Vic,

I believe in days go by the craftsman and artisans that hand built double rifles could focus on the subtle details of balance because the rifle design was not made to facilitate machine manufacture but rather shaped by hand.

This is a guess. Machine manufacture has many pluses however regarding consistency and lower costs.

If your reason for buying a double rifle is for hunting, the only real reason to buy one,,then it make little difference what you buy as along as it is sound, and is accurate, and fits you! In the case above the new off the shelf rifles,if all the criteria is met, is a better buy than the old English doubles.

I have found over the years of owning ove 30 double rifles, and about half of thembeing German, or Austrian makes, and the rest either English, and one Italian. I find on average the German rifles to be better regulated, and more accurate than the old English ones! The big problem most have with the Germanic forearms of all types, is the Tutanic "LOOK" of them, and so do not give them a try. That is their loss, IMO!

If a man wants a English double rifle today, he has the choice of a 100 yr old double, at an exorbitant price, that may, or may not be worth owning, or pay the average $90K for a new one built to fit. With NEW German, or other Euro rifles, and a B.Searcy,USA, that work, for hunting just as well, and can be ordered to fit, for under $16K, or off the shelf, "IF" they fit, for under $8K, and spend the other $70, or $80K on hunting in Africa.

Next you will hear the blast from the mountain tops about the investment value in owning Britt doubles, and to some extent, that is true. However, the profit margin is not as wide as it once was. The day of buying a Britt double cheaply, and makeing money on the resale is fast coming to a halt. As the stock pile of good ones dwendels, and the ones left on the market are dogs, in many cases!

There is a profit margin on New, and newly used, double rifles as well. It just isn't as wide as it once was on the Britts, that were bought for pennies on the dollar, out of India in the 1960s, and have become high dollar collector pieces here in the states. The new ones are climbing in price as well. A $6K German double ten yrs ago, is now selling for around $10K, and one you paid $7K for, new, in the 1980s (Heym) is now $16K for a field grade, used!

So, I guess, it all boils down to what you want a double for! If it is a purest SNOBB FACTOR, then pay the piper, and get a Britt with a PROPER NAME, but if it is for hunting, and serviceability, then buy a $10K double that fits,is well made, and is accurate, and don't worry about what others think! Just enjoy hunting with your rifle, and let others roll their eyes at your $8K baby!

If anyone here thinks I'm a Britt double rifle hater, they are absolutely wrong! I love them, and I love the history a 100 yr old double rifle may hold in it's heart, but I'm not naive enough to think just because a double was made in England, that it is automaticly a better rifle than one made in another country, simply because of it's country of orgin!

I believe the best practical double rifle I ever owned was Heym 88 with a selector switch to convert from ejector, to extractor. That rifle was dead on accurate, and fit me like a glove. The only thing I found that was any draw-back at all, was it was a little light, for the 470NE chambering,but I paid $3000 for it, in 1981 as new,used. Damn, I wish I had that rifle back! It would take $16K to replace it today 27 yrs later!

All only one man's opinion, and not binding on anyone! BYE!

Ok Mac. Good comments. In my case it is a hunting rifle so that makes me a good candidate for a current manufacture double.

In your post you do not mention French. Would you comment on Chapius please?

Also, who makes Italian?

Thanx.

quote:

Originally posted by Spring:

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:

5. I prefer the feel and balance of the pre-war British. I appreciate the modern doubles, probably more accurate than pre-war, but I am a rifleman that values balance.

This is a common thought expressed by those that love the old doubles. I've long wondered how much of that thought process was a way to justify the romance of a classic old gun that would be hard to duplicate by a new gun just out of a box.

No, there is a real difference.

quote:

Nevertheless, my question remains, is there really a difference in the feel and fit of an older gun vs the newer designs?

It depends on the design.

quote:

Does a new H&H feel different than an old one or are we just comparing a Searcy/Chapuis style with something English?

No, a current Holland Royal DR is pretty much the same rifle as one from the '20s.

quote:

Are the newer guns bulkier because of today's legal environment or are we comparing more affordable new guns with sleeker designs from a century ago? Aren't some of the newer guns still made using the slim designs of yesteryear?

Mixed questions that reflect some misconceptions. I'll do my best to answer.

No, they're not necessarily bulkier.

"Sleek" may be "slim" in women, but not necessarily in double rifles. A double rifle built on a slim, trim action will either be substantially underweight for caliber, or it will not have the weight concentrated between the hands. You cannot have it both ways.

Yes, most of the new guns are still substantially century old designs.

What we're discussing here is primarily geometry. The geometry of the "affordable" double rifles on the market today is primarily influenced by two factors: 1) The "formula" that evolved over a century ago in the region where they are built, and 2) concessions to price point.

Two very different DR formulas evolved - British and Teutonic.

The British formula evolved into one that prized "weight between the hands" above all else. Comparing guns of the same caliber in the two designs, the British guns generally used larger actions, which results in barrels of larger diameter at the breech end, but with a great deal more taper, or "contour", downtube. Thus, 50% of the weight in one-third of the length - "weight between the hands".

The Teutonic formula evolved into a preference for slimness, with much less regard for weight distribution. Generally, they're much smaller actions, which results in substantially less diameter at the breech ends of the barrels, and much less contour over their length. This sometimes requires the addition of weight in the butt for balance, as with the current Merkels. The result is much more weight in the ends, and very different handling dynamics.

The difference between the two is visually pretty graphic. When I started shopping for double rifles long ago, the first German DR I handled was a Merkel .500/.465 boxlock from the early '30s. Quality was superb. I remember I described it to a friend as the first DR with bull barrels I had ever seen.

Likewise, take three boxlock .470s - a Merkel, a Heym, and an Army & Navy. Dismount the barrels and lay the actions side by side so that you're looking at them from the top of the actions, with the British gun in the middle. It looks like two sports cars parked on either side of a U-Haul bobtail.

They are very different. Which handles the best? It's a matter of personal taste, of course. There is no right or wrong answer. That said, there are very few knowledgeable DR men who would argue that is wasn't the British formula that captured the hearts and minds. The difference is great enough that those accustomed to the handling of the better British DRs can be quite passionate about it.

New built "affordable" guns of Teutonic formula: Merkel, Heym, Krieghoff, and (with no disrespect to the French) Chapuis.

British formula: None, zip, nada. This is the great, gaping hole, with a flashing neon sign next to it, in today's "affordable" DR market. It's also why the used British guns sell so well. They also provide the bonus of much better build quality than is possible in an "affordable" new rifle today.

My comments about the designs are general. There is nothing magic about a DR simply being British. There are British DRs that you couldn't run fast enough to give me. Likewise, I don't mean to imply that the Merkel, Heym, or Chapuis is junk. They are most certainly not. However, their designs are true to their roots - look at where they're built. To a British DR user, their handling leaves quite a bit to be desired.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:

Also, who makes Italian?

Thanx.

There are several:



* Zandarini

* Perugini & Visini

* Beretta and page 2

* Renato Gamba

* Ferlib

* Abbiatico & Salvinelli/Famars

400 Nitro is correct. Good explantion, good post.

British doubles as a rule just feel and handle better for the reasons 400 explained above.

If one of the new makers would build a double rifle with the British geometry, at the same price that they sell their doubles for now they would quickly capture the market.


It is even true with the smaller bore doubles.
A few days ago I handled my Blaser D99 Duo, my 9,3x74R Chapuis along side an Evans 400/360.

The British double was the best handling gun.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
It is even true with the smaller bore doubles.
A few days ago I handled my Blaser D99 Duo, my 9,3x74R Chapuis along side an Evans 400/360.

The British double was the best handling gun.

Amen. This, despite the fact that the British gun was heavier, is quite true. The fact that the .400/.360 happened to have been mine notwithstanding, my objectivity is absolutely flawless.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Manion:
His few words on this forum, "double rifles suck", only serve the purpose of conveying the message that those who love double rifles, when there is no reason to have one, are morons.

When did I say double rifles suck? I was only trying to console Dogcat that if he can't afford a double rilfe it is no reason to commit suicide.

Hell, I own a double rifle. IMO, though, it is not the end all for hunting dangerous game. There are circumsatnces where it is needed and circumstances where it is to be avoided.

But just my opinion. You don't have to justify double rifles to me. Nor do I have to justify what I believe are limitations to you. You are so sensitive!

I took no offence by Will. No big deal to me. I am just not a double rifle guy, yet.

Actually there are 3 different British 400/360's that I have handled, 2 Evans and a Lang.
All 3 are the perfect hog deer etc. gun

If fact if they were scoped I would not hesitate to use them on most African plains game.

i bought my DR 'cause i wanted something differnt from what i currently shoot... m70's..and at an entry level price for an entry level gun a bigger-bore will come in a couple yrs... snob appeal???... maybe... ive got the halliburton briefcase (i earned it).. the 450sl (i bought it as a restoration project)... and the 12 yr younger girlfriend... (i deserved it).

jimatcat,
ALL RIGHT! A 12 year younger Girlfriend!
Does she have a Sister?

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:
British formula: None, zip, nada. This is the great, gaping hole, with a flashing neon sign next to it, in today's "affordable" DR market.

If no one is currently making an "affordable" DR using the old English designs, who is now making a DR that is materially less expensive ($20-$40M?) and also a close replica of the current H&H/Purdey offerings? Would it be one of the Italian or Spanish makers?

Well, I've read all the , so to get back to the original question;

I would like .430 - .470 caliber double rifle that will make 2300 fps with appropriate weight bullets.
To me a reasonable price for a plain working gun would be in the $2,500-$3,000 range.

Here in my shop we work on multi-million dollar jet engines that require a lot of hand work tied in with advanced computer technology and I still can't comprehend that with all of the modern manufacturing methods available why the starter big bore double prices are as high as they are.

Save the bandwidth arguing about it. I've read every post on both sides of the argument over the last five years. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't have a double yet. I've been to the altar several times, ushered by some of my double toting buddies like els, but have always passed. I find the Heym 88 and new PH models attractive in .470 caliber. Would probably buy one in the Merkel price range if I ever found it. Why .470... because you can buy factory ammo easier for it than any caliber other than 9.3x74 and I don't consider it a "true" DG cartridge. Handloaded specialty cartridges are a bother when you travel. If the ammo doesn't show up with you at the airport... you have an expensive club.

I basically agree with Will's premise however, that doubles are specialty rifles. For hunting elephant and as a follow-up gun for dangerous game they are "the" ticket. Nothing can beat them for a fast second shot and their balance and pointing characteristics. But, for precise bullet placement on most game species... it's hard to beat a scoped turn-bolt. It's lighter, usually more accurate, easier to find in calibers suited for your particular hunting situation and to me at least just as asthetically pleasing as a double.

Now I am not here to stir any emotions, I think hunters should choose the weapon they want to hunt with, double, muzzleloader, bow, etc. And I enjoy looking at doubles and discussing their lineage. But I personally have always found custom bolt rifles in African calibers and drop box magazines, nice wood, smooth CRF actions as being the ultimate in hunting tool. For me. That said... if any of you wants to part with a Heym .470 for $8000... call me!

quote:

Originally posted by Spring:

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:
British formula: None, zip, nada. This is the great, gaping hole, with a flashing neon sign next to it, in today's "affordable" DR market.

If no one is currently making an "affordable" DR using the old English designs, who is now making a DR that is materially less expensive ($20-$40M?) and also a close replica of the current H&H/Purdey offerings? Would it be one of the Italian or Spanish makers?

The nearest gun I know of is the A & S Famars Africa Express, but it's a boxlock based on the pre-war Webley action. Last I heard, base price was around $43,000. The Famars Venus Express is a back action sidelock very similar to Holland's Royal. Base price is in the mid $60,000s range. I don't have a price sheet, but a dealer friend saw Famars at SCI and passed the above figures along.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express: The Famars Venus Express is a back action sidelock very similar to Holland's Royal. Base price is in the mid $60,000s range. I don't have a price sheet, but a dealer friend saw Famars at SCI and passed the above figures along.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I was wondering if that would be the gun you might mention. They make what appears to be a very beautiful gun and one that is very similar to the English designs. From what I can tell, they are using them as their yardstick while benefiting from the cost savings of modern machinery, as compared to extensive and expensive labor in the old British gun trade. Famars (A&S) made my .470 though it was finished and marketed by Beretta.
Thanks for your comments as I've enjoyed your insight.

quote:

Originally posted by bwanamrm:

I basically agree with Will's premise however, that doubles are specialty rifles.

God Bless You!

But double rifles are so cool. No one needs any justification to buy one!

quote:

Originally posted by Spring:

I was wondering if that would be the gun you might mention. They make what appears to be a very beautiful gun and one that is very similar to the English designs. From what I can tell, they are using them as their yardstick while benefiting from the cost savings of modern machinery, as compared to extensive and expensive labor in the old British gun trade. Famars (A&S) made my .470 though it was finished and marketed by Beretta.

The care taken in building a new Britt rifle with any name anyone would recognize is much better than those work rifle in the under $20K field from other countries, no qiestion about that. However, make no mistake the top names use the CNC machinery as well, but simply don't pass the saveings on to their customers, because they don't have to,and can justify the price because of their name.

The big difference is, in final polishing, and finish, and engraveing, and quality of wood, but the accuracy, or longivity is no better than one of the better Europian doubles, at 1/5 to 1/3 the price! One small example,of name priceing. In the H&H store, there was a necktie with tiny "H&H" logos woven into the material, and the price tag was $300 US, and I'd bet it was made on computer driven weaving machines, in Tiwan, for less than ten dollars! For what it's worth, Cape Buffalo don't care a whit what name is engraved on your rifle, or how much snobb appeal it carries! I do though, and I'd dearly love to be able to affrod the top of the line double rifles from Engalnd, or for that matter any other country, including the USA, but alas not for a poor 70 yr old ranch kid from Texas

In answer to the original question: a .450/.400 for about the price of the Chapuis 9.3x74.

NE 450 No. 2: Back to your original question, if someone built a plain but well-balanced side-by side in .375 Flanged, which would make it legal for buffalo throughout Africa (or so I misunderstand) and sell it for $2,500, I would be all over it. I was very tempted by the Chapuis Ugex buy, but just can't see putting even $4500 into a rifle I couldn't use on buffalo in several countries. The Valmet is a double, but an over and under just won't cut it for me. I wish the Pedersoli knock-offs of the Colt hammer double were still available for $2,000 ...

It is my general opinion that my guns should fill a distinct niche in the arnsenal. For me to consider a Double Gun, it would need to do something that my bolts can't do or wouldn't do as well. For me a Double has to be chambered in either 4 bore or 12 Gauge from hell (rifled). If I did have the cash to get one it would have to be under $2K. I don't have any plans to go to africa, so all I'd need it for would be to go and have fun with a good old shoulder buster. Still at $2K I know I'm never going to find any sort of double worth buying in 4 bore.

As far as the comments about double rifles not being "needed" or overpriced. It is like buying a ferrari. There are the phallically challenged people who buy one for "status" or whatever. Then there are the people who buy one because it does something the other cars can't, it drives fast. I think most people here buy doubles because it does something the other guns don't do as well. As far as I'm concerned the true reason doubles are expensive is because they are worth it to some.

I probably won't buy a double rifle because it doesn't fill a niche in my arsenal.

Georgewelds , aren't you glad you live in the USA, so no one forces you to buy a doubble rifle?

The guy who has a oar powered Jhon boat, is not forced to buy a $27,000 bass boat, price that way because it takes more to build a bass boat, and it is far easier to compete in a bass tournament if you have a proper boat for the purpose! You are right, as well, a pinto will take you to McDonald's the say way the Lexus 550 will, and I can't figure why they don't cost the same price!



Just kidding you, and I know what youa re trying to say, but couldn't resist!

quote:

Originally posted by Spring:

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express: The Famars Venus Express is a back action sidelock very similar to Holland's Royal. Base price is in the mid $60,000s range. I don't have a price sheet, but a dealer friend saw Famars at SCI and passed the above figures along.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I was wondering if that would be the gun you might mention. They make what appears to be a very beautiful gun and one that is very similar to the English designs. From what I can tell, they are using them as their yardstick while benefiting from the cost savings of modern machinery, as compared to extensive and expensive labor in the old British gun trade. Famars (A&S) made my .470 though it was finished and marketed by Beretta.
Thanks for your comments as I've enjoyed your insight.

My understanding is that the majority of Famars' production of these ends up with somebody elses name on them. The British Rigby boxlocks from the '80s and '90s were built on Famars barreled actions. Likewise the current W. J. Jeffery's. Williams Evans' boxlocks were back in the early 90s. I was aware that the Beretta was built on Famars barreled actions, and heard Famars did quite a bit of the rest of the work for Beretta on them as well.

They're damned nice rifles. I wish I could afford one. However, not being a union man or a socialist, just because I can't doesn't mean they're over priced.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by bwanamrm:
I basically agree with Will's premise however, that doubles are specialty rifles. For hunting elephant and as a follow-up gun for dangerous game they are "the" ticket. Nothing can beat them for a fast second shot and their balance and pointing characteristics. But, for precise bullet placement on most game species... it's hard to beat a scoped turn-bolt.

Nah. The small and medium bore doubles make excellent general purpose hunting rifles. I see bolts as far more specialized and superior only in very limited hunting applications where I rarely have a need. I quit bolts when I discovered how good doubles were. I will never go back.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I must say I agree with 400 Nitro.
I did not set out to prove it but I have discovered that the double rifle, especially the medium bore scoped double rifle is a far better hunting gun for most uses than a bolt gun.

I have found the IMMEDIATE second shot to be far more useful than a bolt rifle with its larger magazine capacity.

I find the bolt gun superior only in 300+ yard shooting.

Once you get to 40 cal and above the double is superior in every way IMHO.

Both of you gentlemen are absolutely right on as far as I am concerned,I really do not have much experience at shooting & hunting,but I was at the last DRSS hunt with both my doubles,I have hunted with single shots & bolt rifles before,but hunting with a double is in a class by itself,you just have to experience it to understand it!

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I have found the IMMEDIATE second shot to be far more useful than a bolt rifle with its larger magazine capacity.

I find the bolt gun superior only in 300+ yard shooting.

Once you get to 40 cal and above the double is superior in every way IMHO.

Bingo!
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Steve Barnett had one listed about a year ago, and I almost bought it. Pre-war Verney-Carron hamerless Jones UL .450/400 3,25"NE in very good conditon. Lovely, svelte round action and only 7500USD, if I recall correctly. Nothing English in past 'best if used by date', thanks.

quote:

Nah. The small and medium bore doubles make excellent general purpose hunting rifles. I see bolts as far more specialized and superior only in very limited hunting applications where I rarely have a need. I quit bolts when I discovered how good doubles were. I will never go back.

quote:

I must say I agree with 400 Nitro.
I did not set out to prove it but I have discovered that the double rifle, especially the medium bore scoped double rifle is a far better hunting gun for most uses than a bolt gun.

Gentlemen,
I respect your opinion. To each his own for different applications. It is what makes the world go round! Good hunting with whatever you choose to carry!

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Question:
What calibre and what price would entice you to buy a double rifle?

I am not a wealthy collector, just a poor gun nut.

Two thngs I find atractive:

An over/under in something like 35 Whelen (or 9.3) and something BIGGER. (So I'm making a mould for my SxS double 10ga and getting rifled chokes made for it. Price? Lower is better - 3 figrues not 4.

I have been reading all the posts here and have found the comments to be fascinating. I wanted to offer a few thoughts but I wanted to preface my comments by saying that while I have shot several large caliber doubles, I have never actually owned one.

I have never seen the double vs. magazine argument the way that others seem to. I have always seen a fine double to be a COMPLIMENT to a good, scoped magazine rifle. There is no question that there are occassions when a magazine is better. In open cover, where shots usually run longer, or when trying to pick out that good bull in the herd, especially at last light, I don't think that there is any question that most guys would be better served with a scope sighted magazine rifle. Under those circumstances, the scope sighted magazine delivers better shot placement for most of us. On the other hand, the double guys are right too. In heavy cover or following up a wounded animal where shots are likely to be fifty yards or under, it is pretty hard to beat a good double as long as you are very familiar with it an get in a sufficient amount of practice. The stumbling block for me is the two triggers. The only doubles that I have owned have been over/under shotguns and all of them had one trigger. If you are not intimately familiar with guns with two triggers, I think it is advisable to stick with your magazine rifle even in the thick cover. Shooting a gun with two triggers is not a skill that you should try to acquire in a panic situation.

I once read something in one of John Taylor's books where he quoted a noted hunter who said something to the effect that if he were going back to Africa, he would take a 9.3 Mauser (or perhaps a .375) and a good heavy double in the .450 class. There seems to be a lot of common sense in that thought.

The one question that I have always had (and I know this is heresy to the double guys) is why doesn't anyone try to build a good heavy caliber over/under double? Perhaps I just don't understand but it would seem to me that it would be far easier and cheaper to regulate a couple of stacked barrels as opposed to ones that are side-by-side.

Dave

quote:

The one question that I have always had (and I know this is heresy to the double guys) is why doesn't anyone try to build a good heavy caliber over/under double? Perhaps I just don't understand but it would seem to me that it would be far easier and cheaper to regulate a couple of stacked barrels as opposed to ones that are side-by-side.

Dave-

Good question(s). First, O/U's are easier to build. And they are cheaper.

As to caliber, I know that Heym offers a 470 in an O/U configuration.

Under 470, there are many makers out there. Most of the manufacturers of side by sides make O/U's in 9.5 X 74 (some the 375 flanged) and some who do not offer SxS's offer O/U's in medium calibers and below - Heym, Chapuis, Valmet/Tika...

The O/U's as a rule are considerably less than the SxS's.

I'm thinking a .450-400 would have the best chance, second a .470. I just think the .450-400 would be the most useful for DG as the second quick shot is the reason for a double rifle, the smaller caliber would be quicker and lighter to pack.

quote:

have never seen the double vs. magazine argument the way that others seem to. I have always seen a fine double to be a COMPLIMENT to a good, scoped magazine rifle. There is no question that there are occassions when a magazine is better. In open cover, where shots usually run longer, or when trying to pick out that good bull in the herd, especially at last light, I don't think that there is any question that most guys would be better served with a scope sighted magazine rifle. Under those circumstances, the scope sighted magazine delivers better shot placement for most of us. On the other hand, the double guys are right too. In heavy cover or following up a wounded animal where shots are likely to be fifty yards or under, it is pretty hard to beat a good double as long as you are very familiar with it an get in a sufficient amount of practice. The stumbling block for me is the two triggers. The only doubles that I have owned have been over/under shotguns and all of them had one trigger. If you are not intimately familiar with guns with two triggers, I think it is advisable to stick with your magazine rifle even in the thick cover. Shooting a gun with two triggers is not a skill that you should try to acquire in a panic situation

Dave,

Chalk that up to Midwestern sensibility. Excellent points made, especially the double trigger familarity issue!

I'm not sure I understand the double trigger issue, since a single trigger on a double has been an available option for almost 100 years.

Back to the original question ...

I would like one rifle with 2 barrel sets - one 470NE and the other 375H&H. Single trigger and ejectors. No fancy engraving as I work with my rifles. That combo would cover anything I ever shoot at for whatever reason (other that wingshooting) including hunting and backup.

Since we're wishing here, I'd buy this immediately for about half of what it is selling for!

(Now if we could add a 12 bore side-by-side barrel, I'm done. One case, three barrels)

quote:

I'm not sure I understand

Exactly. Of all the double rifles (and most shotguns) I have seen, only a very small percentage of them have single triggers. One of the perceived advantages of a double rifle is you can load a soft and solid in each barrel and instantly have access to one or the other based on the hunting situation you are faced with. A single trigger negates the advantage. Those who don't use doubles with double triggers haven't committed the use of such to their muscle memory. Therefore, in a stressful situation, they are more apt to tug the same trigger twice. Buzz Charlton, in his excelent video on hunting African elephant cautions against this as well. Hence, my remark on the former post by Mr. Bush.

Look, Mr. Manion, in the original post, the question was asked what caliber, $ range, etc. would entice non DR shooters to shoot them. I have never argued against DRs and I listed my preference, however, it seems a few here won't accept my position of why we don't do all of our hunting with them. That's OK, I understand one's passion for sport the way they practice it.

Again, I think DRs are interesting and certainly have their applications, but in 11 trips to Africa, I have never felt that I was ever disadvantaged by not having one available whether hunting elephant, buffalo etc. The day may come when I change my mind... but as of yet, I haven't. Cheers!