All the talk about great handling and low weight, due to lack of ribs is kinda lost on me. For that matter, all the bashing of the whole concept of ribs because of some perceived backwards or antiquated idea that the gun is less sound and prone to deterioration from rust, is too. Guns have been successfully built this way for hundreds of years, and I dare say if the world lasts another century and doubleguns are still around, they still will be. Why? Because "it" works. We're shooting 100+ year old guns that were built this way and they're sound as a dollar (okay, bad example).The ultimate critics are the consumers. When there becomes more that an infinitesimally small handful of people who demand ribless guns the makers may begin to notice. Ribs have reasons for being. A field gun without ribs becomes a place for twigs and other trash to get hungup, and accumulate.Top ribs contribute to better shooting and some of us like the wide ones like on many of the old Philly Fox guns. Krieghoffs have been built without side ribs, and other makes as well, for target work, for decades. Are they better than the best target guns with side ribs? Not IMO. Light weight alone does not necessarily contribute to better shooting, and "better handling" is still a moving target that people grasp for, even when they have no clue what it is.
Tell me about the gun that you picked up at the range and shot a round with, and shot the highest score of your life. Tell me about the gun you carried to a dove field and shot 80% with, when you're normally a 50% shooter. Tell me about the little quail gun that you can't miss with, when you've always shot your old favorite with mediocre success. Then, we'll try to determine what, and why, these guns made a difference in your shooting. But, if all you've got to tout is " it's different", "it's radical" or "it's lighter than it's counterparts", or "it's got no place for rust to hide", count me as uninterested.