doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Sleeving Question - Who

Just like all those hammer guns that continued to be made after internal hammers were introduced . . . .

The hammer gun was not a design failure...it's stood the test of time.

I figure Lang was just too cheap to pay the Royalty to use the Scott top lever and thought he could design something better....The under lever like on the Lang was like'n to a fart in a whirlwind.

Check the first picture of his later Lang from what little I can see the barrel extension appears to be for a Scott screw grip action ?

The gun in question apparently still opens and closes and shoots - that would indicate it has stood the test of time too.

Dig's website has a gallery of actions, many of which are "design failures" by Brit makers who preferred to use their own design than pay royalties on others patents. Actions Gallery

Now Lang's Vena Contracta - that could be labeled a "design failure."

The lang looks like a Scott ? More than likely it was made by Webley and Scott . As was the Vena Contracta .

What I meant by design failure and standing the test of time has nothing do with the gun still functioning....the design didn't stand the test of time and was basically unwanted by the gun trade.

Examples that did...the W&C Scott top lever and Purdey double under-bolt.

It's a Linder Daly I stumbled upon at Guns International

So any gun that doesn't have a top lever is a "failure"?

Interesting.

I disagree that because the design did not stand the test of popularity or even mechanical excellence that it is a failure.

If that were true then guns, then any design not still made today could implicitly be tripe. Further, hammer guns and alike would be passe.

The reality is that designs that either did not succeed because of function, fashion, manufacturing cost, etc can still be a true pleasure to own and shoot.

It would be poor sportmanship to belittle another's treasure.

I learned young to respect other's dogs and guns. The best shot I have ever seen (and best fly caster too) shot a very worn remington 11. The best pair guns I ever saw scored a 12 at sporting clays, though the guy shooting them was true gentleman and even let me shoot a few clays too. Both situations are good memories and I am better or them.

Unfortunately, some here actually consider that to be sport.



How many guns that have been profiled in the DGJ would qualify as "design failures" under this definition? Certainly all those 1870s guns Dig profiled last spring would have to be dismissed out of hand as design failures. Take that 34-bore William Ford with the trigger guard activated Purdey bite - what a POS!!!

In order to be belittled or have the gun "run down" there would have to be some sort of existing delusion of grandeur or expectation of value on my part. I know this gun well having owned it since 1999, it's been applauded and cursed (sometimes in the same sentence), by some of the best in the business

As has been the case on this board since it's early days, there are those who (over) romanticize their purchases, those who feel the need to "run down" every gun that doesn't fit their ideal, and them that parrot cliches like "it's no Purdey", "a 'proper' gun must have two triggers", "shame they ______". It's all old hat for me

As to j0e's comments, I take them with a light heart, as they can spark an amusing discussion about complacency with what's believed to be "state of the art" v. those who strived to innovate. I suppose which camp I'm in is obvious.

As an opening shot, I'd much rather own this Woodward 450/400 "failure" than any rifle containing a Scott spindle.

photo poached from Roscoe Stephenson's site