Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Second, I have shopped the vintage double market thoroughly enough to realize that this business about a lighter, better balanced and more responsive double is just myth. A lot of the older doubles are heavier than their modern counterparts. As far as balance, some of the old ones are balanced and some are not. Same is true for new ones. So feel free to have your preference, but do not expted the rest of us to accept opinion as fact.
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.
Quote:
As a matter of interest who makes the Searcy's actions and barrels for his doubles?
Quote:
Also I saw when going through some of my old Rifle magazines of the early 80's Searcy over and under double rifles built on ? Browning actions. I believe the first Searcy S/S's were also built on Browning actions.
Quote:
Mac
I don't know who you are talking about but ..... seeing you singled me out in several of your ealier posts I suggest you look at who named Searcy in the earlier posts:
700nitro
Atkinson
500grains
in that order.