Many people have asked me for my thoughts on the Smith, mainly because it's the only "good" double that I will no longer work on. That is the main reason for posting my findings.
It was not meant as an indictment of anyone who likes Smiths and I'm not trying to convert anyone away from the gun.
Many espouse opinions about certain guns being "the best" simply because they're American (or British, or German, etc.) and they refer to legend and lore to make their case.
Nationalism, patriotism, faith and other such things have no place in the objective evaluation of a device's design. There is an old saying that "everyone is entitled to their opinion". I personally don't agree with that. I believe that everyone is entitled to an informed opinion. To have an opinion on a subject with no information is to simply display one's ignorance.

Regarding my "expertise", I do not refer to myself as expert at anything. I would say that I'm competent.

Regarding the Model 21,

- The dovetailed lump barrel construction adds ZERO strength materially to the barrel assembly because more often than not the actual fit of the dovetails is quite sloppy. The soft solder joint does most (if not all) of the work of holding the barrels together.

- The rib and forend lug joints fail with amazing regularity. In 25 years, I've stripped and relaid as many 21s as Smiths. Trust me that's a lot.

- I don't think that any well-designed gun should have ANY parts that are held in place by staking alone.

- I personally don't consider the 21 to be "classic" double, it came on the scene very late, is completely coil-spring driven and is made of much more modern materials than the other American doubles (these are good things). It's really a modern double.

I know all about the destruction tests of the 21 against the other doubles and all I can say about that is it's absurd.
It's comparing apples to oranges, and no one shoots proof loads regularly. The 21 is a modern gun designed to shoot modern ammo and the "test" (if it ever really even happened as they say) proved nothing except that all of the guns tested were indeed stronger than they needed to be, for the ammunition and use for which they were designed.
But Americans seem to be obsessed with "strength", whether real or imagined, so I'm sure that that also helped to build the model 21 legend.
If you like 21s, that's great, they're a good, serviceable gun, but to compare them to classic-era (or English) doubles, is an unfair, uninformed comparison.

Just as with my Smith posting, I did not mention aesthetics or handling. These areas are entirely subjective and I am certainly no one to tell another what they should (or should not) like.

Treblig1958's last post summed up the situation quite succinctly.