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.

---

I wouldn't argue that all new doubles are not light and well balanced (in "fact" I would like to have a Merkel 9.3x74R ), but when you look at "some" of the "stronger" new models where does the strength come from? Much of it comes from more robust frames, barrels, and stocks. This translates to more weight for the same barrel length, and often a thicker stock wrist (and sometimes fore-end). This is "fact", but "in my opinion" the extra bulk (even at the same weight) often leads to a less responsive "feel" (again note, "in my opinion"). This becomes more evident when you use the same size frame on a 450/400 that you do on a 500, and is certainly not restricted to modern doubles. I have a Rodda 450/400 that weighs 11.25 lbs and a Westley Richards 450/400 that weighs just over 9.50 lbs. Both shoot well for doubles of any vintage, but you don't have to guess which "feels better" in the hands. This said, if you re-read my post you will see that I stated my "preference", and after all isn't choosing a rifle usually based on preference (and isn't preference usually based on opinion)? Never did I say that older doubles were stronger, more durable, safer, or more accurate than modern doubles, so on these points we don't disagree, but I did state that I prefer a lighter, more responsive, better balanced vintage double to a heavier modern double (I did not intend to say that "all" vintage doubles, or "all" modern doubles have these qualities). I also stated that the vintage double was a better "useable investment" than a modern double (as it will hold it's value better than a modern working grade double), and I think that most double owners will not disagree with this assesment of retained value.

If you find my post "sanctimonious" that is your right, but it is also your opinion. One of the great things about this forum is that we can all state our opinion and we can indulge in a bit of vigorous D&D (discussion and disagreement ), and still come out as friends. Heck, I'm still not clear about exactly what issue we disagree on other than I like the "feel and finish" of vintage doubles and you like the "strength and safety" of modern doubles, (remember, I already spotted you strength, safety, durability, and accuracy-throw me a bone here ). If you are willing to "agree to disagree", then I will be more than happy to shut up (and if our paths cross on the way to a hunt someday, I'll buy the drinks and we can sit and discuss important world issues---like guns and hunting ).

Jim

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.

---

500grains ,The comment about the "MINE'S BETTER THAN YOUR'S" Mentality has nothing to do with my feelings. I too am a collector of vintage double rifles, and my favorite is Westley Richards, both shotguns , and double rifles. I am, however,under no mistaken idea that those vintage WR rifles are stronger than a New quality double rifle with modern steel. In fact I own some new doubles as well, Though the old ones are my choice to collect, if I had to choose.

There is no way anyone here can hurt my feelings, but I don't, however, suffer snobbs well! With the afore mentioned handicap on my part in not likeing snobbs, the comment was simply a wondering of why, every time something happens, everyone seems so willing to blame one brand, or another, or vintage, compaired to new, when they have absolutely no idea what the facts are. I just think it is in poor taste, that's all, even bordering on liable!

Now above, Ray has come down the road with some FACTS and it seems my concerened about folks dispariging of new vs old, or this brand vs that brand, has been vindicated, since the rifle was at least 15 yrs old, in the hands of the user, and a NO-NAME rifle, as I thought, aparently, made by who knows, and chambered for 375 H&H, a cartridge that is most often handloaded, rather than shot with factory, and additionally not well suited to double rifle use.

Now that we have some facts, is the time for the opinions on the stringth of the rifle in question, and finding out who made the rifle, and from what.

Some folk's needlessly putting forth a brand name in conjunction with a barrel failier, when they don't have the facts, is what concearns me! I'm not a maker, or loyal to only NEW, or OLD, so it is no skin off my butt either way, but patenly unfair to the maker mis-named. It simply seems unfair, to me, to haphazardly though out a brand name in this case,something some do without thinking! PUZZELING!

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.

---

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.



His early S/S double rifles were made on Browning BSS single trigger actions. They were re-heat treated, and had a third fastener added. There is a man in California, who bought one of those BSS actioned doubles to experiment with the 470 NE cartridge. He put over 6,000 rounds through it, and it was still tight, and on face when he sold it to a PH in Tanzania. Most of those were chambered for 470NE.







As stated above, the action is an A&D pattern, and is milled from a solid one piece billit! The locking system is Purdy under bolting double bite, and no third fastener is used. The NEW PH modle is a very trim caliber sized, box lock action, that feels light for it's actual weight, and at least for me, fit like a glove. The one I handled was Ray's rifle, a 470NE, and according to Ray it will place two shots, one from each barrel touching one another at 50 yds, and shoot 1.5 " grouping at 100 yds. By the way Butch borrowed Rays rifle and won the double rifle champianship with it in California recently!



Though I have know Butch a long time, and have shot his rifles quite a lot, I have never actually owned one of them, a condition I may remedy this next year, with a PH mod chambered for 450-400NE 3"

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.

---

NitroX The reason I posted those quotes to you is, you were the one who asked, "HOW did this string get into the controvercy? I simply answered how it happened, with those examples! I was not shooting at you, or anyone in particular, but everyone in general, but the answer to your question was answered, I think!