ALF, I have known Butch for several years, and as far as I know he only made one O/U double rifle, under duress from a gun writer, and swore to me he would never make another. That rifle was made on a RUGER RED LABLE, and chambered for a wildcat, a 9.3X74R brass necked up to use .375 bullets.
ALF , I just recieved a PM from 300H&H who pointed me to an add for a Red Lable conversion chambered for the 300 H&H cartridge. With that add stateing the rifle was a Searcy, I guess I will have to eat crow on the above quote by me! It seem Butch made at least one more, and now I assume maybe more on the Red Lable!
OK! OK! Thats the second mistake I made since the only other one, back in 1943, DAMN!
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
First, please point out what words I used to 'denigrate' someone for using a vintage double. I challenge you to find such words. It seems as if you are perceiving insult where none exists. So prove your point or spare the sanctimonious lecture.
This is the post that I was referring to;
Quote: And as far as Mac's 'mine is better than yours' comment, he seems to be focused on getting his feelings hurt rather than concentrating on the strength of the various rifles, which is the issue here.
As you can see, I have not denigrated anyone for using a vintage double, and I take offense at the false accusation.
Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002
First, please point out what words I used to 'denigrate' someone for using a vintage double. I challenge you to find such words. It seems as if you are perceiving insult where none exists. So prove your point or spare the sanctimonious lecture.
This is the post that I was referring to;
Quote: And as far as Mac's 'mine is better than yours' comment, he seems to be focused on getting his feelings hurt rather than concentrating on the strength of the various rifles, which is the issue here.
As you can see, I have not denigrated anyone for using a vintage double, and I take offense at the false accusation.
500grains, If you will recall, at the time I made that statement I was under the impression that your prior response (see below) was in reference to me, since it was posted as a response to my previous post, as in [Re: mbogo375] . I think that most people would have thought that it was directed toward them if it was posted in response to their post.
Quote: Some feel it necessary to make excuses for the relative weakness of vintage doubles, but no one needs to make excuses for vintage 1914 and 1917 Enfields. Enfields can fire the latest Ultramag or the hottest cartridge from Weatherby, Lazzeroni.
Personally I think a vintage double can be very nice to handle, but it is a serious mistake to believe that a vintage double is somehow better than current offerings when for strength, safety, durability and accuracy, modern doubles are where it's at.
I was a bit hot under the collar at the time I made that post (for my "perceived" slight in your post-which I am sorry for misunderstanding, as well as the comment to Mac), and my choice of words may not have been the best. In respect to what I thought was a reference to myself, I felt that the comment was at the least condescending, if not denigrating. Apparently I misunderstood your above noted post, and because of that I can understand your position, however it seems that you are not willing to attempt to understand mine. In my response I pointed out the part of your post concerning Mac, but did not point out the other post that I thought concerned me, since you stated that it was not in reference to me. I should have made that clear at the time, but obviously I did not. Could it be that you are "focused on getting your feelings hurt" as well?
In any case, I tried to extend the olive branch of peace, and you chose not to accept it. If, however, you are willing to try and understand why I felt like I did at the time I made that post, then the offer still stands.
Jim
Posts: 1206 | Location: Georgia | Registered: 21 July 2000
Jim, I did not intend to start and argument and I feel my statements were misunderstood. There have been a lot of unnecessary pot shots taken on double brands and vintages across a couple of forums which appears to put all of us on edge. Best wishes and good shooting.
Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002
Quote: Jim, I did not intend to start and argument and I feel my statements were misunderstood. There have been a lot of unnecessary pot shots taken on double brands and vintages across a couple of forums which appears to put all of us on edge. Best wishes and good shooting.
500grains,
Well said, and thanks. I certainly contributed to the misunderstanding as well. Since I don't follow most of the other forums (other than Nitro Express.com occasionally), I was not aware of the rest of the situation.
I don't dislike modern doubles, (surprise, surprise ). In fact I had a Searcy 470 for a short while, and would like to have one of his new PH models in 450x3.25. If I ever get around to ordering it (and paying for it ), I think it would make a great shooter that can go through a lot of ammo without coming off face. I like the extra action contouring compared to the old field grade which, as Butch says, takes extra time, but I think that it makes for a nicer looking rifle.
Best regards and good shooting,
Jim
Posts: 1206 | Location: Georgia | Registered: 21 July 2000