doublegunshop.com - home
Jonny Carter talks with Gregg Elliott about this:

Are 'British guns better than American guns?

Regards!
I listened to that yesterday. I felt myself being somewhat frustrated. Was heavy into the mystique of English best guns having "that" feel. But, high grade American guns could also be made to order. That wasn't addressed very well as to handling and feel. They did give CSMC high grade guns some kudos in the last minute or so.

Of course all my life I have accepted as truth that British best guns are the ultimate in shot gunning. Guess I'll never know personally considering their cost. I do wonder if I could tell the difference between a British best and say the best efforts from makers such as Francotte, Piotti, etc. They did opine that provential makers could get you to 90% of the feel for less cost. I wonder if those guns were stamped H&H if they could tell the difference. I like shooting my CSMC Fox very much.
Having handled many hundreds of British built guns,I`d say it`s all a matter of diminishing returns as you go up the price scale tbh.Whether the end user appreciates the extra at the top of the scale is another matter too.There are many top quality Provincial guns around to prove this and as you say if a different name was on them ,they may be judged differently!!!! Other countries have undoubtedly made fine guns too,although perhaps in lesser quantity I`d say .Buy a good quality Spanish or Italian gun and you get something that`s a reasonable substitute handling wise at least for a lot less money.
jp sauer...
Campero, thanks for posting!
John often has an interesting viewpoint but I always consider his experiences as a limiting factor in his views. Mostly clay targets and a bit of bird shooting from what always seems like a static position. That against much more walk up hunting we tend to do. We end up needing a gun for close or far and capable of shooting much heavier loads. If I knew every shot was going to be at 30-35 yard, overhead birds, I could learn how to use light loads like the he favors. But walk up hunting often gives you 35+ yard shots at bird, not presenting good consistent shots. It takes a lot more energy to kill a going away pheasant than one coming right at you.

Feel is such a subjective thing. One mans light and nimble is another mans worthless wand which he struggles to shoot well. Quality is something that is a bit less hard to evaluate but every maker would deliver as nice a gun as the buyer was willing to pay for. If you have ever seen a Lefever
Optimus you know what I am talking about.

But I do think we Americans have never been as fussed about our guns as our British cousins. Perhaps because we always could freely buy and use them where it was more restricted in use over there. If I can buy a fleet of cars I might not be that picky about anyone of them. They are just a way to get around. But if I could only have one it becomes a bit of a status symbol so extreme quality might carry more weight. We like durable while they like style. Try putting 50,000 rounds through a well maintained Parker and it’s British equivalent. See which one makes it.
It must be remembered that when most of the very best British shotguns were made there were no restrictions on ownership; just a 10 shilling license from the local Post Office as a Police certificate was not required until 1968 and that too cost 10 shillings and issued with little fuss unless you had criminal convictions. A lot of game here is shot walked up as not everyone (me included) can afford driven shooting. Oddly, a lot of the guns specifically made for driven shooting are heavier. British guns will vary considerably in quality and finish from the bottom end 'Game Keeper's' guns used as workaday tools to those at the top end for high volume driven shooting where some of those so privileged would perhaps put 30,000 shots through a gun in just one season. One Boss O/U used at the Proof House for testing cartridges was reputed to have fired over 1 million rounds before honourable retirement. Some British guns like the machine made BSA can be quite ugly in appearance as too a Ward 'Target' model gun. Like you say, it can be relative as I have a Winchester SX4 that handles very well which I use at work for vermin shooting. I hardly ever miss with that one but I still would go to my Holland for a gun that really does handle well. Lagopus…..
Maybe a better point is what percentage of British or American guns were built as best guns? I think we built less than 5% as best guns here. Might be as low as 1%. Our lowest grade is about the game keeper level but built in truly large numbers. It’s the mid range guns that I think the Brits out built us. Both as lesser known makers, provincial makers or second or third quality guns. Also the British gun trade was a almost endless creator of improvement up until about WWI. Lefever was as well but most of the other may have ended up with only a few model changes from inception to end of production. In part that was because we picked the most successful designs to copy, not invent.

Dynamics of a gun can be vastly difference and to some extent a personal choice. Quality in all but a small number of guns seems to be better in British guns. I’ve seen the inside of my British locks and my American locks. Fit and finish goes to the UK on internals.

John does make the observation right now you can buy extremely high condition major name double guns for about 20% of the cost to have them built today. And mid range guns are going for far less than that. Guns are scrapped because all but the most simple repairs are not economical. He went over a mid priced gun that needed a bit of tidying up. To do it on the cheap was 2K pounds and to do it right was 7-8K pounds. This in a gun which would sell for less than 2K if pristine. Sad truth is most doubles are going to sell cheap and suffer from lack of proper repairs. It is a buyers market.

So I give them credit for great guns but anything that is electrical, refrigerators, or daily driver cars goes to the US. Oh and dental care we win as well. Politicians are a bad draw with both sides wishing their own into their enemies. Rumor is Brits learn to enjoy warm beer because Lucas still makes all controls on what would be refrigeration if it ever worked.
The question for me is not whether British bests are better than American bests. The more important question, for me, is what does it matter? The answer to that, for me, is "It doesn't, in the least". I have no use for a best gun, from either side of the pond. I am not a pure collector. I am a shooter, first and foremost. I have shot a Purdey belonging to my acquaintance Rob't. Matthews. It was gorgeous and handled nicely. It was after a S X S shoot several years ago at Brushy Creek, a now defunct sporting clays club. Bob offered it to me to shoot as much as I'd like. I took it to the last sporting clays station on the course, just up from the shed, and ran the station. I was impressed, but I drove away thinking that I had just won high overall score at the shoot with a BSS, which is worth a fraction of what the Purdey was worth .......... in dollars. And, this is just me, but I'd rather shoot well than have the prettiest gun there. I'm not saying both can't happen, but I've seen more winners shooting run of the mill guns than I have shooting best guns. I won't attempt to answer why, but I have my opinions.

I shoot a lot of different guns of my own at clays and at birds. I've been privileged to shoot many more very high end guns that belonged to others, like Bob's Purdey. And after doing so I cannot make myself believe that I could shoot higher scores with a British best, or kill doves at a higher percentage of bird to shots fired. If I really believed that I would sell all of what I've got and buy one. It is my opinion, and we all know what that's worth, that most of the demand in Britain for best guns was driven by a "keeping up with the Jones" attitude. When you have money to burn why not have that pride of ownership. Best guns did not make everyone who bought them a "best shot". A comment by a friend of mine after a closer friend won the S X S event, in a shoot-off against a gentleman shooting a Purdey, sums up my, and many other American's feelings, about this matter. My friend who won was using a Parker with the forend held on by electrical tape. Comment made was "You just have to admire a man who wins High Overall shooting a taped up Parker".

Another question I've always had was why, if they were built so flawlessly, did they need servicing and refreshing after every season? Sure, there were a few gunners who shot 30,000 rounds a year at game. But, how many? Enough to justify the nationwide practice? In the clay target games the K guns and the P guns are regarded as best guns in their "field".

I listened to the podcast linked above, and enjoyed it. I've got no problem with agreeing with the American Gregg Elliott's views about best guns. But in the end, it really doesn't matter a whit to me. America has plenty enough to be proud of in our past, without trying to prove the unprovable. Isn't it interesting that this old kettle got stirred up yet again, not by an American, but by an Englishman? Braggadocio....... or insecurity?
Hello everyone! I host the A Break in the Action podcast and was excited to see that my latest episode digging in the Jonny Carter's Youtube video got some good conversation going. Understand that I am 100% a hobbyist when it comes to podcasting. I just use it as an outlet to talk more about and learn more about my favorite topic - double-barrel shotguns.

If anyone has any kind critiques or suggestions I am happy to hear them.
RDD, it was very well done. Your questions were well thought out and pertinent. No complaints, but if anything could be improved it might be the audio quality of the guests. I could understand Gregg better than Jonny, but not due to his accent. It just seemed the quality of audio was better. Maybe Jonny wasn't as close to the phone/mike as he needed to be? It seemed to get better after the first few comments he made.

Carry on!

SRH
Great feedback and thank you.
RDD, I’m echoing Stan’s feedback. Very entertaining podcast. The sound quality for your two guests was a bit spotty. Your sound quality was perfect. And just to stir the pot......I like my Lindner Dalys better than my Purdey. eek
If you haven't seen the original video, you may want to watch it: Brit guns better than American guns.

Ken
Originally Posted by canvasback
RDD, I’m echoing Stan’s feedback. Very entertaining podcast. The sound quality for your two guests was a bit spotty. Your sound quality was perfect. And just to stir the pot......I like my Lindner Dalys better than my Purdey. eek

I'd like to see pics of that Daly!
British guns = Jaguar, American guns = Jeep
Originally Posted by RDD
Originally Posted by canvasback
RDD, I’m echoing Stan’s feedback. Very entertaining podcast. The sound quality for your two guests was a bit spotty. Your sound quality was perfect. And just to stir the pot......I like my Lindner Dalys better than my Purdey. eek

I'd like to see pics of that Daly!

Read away!

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=569690

I have a similar 20 gauge.
Ford vs Chevy, here we go
For the hunter/collector who favors a light (6lbs 4oz) hammer bar-in-wood 12-b -
what American made guns are available?
An agreed upon definitive and objective criteria must be agreed upon first from each gun can be judged against. Otherwise it is just a pissing contest and a waste of time.
Why isn’t anyone jumping on OWD?
I thought that was the norm.
Originally Posted by Walter C. Snyder
An agreed upon definitive and objective criteria must be agreed upon first from each gun can be judged against. Otherwise it is just a pissing contest and a waste of time.

How about, assuming the same level of upkeep, British guns are best for hunting today, American guns are better for hunting in 50 years? smirk
Originally Posted by Recoil Rob
British guns = Jaguar, American guns = Jeep
Having had 2 jeeps I would say the above is accurate but maybe not quite the way you see it. Replace the comma with the equal sign.
Jeeps are American Jaguars. wink
Maybe American Guns = Toyota. Gil
In an attempt to establish objective criteria; how about "better" means what gun kills more birds or targets without mechanical failure over time, at a comparable price?

Henry Squires 1890 Catalog
Greener Facile Priceps No. 5 - $125
Greener Patent Treble Wedge-Fast No. 6 Far-killing Duck Gun - $100
Greener “Trap” Hammer gun - $85
Parker GH, Ithaca No.3, Colt & L.C. Smith No. 2 all $80

1895 Montgomery Ward & Co. Catalogue
Damascus Greener Facile Princeps “made especially to our order for trapshooting” - $100
Chas. Daly Hammerless No. 120 - $100
Smith Pigeon Grade without AE - $100
Greener No. 3 Ejector - $210
Parker DH - $100 list but sold for $72.

The 1903 H.H. Kiffe Co., New York
Lefever E Grade - $70
Remington 1894 C Grade - $70 + $5 AE
Ithaca No. 4 - $71 + $10 AE
L.C. Smith No. 3 - $75 + $10 AE
Parker GH - $80
W.&C. Scott No. 1 - $85
Greener No. 19 Forester - $100

It would be silly to compare any of the above with these
1906 William Read & Sons Catalogue
“Highest Quality” Westley Richards with single trigger - $595
W.W. Greener G70 “Imperial” - $500
W&C Scott “Premier” - $375
W&C Scott “Imperial Premier” - price on application
Purdey - 89 pounds 5 shillings sterling - about $446
Joseph Lang & Son “Highest Quality” sidelock ejector - 65 guineas
Parker Bros. AAHE - net price of $318.75
Lefever Optimus - $280
Remington Special - $750 = about $22,500 today
L.C. Smith Monogram AE - $365
L.C. Smith A-2 - $390
L.C. Smith A-3 - $740

Then there is "better" in actual competition ie. the 1901 Anglo-American Match
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=185YOyQl7GIB9OYLs9Hr3tnMLHqs4rjEdR4j_E9l4HLw
Guns used: 9 Parkers, 2 Smiths and (oh the shame wink ) 2 Winchester Repeating Shotguns
The English guns were allowed 2 shots to compensate for 1/8 oz. less shot
Forest & Stream July 6, 1901
https://books.google.com/books?id=qkMhAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA18
English cartridge: 1 1/8 oz., 3 Dram, No. 7 shot, 382 pellets in 2 3/4” case
American cartridge: 1 1/4 oz., 44 grains (3 1/8 Dr. Eq. “E.C.” No. 1), No. 7 1/2, 436 pellets in 3 1/4” or 3 1/2” case.
It’s the difference between drinking from a coffee mug and fine crystal.
Each have their place.
Originally Posted by Drew Hause
In an attempt to establish objective criteria; how about "better" means what gun kills more birds or targets without mechanical failure over time, at a comparable price?


Hmmm...guns don't kill birds, shooters do. A better metric would be, with all guns firing the same load, which fires the most shells without mechanical failure.

But that's just the American side of things, for the British side we'd have to get into handling, MOI, and aesthetics.
Just get some of each.

I'm a Ford man but I had a 67 RS/SS Camaro Convertible that I loved.

I'm a SxS man but I own pumps and O/U.

My favorite boat is a Condcordia yawl, but I love Donzi's.

I like Continental guns best but I also own English game guns and classic American SxS. Love them all.
It’s an interesting question but a rather moot one. The guns which dominate at skeet, trap and clays at nearly every level, including the Olympics, are German (Krieghoff) and Italian (Perazzi and Beretta). I’ve owned each and have my preferences. And I know there are many other fine guns.

Realistically, very few of us truly need guns of that quality for the amateur competition, recreational shooting and hunting we enjoy. But it feels great knowing that I have the best tools available when I’m out there. And I can do that for a price that while expensive, keeps the guns within grasp

The same cannot be said for best British guns or for best American guns. Honestly, I’m not exactly sure what a best American gun is. I guess you could say it’s a high end A-10 American or Galazan best. But if we are talking modern guns, it’s something from CSMC. Most of those guns are well beyond the reach of the vast majority of shooters, as they should be or they wouldn’t be best guns. I’ve had the opportunity to visit both Purdey and H&H. It was a thrill. But the likelihood of ever owning one is extremely low. If I did own a Purdey sporter or a Galazan Boss action gun, would I break more clays or kill more birds than with a Beretta SO, Perazzi or Krieghoff? Probably not. Would I enjoy it anyway? Absolutely!

You max out on functionality at around $10K. The rest is for show. And that’s not a bad thing. I like to show off amazing craftsmanship for its own sake. Is British best craftsmanship better than American best craftsmanship? Probably a little bit really, it doesn’t matter. These are guns well beyond range for the vast majority of shooters and I’m fine with that. I will admire them for the items of beauty they are, and admire the men who created them.
Originally Posted by ClapperZapper
Why isn’t anyone jumping on OWD?
I thought that was the norm.

He lost a young Pointer not long ago. I wouldn’t wish the early death of a dog on an enemy, and he is certainly not that.

Best,
Ted
There are only complicated answers to the questions put forward. The reason is that the shooter is, at minimum, 50% of any answer. Shooters are more individualistic than guns; make and model fairly well define a gun other than custom made.

Handling is defined by weight, teeter-totter balance, unmounted swing effort (MOI at balance), and mounted swing effort (MOI at butt). Post back if this subject is due further discussion. It is, by the way, an objective/fact based subject.

"Best" of any category of product has its foundation in the British/European system of trade made goods. The rich Victorians and Edwardians were nuts over "Best work" goods. It was well understood that "best" meant the highest quality/prestigious money could buy. This system "came a-tumblin' down" compliments of two world wars. "Best" is pretty well defined by best design, materials, workmanship, and aesthetics/fashion for the given time. Keep in mind that the last few % of quality is very disproportionately expensive. Each of the items in the foregoing factors had
a limited number of trade masters who had a limited amount of best material to work with. Post back if we need additional discussion on this subject.

The trade was made up of numerous shops/companies run by a master (usually) and each employing all the in-workers (employees) it could afford and out-workers (contractors) as needed. Companies expanded and contracted with the economy, prosperity, and fashion. Reputations rose and fell as they usually do with time and changing management. Additional discussion?

Since we discuss mainly used guns we can take a quick look at values. Brit and Continental guns can be reasonably accurately valued by using the Brand Value level (BV), Original Quality grade(OQ), and Current Condition(CC) and a look-up table based on past auction hammer price results. Questions?

OK, there is an outline of info that may or may not be useful to some of you.
Let's not forget the diddle factor.

I started my hunting (shooting in UK) career in the UK in the 60s. A new London best then cost 1500 pounds.

Today, with the advent of CNC machines and other cost cutting technology the price of a London best has topped 100 000 pounds because people are willing to pay the price and buy a name.

The prices went up but the engineering is the same. The fair comparison here is not with American guns, since the most iconic American shotguns are either pumps or autos. A more realistic comparison would be with the Italian improvements in engineering of the same types, ie the Holland sidelock and the boxlock. Judging from an engineering point of view the Italians have improved on the English originals, they did not blindly copy them as do others. Zanotti introduced the rebounding lock and improved lump design on the sidelock. Beretta have re-engineered the boxlock in their 626 model making it far superior to the Anson-Deeley. But to appreciate the improvement you would have to look inside the guns, and most people do not. They get stuck on the name and that is where the diddle factor comes into play.

Was it Bob Brister who wrote that if you have not been diddled by an Englishmand you haven't lived?
This is an interesting conversation if only because, what we've flushed out in this thread is that people rank characteristics differently.

1. Cost. Well, a maker can ask anything they want. How healthy their business was at the time, importation expenses, as well as market signalling all come to bear. Consumers were as poorly educated then as they are today, and equally susceptible to bandwagon marketing, or presuming that comparative prices were a fair indication of comparative quality. A $1.5 mil McClaren isn't 15x faster than a $100k Corvette. And there's NO WAY it has better quality. Insert Lamborguini or Ferrari, if you like. Your brother-in-law better be an exotic car mechanic!

2. Toughness. Yes, these are tools. But judging them based on how powerful a load they are proofed for, or even how many shots they can make with perfect function, doesnt really tell the tale. It's part of it, of course, but not the whole tale. How many times have you been out in public and found yourself attracted to how strong a woman looks?

3. Design features/Innovation. This is where the men get separated from the boys, at least in part. This is [in my opinion] what separates a Jacob Glahn engraved Lefever, from a Jacob Glahn engraved L.C. Smith or Parker. Wear compensating features, cocking indicators, in-frame ejectors that work every time...and a gun that can NEVER be off-face. In Britain, there were lots, and LOTS of innovation from W&C Scott. Some Premier guns are as well trimmed, designed and built as any Purdey, Boss or Holland. But they never positioned themselves as a "best only" maker...they were Britain's Remington. Plus some of the gents who came up with innovations in Britain moved from firm to firm, so it's not always clear whether the credit applied to the inventor or the maker. The Deely's mechanism, the Scott spindle, the cross bolt (Greener?), the dolls head (no idea who), etc. The Scott's designed their stuff, and Dan Lefever designed his guns. But where do we bestow credit to men whose names weren't on the guns...Brown at L.C. Smith, King at Parker. And would someone please write a damn book about Frank Hollenbeck?!?

4. Beauty. Has to be the #1 characteristic. When you see it, it speaks for itself. By whatever measure each individual desides.

5. Marketing. Some were way better distributed, and that success wasnt necessarily driven by any of the above. The Parker's were clearly good business men, owing to all the other things they made before they even got into guns. Ithaca, Remington and L.C. Smith were clearly well run as well. Everyone else pretty much heard the wolf behind the door at all times. But do business success/failure indicate better guns? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

On balance Britain did, and does, punch hugely above their weight in terms of it's contribution to and quality of guns, and a few other things (rock 'n roll music). Cars, food and weather...not so much. But judging Britain vs America isnt any more difficult than judging the various makes from each other, on either side of the pond.

I think beauty trumps all, coupled with...well, one man sees design, another sees popularity, and another sees strength. Thank God we have the means and freedom to choose.

NDG
Beauty is mostly subjective, but art is not, which is why there are prosfessional art critics.

Side by side development coincided with the Art Nouveau period, roughly from the end of the war btween Prussia and France (1870s) to the beginning of WWI. The influence of Art Nouveau on double gun design is obvious.

Then came Art Deco. Streamlined shapes and emphasis on form as opposed to surface embellishment, ie engraving, was the mark of that period.

American pump shotguns from the Winchester Model 12 and later display obvious Art Deco influences, as does an Airstream trailer and other items designed in that period. Which is to say that the lines developed by the London makers do not have a monopoly on artistic appeal.

Some of us appreciate Arte Deco objects more than Art Nouveau ones, and therefore consider the lines of the lowly Stevens 620 just as seductive as those of the finest London best side by side.

I never owned a pump, but that does not alter the fact that there is visual appeal in its lines, especially in the smaller gauges. From that point of view I would say that American shotguns rank ahead. But they are not doubles, so I guess they cannot be considered in this forum.
Shotgunlover,

I think you're talking about somethimg entirely diffferent, though. You're talking the development of guns. And when you broaden the topic to THAT, it's pretty clear that we stand even taller there.

Germany - bolt action
France - artillary, most importantly the concept of rifling
U.S. - pump guns, lever guns, semi-auto hand guns

But back to the substancw of the OP -- double guns -- I still think it really comes to what one ranks where. Also, I didnt include PURPOSE, but someone further up the thread addressed it well. Hunting in the U.S. is for everybody, and even more prevalent as you move DOWN the economic scale. Also, we hunt differently, as was also stated.

Elmer Fudd knew nothing of foxing on horseback, or tigers with gun-bearers in tow. Although i have daydreamed hunting cotton tails with a sxs .22lr, dogs, a gun bearer, and another well dressed gent holding my scotch.

NDG
Stevens 620 as seductive , I think not.
A rough and ready tool at low cost, maybe.
I have not been in the market for a London Best gun, but a few Birmingham hammer guns and boxlocks, have seduced me over the years.
This has been thoroughly hashed (and by better men on the subject than I) but... here's my 2 cents. Better in my orbit (upland game hunting) means clearly different things. Weight, fit, function, and dependability seem to lead the pack of considerations. Art of execution is also a significant consideration, but it comes behind the others. Affordability is also a major component, and may arguably be the first. I've seen several guns over the years that I coveted because I knew, almost innately, that they would be excellent bird guns but....they were clearly out of reach of my financial capacity at the time. While I could probably now afford to pursue some of them, I wouldn't because I've solved the equation with arguably lesser guns. I would have liked to of owned some of the "classic" American versions of what I was looking for (Fox, Lefever, Smith, Parker, etc.) but the numbers of guns made here that would of fit my needs were and are very few, and their prices reflect that reality. In the end, I settled on English guns, specifically pre-WWII boxlock doubles, to meet my primary needs. Does that make them better guns? Arguably yes, but only from my rather narrow perspective.
This is going to be a very simple opinion, based on 65 years of shotgun shooting, buying, and collecting experience. If I started my shotgun's life at new condition, and shot it with sensible loads, here is what I think. Let me tell you what my shotguns are. Parker 12 gauge, 1 1/2 frame, 7 pounds 4 ounces, Lindner Prussian Daly, 12 gauge, 7 pounds, 4 ounces, James Purdey hammer pigeon gun, 12 gauge, 7 pounds, 4 ounces, Lefever sideplate G grade, 12 gauge, 7 pounds, 4 ounces, all fluid steel, non ejector, and, I will remind you, new condition no appreciable rounds shot. I could shoot any of those guns for any lifetime, mine and the previous owner, and the guns, all of them, would be in shootable condition in 100 years or more from now. It all depends on lubrication, loads, amount of abuse, and intelligent opening and closing of the guns, and a very little maintenance. The video may have covered these factors. I will watch the video.
From a historical perspective, part of the criticism of American guns 120 years ago was that they were "machine made"

Jan. 2 1897 Sporting Life
Charles Grimm defeats Doc Carver in Chicago for the “Cast Iron Metal” using a 12-bore L.C. Smith gun, 7 3/4 pounds, 3 3/4 drams Schultze, 1 1/4 ounce No. 7 shot, in U.M.C. Trap shell.

Jan. 30 1897 Sporting Life
Letter from Carver re: J. “147” L. Winston, “The Wizard of the West”, St. Louis representing Austin Powder Co.
Dr. W. F. Carver wrote a funny letter in a Chicago journal last week, in which he states that Winston could not kill good birds because he had a cheap American machine made gun, and if “147” had used the same kind of imported gun that he did the matches would have been closer. Will Dr. W. F. Carver kindly explain why Charles Grimm, using the same kind of machine made gun (L.C. Smith) as Winston did, managed to kill 98 out of 100 live birds and take the “Cast Iron Medal” away from him? In this match Grimm used the American machine made L.C. Smith gun, while Carver used an imported gun that he advertises free when he gets a chance.
Now if Carver’s gun is so much better than Grimm’s why did he not kill more birds? or was it because the cashless (Carver used a Cashmore) gun was only good on hard, fast zig-zig screamers, and not adapted for soft easy duffer birds? The “Evil Spirit” had better think again.
It comes down to the the type of hunting/shooting you do and personal prefference. When I started getting a bit more serious about shooting SxS's I bought several American guns, mostly Fox and Ithaca guns, both 12 bore and small bores guns. I found they pretty much all had too much drop for me and the 12 bores were way too heavy for my type of hunting. I found that British 12 bore guns seem to be about perfect for me. I toyed around with early hammerless sidelock designs and quickly learned that while these guns were quite interesting, they usually had design flaws that made maintaining them a real project. I soon moved to mored standarized designs, mainly boxlocks which proved to be much more reliable and the later guns could even often could be had with stock domensions that worked for me. I shot a Lincoln Jefferies BLNE for years without a hick up, I should never have sold that one. After years of looking I found the Best Gun for ME, a first year H&H Royal self opener that had been stocked as if it was built for me. My Holland has 29" tubes and comes in at 6lbs 9ozs which is about perfect for me. It was not an inexspensive gun but it was a good buy and it will be the very last gun I part with. Shoot what you like, for me nothing beats wild prairie birds taken over my dogs with my Holland.

My first crew of Springers and I, a good day in SD with the Holland.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
This debate is usually entertaining, if not educational. The problem is when it degenerate into needless condescension and arrogance. Some here might recall the statement by a British gun dealer (who presumably did not mind selling to Yanks and no longer participates in this Forum) that Smith guns were "farm implements". In way of response, an article was published in the DGJ, Issue 2, 2014, p. 113 The L.C. Smith "Farm Implement Grades".
The point was made to the effect "Well, what do you expect for $25? Delivered to the middle-of-nowhere Kansas from the Sears catalog." and that many of those lowly No. 00s & No. 0s are still being enjoyed and used.

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

If Ben Avery would lift the onerous restrictions (hopefully soon because Gov. Ducey just ended the occupancy % limit and the range is...like...outside), I'd be using my 115 year old crack-less damascus barrel 16g shooting recreational skeet every week smile
Is it a 115 year old crack free L.C. Smith, as it left the factory, or, does it have the modern miracle of hardening propolymer (plastic) worked into the wood in an attempt to keep those cracks at bay?

I already know the answer, but, you know, just sayin’.

Back when gun shows were a thing, and I either had a table, or, attended almost all of them, I used to bet my buddy how many stockless ‘Smiths we would see. Truth was, with old doubles or single shots, it wasn’t real hard to find different guns without a stock, but, most of them could be counted on to be L.C. Smiths. We usually bet lunch, which was almost always a hot dog, and I got to eat a lot of them I never bought.

Randy Murray told me if it wasn’t for LC Smiths, neither, he, nor his father would have made a good living as a gun smith.

I get it, you guys like your LC Smiths, but, if the topic is is a comparison with even run of the mill English stuff, I have a hard time grasping how you come up with a ‘Smith being on par, or, even funnier, better.

Guys restore and drive Vegas. And, Pintos. And, Yugos. I don’t get that, either, but, whatever.

When you get out there to do some shooting, I hope you have a high score, but, I’ll pray that your gun doesn’t break. That is a prayer you can use, Padre.

Best,
Ted
"I already know the answer"

You would be wrong Ted. And please reference a quotation by me that states Smith guns are "better" than British.

Long cold winter clouding your usual sunny disposition?
It's 77, the sun is shining, and Spring Training is on here in Paradise smile Hard to be grateful and grouchy at the same time; I'll choose the former.
Gotta say, I’m with Ted on this one. Was at a show and shine a couple years ago with my son. There was an absolutely perfect AMC Matador. I could not find a fault......you know, except for the vehicle itself. I mean, what is the point? Yes, it can get you to the corner store or work and back but they were objectively ugly, and poor excuses for cars. Much like their stablemate.....Pacers and Gremlins.

It doesn’t only happen with cars.
Originally Posted by Drew Hause
"I already know the answer"

You would be wrong Ted. And please reference a quotation by me that states Smith guns are "better" than British.

Long cold winter clouding your usual sunny disposition?
It's 77, the sun is shining, and Spring Training is on here in Paradise smile Hard to be grateful and grouchy at the same time; I'll choose the former.

You haven’t taken your own advice, preacher? I’ll say two or three prayers for your gun.

Uh, the whole thread is about our opinions on “better” guns, you seemed to come down on this side of the fence with your comment.
Not sure what you believe at the moment. That, is OK.
My disposition is just fine, it is very sunny and 55 or so, supposed to be low 60s tomorrow, the cool temps will keep the heat waves from being an issue at the gun club tomorrow, where the boy and I will likely shoot a few rounds of skeet and trap.

With Belgian and Japanese guns, actually. Pretty sure neither of us will be concerned about them breaking.

Have a great day.

Best,
Ted
My advice is here Ted
https://lcsca.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=274&club_id=43784

"After carefully checking the stock and finding no cracks or oil soaking, you might paint the head of the stock and lockplate inlets with an ultra-thin cyanoacrylate glue like Goat Tuff Glue."

Neither the No. 0 16g nor the No. 00 12g have cracks at the head of the stock. Because of my hopeless flinch, I use 3/4 oz. at 1200 fps loads for both. If they haven't cracked now, I think they are unlikely to do so.

So since you can't find my statement that Smiths are "better" than English guns, and have chosen to misrepresent my "advice", possibly you could share your motivation for doing so?
And please call me Drew.
Drew,
I have no wish to misrepresent anyone here. I am pointing out that people on many gun websites have noted that there can be an issue with the LC Smith guns. We can split hairs, and say the feather light guns are worse, or, we can simply keep it general and generic to this brand of gun. If a guy had his ‘Smith apart, and found no cracks or oil soaking, truly, he is blessed and should consider the immediate purchase of a lottery ticket.

He might want to consider the purchase of some glue on the same trip. Says you, anyway.

Maybe posting about your American guns here, in a thread about which is better Yank, or Brit, would lead one to infer that you are of the opinion that the subject of your post is the one you believe to be the better of the two.

Or, maybe I used the word “guys”, plural, and it wasn’t directed at anyone specifically. Truly sorry if you took umbrage at that, really, I am.

Might you indulge me, and post that list that we used to see here, of all the really good gunsmiths that have washed their hands of ‘Smiths, and won’t work on them for love nor money?

I misplaced my copy.

Hey, shoot well, and safely!

Best,
Ted
OK, who makes the best vehicle; Ford or Chevy? Sounds like this discussion has become equivalent to that pointless kind of argument. Personally I don't care which countries gun is considered the "best; and although I do own one beautiful old British gun, my personal tastes are for what would be considered the better American double guns. No good reason, I just do; but I had no trouble killing game or smashing clays with my English gun or any of the American guns I've owned. And although I do believe most British guns are much finer finished internally than their American counterparts, it's my opinion that even the least expensive American made Parker, Smith, Fox, Ithaca, Baker, etc. double gun was as rugged and reliable as any other double gun; and so effective that the game bird populations of the US were nearly wiped out by the turn of the last century. Most of that destruction was performed with American made guns as few period American shooters could afford imported English guns. There's little wonder that many survivors have cracked stocks, and other issues given the use and abuse that most received. The overwhelming majority of American made double guns were a maker's lowest grade, and least expensive gun; they were purchased mostly as tools, and treated in that manner. The cheap British "game keepers" guns I've seen fared no better. When it comes to quality American made double guns, based on the research I've done with the few surviving company records we have available, the number of high grade guns produced ($200 and up) is tiny; and less than 1% of total production by any maker. Inexpensive guns keep the doors to these old companies open, and I for one am glad we still have them to enjoy.
Topgun's point is well made.

But going back to the comparative aspect of this spirited argument I would point out the stark differences in how, and who, hunted in Britain. If, in America, hunting were only for the wealthy and privaledged, then it would just as likely have arrisen that the guns for such endeavor would have been far more focused on that price point.

Secondly, it's worth noting that the high-end focus for Brit doubles does not extend to much else. The British are world famous for their snoot, but not at all for any general asthetic of metculousness in building/design/production. And BTW, the French similar. They did BEAUTY, but not necessarly quality.

Germany, on the other hand... They can point to their guild guns and rightly claim that this is how they were made, not because of price point, but because they made EVERYTHING thusly....right down to the smallest thing. Their roads, their doorknobs, and their toothpicks.

Germans...made...quality.

One cannot claim this about Britain. There was not, nor is there today, any greater general asthetic for quality there than in the United States. I lived there, and have travelled there.

My point is, while their "best guns" are better, it's only because of who bought them...not because Brits are "wired to build quality things." Thats utterly untrue. Go buy an English car...it doesnt matter what price you paid...you will curse the thing after a month.

Germany could actually claim a national quality asthetic. At least THEN. But Germany today is changing rapidly...we may not say the same thing in the future.

NDG
There is one category of gun that the British made very well, the refined properly made single shot.

Not the rough gamekeeper type, but refined single shot guns made for people who hunted but were not invited to shooting weekends.

The balance and handling of these overlooked English singles is unrivaled. That is one category where I would concede that the English makers outshine the rest. But the ledgers show no lords or earls as the original purchasers, hence no cachet for these guns. Most of these singles are hammer guns but there is nothing rough about them. Every internal part is finished to high gunmaking standards. I have yet to see equal work on singles from any non English makers.
Originally Posted by Shotgunlover
There is one category of gun that the British made very well, the refined properly made single shot.

Not the rough gamekeeper type, but refined single shot guns made for people who hunted but were not invited to shooting weekends.

The balance and handling of these overlooked English singles is unrivaled. That is one category where I would concede that the English makers outshine the rest. But the ledgers show no lords or earls as the original purchasers, hence no cachet for these guns. Most of these singles are hammer guns but there is nothing rough about them. Every internal part is finished to high gunmaking standards. I have yet to see equal work on singles from any non English makers.

As the owner of a hammerless single shot J&W Tolley, I would concur.
Well, it isnt very refined, but I absolutely treasure my late 1930's Savage 219. I have most of the barrels you could get:

.30-30
.22 Hornet
12 ga
16 ga
20 ga
.410 ga

It isnt fancy, but it's slam tight reliable, and my favorite rifle in a tight stand and shot inside of 75 with 30-30. The Hornet has a 1950's Weaver KV on it, and shoots incredibly tight groups. It's aces on PA turkey across fields a shotgun wont bridge.

The pre-war 219's are the very best of them, and I have seen a couple that owners have restocked with Circassian wood and had finely engraved.

NDG
I believe it simply amounts to the eyes of the beholder. Everyone has a different perspective due to personal likes, monetary considerations, etc, etc. What I feel is quite expensive to me may be considered minor peanuts to another person. And at the same time the same amount may be thought of as an incredible amount to another person. I spent 15 years (up to 50 days per season) in Idaho Chukar and Hun hunting with guns that were very dear to ME ( read that as expensive to ME ) and some considered me an idiot (no comments, please) for exposing those guns to those hunting conditions. Enjoyment of the equipment used was / is part of the total enjoyment. To me this whole thing is rather like saying a Mercedes is better than an inexpensive Toyota Corolla. They essentially do exactly the same thing and with reasonable care and maintainenc either one will last the owner's lifetime and possibly beyond. Yeah, I'd prefer to own the Mercedes but it's pretty much beyond my reach. No question that the Mercedes is more "finely" made and more luxurious but, is that truly necessary? No, but it surely is nice if one can afford it and appreciate it. I can certainly appreciate it but not afford it. However I am certainly glad that others are able to do so. The beautiful shotguns turned out by the Brits mostly came about during a time when a very few and very wealthy individuals established a market for them. Obviously this market still exists today to some extent. There's no doubt in my mind that the American gunmakers could have equalled the Brits in "Best Gun" making had they had the need or market to do so. YMMV.
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com