doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com What Does it Take For an SXS to Shoot Loose?

I think the last few years of production of the 700 were chambered for 2 3/4" cartridges. An uncle of mine used to buy "Guns review" magazine i am sure some of you will remember, and passed them to me when he was finished. I vaguely remember adverts for the ph 700 and by then (early 80's) they were chambered in 2 3/4".

What makes me laugh now is modern clay and some game cartridges are going to 24gram/7/8 oz loads. If you open a cartridge, the thing is made up mostly of a silly long wad. They would be much better going back to a 2 1/2" case.

Most W&S 700's were chambered for 2 3/4" shells, although the early post-war ones were not. But in 12 bore, we'd made the switch to 2 3/4" as the 12 bore standard on this side of the pond a couple decades earlier. The idea was that the same American 12--which, like 12 bores in the UK, was by far the most common gauge--could be used for anything from waterfowl to quail. It was not ideal for both, but it was more of an "all purpose" tool than either a British fowler or game gun.

Ted, you'll undoubtedly find more old American classics available as project guns than Brit doubles for the simple reason that there are WAY more old American classics out there. And the reasons I no longer own the NID 12ga have nothing to do with the gun's condition. Like you, I'm not interested in taking a 7 1/2# gun with tight chokes pheasant hunting . . . but plenty of Americans are. And the 1 1/4 oz "Super-X" formula has long been the standard pheasant load in this country . . . whether shooters really need that much shot and velocity or not. (But please note that the ammo makers are now offering even faster lead loads as their "premium" pheasant shells.)

I also felt sorry for a young guy at our club who'd been sold a poor excuse for a Savage Fox B. Told him for not much more money, I could fix him up with a far superior gun. He was able to "undo" the Model B sale, and I think will be quite happy with that NID. There's also the fact that its only purpose for me was as a target gun when tight chokes are needed. Like trap, which I hardly ever shoot, and the pigeon ring at the Great Northern. I currently have a set of 16ga barrels for a modern Bernardelli hammergun down at Briley being fitted with screw-ins. I figure that gun will be solid enough and versatile enough to cover most of my needs for semi-serious target shooting: everything from skeet to SC to trap. Which meant that that nice NID was mostly going to gather dust in my safe. One heck of a stout design, for sure . . . when you consider that when John Olin came up with the 10ga magnum load, he didn't have guns made on the Model 21 platform, but instead turned to Ithaca and their NID as a platform for their big 10's.

As for the French proof loads, the triple proof ones--and you don't see triple proof on many French guns other than Darnes--are about equivalent to our standard proof on this side of the pond. Remember that standard CIP proof is a bit under 14,000 psi. We're 4-5,000 psi beyond that.

As for the price difference, NID to W&S 700: In 1914, a W&S Model 400 Grade 3--the predecessor of the 700--cost 18 pounds. (I think a pound, back then, was in the neighborhood of $4.) When the NID appeared, in 1926, the Field Grade sold for $37.50 When the last NID's were sold, in 1948, the price was $80.50. I don't have a price for the 700 when it first appeared, but in 1958, it was 80 pounds . . . and I don't think we'd seen prices quadruple in the States in the preceding decade. By 1979, the 700 was selling for close to 1,000 pounds. Those W&S basic boxlocks have always been more expensive guns, even using UK prices, than the Ithaca, Fox, or Elsie entry level guns. Not surprised that one would sell for 3x the price of a NID Field Grade . . . and I'd consider both guns pretty good buys at their respective prices.

Perfect.

Larry,
Couldn't help but notice, that at no point did you say the NID was better than a 700.

Hey, why not?

I'm not a huge fan of 700s, but, I can see the forrest for the trees, I like to think.


Best,
Ted

Gents,

In regards to some of the more Euro-phile comments made here, I will ask you to consider the following:

1. Consider that on the lower end of quality (trade guns, etc.) European guns were simply not competitive below a certain price point, due both to the cost of getting the guns here, and due to the tariffs (rightly or wrongly). And THAT is why you see few lower end English guns at shows amidst a sea of Crescent Arms quality clunkers. A simple matter of home-field advantage. NOT that the average quality of those numerous Birmingham guns was necessarily any better than the average of those made here.

2. On the higher end, the very best of what America produced in the golden age of shotguns (roughly 1875-1925) was every bit as good as the best England or Germany made. No, they didn't make as many. But I believe the best of what they did make stands a peer to their Euro bretheren.

Is it true that the American aesthetic was and remains more grounded in utilitarian purposes. Our historical experiences have nudged us this way. And it's also true that the class system of Europe has tended to nudge those countries the other way. But that does not mean that the highest and best of what we could -- and can -- produce, isn't as good. And anyone who thinks so has never bought an English or French car.

The English ones usually look great while you're on the side of the road awaiting a tow. The French ones will get you laughed at while waiting for a tow. Either way, you waited for a tow from a guy with an old American pickup.

3. English 'best' guns were -- and are -- built for a man whose hands have quite literally never seen dirt. Most of their shooting in the golden age was purely for sport. Hence the emphasis on how light and dainty they were/are. This is probably less so with the Germans and their superb guild guns, as even the aristocracy had a rich hunting-for-the-table lifestyle heritage.

We have our differences, and our pros and cons in terms of what matters to our consuming public, but that doesn't mean that Dan Lefever wasn't every bit the equal to James Purdey. And if you doubt me, you haven't seen the very best of what he created. I can think of a number of special order guns of his make that will quite literally bring a tear to your eye.

Lastly, please humor me. What is "shooting loose?" And I guess related, what is a "hinge pin?" Didn't it occur to any of these makers to put in some wear compensating features in their design?

Oh...


- Nudge

Oh do I have a big problem with that statement. English built guns made their mark during the muzzleloading period and have progressed since then. Even our American Indian preferred the English built 'Trade' gun over all others and was the beginning of the divide between the Birmingham and London makers who would not participate because they, the London makers, considered it a 'Blood Trade' and the Birmingham makers 'Blood Houses'

Nudge, with all due respect, your attempt to make a comparison to the auto industry just demonstrated clearly how little you know about the auto industry.

Now let's go back to your comparison of lower end guns. Two things to consider.

First, tariffs don't happen by chance. They are put in place as protectionist measures, for better or worse. And they have an impact. The impact in America is that the gun industry could pump out the volumes of guns required to keep the factories in business. So they did, and they built the guns they could get away with in that lower end protected market. Tariffs ALWAYS distort the market.

Second, with no tariffs, the Brit and Belgian gun industry would have swamped America at the lower end. And, as in any competitive commercial market, the makers would have responded to the demands of that marker, as evidenced by what sells and what doesn't, and if heavier, stouter guns were in demand, they would have made them and that's what you would see dominating the lower end used SxS market now.

Nudge,

You speak the truth! Uncle Dan's finest creations can truly be breathtaking.

I collect both Boss and Lefever and I would differ with you slightly on one point.

While the beauty and finish of an Optimus and a Boss SLE Best are comparable, as are by and large their durability (except of course the Lefever's ability to be put back on face with a turn of a special screw driver), the British Boss' handling characteristics are consistently better than a Lefever's. This is simply because Boss and all the other English gun houses were focused on producing lightweight and balanced guns for fast driven shooting. Their proof houses allowed them to push the envelope on barrel wall thickness and 2 1/2" loads kept even their finest 12s under 7 lbs.

Generally Americans valued stoutness and durability over handling.

In the 1890s Boss and Purdey SLEs were being shot by the aristocracy of the wealthiest society since the Romans at pheasants pushed over them by serfs. High grade Lefevers were shot at live pigeon shoots and waterfowl by wealthy competitive American businessmen.

To get an American gun with proper handling for the uplands (under 7 lbs with barrel weight forward) in the early 20th century, we turned to the 16 gauge. Now a 16 gauge special order Lefever may well be the handling peer of a 12 bore London Best. Particularly one with 30" barrels! I think Rocketman's objective measurements on handling characteristics will show this to be the case.

PS. One of our brethren is offering a great deal on what should be a dynamic handling upland American Classic:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...nt=2&page=1

I can't believe it has not sold yet. If I had room in my safe, it would already be there!

Treblig,

My comment was specifically about English BEST, in the context of comparing the best the English made vs the very best America could produce. It wasnt a comment of the broader industry of English guns.

Canvasback,

Please re-read carefully. You're picking a bone with my logic...by re-stating what I said? My point is exactly yours, that cost and [mostly] protectionist tariffs protected the American gun industry on the lower and middle end. I said it because another gentleman had asserted that he never sees lower end English guns at gun shows...which in his mind is because people are holding on to them while selling their clunky American guns. Hogwash, it was the tariffs.

As for my snarky car comment, that wasnt made in the context of tariffs, although as you point out, they are likewise affected. I brought up cars to point to a completely different manufacturing area where any notion of "quality superiority" on fhe part of our English or French friends is very obviously hogwash. My father owned an MG, my uncle a 1970's era Jaguar, and my mother owned a Volvo with Peugot guts (they did this for base models in the late 70's)

ALL were nightmares.

The point was simply to say that a quality aesthetic at the upper end of ONE INDUSTRY does not mean that as a blanket statement that country has a corner on quality. Although i might be willing to grant the Germans on this count. Even the simplest tools they seem to put care into.

- Nudge