Quote:

---

Most such incidents, after a real investigation, come around to the fact that it was not factory ammo and that someone got carried away with his handloading practices...

---

Ray the above would be my first guess, and secondly a Monolithic solid in an old rifle, or combination of both, with the wrong powder, and the wrong , or no filler!

Too bad about the guys hand, the loss of a rifle, and the ruined hunt!

PS: 700Nitro, federal has only been makeing 470 ammo for about ten years, I doubt anyone would still have a box of that ammo that is ten+ yrs old, especially a PH, who must make use of his ammo.

Quote:

---

In fact no, there is no such a thing as all Nitro and bolt rifles were built on Euro supplied barrels and today we have evidence that all ? were in fact Krupp's steel barrels. This holds true up to 1918

So if one were to crit a old English nitro double you need to qualify that the barrel and likely the action is European. It would be a tough one to make stick that Krupp made poor barrels when they were the most proven barrel steel maker in the world.

This applied not only to the big names but also the trade guns out of the UK.

Jeffery have on record as building their doubles built by H Leonard on Krupp barrels as far back as 1901. If you are shooting an old 450-400 Jeffery you are in fact shooting a Francotte built action with a pair of Krupp steel barrels.

The same applies (barrels) to Westley Richards, Rigby and Webley and Scott.

Many of the trade actions were also Euro made by firms like August Francotte and Lummerzheim of Liege in Belgium.

---

Alf

Fantastic post. The Best English are actually German and Belgian guns in terms of material

H&H beening the only barrel maker in UK? You also have Border Barrels who makes boltaction and double barrel blanks. I been told that there is another maker of barrels, too.

Cheers
/ JOHAN

Quote:

---

There is this constant call to "Poor english guns and barrels" and I find it somewhat amusing for a number of reasons.



Can it be said that there is in fact such a thing as a "English barrel" when referring to early Nitro English guns?





This applied not only to the big names but also the trade guns out of the UK.



Jeffery have on record as building their doubles built by H Leonard on Krupp barrels as far back as 1901. If you are shooting an old 450-400 Jeffery you are in fact shooting a Francotte built action with a pair of Krupp steel barrels.



The same applies (barrels) to Westley Richards, Rigby and Webley and Scott.



Many of the trade actions were also Euro made by firms like August Francotte and Lummerzheim of Liege in Belgium.





The modern H&H actions are CNC machined since 1989 and only fitting is now done by actioneers.



H&H used Vickers Armstrrong barrels up to 1963 and since then have been making their own, Incidently the only barrel making factory in the UK.

---

ALF ,and others, please pardon my snipping only parts of ALF's post to quote. I did so, because everyone has already read his very fine, and informative post, but these are things that seem most important to me, from it!



I don't see the need for the name calling of different makes of double rifles, regardless of where they are made! You pointed out one of the most often stated flaws in the comparison of NEW doubles, when compared to the current lot of Britt, American,or Euro double rifles, everyone talks about. I thought anyone with any sense, at all, would know that, eventhough, the barrels were made by the best the world had to offer when the OLD Britt rifles were made, the technology was not, then, what it is today. Since we can't compare a 75 year old Searcy, or Merkel, to a 75 year old Britt rifle, then, IMO, it should be evident to anyone, that you can't compare the steel in a modern double of the old name, ot the steel in one made today. We are compareing early steel to modern steel, regardless of who made the rifle. The same people who down the NEW doubles that are equipted with KRUPP barrels, and Euro made A&D actions, do an about face, when stateing the Britt double is somehow better because they used the same barrels, and actions! ??????????????? By the same token, those who spout the "MINE'S BETTER THAN YOUR'S" crap, give the fact that Modern double rifles have much of the "HOG WORK" done on CNC equiptment, when every machine shop in the world that is worthy of the name uses CNC, including the new Britt rifle makers. Sounds a little waffleing, like JOHN KERRY doesn't it? Seems any fact is valid when it suits your purpose, but is dismissed,by one side or the other, as a draw back, when applied to the opposition!



Then you have those who state the old doubles have stood the test of time, and they have, but how do we know the doubles made today will not stand that test, as well? The answer is, we don't. The investment value that everyone wants to quote as a real reason for buying "NAMES", is not as true today as it once was! 20 yrs ago if you bought a double for $3000 USD, and it had a NAME, you paid what it was worth then. Today it IS worth 3, or four times what you paid for it then, but buying today, that 300 % profit will not be realized, ever.



That same quality OLD rifle did not always sell for a profit, but five, or ten years after it was bought new, it sold as a used rifle, just like the NEW rifle of today does, but let that NEW double get to 50 years old, and see what it will cost, compared to what it sold for new!



All I'm saying by all this is most of the noise sounded here on this, or that Double rifle's projected worth, is smoke and mirrors, nothing more. Compareing the stringth of a rifle made from steel of 100 yrs ago, to steel of today, eventhough they were both made by the same makers is simply, in a word, SILLY!



This happening in Botswana has caused a flurry of snobbish finger pointing, on both sides,with everybody getting in a jab, or two, against the make they like to downgrade. We don't even know if it even happened, at all. We certainly don't know what caused it, or even the make of the rifle involved. All that has caused people to throw out brand names of rifles, as the culprits, when nobody even knows what, where, if, or why, this did, or did not happen. Talk about Guilty till proven innocent



This opinion, is just that OPINION, and your's is just as valid to you, as mine is to me. I say lets wait a bit, and find out the facts, before we convict anyone!

Quote:

---

Searcy, Merkel, or Krieghoff

---

Were Merkels and Krieghoffs a problem in Botswana too?





PS How did this thread get diverted to a discussion on the pros and cons of older English doubles? Surely completely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

You mean the modern "custom" made double blew up but wasn't vintage double "junk"?!!!!


Which modern doubles are regulated for Federal ammo in .470?

---

Who wrote the quote above, NitroX?
???????????

Quote:

---

Surely it must have been a Blaser! I didn't know they made the R93 in .470.

---

Another quote! By M16

Quote:

---

Does anyone know the brand of rifle (vintage or new)?

---

Quote:

---

the rifle was supposedly a searcy i just got back from botswnaa last night

---

Quote:

---

If it was a Searcy that blew (and that is just rumor at present), then the conditions that blew a Searcy would have blown any other double to smithereens. The shooter may have only lost a thumb instead of his life due to the strength of the Searcy action.

---

Sounds a little like "MINE'S BETTER THAN YOUR'S" to me, in the above 3 or 4 quotes! whOt cha thank, NITROX?

Quote:

---

I have no knowledge of the make of the rifle. An obstruction was ruled out as the rifle was put inside a soft case after the range session the previous day.



I understand the barrel blew up just ahead of the chamber, and a piece of it hit the PH, who was not injured seriously.



I have sent a couple of emails to friends who might know, and will report back any additional news I get.

---

All kidding asside! This sounds like an obstruction just ahead of the chamber, probably a cleaning patch!

It is usual for a double rifle owner to run a patch through each barrel before putting it away. There could have been a patch left in the bore without his noticeing it, before it was cased. If so, and he did not look down the bores before loading, the next day, there could be your problem, and there would be no aparent sign of obstruction on the split barrel afterwards. The place where the barrel blew, is an indication of a barrel obstuction, or a WRONG POWDER, and/or bullet, load, to me!

Quote:

---

If I understand the postings of Alf and Mac, they feel it is silly to compare the strength of vintage doubles to the strength of modern doubles because modern doubles are so very much stronger.

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.

If anyone gets FACTS about what actually happened in BOTS, those facts would be welcome here.

---

Gentlemen, gentlemen!!!! Why has this division in the fraternity of double gun shooters occurred recently? As a collector and shooter of vintage doubles I certainly would not say that they are "stronger" than newer doubles, nor do I think that most double shooters would make this claim. Conversely, in a working grade double I don't think that there is any question that the "average" vintage double (British or European) is a more finely fitted and finished rifle than the "average" modern double. This translates into a better useable "investment" than a modern rifle, but not a stronger or more accurate rifle.

In the end it does not matter if the rifle in question was a modern or vintage double, as neither is inherently unsafe if in good condition. Many variables could have influenced this particular blowup, but why try to make it new vs old. In most cases like this (unless there was a structural defect in the metal, or bad factory ammo) the end cause is usually traceable to user error in one form or another. If we shoot long enough, the vast majority of us (with me at the head of the class ) will eventually fall prey to a "user error" of some sort. We can but hope that when it is our turn it won't be of the catastrophic variety.

Jim

Quote:

---

Thanks for the facts Ray. I hope the gentleman will have a successful recovery.

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.

---

500grains,

I didn't realise that I was making excuses for vintage doubles. If you want excuses, here goes. Essentially you are dealing with similar locking systems on modern doubles and vintage doubles in MOST cases (and this is a weaker system than a bolt action). The difference in new rifles comes from improved metallurgy and increased barrel wall thickness, plus generally more massive actions in some modern makes. It would be a mistake to believe that a brand new double, if subjected to 80 years of use and abuse (metal fatigue), firing corrosive ammo, and general neglect of maintenance, would be as strong at that point as it is today, but due to the differences stated it would still be stronger than a 1920's double.

Does this make the new double "better" than the vintage double? Yes, if you are talking about strength and safety only , but that does not mean that we all should prefer hunting with one. I have no problems if that is your preference, but it is no reason to denigrate people who prefer to hunt with a lighter, better balanced, more responsive double just because it is a vintage (and admittedly weaker) rifle (Have you noticed that modern doubles generally have shorter barrels to try to improve balance due to the thicker barrels? Would you prefer to hunt quail or grouse with a light, responsive 20 gauge or a heavy 10 gauge goose gun?)

As for your Enfield comparison, could you say that that same action is as strong today as it was in 1917? To extend this line of reasoning, would you expect a modern double to be able to handle the Weatherby and Lazzeroni cartridges, just because it is a modern double? It could happen, but it would necessitate a commensurate increase in locking surface, frame size and strength, and barrel wall thickness, with the accompanying increase in weight. This was one of the prime reasons that the 600 Nitro never gained more popularity (we won't even consider recoil here, as the 460 Wby and variants such as 510 Wells are already in the realm of massive recoil).

My point is that we all have our preferences, but does that mean that it has to be "us against them" just because we do not agree? If it was against the law to be "different" every hunter and shooter would be in grave danger because, like it or not, we are the minority (and double rifle shooters even moreso).

Peace brother ,
Jim

Quote:

---

...but it is no reason to denigrate people who prefer to hunt with a lighter, better balanced, more responsive double just because it is a vintage (and admittedly weaker) rifle.

---