To Mr. Brown's point about how English guns are actually used, from what I have both read and heard (first-hand), better English guns are generally well cared for between the seasons, but....they can get used very hard when pulled from their cases on and after "The Glorious 12th". Literally hundreds of rounds per season, perhaps thousands, in all kinds of weather that generally involves lots of moisture. The very engineering of these guns, and their metal and wood finishes, evolved specifically because of, and for, this type of use. Because of the initial quality of the manufacturing processes used to create them, and then the fastidious care they generally receive at the seasons end, they can last almost indefinitely. The point here is this: doubleguns can and do get used very hard on both sides of "the pond". If it's truly commendable that a gun of "agricultural simplicity" can be wrought that is both affordable and long-serving, then what is it when a gun that is highly-evolved and artfully crafted is doing the same thing? If, after a hundred years of service (or more?), and both types of weapons are still doing the jobs they were built to do, what is the difference between them? Which one has the greater claim to make?