I am interested in DR owners experiences regarding their purchase of a DR.

Question:
If you own any of the following makes,which did you receive with issues right from the start and needed professional attention?

Choices:
Heym
Krieghoff
Verney Caron
Chapuis
Merckel
Searcy
Sabatti
other

 

Shootaway poses an interesting question here and I am anxious to see the results if more than a few reply.

To add my two cents about returns, I've owned doubles built between the early 1870s and the late 1930s. Makers include Holland and Holland, Lang, Harrison and Hussey, Wilkes, Watson Brothers, John Graham, Lancaster, Westley Richards, Jeffery, Henry, Dickson, MacNaughton, Mortimer, CSL, Walter Locke, Hughes, Reilly, Manton, Rigby, London Sporting Park, and some more I can't remember just not. Returns for repairs ZERO. Returns for repairing accidents three. Damn good testimonial for rifles that old.
Old weapons, old women, old cars rule!
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Shootaway poses an interesting question here and I am anxious to see the results if more than a few reply.

To add my two cents about returns, I've owned doubles built between the early 1870s and the late 1930s. Makers include Holland and Holland, Lang, Harrison and Hussey, Wilkes, Watson Brothers, John Graham, Lancaster, Westley Richards, Jeffery, Henry, Dickson, MacNaughton, Mortimer, CSL, Walter Locke, Hughes, Reilly, Manton, Rigby, London Sporting Park, and some more I can't remember just not. Returns for repairs ZERO. Returns for repairing accidents three. Damn good testimonial for rifles that old.
Old weapons, old women, old cars rule!
Cal

This is true Cal , but don't you think many of those had their initial problems sorted out way back then already ?

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Shootaway poses an interesting question here and I am anxious to see the results if more than a few reply.

To add my two cents about returns, I've owned doubles built between the early 1870s and the late 1930s. Makers include Holland and Holland, Lang, Harrison and Hussey, Wilkes, Watson Brothers, John Graham, Lancaster, Westley Richards, Jeffery, Henry, Dickson, MacNaughton, Mortimer, CSL, Walter Locke, Hughes, Reilly, Manton, Rigby, London Sporting Park, and some more I can't remember just not. Returns for repairs ZERO. Returns for repairing accidents three. Damn good testimonial for rifles that old.
Old weapons, old women, old cars rule!
Cal

This is true Cal , but don't you think many of those had their initial problems sorted out way back then already ?

+1

Sending a rifle back to the maker in itself is not a death toll to the maker, just a mistake. What is important is how well the maker handled your problem...

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Sending a rifle back to the maker in itself is not a death toll to the maker, just a mistake. What is important is how well the maker handled your problem...

I agree. My Merkel is going great, now. In Australia it was sometimes a little hard getting support - and Merkel themselves in Germany simply refuse to comment or communicate via email, which is piss poor. If getting a Merkel, it pays to know a top-of-the-line double rifle gunsmith independent to them, and get it sorted at your own expense - at least in Australia. Hopefully it is different in the US.

No conclusions can be drawn from this "poll". There are no controls and innumerable variables. The biggest problem is that a vote based on the purchase of one DR brand by a single voter is all that is required for a vote.

Antique gun's lack of current failures are no indication of actual life cycle failure. In any product, there is "infant mortality" wherein any failures will show up at X number of use hours. Those rifles all have long passed that stage. So of course, owners of vintage DRS have no problems; owners one, two, or 3 generations ago already dealt with them, and don't think they didn't exist. I had a Greifelt that wouldn't hit a barn with both barrels, made in 1925. Only newly produced rifle's data are pertinent to this survey. That is the way mechanical and electrical product's life cycles go.
The only problem I have had with a currently (meaning within the past 40 years) double rifle, is a Chapuis, which is still in France after over one year of being sent back. Not good.
And the part about old cars and old women; Nonsense; I own and have owned plenty of both and they all are absolute nightmares. Women in particular are not subject to the early mortality/fault rule; they develop more as time goes on. And my current old woman is, well, PM me for details.
And each DR owner's vote certainly is valid; if he only owns one, his vote either way is one valid data point.

quote:

And each DR owner's vote certainly is valid; if he only owns one, his vote either way is one valid data point.

However, in this "poll" he can only vote ONE way, not "either way". Hence, only invalid conclusions can be drawn from the "poll" results.

If I get more votes and the Poll becomes interesting I will try and make another Poll to find out what were the issues with the rifles.

Data are facts, and the OP is collecting facts, which are indeed "valid", meaning, true. (if the respondents are truthful).
The poll results would indeed be more interesting when compared to the total number of DR owners on AR, or to the number of owners who had "good" rifles; ; true, by itself, it does not represent a statistical ratio; it does, however, show a raw number of "problem" rifles. But the total number, and percentage, of good, versus, bad, DRs, while interesting, is not necessary just to see a raw number of "bad" rifles. That number, and makes, are still valid data in and of itself. Further comparisons do make it more complete, but this poll is not "invalid" at all. True, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this poll is exactly what the raw data shows; but that does not make the data invalid; it is still true.

How about a poll with same rifles that did not reqire anything.
Then you will have the total amount of rifles and can see the averages of what needed and didn't need rework.
That would be useful info.
Nitro

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Shootaway poses an interesting question here and I am anxious to see the results if more than a few reply.

To add my two cents about returns, I've owned doubles built between the early 1870s and the late 1930s. Makers include Holland and Holland, Lang, Harrison and Hussey, Wilkes, Watson Brothers, John Graham, Lancaster, Westley Richards, Jeffery, Henry, Dickson, MacNaughton, Mortimer, CSL, Walter Locke, Hughes, Reilly, Manton, Rigby, London Sporting Park, and some more I can't remember just not. Returns for repairs ZERO. Returns for repairing accidents three. Damn good testimonial for rifles that old.
Old weapons, old women, old cars rule!
Cal

This is true Cal , but don't you think many of those had their initial problems sorted out way back then already ?

A very good point.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by nitro450exp:
How about a poll with same rifles that did not reqire anything.
Then you will have the total amount of rifles and can see the averages of what needed and didn't need rework.
That would be useful info.
Nitro

That would work as long as the poll allows shooters to vote more than once as many of us own, or have owned, rifles built by different builders.

Interesting, but it only allows me to vote once - and I need to vote twice. Have owned (2) Heym, (2) Chapuis, (1) Searcy and (1) Sabatti. Sent the Searcy back so many times Butch had it more than me. Finally demanded and received a refund. The Sabatti was also a disaster and also resulted in a refund. No issues with the Heym or Chapuis rifles, and the only ones I still own are the (2) Heyms.

Chapuis takes the lead.

If I ever see a picture of someone standing and resting his double butt on the ground and hand over the muzzles I think that he must trust his double to do that.I have seen it done with Heym and Krieghoff.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If I ever see a picture of someone standing and resting his double butt on the ground and hand over the muzzles I think that he must trust his double to do that.I have seen it done with Heym and Krieghoff.

Might be it's empty. I sure don't trust any loaded rifle.

Of course, the complete data picture would include the entire population of NEW DRs ever bought by AR members, with the subset of those which required more work soon after manufacture, by maker. But the raw data collected by the OP is still interesting in and of itself, even if his study could use some more refinement.

It is my opinion that most of the rifles sent back to the maker is for poor regulation. Having said that, it is also my opinion that in most cases the rifle WAS regulated properly with the ammo it was regulated with by the maker.

The problem comes when the customer gets the rifle the ammo he is shooting doesn’t regulate properly and I find that most double rifle shooters use factory ammo, and do not work up a hand load that works in their rifle. Factory ammo is not consistent enough to regulate properly in a double rifle for ever. The changes in the powder lots do not have to be drastically different from the last batch to screw up regulation. So, even if the rifle was regulated with factory ammo of your choice the boxes you buy later of that same brand my not do well in you new rifle. This is when you need to get out the dies and do some load work ups.

It has always been my opinion that to get the best from any double rifle one must handload! Once the regulating load is found buy enough powder of that lot number and load up 100 rounds and store for all hunting for the next few years with that rifle.

In many cases rifles are sent back to the maker when there is really no need to do so, because the problem is often a owner induced problem!
...................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by BenKK:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If I ever see a picture of someone standing and resting his double butt on the ground and hand over the muzzles I think that he must trust his double to do that.I have seen it done with Heym and Krieghoff.

Might be it's empty. I sure don't trust any loaded rifle.

Or it could be he isn't very smart!

.

Interesting results so far, with the Heym and Kreighoff showing zeros for send backs.

I did buy a couple new Heyms, and zero issues. I also specified exactly what to regulate them with, and they delivered exactly that. I am very happy with the German stuff!

Thinking about this a little - is it possible that some of the "issues" are people buying off the rack rifles and not having the info available as to what they are regulated with?

Also to contribute to the original question - I have shot elephant at 25 feet to 98 yards, with a double, all side brain or quartering brain shots, buff from "right there" to 95 yards. I would like ANY DG rifle, to put them on the money, as close as possible to Point of Aim. Those longer yardages, were actually lasered, I knew the animals were breaking out there, and was waiting to snap shoot them as they came into the window.

Iron sights BTW.

MacD has a very viable hypothesis upon which I will expand; some people simply should not own Double Rifles. They don't know how to hold them, manipulate the triggers correctly, shoot them, load for them, clean them, maintain them, and generally are not up to the task of using a double rifle. They are not in the same category as other hunting arms, as we all know, and they require special skills to operate. So, yes, many of the "faults" in them could attributed to the owners.

There is a flaw in the poll, it does not take into account that some guns may be so unpopular that they are not purchased, therefore none were returned. For instance a zero only shows that no one sent a Heym back, not that anyone bought one in the first place.

Cal,
You left out faster horses and older whiskey!

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
...any failures will show up at X number of use hours. Those rifles all have long passed that stage. So of course, owners of vintage DRS have no problems; owners one, two, or 3 generations ago already dealt with them, and don't think they didn't exist.

I follow what you are saying, to a point.

However, I would bet that based on the total number of double rifles being made in the last 40yrs as compared to the total number made during the 40yrs between 1880 and 1920, there were far fewer mechanical failures in the earlier era.

The fact that any new double must be sent back immediately speaks to the falsity of the "better materials, better machining, better QC" nonsense that is always attributed to new firearms.

If anything, your point (if correct) should dissuade buying any new double, and on that point we agree 100%!

But I only buy new Doubles; can't afford the old ones any more. I sold all that I had when prices rose so much, mainly because ammo was being made again. Back in the 70s and 80s, they were dirt cheap, but not now.
New ones are certainly made from better materials, but the hand work that went into the old ones can't be done on the "popular" priced ones. And the QC does seem to be worse now.
I am not dissuading anyone from buying a new DR at all and you know that.
And I would take your bet, but fortunately for you, there is no data from the old period on the subject.
It is great to take pride in the fact that "I only buy and own vintage Double Rifles", the fact is that from an economic standpoint, some of us simply can't do that. Hence, the market for the cheap, poorly made, unregulated, $10,000 double rifles being made these days that try to pass themselves off real double rifles. That is the best I can do and good for those who can play in the big leagues. ( Don't tell me to sell all my double rifles and buy one really expensive, vintage one; I still like them)

This is a discussion for another thread for sure.
I have been very fortunate to have the doubles I have at the prices I have paid. In fact, only one of mine cost more than $10K.
My feeling is this: for the same money, there is no comparing a new double to a classic double.

That is a given, but the "for the same money" is not possible unless you run across a widow who is ignorant of the real values.

For the number of boats, motorcycles, and lesser guns than a quality double rifle I could have had one or two, but never felt the need for one. As to failure of most firearms would think the number of "rounds down the barrel(s)" would have a lot to do with the failure rate of a double rifle or any other firearm?? A firearm costing more than $10,000.0 and perhaps 10 times that or more should be good to go at all times. With the cost of ammo and necessity of shooting a big bore double rifle a great deal would be uncommon. How much is a "great deal," 10 times/month, 20,30,40,even 50 times per month? At 600rnds./yr. that is not a lot use(other than wear and tear on the shooter's shoulder)for a firearm. Have always admired double rifles for there is certainly a place for them, but paying many thousands of dollars it should "answer the call" each and every time.

It is good that there is at least 29 votes.I did not think that Heym or Krieghoff would do so well.Thanks for participating.

What you're going to see is the most affordable doubles disproportionately represented, as far more people own them. This poll is quite unfortunately not useful and won't be accurate. The worst quality control issues with a double I've encountered was a new Heym that had issues out of the box. By and large they're viewed to be one of the best affordable doubles. Then with Searcy, they're both very affordable and his lifetime, unconditional support will lend his rifles to returning for extremely minor considerations and unfairly skew it. I've also had to fix a Holland & Holland Royal.

I believe you'll find similar rates of work required from Merkel through Holland & Holland. The poll will not show that however as how many here own Merkels, compared to Hollands?