have handled two Atkin Spring Openers (other than my own), one was lovely easy to close and silky smooth (like my own), the other stiff and lumpy. I have handled (and shot) only one (borrowed!) pair of Purdeys and I did find them stiff, but it was a long time ago and I wasn't used to a self opener then, so can't really compare.

My views on this are well known, but given the opportunity - I will bore you with them here once more!

Quality was always there. Look at locks made in the 1860s and 1870s - they are better than anything made since when at their best. Truly hand made and absolutely beautiful.

The 1930s was a period in which most of the mechanisms we now regard as essential and modern were well perfected. Also, materials were available in good quality and there were still plenty of time-served gunmakers at the top of their trade.

However, 1930s QUALITY is no better than quality from any other era.

1930s MECHANICAL PERFECTION, married to QUALITY may well be better, and a lot of 1930s best guns remained little used, as a bit of a scrap in Europe and elsewhere interrupted seasons 1939-45 and after that a lot of people were not able to afford the scale of shooting that they once were. A lot of mint guns got put away. So, today we see quite a lot of very nice condition, good quality, mechanically modern best English guns.

Victorian guns often got shot to bits, as did Edwardian ones. Lots of big-bag days, lots of years shooting before WW1 and lots of corrosive primers.

Best guns from 1900 to 1930 are every bit as good as anything buildt from 1930-1939. Just avoid iffy single triggers and ejector systems and guns that have been worn out.

John is right about lightweight - a thirties trend. To the current fashion, it is a bit of an annoyance - shorter barrels, lighter guns etc. If you want a long barrelled Purdey sidelock, you will find the pre WW1 era more likely as a hunting ground than the '30s.

Take it straight from the horse's mouth: Bruce Owen who was Purdey's production managr. In an article in Shooting Sportsman about 12 years ago he said the following-

-CNC machinery has brought increased precision in parts

-CNC machines also mandate the use of better steels because the formerly used mild steel cannot take the forces generated during machining.

Presumably certified steel also takes more prcise and controled heat treatment. Additionally there are modern quality control methods like X Rays, magna fluxing etc to ensure that there are no internal structural faults in the metal.

Pretty much the same is said by Holland and Holland managers on video. Modern guns are made of better material and with more precision.

Beyond England, the late Giovanny Metelli, chief of the Beretta custom department, told me that the later SO series shotguns incorportated improvements in design, material, and precision over the early models made in the 1940s.

My confusion is with the prewar term "best" gun. If they were indeed best, the new guns made of certified steel are "bester"?

In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies "He would (say that), wouldn't he?"

Of course, you are now comparing different products. New guns made with CNC machined parts are hand fitted rather than totally hand made. There is less variation from sample to sample.

Best guns of the past were made to the highest possible standards using the skills and materials available at the time. As the ages change, the skills and materials differ slightly. You can see it in the guns if you have the eye to see the subtle differences.

Small Bore,

The "hand made" part is probably less true than we want to believe. Greener writing in 1910 described and approved of the the use of machine tools in gunmaking and of carborundum infused lead plates for polishing of small parts. It is only natural that makers would use the most economical way to get to the same result. Personally I always had a hard time believing that the boxlock recesses that house springs and tumblers, or the square bolt recesses were cut by hand. In many guns of the "golden era" I examine there were clear machining marks left in the metal.

Getting to the irreducible qualities of best guns, I would bet on the feel, both in the sense of overall balance and dynamics, as well as the tactile sense in manipulation as being the essential qualities of a "best". For these, yes, you need human touch and judgement, but these can be applied when the machine work has been done.

For the rest of the work I recall Sandro Lucchini's words: "when I want a square corner I go to the milling machine, not the human hand".

.

I took an extended tour of the Purdey factory about three years ago and I was repeated told, and shown by examples, how Purdey guns today are better manufactured to higher quality standards than in years past. The forgings for the barrels and receivers use better steels today and the forged grain is more uniform where it is needed for added strength. These forgings are huge for the end product produced, such as for the barrels. Each barrel forging initially weighs about 15 pounds which ends up as a single barrel tube of a pound or so. This extensive metal removal process gives immense strength to each tube and no person could ever remove that much hardened forged steel by hand in a months time.

The several machine tools at the back of the factory were all humming along with no gunsmiths present, automatically loading and unloading parts. These tools are calibrated to produce parts within 30 millionths tolerances - something few, if any, craftsman could ever do.

I am not qualified to say how current Purdey's match up to pre war guns, of which I have examples of both, and having a machine tool background myself, I was impressed by their processes and attention to quality practices.

.

To work to 30 millionths tolerances, you would have to have climate control.I would pay money to see someone make a square hole with a milling machine(either vertical or horizontal spindle).If not a file, then shaper or slotting attachment.
Mike

"Quality' is MUCH more than just fine materials and close tolerances. It is difficult to actually define, but some 'BEST' guns have an overall feel and delight in handling that surpasses mere mechanical excellence. Among the top makers, some guns just 'have it' and some don't. I have handled some guns from quite ordinary makers that have a real nice quality feel to them - and I have handled a few guns from 'the top rank of makers' that just don't feel quality (for me anyway).

Its about balance, handling, feel of the moving parts. When all of those are right (and in an older gun, condition will play a part) - the 'quality shines'.

bsteele, the article was in the Shooting Sportsman, and it was a signed piece, not an intnerview, by Owen who was the production manager at Purdeys. I doubt that he was full of it. In his article he explained the advantages, technical and financial of using CNC machine. One financial advantage being the avoidance of "stock guns".

The part that shocked me was a question posed by Owen himself, when he asked if the cost cutting obtained via these modern means would be passed on to the customer. "that is a question for the marketing department" he wrote. The implications are obvious.

JohnfromUK, I tend to agree, the quality is not a primarily a technical thing. Sure, a quality shotgun must have a minimum of technical quality, but beyond that is that "feel" both in overal balance and in the manipulation of the gun, how it opens, closes, how each part works. However, even best makers are not consistent in offering that "feel", one of the best handling SXSs I have come across was a Henry Atkin, as was one of the worst, and they were both sidelocks of the same grade and same period, the 1930s.

Der Ami,

From what I saw during visits to high end makers, square holes are started via milling and finished with EDM. Some used broaching machines.

I agree with JohnfromUK, and please don't forget, the quality of those guns of the past was good enough to shoot the highest number of game birds or whatever and to hit all records ever reached.

Wolfgang

Mike,
you can send the check directly to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI-15fovYEY

The premise of being “Hand built” signifies that there isn’t another one like it in the world. People who can afford to bang around a $100,000 dollars worth of shotgun like that phrase as much as they love their exclusivity. But, the English ‘Bests’ do have one heck of a history of performance under the most demanding of conditions.

Steve, you took the words right out of my mouth....I have that video save on my desktop...
maybe we can split the money??

CJ

Gunwolf,

We probably all agree that the hardest test of a shotgun action is its survival in the hands of a serious target shooter. Serious in the sense frequent and intensive use. Kim Rhodes is an example of such a shooter and she and other athletes never used a classic, because it simply could not survive such use.

Lord Ripon did bag over a half a million birds in his lifetime, but it was not done with a single gun. He owned at least three hammer Purdeys and probably other guns too, which no doubt went to the makers for service and repairs. His numbers are hardly a record to rival the hudnreds of thousands of rounds put through a single gun by a target shooter.

The sheer pleasure of hunting with a finely balanced shotgun for many of us is more important than durability. But let's give Cesar his due!

Obviously--since both Purdey and H&H use modern machinery--they'll tell you that the products turned out by those methods are better than what they used to produce. Can't think of many companies that would admit they're now making widgets that are inferior to the widgets they used to make. Not even Don Draper on "Mad Men" could make a good ad for a product based on that premise.

As for the trend in the direction of lighter guns after WWI . . . true, but not because they're "better". Think of all the sons of well-to-do families that engaged in driven shooting who ended up buried in Flanders. That put quite a few guns on the secondary market. Makers of new guns, like Mr. Churchill, had to come up with some sort of gimmick to separate what they were selling from what had been the standard prior to the Great War. Not that Mr. Churchill didn't believe in his XXV barrels, but more than anything else, it was an effective marketing ploy for him. The 2" 12's were another effort to offer something different. But whether lighter or shorter is better . . . I think 25" guns, especially 25" 12 bores, have a pretty limited following on this side of the Pond. Less interest than they generated maybe a couple decades ago. Probably because more sxs fanciers these days are using their guns for Sporting Clays, and the trend there has been in the opposite direction: longer barrels. There are some "rough shooting" upland hunters that like short barrels because of the weight reduction, but that's usually in 28's and 20's for pursuits like grouse and woodcock hunting, rather than stubby-nosed 12's. I think most sxs dealers would tell you that, assuming the same gun, they'd rather have a 12 with 30" barrels in their inventory than one with 25".

What we need is another Olin destrucion test to see just how well built these new steel SXSs are! Assuming a retail cost of 100 000 per gun, and that it would take at least five makers' products to make an interesting comparison group, plus machinery and proof loads, add refreshments etc, about a million should do it.

What would be really interesting to me would be a longevity test between Perazzi, Kreighoff, Kolar, Blaser, etc. I'm betting there would be some fantastic numbers compiled. Most of us have heard the rumors of the Perazzi that the Army shooting team put over a million rounds through.

What does best" mean, anyway, in this context? Best wood and engraving, best polishing, best handling characteristics(that's very subjective), longest life, or maybe best advertising ???????

SRH

Thinking cynically one could say that "best" is closely tied to best brand management Because looking beyond the guns, to the non gun merchandising, everyday objects suddenly multiply in price because they bear the prestigious brand. Obviously the gunmaker did not make the thermos bottle, the Indian damascus knife, the picnic set etc. OK the brand is valuable and confers a sense of prestige, but often at ten times the regular retail.

Shotgunlover, you've strayed into the "apples and oranges" realm with your last post. Usually, when we think of the classic British guns, we're thinking of game guns. Sub-7#, works of art in terms of both metal and wood. They were not built to be target guns. But the Brits have built pigeon guns and wildfowl guns, both of which are heavier, more rugged, etc. If you were to ask Purdey or H&H to build you a target gun similar to those used in top level competition, I'm sure they could do it. What you'd end up with would be a gun with heavier barrels, a heavier frame, heavier wood, and through which you could shoot heavy loads. (Worth remembering here that in International Skeet, they only shoot 24 gram--7/8 oz--loads. Faster for sure than many 7/8 oz target loads, but pretty light stuff nevertheless.)

I'm sure such a gun would hang with a Perazzi or a Krieghoff in terms of punishment . . . but it'd cost a lot more because it would be a one of a kind deal rather than mostly machine-made. And if it's a sxs, the question would be whether the shooter could score as well with it as with an OU. Maybe, if he or she were sufficiently accustomed to shooting sxs.

Today I've got a AKAH catalog from 1908 and found that quality always was a tender subject...:



it were these kind of guns who have been compared to english guns which cost more than double and of course the german guns were better... ;-)



Hope not boring you with this stuff!

Kind Regards,
Gunwolf

The word "Best" is nothing more than a marketing term. When I hear it, I don't assume that gun is of "the best" quality but rather in the top bracket or range of quality.

I have compared 2 Purdeys side by side that varied in the quality of the engraving.... but yet both guns were "BEST" guns.... so how can they both be "best" when one is better???

Because you liked the engraving on one better than another - the man who ordered the gun and you may not concur.

No offense intended to anyone, but the "best" handling issue is one that has had my attention for some time. I have come to the conclusion that there is no particular "best" handling. There is is a wide range of handling dynamics within guns that are usually considered "best." So, it is not at all unusual to find one that meets your view/preverence for handling and another that doesn't. The "doesn't" is no less a "best gun," it just had handling dynamics that suit someone else and/or suit a different purpose.

Consider a Purdey game guns and Purdey pigeon gun. Not likely that anyone will argue that either is not a "best." Likewise, nobody is going to argue that they handle the same. If you study the subject, you will find that preceived handling depends on a number of factors that are not part of the dynamics involving muscle effort. That is to say, most people are influenced by such factors ar their view of the brand name, the aesthetics, etc. Handling preference is like stock dimensions preference --- individual!

DDA

Hey, I guess my original question was do you guys see any difference in quality, engraving, fit, finish in pre-war guns versus ones made between the two wars.
All I have heard is that was the best years for English gunmaking.
I am told English Best Guns are all judged by those made during that time.
I have owned two pre WW1 Purdeys, one made 1902 and the other early 1880's, a Hussey made 1915, a Grant made in 1911.
I know have an Atkinmade in 1924 and a Purdey made in 1929.
As far as I can tell I can not see any better quality in the newer guns than the older guns. In fact I have see many guns made pre WW1 that were engraved more ornately and looked fantastic.

Why are we asking a trap shooter or a bird hunter or a collector which is “Best” what do they have in this game, what are they putting on the line?

Let’s ask a Professional hunter in Africa which maker of gun he would use to follow up a wounded animal. Most if not all would say British. And if they’re not using a British built double then they usually say they would love to have one but can’t afford one. That is what makes them the "Best"

I know, I know, well, how would you know you've never hunted DG in Africa. Well there are professional hunter here on this Board, let's ask them what maker they use or would use.

With all due respect, I'd not sure how much weight I'd give a African PH's opinion on this topic. And I might ask him the following question, do you drive a Land Rover or a Land Cruiser?

There is a patina and a cachet to hand work and British made that on some subjective level is indisputable. But objectively the better steel of modern metallurgy and the superiority in results of CNC machined parts is a matter of testing, standards and QA/QC regimes.

It's sort of like where a gun shoots vs. where you shoot the gun. The first is a matter of barrel regulation. The second is a matter of gun fit. I'll agree that, as to the second issue, there is no substitute for individualized, personal attention. But, as to the former, I think others might want to reconsider their position, no matter have emotionally committed they are to fellows in shop aprons using hand tools.

One final thought--whether you go to Eibar, Brescia or England on a pilgrimage of appreciation of the gunmakers art, if you chose to travel by jet aircraft, rather than steam or sail, I hope that the parts in the jet engine powering your aircraft are the product of modern metallurgy and casting/forging techniques and not soft steel and handwork.

I think someone mentioned better steel available, generally speaking, between the wars. That's something you would not see.

Re PH's in Africa and the guns they used . . . most of the places in Africa where sporting safaris became fairly big business were former British colonies, or ones that had been German and became British after WWI (like Tanganyika). And many of the PH's were Brits. Hence, the dangerous game double rifles were provided by British gunmakers. You also had a lot of British military officers and civil servants in the colonial govts serving in those colonies, and many of them were hunters. Safaris in Africa weren't all that popular with Americans, for example, until Teddy Roosevelt went and wrote books about his experiences. Similarly, if you were to ask what's the best rifle for dangerous game in Alaska (brown and polar bears), the answer would almost certainly be something American-made, because most of the guides who work there and their clients are Americans.

All that being said about dangerous game rifles . . . Jim Corbett and "Karamojo" Bell did quite well shooting man-eating tigers and leopards, and elephants (respectively), using rifles of less than .300 caliber.

Palunc,

As you can see from the posts the managers of the two most venerated firms, Purdey and Holland, stated on record that their present day products are made via improved material and manufacturing methods. Greener back in 1910 stated that even back then, not all of each gun was hand made and praised the use of lathes, milling machines and mechanical polishers. Photos of his workshop show machine tools powered by overhead shafts.

The veneration of age for its own sake is not new. Colonel Hawker urged younng shots to stick to flintlocks to improve their follow through. A cartoon in a 19th century magazine shows a gentleman with an open breech loader and two game keepers asking mockingly "how is he going to shoot now that he went and bruck up his gun!" A joke at the expense of the then new breech loader.

Relying on extensive research of quality control methods and after having taken apart hundreds of doubles, some from the very best makers, I lean towards modern metallurgy and precise quality control. Knowing that the action bar has been X rayed, magnafluxed, precisely heat treated in temp control furnaces and preferably cryogenically tempered does it for me.

As for engraving, the post 1980 generation of artist engravers have taken their craft to new heights. The subjects chosen by the clients are often garish, but the technique, as seen under magnification, is as good and often better than in the past.

If I appear somewhat cynical about the marketing use of the term "best" it is because of specific experiences one of which I will detail in a separate post.

Two PHs I met used BRNO 375 bolt actions.

Now an experience with the so called "totally hand built, bespoke" shotgun.

Years ago I asked a UK firm for a quote. Their SXS ejector, engraved, sold for 7900 sterling. I asked if they could build one with monobloc Boehler barrels supplied by me to their specs, non ejector, with stock supplied by me, left unfinished and uncheckered. The action to be left plain, no engraving at all.

Yes they could, they said, but "the specifications would force radical changes from their production line" so there would be a surcharge that came to about 50 per cent if memory serves.

"Production line" in a bespoke gun! Surcharge for supplying the barrels and stock wood and alleviating them of the need to engrave the action and finish the stock?

Instead of paying 10 000 plus sterling I had the thing built in Italy for about 1000 dollars in six months, not three years. The maker hired an engraver for limited extent signed engraving, and put on a good piece of wood because he did not like his guns to appear "undressed" as he put it. It is still going strong 30 years later.

After the above and some other experiences I am a little cynical with the whole "best" thing, and definitely put off by the "hand made" myth. Hand finished yes, totally hand made, I don't buy it.

I doubt we have seen truly hand built guns since the 1870's, a period where almost every gun was a "one off" and even in that time frame a bit of interchangeabe manufacturing was creeping in, first from the lockmakers in Wolverhampton followed by actioneers. "Hand built" is a vaporous term that defies definition. And the terribly overworked "best" is totally without meaning except to sellers who are pleased to dupe unwary buyers. (If anyone is determined to discover the absolute best in craftsmanship and find the holy grail I suspect it might involve a trip across the channel to Germany or its close neighbors.)

If memory serves, Greener, Jr. had a major falling out with Greener, Sr. over whether the radical notion of internal hammers was a fad or a legitimate evolution in gun design. I would hazard a guess that the evolution from external to internal hammers, and all the related action design issues that went along with that evolution (not to mention developing new ejector and single trigger designs), was a bigger issue for gunmakers in the late 1800s than the question of whether to use machined parts to build actions.


+1

A quick note about EDM wire cutting, one of the modern processes used by some gunmakers. I used it yesterday to cut lock pieces for a new design.

The delivered parts are cut super precisely, with edges absolutely square, and even the sear bents are cut to the proper angle. I rate it better than laser cutting. The machine "reads" the CAD design and cuts acordingly.

Having only the final polishing and fitting to do, the work goes along at a fair clip. For the life of me I cannot see how cutting the bits with a hacksaw and filing them down to the dimension returned by the EDM machine is in any way superior.

The service is costly, but saved a week's work. Had the work been larger scale there would be economic benefits in adddition to higher quality.

There's the answer. Machinery that's equal or superior to doing it by hand makes sense . . . IF you're producing enough volume to justify the cost of the machinery, and IF labor costs increase significantly. The American sxs industry was basically dead by 1960. Then along came sxs from Japan, imported by American firearms manufacturers like Ithaca, Winchester, and Browning. Today, we're seeing no sxs from Japan (but a lot of OU's--greater volume), and the Spanish sxs trade, which largely replaced the Japanese in the mid-price market, is now on the ropes as well. When Browning brought out the Cynergy, they brought together a group of outdoor writers to put the gun through its paces. Several of us tried to talk them into bringing the BSS back. Seems all the Miroku employees who'd made the BSS had retired, and Browning was not interested. Look at the problems Ruger encountered producing the Gold Label. Makes you wonder whether setting up to make sxs mostly by machine makes bottom line sense these days??

L.Brown, you make valid points. A labor intensive product is a challenge. Over the years I tried to tackle this problem and now with rapid prototyping etc it looks like it might reach prototype stage.

To get to a reasonably priced double that feels and balances as a best should is possible, I believe, as long as it is not expected to have the usual luxury touches. Opt out of auto ejectors, self opening, and some other things and it is possible to get a superb double at less than 2000 Euros.

Even at that price it will not attract a bunch of buyers. But it is worth trying I believe.

Some of the attributes (and they are very imprecise and difficult to list) of a 'best' is that quality and 'as near perfect as possible' count - price doesn't.

You may get a superb double at 2000 Euros (but more likely a good and good value value one rather than a superb one), but you won't (in my book anyway) get a true 'best' double if you put price above other factors, or even on the priorities list.

Economy of price simply isn't what 'best' is about.

John, I agree that while price is not the only factor, it is certainly ONE factor in a "best" gun . . . if you believe that "best" includes the best wood and superbly-executed hand engraving. But you can certainly find guns that put form above function and attempt to attract buyers via eye appeal only--and they're not bests either.

Shotgunlover, I wish you well in your endeavor!

I think it depends on how you look at it. I agree price - in one sense will be a factor - in that everything has a price, and for a 'best' gun - its likely to be a high(ish) one.

But really - a best gun should be build as a 'best' - and the price sort of drops out at the end! A best can't really be built down to a price - or it wouldn't be best - equally - just because something is expensive - it doesn't mean its a 'best'.

The phrase - 'money no object' springs to mind, though it doesn't correctly sum up what I mean.

A better way of putting it would be to make it as well as you possibly can, then add up the cost afterwards.

John,

I am all for the "build it as well as you possibly can" bit, but it would also be nice to be credited for the bits left out. Like not being charged for the engraving, and the fancy walnut if you choose to do without them.

Perazzi do that for you, give you a price for the basic functional gun, and quote the ornamenation on a pro rata basis, as do others.

In some client's definition of best, (and we are talking bespoke here so the client has the final say), ornamentation and fancy wood might not have a place.

To take this a bit further. There are quite a few features that can be left out and still end up with "best" in terms of quality of execution, feel and balance. To give my list- fancy wood, engraving, monogram oval, self cocking, ejectors, self opening, auto safety, chopper lump barrels. Yes I am talking about a well built, plain hammer gun with Boehler monobloc barrels, superb balance and handling and there is no way in the world anyone can convince me that 35 000 sterling is a fair price for such a gun.

The problem I have with using price as a determinate is some of the top names probably have a much higher gross profit margin than lesser known makers for equal quality. And they are able to demand the price partially based on their historic reputation. Nothing wrong with it but it should disqualify cost as a basis for judging a best.

I've got some older English sidelocks and some newer ones, one made in the 1980's and one made in the 1990's. In terms of these newer guns, I can't really tell all that much difference from the older guns in terms of quality with the exception that they are newer, much newer and because these newer guns were made with CNC machines, their metal to metal fit seems slightly more precise and the actions slightly smoother. Not totally sure if this perceived smoothness is due to more precise tolerances or if it is because of the fact they haven't been in existence and have not been used for a hundred plus years. Also, with the newer guns, the barrels appear perfectly 'struck' and a little more precisely than the very old guns. Again, I'm not sure if this involved a machine in the striking of the barrels on the newer guns?? In terms of gun weight I have chosen to buy only guns that weigh 6 1/2 pounds or less for a game gun, so no difference there in the old vs the new. Having said all this I have to say I like the older guns and the newer ones pretty much on an equal par. One nice thing about the new guns, I don't have to be so careful shooting only low pressure shells, which for me is an advantage in the Grouse woods where I like to shoot a shell with authority.

That's what I think, Joe, but you put it in words perfectly.

[quote=Shotgunlover


To take this a bit further. There are quite a few features that can be left out and still end up with "best" in terms of quality of execution, feel and balance. To give my list- fancy wood, engraving, monogram oval, self cocking, ejectors, self opening, auto safety, chopper lump barrels. Yes I am talking about a well built, plain hammer gun with Boehler monobloc barrels, superb balance and handling and there is no way in the world anyone can convince me that 35 000 sterling is a fair price for such a gun. [/quote]

It's going to be difficult to convince me & a lot of other people that "best gun" & monoblock barrels belong in the same sentence. Chopper lump for sure, dovetail lump probably, shoe lump possibly but IMHO monoblock barrels are serviceable but they are not found on best guns.

I entirely agree that 'best' doesn't have to include 'bells and whistles'. Lets also not forget that a 'best' can be a boxlock or a trigger plate (certainly in my view). In the extreme, a plain non-ejector boxlock of exemplary workmanship and material quality could be described as 'best'.

There are best quality boxlocks (e.g. Westley Richards for one) and trigger plates (e.g. Dickson) in which the barrels, workmanship and attention to detail would match their best sidelocks. The end result may have a lower price tag, but in my view, its no less a 'best' gun simply because its a less complex item. It has still been built to 'best' workmanship quality and materials standards where no corners have been cut in the execution.

Brittany Man,

Beretta's SO series are all monobloc, most would rank them as "best". All sleeved chopper lumped bests are ersatz monoblocs and they do not seem to lose their "best" designations.

Technically speaking there is no way a chopper lump can outclass monobloc in my mind. The thought that the breech ends have been heated to 650 plus centigrade to induce braze flow gives me the creeps. Add to the monobloc replaceable hook and bite shoes (a la Parker) and you have an infinitely repairable double. But to each his own when it comes to bespoke.

John- the Round Action is KING! The late Geoffrey Boothroyd had sent me a photo of a 16 gauge side pedal Dickson and it still ranks as the best looking SXS I have ever glimpsed. The form of that action is so elegant it would be sacrilege to conceal it under engraving.

The design I am working on tries to keep as close as possible to the DRA shape, the trigger plate principle while eliminating the superfluous. An ABS plstic prototype has been built using the CAD drawings, and it looks good (to me anyway).

I have limited experience on this but have done 5 safaris, I don¨t know a PH who wouldn´t have a double rifle by Holland in .470 or .500 AS A BACK UP over any other, if they could afford one. A working rifle is a different thing but when in the thick stuff, I´ll take a .500 double. As J.A.Hunter said (over 1000 Rhino and 1200 Elephant all on control) "I have many friends in Nairobi cemetary who put their trust in bolt action rifles, I prefer my pair of .500 Hollands and if they had once let me down I would not be penning these words"

When you consider that H&H and Purdey are owned by large conglomerates, you have to wonder how that affects internal cost/pricing decisions. Not that ye olde gunmakers weren't motivated by profit either, but the corporate approach to making a profit tends to focus on cost-control - and is often short-sighted and internal (not customer) focused.

It would be a fascinating exercise to have a top-notch gunsmith compare current "best guns" from corporate owned makers vs. some smaller, independent makers like AA Brown, DMB and the like - a real fine toothed comb review that looked at the arcane details of gunmaking that might reveal the difference between a "best gun made without consideration to cost [and profit]" vs. a "very high quality gun that can be sold for a respectable profit." And to make it even more interesting, include some of those ne plus ultra guns from some Italian makers like Rizzini and Fabbri into the mix.

Dover - that's a very interesting point you make. However, there are other examples of large companies making luxury goods. Think Van Cleef & Arpel and Tiffany or Patek Philippe. Certainly there is profit motive but when a company is manufacturing goods for the very high-end consumer they do not screw around. These are not products for the working class bloke and the stakes are too high to have "quality creep" set in. I suspect that corporate "squeeze" comes in with Remington or Mossberg but the stakes aren't that high - those buyers don't expect perfection (by and large). In the case of H&H or Purdey or Boss and others of this ilk, the products are to a large extent price inelastic and anther ten grand in price won't screw an order. Add 50 bucks to the price of a Mossberg and there might be a fall-off in sales.

Shotgunlover, a sleeved Purdey may have started life as a best, but it's no longer a best once it's been sleeved. New set of barrels from Purdey . . . then it's still a best.

And while there can be debate on triggerplate actions and the "best" designation, I don't think there is where boxlocks in general are concerned. That's why they're usually qualified with the "best boxlock" designation.

This discussion was supposed to be about "best guns", so let's get back to that. This includes mostly London makers and one or two others such as Hartman & Weiss and one or two Italian firms.

It generally takes about 450 to 650 hours to build a gun and there are 7 major trades people who work on each gun. In London, average wages for gun trades people is way over %50,000 per year with benefits. Factory overhead, machine tools, materials, WIP parts, inventory, staff personnel, advertising, sales expenses - it adds up fast. It is no wonder that a best gun begins over $100,000 today. Add engraving other than in house rose and scroll, gold embellishments, extra finish, and the price can approach and exceed $200,000. Even at these prices, best gun makers hope to break even or may make a modest profit. Purdey and Holland make more on their clothing lines and accessories than on guns. If it wasn't for the big pockets of their corporate parents, most best gun makers would have gone the way of Woodward, Grant, and so many others.

These guns are for the very few - or are they? How many of us know of others, or posses ourselves, expensive motorcycles, boats, two or three vehicles, a vacation home, etc. A "best" gun is within the realm of availability to more of us than we may think. It just depends of an individual's priorities in life.

That’s what we are talking about, ‘Best’ guns and why they are considered best guns regardless of who first used that term to describe that gun. I, for one, read about the guns and rifles developed during the muzzleloading period and have noted a whole lot of English named guns, still being produced today, that have killed a whole bunch of big frickin animals that could have very easily and in a blink of an eye stomped your guts into the ground.


Just giving credit where credit is due, that's all.

As it is already mentioned above, the two great London Makers are daughters of some of the worlds greatest luxury labels. …….
As I started writing about fine Gunmakers, I thought H&H and Purdeys beeing the lonesome stars in the double gun sky. However, after some time of interviewing and watching gunmakers at work I've learned, that there are indeed differences between the big english names and a few small makers, in my case here in Germany. (Hartmann& Weiss, Max Ern) But in a different way as I thought. As mentioned, the London firms all have employees, what means costs, and this is the one big difference to Max Ern and others: He, for example , is working on it's own together with his son and his wife (engraver) and they work on their own private ground. This means, costs are minimized, it doesn't matter, that, for example, his CNC machines are not working around the clock. It means too, they are working, because they want it and they love their work. They are living their gunmaking. Of course they have to earn money, but this is not the true or only motivation for them. The motivation is, making guns. Not only guns but best guns. They always try to improve their work. They always have an eye on the best of the best and they work hard to be on the top. Above is mentioned that it needs at least 400 - 500 hour to build a gun. I saw a 400/450 double rifle in the white which will need 2000 hours to be finished! And of course it will cost nearly as much as a double rifle of H&H, P. or whatever english maker.
But since I watched the fire in the eyes of Max, the skills of Max jun., modeling the bascule of a double rifle like a sculptor and since I saw the soulful engraving of Evelyn I have an uneasy sense of what they are really doing. And if I ever would have not only the wish but also the money to own a very best gun, I think I would play this card.

Kind Regards,
Gunwolf

Shotgun lover, I'm well aware that most Beretta SO guns are of monoblock construction (the SO 10 guns are demiblock by the way so what does that tell you as Beretta attempts to move upmarket with the SO 10) & while they are nice guns I don't think "most people" who appreciate fine guns consider them "best" guns. The joint line at the monoblock is visible & ugly. It's so visible it's like they were proud of it.

A sleeved best gun is just that; a once best gun that has been compromised by a more economical repair rather than new barrels of the original construction.

Anyway, this thread is way off topic from the original question of if British best guns built between the wars were superior to those built earlier.

Personally I think guns built between the wars had the advantage of the improved metallurgy available, well developed designs & manufacturing techniques while labor costs were still comparatively low & each gun received lots of attention from skilled workers. Also the economic crisis of the 1930's meant competition between makers for business was fierce so it was likely you would get their best effort.

That said, I've seen some wonderful examples of British Best Guns from all eras & that includes the late 1960's thru 1970's period when workmanship & quality were definitely in the decline, so as always each gun needs to be evaluated on it's own merit but I do think the between the wars period is an excellent place to look for an example of a "best".

"there can be debate on triggerplate actions and the "best" designation"

debate on what grounds? The sear-tumbler geometry is superior to sidelocks, the action bar is more solid therefore stronger. The stock to action joint is stronger in round actions. Since the advent of the Round Action the debate should go the other way, whether sidelocks by any maker can still lay claim to the title.

In the words of Gough Thomas: "for sheer thoroughbred lines the Dickson Round Action yields nothing whatsoever to the finest sidelock ever built."

I might be wrong, but I frequently perceive an American reverence to anything bearing the dubious title of "London best" and inevitably the sidelock action because is what the London makers made. Had the Round Action been able to show a London address no doubt it would also be equally revered. It is useful to remember that vital bits, like locks were made by Stanton and Brazier far from London, while prestigious guns like the Lancaster 12/20 and the Holland Dominion were made entirely in Birmingham.

As for pricing and profit. The standard of living attained by James Purdey the Younger, detailed in Richard Beaumont's book, stands as evidence that a fair amount of money could be made in this trade.

The value of a prestigious gunmaking firm to a big conglomerate is in its client book, not its turnover. Just think how valuable is a real time updated list of people who have repeatedly spent the price of a house on a gun!

And to remind us all yet again, a Ferrari with a bluprinted V12 engine, ie lots of handwork, sells for 150$ per kilogram, while a best gun goes for 30 000. Some people obviously know how to exploit our passions!

Shotgunlover, the debate comes in the initial definition of "best", which required that best guns had to be sidelocks. It can be argued that in some ways, boxlocks also have advantages over sidelocks. As for Mr. Garwood, he tended to give praise where he thought it belonged rather than going with "tradition". Re fretted barrels, as seen on French guns, Thomas wrote:

"With resleeving now thoroughly established, it seems remarkable that no British firm has adopted the fretted barrel, with its possibilities for combining greater strength with a reduction in the cost of producing double guns." So, if monobloock/fretted barrels have superior strength, should we not then be talking about them as belonging on a "best" rather than chopper lump? After all, one can do some nice engraving to pretty up the joint.

And I may be missing something on Lancaster, but my sidelock 12 (not a 12/20) carries London proofs and a London address. Lancaster was always a London firm, even after it was acquired and eventually became part of Atkin, Grant and Lang. I wouldn't doubt that Lancaster, like many London makers, had boxlocks made for them in Birmingham. But I've seen 12/20 sidelocks, and always thought they were London guns.

Larry, Gough Thomas was too much of an engineer to ignore the strength & economics of construction re. monoblocks but strength is only one factor when considering best guns as pleasing appearance must be considered also. The only monoblock joint I've ever seen that met best gun appearance standards (not that the gun was by a best by any stretch of the definition) was on the now discontinued Beretta 470 sxs guns & I have always wondered why Beretta went back to the ugly visible joint on the later 471.

Attempting to disguise the joint with engraving usually results in drawing more attention to it.

L.Brown,

The 12/20 was patented by William Baker, in my opinion the most inventive gunmaker ever, and offered by various firms, including Stephen Grant, under different model names. The location of proving is no guarantee of the location of manufacture. Note that no maker credits the inventor with a small stamp for this action or other Baker patents used.

Brittany Man,

The perception that the monobloc line is a matter of subjective taste. If the issue is not to see the joint (reminds me of the comedians Morecamb and Wise lines re a wig) then all other jointing methods would outrank the monobloc as would laser welding on the monobloc itself. While true demibloc (as in the Ideal, Winchester Mod 21, BSA) can technically stand comparison with the monobloc, the others with the convoluted mating surfaces held only by braze do not. True demibloc is silver soldered by the way, not brazed. Considering that barrels are the most "consumable" part of a shotgun the monobloc is the only system that makes provision for this eventuality. Personally I would rather do a simple tube change than sleeving or rebarreling.


As to the original question re chronology and quality. Over the years I have dismantled many shotguns. There is no visible quality difference that can be based on date of manufacture. However, there are differences even among guns by the same maker, mostly on the wood to metal fitting. So far the best overall internal work I have ever seen inside a SXS was a pinless hand detachable sidelock by Fabbio Zanotti made in the 1980s.

Re the fit and finish issue. In some English sidelocks I have seen the impressions of lock screw slots in the wood. Now, those were definitely NOT chiselled out after smoke fitting. A stockmaker friend insists that they are made by soaking the wood in linseed oil and pressing the locks onto the wood for a kind of forced fitting. In his opinion this is not a kosher way to fit locks. All the guns I have seen with this trait are prewar.

Shotgunlover: You just moved the goalposts from your previous post. You weren't talking about 12/20's in general. Rather, your reference was to the LANCASTER 12/20. If you have some evidence indicating that all LANCASTER 12/20's were made in Birmingham, please present it to back up your previous statement. Otherwise, probably wise to admit that you overstated your case in favor of guns made in Birmingham.

Originally, a "best" British gun had to be London-made. Of course that can be disputed, and some makers did indeed dispute it. But the top London makers did a pretty good job of selling that concept to the public.

The pin marks that you see in the in-letting of the stock are made by the stocker or finisher who "usually" uses a tool that is heated and then pressed into the wood to create the effect. . A type of branding. Most all top drawer sidelocks will have this treatment, pre or post war, doesn't matter. Consider it a nice touch, a little pride on the stockers part.

L.Brown, I do not have handy the book by Crudgington re the 12/20, but I am pretty sure you will find reference to the 12/20 there.

Although I own one of Birmingham's "best" my favorite is not among English guns at all. So believe me, there was no intention to favor one English city over another. However, knowing how the trade functioned, it is likely that no London gun was 100 per cent London made. The same is I believe true today. As far as I know case hardening, barrel blacking, and some other jobs are still handled by outside shops, mostly not in London.It is possible that with current environmental regulations such jobs are by necessity carried on outside city limits.

The definition of "best" that includes manufacture in London reminded me of Gough Thomas' comments re Burrard's London bias. Understandably so since Thomas lived near the New Forest and Burrard in West London.

Le Fusil, the process of branding you describe would account for the pin impressions. But what about the positive imprints of screw slots and other marks?

The "tool" has a slot cut into it like to match the pin. The stocker I know has a variety of sizes that he has made for that purpose. A clarification, when talking Brit guns, a pin joins metal to metal, a screw joins metal to wood.

Shotgunlover, I toured the H&H factory in 2001. At that time at least, they were doing everything "in house". I'm pretty sure the same was true of Purdey, and for that matter of Scott in Birmingham before they went out of business. A lot of gunmakers did have some of their work done "in the trade" by outworkers, but some were certainly capable of making a gun from start to finish. Of course in the case of a bespoke gun, the client could always request that the engraving, for example, be done by an engraver not employed by the company making the gun.

Case hardening and barrel blacking are never carried out "in house" at H&H or Purdey or Boss, the case hardening is done by St Ledger, the barrel blacking by two people in a house outside central London who keep the chemical mix a secret as does St Ledger best, Mike

I happen to know Richard St Ledger and know his work and his exclusive status in the English gun trade. At our first meeting he was amused by me asking which is the fastest way to remove case hardening colors! The man really knows steel.