This ties into my post about when to restore and when not to. If I am going to spend money on a restoration, I'd rather restore a "best gun" rather then a lesser grade.

For the makers that made guns of different levels of quality, how do you define a "best gun"? Are there little things that you only seen on a maker's best gun?

On edit: While my interest right now is English (including Scotland) hammerguns, learning more about other makes and other types is still of interest. One never knows when a bargain might come along and it would be nice to be able to recognize it when it happens.

This is a wide open question with varying answers depending upon time of manufacture among other things. Do you have a specific type of gun in mind? The reason I ask is your tag on your posts.

a best gun is the best the maker can make

maybe not the fanciest - but the best- with the most care and craftsmanship

It all depends on the individual. I have paid to have damascus guns restored that certainly aren't considered best guns. But they aren't bottom end guns either. I had them restored because they needed it and I look at them as guns from another era where things were hand crafted and today are considered to be almost a lost "art form". Whatever their value is down the line is not really important to me and was not the reason or a concern when I had them done. In fact, they will likely be passed down to family members if anyone is interested in them. Now if resale value down the line is a big concern, then yes one had better look long and hard at what kind or type of gun money will be spent on. It all depends on the reason that motivates you to have a gun restored. Of the guns I have had done, I know I will never see my money back. But they are a thing of beauty, at least to me. And as mentioned, a best gun can mean different things depending on the time period or type of gun. It may even mean different things to different people.

I would say "Best" guns are considered to be London made guns.
Boss, Purdey, Woodward and Holland are considered all Best guns.
Occasional you will see some boxlocks described as Best quality and indeed they look fantastic. Purdey and Holland made lower quality grade guns as well but Boss and Woodward never did.
But it all comes back to the fantastic four I have mentioned.
One would say that it has to be stocked to the fences and without any barrel lumps protruding through the bottom of the receiver to qualify as Best.
But Boss made guns not stocked to the fences and they were considered a Best gun.

Best guns were described to me as guns with intercepting sears. So that leaves out all American guns.

To this day cannot understand why intercepting sears are such a big deal, the Europeans that shoot them are never moving anyway, unless they fall over backwards. If the American gun builders thought it was such a good idea they would have added them.

Not really, I fully expect to stick with English hammered shotguns for the foreseable future, but I might change my mind.

Mostly I'm looking for visible signs to look for on a gun, both toward possible restoring a gun and for any future purchases as well.

Hammer guns will not have the same clues to work with as a hammerless gun such as stocked to the fences, intercepting sears, or lack of a through lump. You really need to know a bit about guns from the time period, patents and the use of them in the British trade as well as a good eye. There are no simple answers. By sticking to well known makers you can certainly keep the odds in your favor but ultimately most every manufacturer, with the exception of Boss made a variety of quality levels. If you are unsure you can still contacts many British makers and see if they still have the order books. Many charge for the service of looking a gun up while others, such as H&H will read it to you no charge but only charge you if you want a copy of the ledger and a letter.
Steve

Depends on if you are the seller or the buyer !

If it is mine, it is a Best Gun.

If it is yours, it can be a Best Gun if you give it to me

Simple, right?

Mike

Many makers made occasional Best guns, a few makers made nothing but and a fair few never bothered, it just wasn't their market.
Most makers were capable if pushed.
The only sure way of telling a Best gun is to look at it through the eyes of someone who has minutely examined, externally and internally, a multitude of guns raging from the fabulous to the ghastly.
People are always tempted to offer particular points of style and design that make a gun Best or otherwise but there are always exceptions.
I have worked on guns that had interceptor sears, non through lumps and were stocked to the fences and they were without a shadow of doubt NOT a Best gun.
I have also worked on many guns that had no interceptor sears, through lumps and 'flat-back' actions that definitely were a Best gun.
I have seen guns by Boss and Purdey were the execution of the engraving was pretty appalling but internally they are every bit a Best gun.
I have seen border engraved H&H's that were finished to the full extent of a Best gun.
I have also see beautifully engraved guns, giving the impression of fabulous quality that were a mass of poorly fitted parts and filing marks inside.
Generally only experience will tell you the difference between a Best and second grade (or worse).

Toby, very good explanation, thanks.

Maybe look at auction prices realized for what you like and compare them to similar guns that you may not be interested in. Chances are the most expensive ones are the best ones for fairly narrow reasons.

English makers were always looking for a marketing edge and as a result there was a mad rush during the 19th century and earlier to invent and patent thousands of different ideas to "improve" a gun. By far the majority quickly and thankfully slipped into obscurity. London, being the main cosmopolitan center of the country, was always considered to have craftsmen and products that were superior to the rest of the country. And they certainly didn't discourage that image. Competition was stiff between all gun makers but the London gunmakers inherited the "best" title. And competition between these top London makers kept them pushing forward trying to never be viewed as a second tier company. And indeed the results of this demanding market produced some of the finest arms the world has ever seen. There were many provincial makers aggressively competing with the entire industry and a number produced arms ever bit as fine as anything London produced but they never could overcome the cachet of "London best".

What is a best? I think the word itself is an oxymoron, since nothing made by human hands can ever be considered to be the best. Someone could always make it a little better. But in my mind it is a gun that stands out from all the rest as being nearly perfectly constructed in all respects, always bearing in mind the constraints encountered during the time of its manufacture. Every area of England outside of London produced examples of this work, Birmingham, Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and many, many market towns.

The attitude that a best gun must be stocked to the fences, not have a through lump, etc., is the result of the homogenization of all the ideas preceding it having been sifted out and funneled through a narrow opening. And I think this thought process is wrong. Each gun, regardless of its mechanical process should be critically judged independent of the standard.

A best gun is the one I'm trying to sell at the moment.

Best Gun - A pompous English term for a gun that must have several specific details. To qualify for the title, it must have a Sidelock action with Intercepting Sears , have Chopper Lump Barrels , be Stocked to the Fences and have its lumps concealed by its floorplate . While almost any respectable gunmaker can accomplish these requirements, the implication, of course, is that it is also built to the highest standard of quality.

http://www.hallowellco.com/abbrevia.htm#B

To which I would add, "noun; see swindle".

I once owned a "best gun" by definition, since it was a Boss&Co. product:



Unfortunately it had a slight air conditioning problem:




A sage from Tennessee who frequents this site suggested I use it as a tomato stake. I followed good advice and did not spend any money restoring that one...Geo

Bruce Owen, former production manager at Purdey wrote that with the advent of CNC machines work has become more accurate, and steels used upgraded due to CNC machinery needs.

So if in the past Purdey made "best" guns, can we say that in the CNC era they have upgraded to "bester"?

As for best being English by definition, the poster has not examined high grade Darne and Ideal, or Rizzini Fratelli, Fabbri, Desenzani, Bossis, Perugini Visini and the list of names ending in a vowel can get long.

For someone who has no interest in English guns, you sure have an opinion on them. You seem to know all about the English gun trade and the making of a Best gun.

Well, yes. Having seen the underside of the English shotgun trade I’m of the opinion they are a poor value in shotguns. Hence, I have no interest in English shotguns.


All, no. Enough, yes. See above.



Whenever I see someone writing about “Best” guns (capital “B”, no less) I cannot help but wonder how many times he has bought an interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.

A good post and I agree, given my own lack of experience I was hoping to get a working definition from those who DO have the experience.

I think Toby has just about nailed it. He's a guy with a wealth of practical experience and knowledge with regards to the trade and the guns that came out of it. He's in the know and I would certainly pay close heed to what he says.

Thanks Toby for a great post!

Best,

Greg

PAL, was a time when I shared your statements above. I have found what I consider a better working definition. As some have stated above, "best" must be viewed from a time perspective. There was never a formal definition of "best," but master gunmakers and some of their clients knew who the most accomplished workers (both company in-workers and independent out-workers) were and what they could produce if paid appropriately. So, a candidate "best gun" must be filtered through what (designs, material, craftsmanship, fashion/vogue, etc.) was available when it was made. It should be noted that some of the usual definition applies to a style appropriately called the "London best gun." For example, Boss and Woodward continued to produce flatback SLE's long after "London best" called for STTF. Said guns are most certainly "best." The catch is that there were a lot of "sub-best" SLE's made on the flat-back frame. So, it becomes easy to label all flat-backs as not "best."

As noted above, all masters could get out a "best" if offered a commission with the right price tag. Even if they had no capable in-workers, they would have known the correct out-workers to accomplish the task. Remember, "bests" were off-the-peg items. The trick was finding clients who could afford "best" money and shot in a social circle where "best" guns were OK. This said, you can't ID "bests" by brand. All brands, with the possible exception of Boss, vended "sub-best" guns as their clients demanded: child's, lady's, keepers, rough shooting, fowling, etc. I know Woodward did because I own three of 'em, BLE's. Also, 'ole JW vended a few A/B grade SLE's, too.

DDA

Two identical SXSs, visually indistinguishable from each other, incorporating all the stylistic features mentioned above re best guns, but,

one is made of traditional materials, ie case hardened mild steel receiver and Whitworth barrels, the other of certified vacuum melted nickel chrome steel, fully tested for internal faults, and Boehler Blitz barrels.

Which one is better?

With such clear differences can the maker's name have any mitigating effect on quality?

There are those that insist on a recognisable name being stamped before the item can be classified as best. Those that really know could not care less about the name, and that is the bind with this best business.

How's it hold up those mayters

Some people have no eye for class thus the Spanish gun arose...

All gun makers weren't capable of making what's referred to as a "Best"....most could not even come close.

I think this fallacy along with "judge the gun not the name" mentality leads people down a dark and costly path.

Not everyone had the eye to make a Best quality gun...just like everyone doesn't have the eye to judge one...Plenty examples of the above on this site.

Not to mention on internet sites like Gunbroker. How many times have you seen English guns, especially mid-grade boxlocks, described as "Best" guns?

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=486540876

Regards
Ken

Realistically a well made modern made gun, from a practical user's stand point, is certainly better then what came out of England in the late 1800's and early 1900's, just as a Glock is better then the revolvers and early semi-automatics of the same time period. At least for me and I suspect most of the people who follow this board, the problem is the new guns are just things, items that are easily replaceable, presuming you have the money and have no character or individuality to them.

For me there is something about picking up a gun, made long before I was born and appreciating it's history and in the case of the English hammer guns I prefer, looking at the time and skill a handful of people took to make what is arguably a work of art.

If the term Best Gun is juts a pompous English term or a swindle, why did just about every maker everywhere build their best sidelock SxSs to London Best Gun standards?

The Spanish makers certainly did this.

Was it just fashion? Or were the London makers on to something (and the Spanish recognized it)?

BTW: Innovation wise, did any of the Spanish makers ever bring anything new to the table regarding the design of top-quality SxSs? Just wondering.

I know some Belgian, German/Prussian & Italian makers did. I don't know enough about Spanish guns to answer the question.

OWD

You mean something like this, Chantry? From about 1869 and made by Joseph Brazier, Ashes, Wolverhampton and one of a set of three marketed by Thomas Johnson of Swaffham, Norfolk.



Or this William and Powell from Liverpool? I have never seen better workmanship though the action has slipped into oblivion.

I may be wrong, but I believe the term "best gun" originated from the English gun trade itself and English firearms "authorities". At one point in history, the "best" of everything was considered to be made in London(especially by the English upper class). Since the London gunmakers had a monopoly on the gun trade by royal decree, guns, clothing, and all sporting equipment coming from London was the "best" and everything else was considered second rate; Birmingham gunmakers being the bastard children of the trade. The idea of "best" however, was not unique to the London gun trade...Ansley Fox considered his guns to be the finest in the world; an opinion shared by Teddy Roosevelt who also owned English guns.
However, all of the criteria I've read that supposedly determines a "best gun" is simply a description of one made by a London gunmaker; a claim that would be challenged by those who own and shoot pre-war guns made by Austrian, Prussian, German, and Belgium gunmakers. Personally, I wouldn't give two cents for a gun I couldn't consistently hit birds or targets with despite the name on it. Have I adequately stirred the pot on this Joe?

You stated it quite well, Gary. Someday we will discuss the concept of workmanship as practiced by the old timers versus current concept. In the meantime a study of Chippendale furniture will provide a good primer.

And the Scots, being Scots, decided to reject the English idea of best..........

But if you walked into Dickson and said "I want a best-quality sidelock," they gave you a London-pattern Best. (Or they built you a round-action that looked like a sidelock).

Westley & Greener did the same thing, even though they had their own, proprietary actions.

And thinking your gun is a best and being the best are two different things. None of the major American makers built guns to the standards of a Purdey, Woodward or Boss.

Just didn't happen.

OWD

jOE, I took a picture of that fine Boss shotgun stuck in the ground holding up the last of my heirloom October Brandywines. If I find it I'll post it for you because I remember how you admired it.

When I figured out I couldn't restore it, I sold it down the road of commerce. Back to poles and string for 'mayter support this year...Geo

Chantry said above:

"At least for me and I suspect most of the people who follow this board, the problem is the new guns are just things, items that are easily replaceable, presuming you have the money and have no character or individuality to them."

I conclude that you have not picked up a Desenzani OU, or a Ferlib Minion, or perhaps a Darne hors serie. Not to mention a David McKay Brown of any type. I can't think of more individuality laden shotguns than these.

Anyone who can "easily replace" a Desenzani is a very fortunate man.

By the way, one Purdey model is made by Perugini Visin and none of us would have a problem calling it "best", even if not London made.

Bob Blair, well done for posting that Dickson, so that people can see what a best gun really is.

And before there are moans, take one apart and judge it technically against the best Stanton lockwork. I have done so several times. As for looks Gough Thomas said it best:

"In terms of sheer thoroughbred lines the Dickson Round Action yields nothing, nothing whatsoever, to the finest sidelock ever built." That from an Englishman who had best sidelocks made to his specs is a weighty statement.

Gorgeous and I've never heard of the first maker

My comments were intented as a reflection on the mass produced guns of today, not custom guns requiring hundreds of hours by sklled craftsman.

That's as much a best gun as anything coming out of London and I seriously doubt I'll ever own one.

While the concept of a best gun originated in London, that doesn't mean there weren't other makers in Great Britain or Europe and later in the U.S. capable of producing guns of comparable quality.

I just happened to end up liking the British hammer guns, which is good since I can't afford the better quality boxlocks, sidelocks and round actions.

By about WW1, there were no makers in America building guns that compared to the best stuff coming out of London (or out of Birmingham). If anyone came close, it was Lefever.

Were any American makers at that time capable of doing it? Who knows? They didn't do it.

I've handled two of the Parker Invincibles, plus some A-1 Specials and other top American stuff. Some were good, but nice, original Bosses, Purdeys and Woodwards are better.

Notice that Thomas says the Dickson "... yields nothing.." He doesn't say it exceeds. And he is referring to "...thoroughbred lines..."

Burrard liked Dicksons, too. He thought they were strong and beautifully made, but he also said "I do not see it (the round action design) is any better than a bar action sidelock, but it is certainly as good."

Darnes? Come on. I've handles those fancy ones and owned lesser ones. They were all PITA. A mediocre design is always mediocre, regardless of how fancy looking the gun is. Quirky doesn't equal quality.

DMBs are the most overrated guns made today. So incredibly underwhelming (other than in their ads). I'd rather own a Perazzi.

And the Italian-made Purdeys are not Best guns. They're just overpriced OUs for people desperate to own something that says Purdey on it. Again, a Perazzi is a better.

OWD

Don't appologize for that. IMO, atheistically, nothing can hold a candle to a fine hammer gun.

Good lord, this is priceless, on so many levels...

So, you, of the "Dogs and Doubles" site (who had to be told, right here, that a boxlock could have intercepting sears, but, I digress) do tell us of the "Fancy" Darnes you have handled.
Did you get to handle the foursome that were built for the prince in Saudi Arabia? I'm guessing, no. How 'bout the pair that went to the oil barron in Russia? No? Because THOSE are the only "Fancy" Darnes I've ever handled. Six of them.

None destined for the US market.

I've never handled a "Fancy" Darne (you have a way with gun terminology, I do have to say) here in the US. Nada, never, zip. The only one that came close was Wes GIlpin's personel R17 slug gun, with folding sight on the quarter rib, detachable claw scope mount, and improved cylinder and modified chokes for use on sea ducks. Wes asked for, and paid for, and got a gun he could shoot ducks with in the morning, and hunt javelina and deer with slugs out to 100 yards with in the evening, and it takes a fair amount of best level skill to pull off a gun that can do that. What grade were the "Fancy" Darnes you handled? What era? What importer? Where were they? Did you take notes on the finishing differences between, say, a James Wayne era V19, and a mid 1990s Bruchet Hors Serie series gun, maybe one in the "Fond Crux" style of engraving? Have you ever used a Darne double rifle?

Maybe, those points matter when you are talking about a gun design that is as different as a Darne, and you are talking about best guns. Maybe, you really don't know what you are speaking of. Maybe, all you have ever handled are production Darne guns, fitted to someone else. Might that have something to do with why you are incompetent with the Darne sliding breech design? Don't you tell your dear readers on your site that if they can't get their grouse and woodcock with a 28 gauge Red Label, there is something wrong with them, not the tool?

What is wrong with you that a Darne is a PITA?

I suppose reminding you of the problems Ruger suffered with barrel regulation, shortly before they pulled the plug on all the doubles, wouldn't convince you otherwise, either. Nope, just go out and get them grousies with that Ruger.

Continuing, because a Darne is a PITA for you, it couldn't be a best? Really? Who elected you arbiter of good taste and gun design? You act as if handling a few US spec V grades and owning a beater R makes you an expert on what a company that has been in business for 140 years, give or take, was capable of during that entire time. Perhaps you should go back and review what Gough Thomas had to say about the Darne. Perhaps "Quirky" to you is irrelevent when one looks back to the era of live pigeon shooting in Europe and sees the wins at Monte Carlo, Vichy, Lisbon and Moscow where shooters using Darnes placed first and second, and the contests in Algiers, Milan, and Sao Paulo where they placed first.

At one time, the "Quirky" design held a record for most wins at live pigeon shooting, in Europe.

Is a run-of-the-mill Darne found, used, here in the states, always going to be a best? Never, but, that doesn't mean various owners of the company couldn't pull off best workmanship, and supply best materials, when a customer came along who could demand, and, pay for it. If you subscribe to the silly notions on what constitutes a best that Kyrie kindly posted, go further back, and see what Toby had to say. You may find it eye opening.

Darne lesson over.


I'd rather have a Fabbri then a Perazzi. I'd rather have a Fabbri than a Purdey, too. If someone wants to sponsor me, I'll even take one with Phoenix barrels.

If you were honest, you'd tell us that you prefer the Fabbri, also.

Italian gun lesson over.


Best,
Ted

Let us get technical then. My job entails handling best guns, ie Holland, Purdey and the like almost daily. Has been since 1985. I have taken apart every type of best gun and plenty of others too.

The Round Action has fewer parts, all supported by steel, not wood as in a sidelock. Mechanical engineering principles favor the decrease of parts for the same task. The geometry, the much touted 90 degree angle of sear to tumbler engagement is maintained in the Round Action as are intercepting safeties. Arguably the stock is also stronger by having more wood left in the jaws. Also there are few external pins, screws for the uninitiated. In non ejector Dickson there is only one visible screw on the action, the one retaining the trigger plate.

As for Darnes, Ideal and other continental European guns, the design might not suit some, the workmanship is flawless. And technically some continentals tackled and solved problems that the British will not face, like the rust trap between the ribs which the French solved with the abolition of the bottom rib (Darne) and the "I" section rib (Ideal). Caprinus of Sweden have solved several OU issues that still befuddle best makers and have reduced the overall height of the action to 56 millimeters, less than Boss and Woodward. But they are not British and that is an apparently unforgiveable act in gundom!

Purdey themselves promote their Perugini model as a best gun. Ask them. If you see the work done by PV you will know that what they do is in several areas over and above what any British firm does and they do it in certified and tested modern steel.

Perhaps a chat with some English barrel makers re the Darne and its barrel quality might also prove useful.

It is always useful to keep in mind that to date no English gun has been subjected to the endurance test of target shooting. Endurance is an undeniable test of mechanical quality.

Nothing cures best gunnitis than an estimate for repairs, both in total money and time for completion. Brister likened British prices to a court sentence, three years and ex thousand dollars. Contrast that with the four hours it takes Perazzi to build AND SHIP a stock to the client's measurement and this business takes on a whole different dimension.

Don't hold back, Ted, why don't you tell him how you really feel?

SRH

ENDURANCE!!!!! This English offering from Purdey the younger has been in continuous use for all but a few of years for its restoration since 1869 it is Nitro Proof and my everyday use gun. Shotgunlover how long do you want? Just to get things in proportion the year it was built the suez canal was opened in the November and Ulysses S. Grant was the US President from March 1869. Target!!! Everything the gun has ever dropped up to now has been a target and of course no person has lived long enough to see its use from the beginning. Also there is no good reason to prevent it from being a shootable gun for a further hundred years so its build quality I feel is beyond question, even if the wood does go all the way to the fore end joint.

Blah, blah blah. Who cares if the workmanship on a Darne is flawess? The design stinks. They're like square tires, even if they're beautifully made.

Who said anything about Fabbris? I'd take one - if you gave it to me. I think they're boring, but they work, and the stocks on most of them have the gun equivalent of cankles. I'd rather buy a Perazzi and spend the rest of the money on shooting out west or in the UK.

If you would rather have a Fabbri than a Purdey, good for you. Taste can't be taught. You've either got it or you don't.

Shotgunlover, these kind of statements make we wonder if you have any idea what you're saying:

"It is always useful to keep in mind that to date no English gun has been subjected to the endurance test of target shooting."

So no English gun has ever been used for target shooting? Is that what you're saying? OK. I find this hard to believe, but please elaborate. And as Damascus pointed out above, isn't anything you shoot at a target, including the hundreds and hundreds of birds a day they Brits used as "targets" on the old, big driven shoots?

And what about live pigeon shooting? Over the last 100+ years, I think a few British shotguns have been used at the world's top live pigeon shoots. But maybe you know otherwise.

OWD

What make a shotgun a "Best Gun"- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, n'ces pas? I prefer a side-by-side in sidelock configuration, and if I Warren Buffett's portfolio at my beck and call, I'd prefer a Boss or a Purdey island lock with ejectors and Whitworth barrels. Does the ratio of dead birds in hand to shells expended on a high volume shoot factor into this choice? Say, doves in SA or driven pheasant in Hungary or grouse in Scotland? Any shotgun that can hold up to that degree of high volume shooting season after season has to be amongst the Best, if not Better, right?

US champion Kim Rhode shoots anywhere between 500 and 1000 practice shots daily. She used her Perazzi for practice and tournaments putting over a million shots through it. That is what I had in mind when I mentioned target use. In addition to the actual shooting add the constant open-close due to safety rules and the friction from hands and clothing and you get the idea. Simply lasting over time is not endurance.

UK Olympian Braithwaite in Mexico did no use an English shotgun. I am constantly looking to see even one UK shooter appear holding a local gun on the stands. So far I have not seen one.

To add something to this discussion that goes beyond style and mystique. What the British makers gave us, and is not often copied, is handling and balance. In the headlong rush to exploit British patents post 1900 most makers forgot these essentials and they made superficial copies but forgot the handling part.

As far as execution and workmanship my experience is that others can and have done it better, even if they miss the balance part.

Anyone into good quality shotguns should read Bruce Owen's article about CNC and high tech methods used in best guns, published in 2003 I think in Shooting Sportsman. It is one of the most candid articles on the subject, and his being the former production manager of Purdey gives it special relevance.

After you read it you will re-evaluate ideas about best materials being used in best guns, the comparative levels of engineering accuracy in the product itself then and now.

I had seen these new methods used by Sandro Lucchini in Armitalia a decade before the British employed them. I did not buy an Armitalia because back then I was under the spell of the hand work mystique. In psychology they call this introjection.

Being continually used and lasting over time IS ENDURANCE! And seeing that the gun has been around for nearly a hundred and fifty years, 500 to a 1000 shots a day in a Perazzi is just pure speculation on that guns longevity, it has not even done the first century yet. While the Purdy has overcome the Brit. weather, rust, abuse, misuse, and been fed more cartridges than I could even begin to imagine. NO PROOF NO CONTEST!!!!!!!!!!! My money is on the Purdey being used for another hundred years and Kim Rhode’s Perazzi all I will say I believe the guns will never meet in the future let’s just say seventy five years from now.

Interesting take you have on endurance Damascus. Which, if correct, would cast grave doubts over the quality of today's Purdeys and Holland and their opting for modern steels, (just like Perazzi's incidentally), CNC, EDM, and the whole spectrum of high tech manufacturing. You seem to be implying that the new ones will not last as long as those made of mild steel and empirically heat treated.

Condensing a lifetime of operation cycles in a short space of time is the way most manufacturers test their wares, especially high spec manufacturers, as in aerospace parts. Recently I read Ruger do similar exhaustion tests on their guns.

Closest test I recall for Purdey was the 500 000 bag of game by Lord Ripon, using several sets of Purdey guns, not one. And those guns were regularly sent to the maker for service and repair (read Beaumont, Purdey's The Guns and the Family).

My bet is on the modern certified steel and controlled heat treatment. I risk a prediction re 75 years from now, that a greater percentage of stainless steel Flodman/Caprinus shotguns will survive than any other.

Your argument is pure speculation and for a start you do not know who the first owner of this Purdey was. Also you cannot foretell the future like I can’t but the chances of a well-connected Purdey has a lot more going for it than a Perazzi. This gun has been their done that and has the tee shirt! As for modern Purdy guns don’t try to put words in my mouth they will last as long as the world will allow as you well know. You seem to desperately want to prove a point of speculation which is not truly possible also you seem to have thrown everything into the ring including the kitchen sink, but in the end this Purdey has lived until now still working as Purdey the younger intended, a cast Iron un-arguable fact. And my last input on this matter they do exhaustive tests on Aeroplanes, space vehicles, cars to name just a few things of this modern world and yet they fail so exhaustive testing is no guarantee of anything.

I have an 1890 Parker DH with 32" barrels that has never been opened, has had an unearthly number of lord knows what ammunition shot through it, and is still chugging along like it was day one. Oh, it also has Damascus barrels. Guess it could never qualify as a "best" but don't tell that to all the generations that have used it for their bread and butter.

Let's get off of this "Best" kick since it can never be defined and would be nonsensical even if it were. It is pure snobbery. A much clearer term to interject would be something like "high grade" or "high quality". Even those tags would still be available for pot shots though.

I am a real sucker though for high quality guns, those that exhibit fine workmanship. Fancy wood and/or engraving have little weight in my eyes. But it's the quality of the chosen materials and how they were assembled and finished that turn me on. For a primer on this subject a gun such as a Lindner made Charles Daly might be a useful yardstick from which to judge others.

Damascus when you say:

"you do not know who the first owner of this Purdey was"

I am confused. You mean Lord Ripon's Purdey?

"As for modern Purdy guns don’t try to put words in my mouth they will last as long as the world will allow as you well know." Yes I know that they are now made of high grade steel and undergo regulated heat treatment, because I read the former production manager's report saying so, and I believe him. There is no magic in the name. It is science and technology.

I fail to see the speculation in my post, most things stated can be verified and measured, sources cited.

Joe, the best gun crowd exclude the Parker, I do not. One feature alone, the designed-in retightening provision on its cross pin and bite, put it in the top category according to my standards.

To get back to the original post re defining a best gun. It is clear from several pages of posts that there is no such definition. It would be entertaining to see a legal case hinging on this definition and see how impartial judges would tackle it in the context of the laws covering the sale of goods.

"Best" is subjective. I do believe Toby is correct.

That said to best is first a gun that fits the shooter, properly choked for the shooter's style of shooting and type of game, 100% quality engraving, good wood, excellent to near prefect metal to metal and to wood fit, checkering done as near prefectly as can be seen, and balanced.

I believe some round actions do qualify. Maybe a box-lock? I do not own any round actions, but still lust for one, and regret the field grade german round action i had but traded away.

I have seen some American guns that might qualify, one 16 LC A2 (I think it was an A2) or premier was so near prefect I still curse myself for not buying it. But the reality is the big London makers set the bar. I do not own any London SLE best, and probably never will, but i do own several Belgian SLE, all made in the 20's that meet the London mark without the name.

I love beautifully executed and technically near prefect guns. Given mechnically sound design and actions in the end a best gun is the one you shoot best

Joe -

It's not pure snobbery to say that some designs are superior to others and that other designs are pretty much equal.

The British gun trade proved this through its own evolution. In the early days of hammerless doubles & ejectors, there were all sorts of designs. Most faded away, a few remained. For the most part, the ones that remained were the pretty much the best.

I love American stuff - Parkers, Foxes, Smiths, Ithacas, etc - and I'm a huge sucker for the sentiment and nostalgia that's fuels their interest.

But I don't think for second that they compare in quality with a WR droplock, a top Greener FP or G gun, or even a Dickson, Francotte or Lindner Daly. They simply don't - and that's OK.

The American guns were never meant to compete with top London stuff. American doubles were less expensive, and they were built for a different kind of shooter under different conditions.

So I don't have any issues with stuff that's not the Best. I own lots of it. But I don't think for a second that some stuff isn't better than the rest.

And Darnes stink.

OWD

Colonel you hit the mark with this one:

"That said to best is first a gun that fits the shooter, properly choked for the shooter's style of shooting and type of game, 100% quality engraving, good wood, excellent to near prefect metal to metal and to wood fit, checkering done as near prefectly as can be seen, and balanced."

Best was invariably bespoke, ie made for someone specific. Fit and choke went together and the execution quality is essential.

Engraving is the only one that bears disagreement but I admit to a possible overload. Plain steel seems so restful to the eyes, as in some Holland Dominions.

This thread proves the need for what I call a tactile gun museum.

A representative collection of guns, perhaps deactivated so there would be no legal obstacle to visitors handling, swinging and manipulating them, to get a tactile sense of each type. For withouth tactile sense, judging only visually, it is hard to distinguish what differentiates, for instance, a common sidelock from a worthy sidelock.

The last gun in the line up, one to experience after all the doubles, best or otherwise, would be a medium quality single barrel made by a second tier British gunmaker in the 1900-1920 era. You handle one of those and it will put the words handling and best in perspective.

I would certainly have a big problem calling that model a "best". Purdey's do a best o/u, it's the Purdey Woodward. The Perugini Vishini model is a less expensive lower grade model, not a "best". Made in Italy (or anywhere else) is not the problem. Not being made to the finest standards and specifications is.

I think 'Best' is more of a consensus. Many folks have been slammed here for showing or mentioning their 'bespoke' gun. The original fellow may be deathly afraid of how an acquisition is perceived by others, rather than how much he likes it, the fit or how it shoots.

I'm not sorry, I'm thrilled I like the British guns I can actually afford as opposed to really liking hammerless sidelocks or round actions I'll never be able to afford

[quote=Shotgunlover]"That said to best is first a gun that fits the shooter, properly choked for the shooter's style of shooting and type of game, 100% quality engraving, good wood, excellent to near prefect metal to metal and to wood fit, checkering done as near prefectly as can be seen, and balanced."[quote]

The "balance" part is a bit of a problem. There is no "balance" characteristic that is a summative for handling. Nope, none, nada. Balance is, indeed, one of four significant handling characteristics. It is the distance from the teeter-totter point to some reference; (front) trigger being the most convenient and useful. The other three are weight, unmounted swing effort, and mounted swing effort.

There has been a pervasive myth that "best" guns had some special, magical handling that was never duplicated in lessor guns. Nonsense. Any handling profile (set of the four characteristics) can be measured and then duplicated in another gun. The most sensible approach to handling is to think of the handling characteristics in the same way as a set of stock fit numbers. Unfortunately, the Brit gun trade, as well as all other trades and makers, failed to identify and measure swing efforts. So, they obsessed about weight and balance, the only handling numbers they measured. A lot of ink and paper were wasted on essays about the ideal weight and the optimum balance. Truth - there is no more one ideal/optimum handling than there is one optimum set of stock fit dimensions. Handling dimensions need to be fitted to the shooter just as much as do stock dimensions. BTW, the average Brit "best" game gun handling is as follows: 6 1/2# weight, 4 1/2" balance (forward of front trigger), 1.45 unmounted, and 6.4 mounted. Most shooters like lighter/lower/faster handling numbers but shoot better with heavier/higher/faster numbers.

Above said, handling is not an attribute unique to "best" guns.

DDA

My MOI database provides an opportunity to do just this in the basic comfort of your own home. With over 700 guns, most people can find reasonable comparables. The protocol is determine about what are the profiles of your current guns. Then, you work on which you enjoy shooting and which you shoot best. Future purchases can then be based on which way you want to move or what you wish to experiment with.

Questions?

DDa

Rocketman,

The term Balance over in Europe covers what you call handling in the US plus a fair share of general ergonomics. Gough Thomas coined the term Eumatics to cover these qualities. He also described a dynamometric contraption to measure swing dynamics, which a physicist friend copied and the results were fascinating.

Best guns inocrporate these characteristics. They feel lively, despite the weight, are easy to manipulate, and are pleasant to touch too. I would say they do not fight you when you use them and offer sensory pleasure in all phases of use. At the risk of being denounced by a SXS crowd, I found the same tactile qualities in some smooth pump guns.

Yes you can get these qualities in a "lesser" gun, but you expect them in a best, if for no other reason than you are being royally charged for them.

Personally I pay little attention to the balance point etc. From experience with many (possibly thousands) of guns I found that when each major part is center heavy, in the disassembled state, the assembled gun tends to be a lively handling one. By adding weight to the right place it is possible to alter the feel up to a point.


Darne doubles, regardless of quirkiness or not, are among the best handling doubles because the design favors center heavy parts, and the absence of a bottom rib helps too.

I am eager to handle an Alex Martin Ribless some day, to see how the absence of ribs affects its handling.

Craigd you have a point.

"The original fellow may be deathly afraid of how an acquisition is perceived by others, rather than how much he likes it, the fit or how it shoots."

And the big test is the unsigned gun with obvious quality work but no recognisable name. I have come across a few of these, all British, bearing the right proof marks but no name. The reaction of both afficionados and dealers is fascinating to watch. They want them, but are afraid to commit, like a cat stalking strange prey!

Shotgun lover,
Not ALL Darnes were built sans lower rib-you could get them how you wanted them, at all points in the history of the company. I'm guessing few people ever went to the trouble to order a fitted Darne, based on used guns I see, at least in the USA, at any rate. During the 50s, 60s and 70s, the people that ran the company did attempt to ramp up production to keep guns in inventory for stocking dealers, a disaster as far as I am concerned, with a design that is as fit critical as a Darne.
It is when someone attempts to use a non-fitting Darne we get the ignorant comments like "Darnes stink". There is precious little one can do to get a Darne to fit better, as the steel rod in the wrist doesn't allow for adjusting bend.
My 12 has an under rib, and I suspect the gun was built for export, and not a custom order, as it is marked "Made in France" in English, on the top rib, and I believe the under rib was put there to help keep the gun from feeling "whippy" with the 26" barrels it was built with. A fact not often mentioned is the good handling and balance requirements of any given gun are going to be different depending on the human expected to use the gun-my ideal will no doubt be a bit different than your own.
What Gough Thomas said about the Darne, in the era he said it, in the country and to the people he said it to, borders on courageous. He would have been roundly criticized by those he knew for mentioning anything from France as having any improved qualities worth considering.
But, he did. For good reason.

Best,
Ted

Ted,

I know what you mean. I grew up in England and for some time drove a 2CV!

It is fascinating to compare attitudes in Anglosaxon and non Anglosaxon cultures. In my parts A V22, a Purdey and an Ideal would be ranked about level by buyers and sellers. Any such suggestion in an Anglosaxon environment would elicit some rude responses.

As for the ribs, I have seen about equal proportions with and without bottom rib. Being a rib hater I guess the ribless ones leave a more lasting impression.

Once you have an understanding of the handlings characteristics, comparisons are available.
DDA