doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com English Bests

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.