Jens, your shotgun is a stunner. Thanks for showing her.

Gentlemen the romance of OLD IRON is the stuff gun and rifle lovers dream of, and there is nothing like simply holding one of these very special dream makers. They are one of the little things that make a hunter and shooter appreciate the skill of the old makers with nothing but well worn hand tools. The nostalgia hangs thick on the foggy air of a duck pond or looking over those old sights at a large animal as the sun fades in the last shootable light in the African bush, or the alders of Alaska. The above is what I believe drives Cal Pappas to own nothing but vintage double rifles, and that is certainly a very good reason.

That being said I own and have owned many vintage doubles, and once owned a collection of original Pennsylvania flintlock long rifles all in perfect condition. However the fact that I hunted with all the rifles, and guns I’ve owned I never boarded an airline plane with any one of those jewels in the freight hold especially the Penn long rifles! The oldest double rifle I’ve ever taken to Africa was a Westley Richards 500/450, 3.25 inch NE made in 1914, and that turned out fine. Today however I wouldn’t take any of my vintage doubles or cape guns on an airline, and only hunt with them when I can drive to my hunting area.

The new double rifles that I own shoot perfectly, are replaceable if lost or damaged beyond repair. For the world traveler today with all the PeTA types diverting you fire arms to outer Mongolia instead of the Luangwa valley’s Upper Lupandi, or just plain damaging them for spite, the risking of a $60 to $100K double rifle is out of the question for me.

A pair of $10K Merkels or K-guns simply is easier to accept the lose of. I have a Merkel 140-1, 470NE double that was lost for three weeks after the original owner who posts here on AR returned home from an African elephant hunt. If that had been mine and it had been my 1892 Westley Richards 500/450#1 express double rifle I would have had a heart attack. The fact that it was a new Merkel it would be easy to replace with an exact copy for a much smaller stack of $100 bills than a vintage double rifle would be!

All the above being only my opinion, one thing you have to remember is, a double rifle that is vintage today was simply a second hand USED rifle ten years after it was sold new, and was discounted in price just like a new double rifle is when resold today. That new double rifle will, in 40 or 50 years become a vintage piece as well and will no longer only command a SECONDHAND RIFLE price! Just look at the 1937 mod 70 Winchester bolt rifle that cost $69 dollars new in 1937 will run you a couple thousand today for a pristine pre 64 rifle chambered for the 300H&H or 375H&H for that 76 year old rifle. The rifle is not better than the mod 70 of today, but it is a vintage memory bank for hunters of my age, to hold and dream of days gone by with that old shooter.

Gentlemen, there is nothing wrong with owning any type of double rifle you want, nor is any reason unreasonable. That is what is nice about personal choice in a free society, a condition that is fast coming to a close in the USA I fear! So enjoy it while you can, because they may all be dumped in the furnace soon!

As someone here is fond of saying,”Ignore your rights and they will go away!”

.........................................................................

Jens,

Firstly, very nice gun! Secondly, I like the way you think in terms of how using your own gun leads to special times afield. I've had debates with several guys here on AR that have decided to hunt Africa with borrowed camp guns instead of their own. They cite the "hassle" of traveling with firearms. But to me, I have no desire to hunt without my own guns. Your sentiments about using a special gun while hunting and adding to the experience is spot on.

quote:

Your sentiments about using a special gun while hunting and adding to the experience is spot on.

+1

I guess I'm a gun nut 1st and hunter second, because what I use to hunt with is paramount to my total enjoyment of the experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams: But to me, I have no desire to hunt without my own guns.

Todd, I'm with you 100%. If I could not use my own guns, I would never return to Africa. That is at very least half the fun!

One of the reasons I own a vintage double is the desire to recapture the way things were when the rifle was made 100 years ago. That includes the challenge of hunting as opposed to long range shooting.

Some double rifles were truly functional works of art that were meant to be used. These always appreciate in value. Some were gaudy for the time they were made (think of rifles made for the elite Indian rajas). Some were guild guns that will only appreciate in value as the buying power of your money declines.

The amount of man hours put into some of those double rifles and the skill set required to perform quality artisan work is out of reach for the majority of hunters when it comes to buying a double rifle.

For guns that are modern copies of the older doubles,you still have to reach deep into your wallet and undoubtly you can find better engineered guns, better steel, etc. You can also have a sound working rifle built from a double shotgun. Is it the same as an english built double? No, but I won't cry when it gets rust on it or if it is dropped either. I have both to allow me the opportunity to choose when I can risk my investment and when I will protect it.

So, I own both and make the choices and live with the trade offs.

Matt

Todd, it certainly isn´t an old wives tale, as mentioned Graeme Wright has seen it and the head of a London gunmaker and the ex regulator at Westleys both advise never to use those projectiles in any double, old or new, you choose, I know I won´t be using them, best, Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
I too had the question mono-metal vs age ?? There's a sad photo out there that shows the rifling on the outside of the barrel due to soft steel and hard monometal.

Can you please post said picture. I keep hearing of this but have yet been offered any proof! Until I see this for myself, I consider it to be an old wives tale!

Cal says he actually saw one rifle with OSR caused by an old style Barnes Solid, THE OLD model without bands. But he also said the guy refused to go over and speak with the Barnes guys about it (saw the rifle at a show). I'm thinking this fellow's refusal to speak with the Barnes guys maybe indicates something other than what he claimed to Cal.

Cal, can you add to this. IIRC, you also stated that the old Barnes type solid was oversized by .002"?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Bailey:
Todd, it certainly isn´t an old wives tale, as mentioned Graeme Wright has seen it and the head of a London gunmaker and the ex regulator at Westleys both advise never to use those projectiles in any double, old or new, you choose, I know I won´t be using them, best, Mike

Todd, you and I have had some discussion about OSR in the past that seemed to cause a heated response to a warning. That discussion was finished with an agreement to agree to disagree.

That being said, Graeme Wright is not the only one to see this damage either!

There was one of the most knowledgeable people that ever posted here on AR, and NE that was so beat down that he no longer posts anyplace that I know of ! That is a shame because many new guys could have gotten a real first class education from that man, and I fear he is lost to the double rifle community because of that gang-bang! He was called a liar because he couldn’t produce a picture of an example of OSR. Rather than suffer any further abuse, he simply left the internet. That man has forgotten more about double rifles than most will ever know. SAD!

At the risk of receiving the same treatment here, I will say that I too have seen several examples of OSR from mono-metal bullets being fired in older double rifles. One of those examples was the one Mark was beaten about the head and shoulders about, and the rifle belongs to a member of AR, and DRSS. The problem is photographing the OSR is a very difficult thing to do, even though it can be seen quite easily with the naked eye. I was beaten up as well for backing Mark on this but they didn’t get far with me as I simply told them to get screwed, and believe what ever they wanted. I think now that I have figured a way to photograph OSR if I could find one to try it.

The newer mono-metal bullets like the North Fork, the GS Custom, and the new one with the tests documented here on AR with a design that has fixed the problem, is a perfect example of the FIX for what was a REAL PROBLEM, not a wives’ tale or urban legend.

Palmer has a vintage double rifle with very short 22”barrels that shoots OK and he doesn’t know why the barrels were cut back! I believe it was to remove the portion of the barrels that suffered OSR, as all the examples I’ve seen have been in the last 4 or 5 inches of the barrels where the barrels are thinnest and all have been vintage doubles.

This subject has been beaten to death so there is no reason to reply to this post and start a highjacked thread because those who do not believe it will still not believe it, and the ones who have seen it can't as of yet post pictures of OSR's existance, I'll try to do just that if I can get a camera on one.
............................................................................................

As I stated in an earlier post, even without the evidence of OSR, I would be concerned about shooting a "vintage" double with modern monometals, or indeed any bullet constructed differently than the methods used for bullet construction back then.
Having said that, MY concern with buying a "vintage" double is that I just do not have the knowledge to intelligently evaluate the condition of such a gun, or indeed to tell a "good" one from a "bad" one. I could certainly rely on an "expert", but it is not his money on the line but mine, and, mistakes can always be made. Until I can make such an evaluation, I will stick with a modern gun. Not that I would not LOVE to own a "vintage' double.
Peter.

On the topic of the original post, I'll take vintage almost every time, for a couple of reasons.

While guns were made in every range of quality, I think you can get more for your dollar with a well made old gun in decent condition. Someone above mentioned that modern tolerances are better. I disagree, at least in the range of $10-25k rifles that is the bulk of the double market. There is no way I could afford to have some of the guns I own if they were made today, since even with CNC hog work I couldn't afford the required hundreds of man hours from a skilled craftsman required to finish them. I'll take a gun made by a 60 year old man who started filing steel when he was 15 over CNC every time.

Others make the argument that the steels are better today. No doubt, but the old ones were obviously good enough that you don't hear of hundred year old doubles blowing up by the bushel. Even if stronger steels could let you make a gun significantly lighter, do you really want to? Do you want a 6lb 470 just because it is possible or would you rather have a 10lb gun that balances well?

Back when gunmakers were extremely limited in the technology they had available (no 12x scopes, rangefinders, supermagnum cartridges, premium bullets, etc) they had to focus their competitive efforts into the things they could control. I read a few pages of argument over trigger guard shape and its impact on shooting and hunting effectiveness once, and have read several heated old discussions over sight bead shape. Put another way, on a quality old gun I can have confidence that every part is the way it is for a good reason, even if I'm too dumb to immediately recognize it. Will such esoterica ever make a difference in the field? Probably never, but I appreciate the effort and design and it gives me confidence that the men who made it knew exactly what they were doing.

Lastly, of course, is the history and wondering what sights the gun has seen. I have rifles that had great bags of elephants, rhino, etc that won't be duplicated again, and its fun to take one out in the field and play a tiny role in its on going history and wonder who will be doing the same a hundred years down the road.

For modern guns, I can appreciate that you can get exactly what you want made up in reasonable time, have a warranty, and can get it replaced if need be. Also, if I were using one in difficult conditions (coastal Alaska, flaky African country, etc) the benefits of a modern gun would win out for me.

My 2 cents.

Sorry to have responded so slow here guys as I didn't realize there had been responses.

It is entirely possible that I may have to eat crow one of these days concerning OSR but until I see it and it is proven that the cause is monometal bullets, I'll remain dubious.

Mike, I actually have never fired a non-monometal projectile in any of my double rifles, ever! I haven't experienced a problem of any kind. In fact, the barrel strain work on this forum indicates that especially the CEB bullets are producing the very lowest barrel strains of all the bullets currently on the market that were tested.

As mentioned to Cal, I had a Ruger M77 in 338 Win. Mag. that I purchased brand new sometime while I was still in college in the early 80's. Certainly before I ever knew anything about monometal bullets. In fact, at the time, I only shot Speer Grand Slams and Nosler Partitions in that rifle. However, and this is the important point as far as I'm concerned, you could see a faint rifling along the outside of that barrel if you held it to the light just right. And it was that way BEFORE I fired the first round through it. So it certainly wasn't caused by a monometal bullet going down the barrel.

The interesting thing IMO concerning this subject is that the work Michael458 and Sam did concerning barrel strains show that the very bullets used by most manufacturers to regulate their rifles are indeed the same bullets that produce the second and third highest barrel strains!

But I will stand corrected if and when it is ever proven.

Mac, I apologized for being less than civil to you on that topic but evidently it hasn't been forgotten. I'm not sure what got into me that day as that really isn't my nature. I hope that is clear from the majority of my posts, especially when I've been challenged on something. But I'll say it again here and now, I certainly overacted toward you that day and hope you'll accept my apology on the subject.

Todd

A barrel that was button rifled could show these marks.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

Mac, I apologized for being less than civil to you on that topic but evidently it hasn't been forgotten. I'm not sure what got into me that day as that really isn't my nature. I hope that is clear from the majority of my posts, especially when I've been challenged on something. But I'll say it again here and now, I certainly overacted toward you that day and hope you'll accept my apology on the subject.

Todd

Todd there is no need to apologize to me for stating your opinion, that is your right. I didn't think you owed me anything back then either. Foeget it! My only reason for responding at all is to offer a different point of view for those that are on the fence so to speak, so they can decide for themself. One thing I would like to offer to those with the view that this doesn't exist is, Why do you think the new mono-metal bullet makers have taken the tack to modify the way the mono-metal bullets are made? These bullets now develope much less pressure now that the the actual bearing surface is actually much softer, and the displaced metal engraved by the rifleing has a place to go! Could that be why these bullets are now safe to use in even vintage double rifles, and the way they were built before they were not?

The only reason I used your post was to offer the opposite view in the same post, nothing more. For what it is worth the agreement to agree to disagree is still in play.

The stated reason for adding the grooves in the TSX was to reduce copper fouling by giving the metal a "place to go". IIRC, the original X bullets were significantly undersized by as much as .003 or .004 making it unlikely to place undue strain on the barrel in a double rifle.

Considering that double rifles represent a very small percentage of the bullet market, I can't believe that the grooves were added to the TSX bullet in order to make them safe in doubles but rather to address the primary and #1 issue reported with that bullet which was excessive copper fouling. The Barnes projectiles continue to be undersized but a bit less than before. IIRC, my .500NE TSX bullets actually mic out at .508 instead of .510.

In response to the original question, I like both.

Currently I own a Krieghoff and a 105 year old Boswell.

The new guns are well built and have warranties. My K-gun has regulated well with several different loads.

The Boswell is a cool rifle. The triggers are not as crisp as the the K-Gun. The engaving is good, but the animals are somewhat cartoonish. As I understand it that was not uncommon for that time period. It is much more particular about regulation.

Balance is better on the Boswell, but I still like the way the K-gun handles.

I bought both used, but paid over twice as much for the Boswell, however if I want to sell one in 20 years it is likely I could make money off the Boswell.

My experience is limited, however I have shot both of these rifles quite a lot. The K-Gun has been to Africa 4 times and will probably go again this year, but I am thinking about taking the Boswell.

As far as bullets I will hunt with only CEBs or North Forks and have no hesitation shooting either in any double.

Hi,

Like Jens, i love to take my old double to Africa for hunting.

Hunting also plainsgame in the old fashion way with open sights that limit the distance to 50-60 yards is much more fun, and set the hunter in much more challenging situations, than just kill the game at 200 yards.

Below a photo from a hunt in May close to Messina. On top, my Webley & Scott .450/.400 3 1/4" N.E. from 1922-23. Below my friend´s Army & Navy .450 N. E. made in 1905, fully restored by Westley Richards. He is a Kruger Park Ranger and uses his .450 on daily basis as his "working tool", but as you can see with greatest care. if we had a fun hunt? YES!

Gentlemen:
I’ve enjoyed reading your input to my question and it is also nice to hear so many differing opinions and reasons and having all remain very civil. I’m following a couple of threads on Zimbabwe and have followed the Mark Sullivan topics and they can get down right nasty. As to your comments:

No doubt better steels. Metallurgy has made outstanding strides as has everything the the technological world but is today’s high tensile steel(s) overkill for the relatively low pressure double rifle cartridges? I mean, is it really needed or are better steels a moot point?

As to the newer rifles being better built--well--to comment I feel like Bill Clinton asking what the definition of “is” is. No doubt CNC machining is near fool proof but the workmanship in the vintage firearms is, to me, far more a work of art (or working art) than a modern made firearm. That said, it is absolutely true there are fine double rifles being made today. I am not just referring to fine English doubles such as Hollands and Westley Richards. Butch makes a fine product and (as mentioned prior) the V-C doubles of CCMdoc are about as good as it gets. I think the point here is with modern machining methods one can have a production grade rifle for a relatively low price with minimal hand work or pay a good sum to have the best money can buy. In the old days it was not a question of handwork or not as so much was done by hand. While I expect a vintage Holland or Purdey to have superb fit and feel I am amazed that very plain doubles from (nearly) unknown makers are put together so well and have stood the test of time. I have some very plain doubles that lock up as tight as vintage Royal Ejectors.

No doubt new rifles can (or should be) supported my their maker as to warranty issues. I understand Cabelas takes care of its Sabatti rifles that are not quite what they are expected to be. On the other hand, however, if a rifle has functioned well and it does what it is supposed to when you buy it I think it is fair to state it will continue to function well in the upcoming years. While I have had hinge pins need tightening and ejectors need timing I am also amazed that the rifles lasted 100-130 years until the repairs were needed. Imagine buying most anything today and have it work well in 100 years. Of course we all will be dead, but it would certainly be interesting to see how many of today’s doubles will be around in 100 years.

Embellishment is purely individual taste. Personally my favorite engraving style falls between the 1870s and pre W.W.I. as the scroll style seemed to open up and be less fine in years between the wars. I find it to be less attractive. In fact, my newest double was built in 1920 partly for that reason. And, if it did not have significant historical documentation I would trade if for a pre-1914 era double in the same caliber. (It is my only post W.W.I rifle).

I personally have 100 year old doubles fail to lock up tight if a bit of unburned gunpowder falls into the bites or doll’s head. Or, won’t close if a piece of paper is between the breech and the action face. And the wood to metal fit is so fine it is difficult to feel where the two meet. This is a testament to vintage skill as is accuracy. I don't think newer doubles shoot better or more accurate than their older cousins.

One last point--that of not using a fine old rifle due to accidents, etc., I understand this and I guess what we do is part of our individual personality traits. In the 1980s and early ‘90s I rebuilt a stunning 1969 Corvette. It was so nice folks in the car collector clubs suggested i trailer it to a few auto shows in the good weather. They were shocked when I would say it was my everyday driving car between April 15 and October 1 here in Alaska. For me it is the same as with my cherished doubles. To keep them is a safe is to do them a disservice. I understand the chances I take in shooting and hunting with them. But, that is where my enjoyment is the most. I shoot my 1914 Wilkes .600 100 times a month and hunted with it in Australia last June, in Alaska this fall, and to Africa this coming June.

Thanks again for your input and I will glean some information for an article in the African Hunter magazine. And, the good news is I had an advance copy of my bore rifle book arrive this week. 416 pages of 4-bores to the tiny 28s. It will be on my website in October. Check out <calpappas.com> if you have some time.

Cheers, all.
Cal

Cal, looking forward to your book.

quote:

No doubt better steels. Metallurgy has made outstanding strides as has everything the the technological world but is today’s high tensile steel(s) overkill for the relatively low pressure double rifle cartridges? I mean, is it really needed or are better steels a moot point?

When a good double was built 100 years ago it was made with enough mass to be more than adequate for the cartridge it was designed to shoot. Problems can arise when people try to work up loads that exceed the original design criteria. For example, I recently saw a 100+ year old H&H hammer Paradox with a regulation load worked up shooting a 525gr bullet at 1400fps. I have no doubt that the shooter was able to get the bullets to "regulate" but that fine old gun was designed to shoot a 740gr bullet at 1050fps. Quite a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gentlemen:
I’ve enjoyed reading your input to my question and it is also nice to hear so many differing opinions and reasons and having all remain very civil.

Cal I agree that most controversial subjects tend to go off the cliff pretty quickly, and Like you I have no problem wit folks speaking their opinion on any subject because that is the embodiment of free speech. However that can be done in a more civil manner than it seems possible for some. Too bad because a lot of the good a debate offers is lost in the war. SAD!!!

quote:

As to the newer rifles being better built--well--to comment I feel like Bill Clinton asking what the definition of “is” is. No doubt CNC machining is near fool proof but the workmanship in the vintage firearms is, to me, far more a work of art (or working art) than a modern made firearm. That said, it is absolutely true there are fine double rifles being made today. Cheers, all.
Cal

Like you I love the older double rifles, and they are works of art, even the field grades in most cases are fitted just as well, where it counts, as the royals, with the only difference being in the quality of the wood, and finish on the steel. Like you I hunt with my older doubles and they are a joy to hunt with, and to simply hold around the camp fire at night in camp. The only difference between us is I refuse to allow others to handle my vintage double rifles in an airport bag room out of my sight. So I do not take my vintage doubles anyplace I have to let others handle them. If they are hunted I drive them to where they are hunted. My modern doubles can go anyplace to hunt by common carrier, and I don't worry about them at all, in fact I have loaned my modern doubles to others to take to Africa, and Australia for hunting trips. It will be a cold day in Hell when anyone takes one of my vintage doubles out of my sight.

On the CMC issue the only thing they are very good for is saving time, for the hog work that was historically done by shop appies, and the real fitting of old or new is done by hand by very skilled artisans so the CNC is only a time saver not a final fitting tool. Just as was true in 1900 it is true today that there are well fitted doubles, and some not so well fitted and in some cases the price is not the defining factor as to the quality of that fitting.

On the modern vs.' vintage steel, IOM there are two places where the modern steel is a plus! #1 is the better steels' wear resistances is better than the old, and the elasticity of the modern Chromalloy steel lets the parts like barrels expand and return back to it's original shape and size better than the older steel alloyed by Nickel or in some cases pure iron. Wear resistance of the older softer steel is not as good as modern alloys. I think well made modern double rifles will still be working very well in 100 years, and will be the collector items then, but as you say we will all be dead by that time but my grand kids won't! The point is a moot one in any event because in 100 years I doubt anyone will have firearms anyway. Still I'll leave my double both new and old to my kids and grand kids when my ticket is punched, FINAL TRIP!
.........................................................................

Dave:
Book is really nice and has lots of stuff. When time gets closer I will post the contents on AR.

Grenadier:
You hit the nail on the head. If the vintage rifle are kept to original pressure and velocity standards all will be fine. But I guess that goes to modern rifles, too. Load a .300 Weatherby to 4000fps with a 180-grain bullet and dangerous things will happen.
Cheers,
Cal

I just love my old English guns and do take them hunting....Africa and all!!
I will bet that eventually these fine old English guns will finally drift out of the stratosphere....driven there by what I call Cabela's Double Bubble...they are out of the UK guns now....and all those folks that bought on the highs...just like the 2007 Stock Market and the 08 Real Estate...came crashing down, those that bought high and now have them listed for a year or two on Guns Intl....will eventually give in and take the losses....just like the stock market and RE!!...those folks were forced to sell...gun owners are different!!...and proud too!!
There are nice old English doubles out there if you look high and low and so some negotiating...I just let a shooter Jeff in 450-400 3" go by at $10K!!
Hang in there...there will be a day again when we can buy old English guns at human prices...and enjoy them thoroughly!!
Cheers