March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
7 members (eightbore, SKB, steve voss, Lawrence Kotchek, battle, Perry M. Kissam), 336 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,000
Members14,391
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969
Likes: 38
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969
Likes: 38
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?

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 355
Likes: 10
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 355
Likes: 10
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

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969
Likes: 38
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969
Likes: 38
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.

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 355
Likes: 10
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 355
Likes: 10
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

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 287
Likes: 7
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 287
Likes: 7
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.

Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 563
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 563
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.

1 member likes this: Glacierjohn
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,091
Likes: 192
Sidelock
**
Online Content
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,091
Likes: 192
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.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
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.

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
SKB Online Content
Sidelock
***
Online Content
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
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]


http://www.bertramandco.com/
Booking African hunts, firearms import services

Here for the meltdowns
1 member likes this: Glacierjohn
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
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

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.089s Queries: 37 (0.059s) Memory: 0.8680 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 15:49:11 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS