doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com "abeille"

Reminded me of this thread...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDKBJxRh_UU

Hello
There is in these 10 pages some very good information. It is difficult to find it.
Thank for the good catalog.

Don't apologize to me, Robert. It's pretty obvious I'm a member of the lazy-eyed peanut gallery. IMO, you made an attempt to advise B-dog on the feasibiity of restocking and the identity and value of his gun in good humour and good conscience and your posted photos indicate that you have the experience to give your opinions as much weight as the next man's. I don't always see in condescending words and behavior the sinister intent that you appear to see. I think sometimes condescension is a habit that works so well with women, children and animals that it looks like a good bet with every manjack out there. At the currect juncture, we're all breathing hard but still conscious and I don't think anybody associated with this thread is in need of a cut-man and that includes you. If we must act like tykes in a sandbox, Steve Martin is a better model than Lenny Bruce and sarcasm more palatable than personal slander. JC isn't the only one always learning. It's a chore that can't be put off forever. So X-QQQQQQQQ MEEE too.

jack

Darne it....

I don't know who to vote for.

Darnation,
What do you say? Is this gun a a Darne or not?



If not, please explain why...

Mr. Chambers, on the lower left hand corner of page 15 it says:
"Entirely made in our own workshops (We always have some guns in the making that we can show our incredulous customers)" (Maybe they were thinking of you when they printed the catalogue,:-))

Please take the trouble of going to http://www.freetranslation.com with the following text:
"voir page suivants le celebre fusil Charlin a canon fixe". You can copy/paste it. The result is not perfect, but you'll get the idea. In other words, nowhere does it say the Regina was made by Charlin. The only reference I have been able to find about Regina is that it was registered by Edouard Schroeder in 1903 (littlegun.com)

I still think you have valuable literature, but until you realize you cannot base your knowledge on just pictures and brand names, you will have to concede you may sometimes be wrong which is nothing to be ashamed of.

Thank you for sharing your literature.

JC

Hey Beag,

Do you have any pics of the stock and it's problems? I'd be interested in returning it to reasonable cosmetics and shootable condition. Within reason, using the existing stock parameters, your shooting dimensions may be applied, if the materials will allow. The only fee would be for material and return shipping.

The obssesive, unremitting, predictable, uber-defensive personal acrimony is getting tedious, hence any casual gentle reader may consider this offer as an exemplar of a BBS Christmas Goodwill contribution. Peace of the Season to one and all, with a nod to the wisdom and spirit of Bill Wise, and the compassion of his beloved Rosalie.

Send direct to my E: marshgurl@aol.com

John Meeker
West End of Lake Erie

Robert, the above shows clearly where your difficulty lies, both when it comes to understanding gun dealers and in the search for "proof".

I'm looking at Stoeger's 1961 "Shooter's Bible"--back in the days when the Stoeger people dealt in a wide variety of guns, both foreign and American-made. I turn to the section featuring sxs, and I find Spanish (Sarasqueta-made) Zephyrs, Sauers made in West Germany, the SKB Royal, and V. Bernardellis. Stoeger had a relationship with all those firms, all of which made break-action guns, all of which more or less competed with each other. Some (like the lower grade Zephyrs) were less expensive than many of the others. So why is it any less logical that Caunier would offer a Regina, likely a less-expensive sliding breech gun, as well as the more expensive Charlins? Why wouldn't a French dealer do business in the same manner as an American dealer--offering a variety of options to their customers?

And as to your sentence about proof . . . well, you've got it 100% bass-ackwards. You can't prove a negative. Impossible to prove that Charlin DIDN'T make one-piece guns using an expired Darne patent. But it is very possible--simply by showing us an example of said production--that Charlin DID make the guns you "still say" they made. As M. Gournet said, just show us a Darne-patent gun made by Charlin. The ball is most definitely in your court on that one.

As for Beagle's gun, what he does with it is up to him. You've given him some advice, assuming he wants to make his own stock. Ted has given him some advice. Ted has already pointed out to you that "clone" does not mean "cheap". In the case of a "Darne clone", it simply means a gun not built by Regis Darne, but built on his patent. That'd be like a Helice gun not built by Verney-Carron--of which there are lots in France, many of which carry no name at all, but which may still be solid "shooters". It's just that they're not Verney-Carrons, even though they copied the V-C patent action. So I'm not commenting on how good a gun Beagle has, but rather on what it is--and what it is not.

But, since you continue to say that Charlin "played a hand in the making of some of the one piece stocked guns", I'd say that you have your research cut out for you. All you have to do to prove that point is . . . find such a gun. And show it to us. Preferably without the misleading French cropping you tossed our way the first time around. Until you do, seems to me we've wasted enough of our time on this subject. When you catch the wild goose, let us know. Then we'll have something interesting to discuss, other than unsupported conjecture.

JC,
I know I can't read French...but as is generally accept by American collectors, any fixed barrel guns by Regis Darne, Francisque Darne and even Bruchet...are considered Darnes.

Could you imagine if I had made such a statement...like any gun made by Lefever after Dan Lefever died is actually NOT a real Lefever...that's bull

It's the same as catagorically saying that Tryon Bakers are "clones" or fakes...

Now maybe the St Etienne artisans had free access to the designs of Regis when the patents became public domain...that doesn't mean that Regis is not credited with the design..

If Ted wrote a book draft and I found a copy and copywrited and published it...that still doesn't make it MY book...

Francisque Darne made shotguns are true Darnes...whether Ted likes it or not...go to a gunshow and tell a dealer his Francisque Darne engraved shotgun is NOT a Darne, and see how far you get...

I guess the Remington Parkers are not Parkers either...and Marlin LC Smiths must not be real Smiths ...and Galazan model 21's are fake clones...and Tony Galazan is not even the son of Oliver Winchester...

If Ted wanted to make a constructive point about the way Darnes break down by maker, he would have offered it up from a constructive point of view...

Larry,
Nice try slick...all I said is "I'm not buying it" until you prove otherwise...that doesn't put your bull in my court. Until a few weeks ago Ted thought that Charlin came on the scene in the 1950's...now that he's up to speed a little he got new notions to dispell...

I think it's clear to the other readers that what you and Ted don't know about Darnes would just about fit in the Grand Canyon... You're certainly in no position to undermine the OVERALL credibility of another members post because of a spelling error.

Every time you make some statement that you can't verify, the burdon of contrary proof hardly lies with me...but nice try