doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Spanish "Not so Best".

They don't need any more maintenance than any other gun. England is very rainy and their guns were exposed to gobs of moisture. They had them go in for yearly maintenance for that reason and primers were very corrosive. I'm pretty sure something along those lines is what Mr. Brown was referring to. I'm pretty sure that Spanish guns (which for the most part are copies of what the English produced) wouldn't fare any better in the same environmental conditions.

Well Greg, I don't know how much better the Spanish troops performed, 20 years after the Rif War in Morocco--when they got their butts kicked severely by a bunch of mountain tribesmen. (Much like the Russkies in Afghanistan, except the Rifis didn't have the CIA shipping them modern weapons. Most of what they used, they captured from the Spanish.) Those Spanish soldiers were so poorly paid and poorly led--apparently their officers ripped off their pay--that they sold bullets to get by. Bad choice for them, because the Rifis were happy to acquire more bullets to use in the Spanish Mausers they captured.

Buzz,

I'm more asking a question than I am making a statement.

I'd never thought English guns to be any less durable than Spanish guns. But the impression I'm getting from Larry and Ted's exchange is that English guns need at least yearly maintenance to stay functional. That seems just passing strange to me and I'm asking, as politely as I can, if that's really the impression Larry and Ted wanted to give.

Well Greg, I don't know how much better the Spanish troops performed, 20 years after the Rif War in Morocco--when they got their butts kicked severely by a bunch of mountain tribesmen.
--- snip ---

Kyrie, the guns built for driven shooting--basically sidelock (but also boxlock) pairs--got used hard in England. I know the Spanish have driven shooting as well, but I'm not sure that it's on the scale it was in England, during the late 19th/early 20th century in particular. The Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) waited a LONG time to ascend to the throne (much like Prince Charles today--in both cases waiting for old ladies to die). While in waiting, his two primary interests were driven shooting and chasing women. The titled and wealthy class wanted nothing more than to be able to entertain him in style, whether it involved women or birds. Consequently, the "in" thing to do was to offer driven shooting, attend someone else's driven shoot, etc etc. Some of the "big shots", like Ripon, did little else during bird season--and amassed enormous totals in their game books. Their guns were cleaned regularly by the gamekeepers and their underlings. But when the season was over, back they went to Purdey's or H&H or Boss or whomever, for a "tuneup" and more detailed maintenance. (On the driven shoots I've participated in, one of the perks is that the gamekeeper cleans my gun every day--and does a nice job of it). They did that because they had the money, and they thought it was the proper thing to do. And because the famous makers liked to be able to say that they had the Duke of such and such, or earl, or viscount or whatever, as one of their customers. Good advertising! I have no idea how necessary it was, given that all those great estates had platoons of servants, some of whom took care of the game and the guns. But that's what they did. And as mentioned, it is a pretty wet climate. Thus a good idea to make sure things don't rust. Especially things as valuable as a pair of British bests--after which, of course, the Spanish patterned their own side by sides.

Americans tend to complain about finding an older Brit gun in truly "original" condition. Because the stock may have been redone, checkering recut, barrels reblacked, etc. Well, in contrast, American "bests"--meaning the very top grades produced by Parker, LC Smith, Fox, Ithaca, Lefever, etc--in general, didn't get used that hard. It was the very basic, entry level guns that tended to see hard use. Thus, in terms of %, you're going to find more high grade Parkers in really nice original shape than you are Trojans or V's. That's because the owners of the really nice ones, for the most part, weren't engaging in the kind of volume shooting done with driven bird guns. And they (or perhaps their employees, although less likely than with the Brits) took good care of those guns. And would also send them back to the factory if the gun needed some work.l The Trojans and V's, in contrast, might have belonged to someone shooting birds for the market. Or to a farmer who considered the gun a tool, and only gave it very basic maintenance. Often rode hard and put away wet--and expected to keep working in spite of that. And they usually did. But they also usually show a lot of wear, tear, and just plain neglect. And if something broke, it likely got fixed by the local shade tree gunsmith.

That's the difference, as best I can explain it.

Let�s not forget the British had their heads handed to them by the Afghans (bunch of mountain tribesmen) and by the Boers (bunch of Dutch farmers).

Anyone want to talk about Viet Nam?

There is more than enough defeat in history to go around.

Let�s get back to the subject at hand.

I have a number of friends and acquaintances in GB that hunt/shoot, and have never heard from them that their guns need the level of maintenance Larry and Ted have discussed. While I am disinterested in English shotguns, I have, and have had, a number of British rifles (I have an 1890 Martini, with bayonet, that was used in both the first and second Boer war over the fireplace) and pistols and have not found any to be delicate.