I'd rather look at Stans grandkids artwork than talk about the b.s. of what makes a "best" gun. If you know your guns well enough, when you see a "best" grade gun, you know it, regardless of maker, country, action type, bells and whistles, etc. Is it ok to say that the definition of a best gun is the end product of a gunmakers pinnacle of craftsmanship. There came a time in gunmaking history where everyones "best" gun could be compared to the work of their contemporaries and be judged as equal. The only thing that could seperate maker from maker was a particular house style, and that's about it. For one to say that Grant, Rigby, Lancaster, Churchill, Pape, Beesley, Greener, Scott, Lang, Powell, HB&Playfair, or many small provincial makers couldn't produce a gun on the same level as "the big 4" in London is just ridiculous. Well, to me its ridiculous. I suppose to some upper-cruster it wouldnt be though, this would probably be the same type individual who believes that none of the big 4 ever turned out a lemon or heaven forbid an "average" gun.
Dustin
Last edited by LeFusil; 03/25/11 10:45 AM.
![[Linked Image from jpgbox.com]](http://www.jpgbox.com/jpg/57865_80x60.jpg)