British and Best..

28 July 2017, 23:13

Pondoro

British and Best..

For me, the double rifle is primarily a british rifle.. I have handeled and shot german, italian etc. rifles but I am not much for german doubles...too front heavy and seldom much to look at. The only german rifle I ever liked was a Merkel in .375H&H I handeled in Namibia. Krieghoff..? Good grief...

The Italians (and Spanish) make some very nice ones, ie Perugini & Visini, but these are shameless copies of the british ones..

So for me, the proper double rifle is primarily a british rifle....I would always take an old brit. in good condition over anything else..or if funds allowed...a new Westley Richards..

Yes...indeed British and Best..

29 July 2017, 00:16

MJines

Tough to argue with those thoughts. In my view, the design of double rifles peaked in pre-World War II Britain. While things like metallurgy and the like may have continued to improve, in terms of the combination of style, fit and function . . . the British doubles made in the 1920's and 1930's are the pinnacle of the art.

29 July 2017, 00:39

Atkinson

A double rifle is a personal thing, Ive seen good and bad from all over the world..To me te Krieghoff is an abortion, action too long, ill fitting, poorly balanced and horrible safety. To many its the ultimate..

My prefered double rifle for hunting rifle is the Searcy or a British rifle, For an investment and hunting the British rifle wins again..but there are a hell of a lot of worn out British rifles for sale out there, and Ive seen many proud owners with such a double. Its a buyer beware market...

29 July 2017, 00:50

analog_peninsula

When I handled the new Heym 89 at the DSC convention, I didn't find it very "Germanic". Above my touch, but very pleasing in every way.

29 July 2017, 03:27

7kongoni

Many years ago I didn't buy a Francotte 500/465 that was in a room with many other doubles because I thought I had to have a "London Double". I did buy a London Double that day, but I still regret letting the Francotte go.

29 July 2017, 03:43

MJines

No fleas on a Francotte or Marcel Thys either for sure.

29 July 2017, 03:58

Heym 450/400

The new Heym 89B feels remarkably "English".

I came away more than impressed. They definitely did their homework.

Having said that...as much as it pains me, I agree with MJines.

Pre-War English is the pinnacle of Bespoke DR's

29 July 2017, 04:15

Pondoro

Sooo...Heym finally copied the English to make a nice double rifle, well, nothing wrong with that I guess..

29 July 2017, 04:36

MJines

The Heym 89 is very nice . . . but to me it lacks one important aspect of a British double . . . being thin through the grip with a relatively thin-framed butt stock. In talking with Chris he made an interesting point. Over the last 75-100 years the morphology of people has changed. People are bigger framed now and for many people the smaller feel of the British double is not comfortable. Hence Heym going with a bit thicker pistol grip and butt stock. Being 5'8' and weighing 165 pounds I still like the feel of the British rifles. With that caveat the Heym 89 is a pretty darn nice British clone.

29 July 2017, 05:44

ozhunter

I do love the British rifles but can see the benifits of a slightly thicker pistol grip for strength and butt pad for recoil distribution. Slight alterations that can make an even better rifle

29 July 2017, 06:32

shootaway

I am sure that there were many great British double rifles made and that they were better made then some DR's made today.I think if you take the best of the British you will find a single person behind the company who was controlling near everything and calling all the shots for many years and who was therefore very knowledgeable.I believe that scenario no longer exists among the British makes.The only make with this type of scenario that I know of is Searcy.

29 July 2017, 07:24

cal pappas

It is interesting the thoughts on the good doubles from Germany, Spain, and Italy are those that are copies of the English doubles.

Shootaway has mellowed a bit in his old age. A few years ago when I posted print or photos of my pre-war doubles from the UK I was known to him as the "garbage collector!"

Cheers, mates.
Cal

_______________________________

Cal Pappas, Willow, Alaska
www.CalPappas.com
www.CalPappas.blogspot.com
1994 Zimbabwe
1997 Zimbabwe
1998 Zimbabwe
1999 Zimbabwe
1999 Namibia, Botswana, Zambia--vacation
2000 Australia
2002 South Africa
2003 South Africa
2003 Zimbabwe
2005 South Africa
2005 Zimbabwe
2006 Tanzania
2006 Zimbabwe--vacation
2007 Zimbabwe--vacation
2008 Zimbabwe
2012 Australia
2013 South Africa
2013 Zimbabwe
2013 Australia
2016 Zimbabwe
2017 Zimbabwe
2018 South Africa
2018 Zimbabwe--vacation
2019 South Africa
2019 Botswana
2019 Zimbabwe vacation
2021 South Africa
2021 South Africa (2nd hunt a month later)
______________________________

29 July 2017, 08:15

Dutch44

I have owned 11 English doubles and 2 Belgium doubles. JJ tutored me in how the Belgium builders didn't take the small short-cuts that the Brits did. Very informative. But I love them all, both British and Belgium.

29 July 2017, 08:22

Pondoro

Interesting Dutch...care to elaborate about those shortcuts..?

BTW, I fully agree that Francottes are very nice, never handled a Thys..

29 July 2017, 13:48

StormsGSP

quote:
Originally posted by Pondoro:
For me, the double rifle is primarily a british rifle.. I have handeled and shot german, italian etc. rifles but I am not much for german doubles...too front heavy and seldom much to look at. The only german rifle I ever liked was a Merkel in .375H&H I handeled in Namibia. Krieghoff..? Good grief...

I haven't been impressed by many Krieghoff's but I did handle a .500 Essencia and it was a very impressive gun.

29 July 2017, 18:25

Dutch44

Pondoro, he showed me one area of the breach-face on a Francotte (one of Georges at the DSC show) where the front of the knuckle (ejector piece) was machined solid and he disassembled a British double where the piece was added but not machined. I really need a diagram to show you but JJ's thoughts were that there were no shortcuts with Belgium makers. I love both, however. Waiting for my Francotte to get here. My Verney-Caron had the machined part as well an it is marked Liege (pre-war gun).

30 July 2017, 04:03

skb

In my mind that detail falls under the "more than one way to skin a cat" rule. A solid extractor cam does not a best gun make.

30 July 2017, 04:15

Dutch44

I'm just relaying what JJ stated and I think he is a pretty good authority to state his opinion. I'm not arguing, just relaying what one expert says. I'm sure his statement was directed at more than a single cam. I'll buy from either country and have.

30 July 2017, 05:01

skb

Do not mis-understand me, I have a wonderful Francotte 20 bore SLE shotgun on my bench currently that is a BEST gun in every way. The Belgium guns can be wonderful and are under appreciated. That said, H&H, Rigby and other top tier British makers often take a different approach as do some of the better continental makers such as H&W. Sure JJ is welcome to his viewpoint, but others equally talented at times see it differently. Buy what you like, I do.
Steve

30 July 2017, 08:17

new_guy

quote:
Originally posted by StormsGSP:
I haven't been impressed by many Krieghoff's but I did handle a .500 Essencia and it was a very impressive gun.

The Essencia is a very nice rifle, but - in all fairness - it is not made by Krieghoff.

It is made by Ziegenhahan, and he engraves the "Krieghoff" name on his rifle for them. Same for the shotguns.

30 July 2017, 08:36

new_guy

quote:
Originally posted by MJines:
The Heym 89 is very nice . . . In talking with Chris he made an interesting point. Over the last 75-100 years the morphology of people has changed. People are bigger framed now and for many people the smaller feel of the British double is not comfortable.

Thanks, Mike, but I have to give credit to Ralf Martini for the stock size and shape.

About 4 years ago, Ralf started to make our new stocks more "British," and we came to the table with several averages for specific dimensions on traditional British stocks.

The small circumference pistol grip was one that stood out on the older rifles, and one that lots of people seemed to want.

Ralf effectively explained that these customers had been wearing shoes that didn't fit for so long that they thought they did.

He went into some relative measurements of hand sizes (as they related to increased height) and ultimately said that for a customer today that is 5' 6", this circumference (from 100 years ago) would be appropriate, and that we should make the grip the same circumference as it would have been made in 1900.

He also pointed out that the average height of an American male today was 4 inches taller than 100-years ago, and that the grip should be made to an appropriate circumference and scale to best fit a modern, larger, shooters' hand.

In other words, just because the average shoe size was 8.5 in 1900, we shouldn't be forcing men who now have size 10.5 shoes to wear a size 8.5.

Well, that just made too much sense to me, and we went with it.

I can add to Ralf's point about larger customers and say although 5' 10" may be the average height of an American male today, our customers are taller and average 6' 0." In the end, we can make the grip circumference whatever the customer wants (within reason), but also know that the circumference chosen when making our stock reflects the shooter's hand measurements taken while fitting.

30 July 2017, 20:02

Double BC

quote:
Originally posted by new_guy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MJines:

Ralf effectively explained that these customers had been wearing shoes that didn't fit for so long that they thought they did.

.

That is a funny and true comment, I've met Ralf twice and can actually hear it coming out of his mouth.

31 July 2017, 21:04

BaxterB

quote:
Originally posted by new_guy:
quote:
Originally posted by MJines:
The Heym 89 is very nice . . . In talking with Chris he made an interesting point. Over the last 75-100 years the morphology of people has changed. People are bigger framed now and for many people the smaller feel of the British double is not comfortable.

Thanks, Mike, but I have to give credit to Ralf Martini for the stock size and shape.

About 4 years ago, Ralf started to make our new stocks more "British," and we came to the table with several averages for specific dimensions on traditional British stocks.

The small circumference pistol grip was one that stood out on the older rifles, and one that lots of people seemed to want.

Ralf effectively explained that these customers had been wearing shoes that didn't fit for so long that they thought they did.

He went into some relative measurements of hand sizes (as they related to increased height) and ultimately said that for a customer today that is 5' 6", this circumference (from 100 years ago) would be appropriate, and that we should make the grip the same circumference as it would have been made in 1900.

He also pointed out that the average height of an American male today was 4 inches taller than 100-years ago, and that the grip should be made to an appropriate circumference and scale to best fit a modern, larger, shooters' hand.

In other words, just because the average shoe size was 8.5 in 1900, we shouldn't be forcing men who now have size 10.5 shoes to wear a size 8.5.

Well, that just made too much sense to me, and we went with it.

I can add to Ralf's point about larger customers and say although 5' 10" may be the average height of an American male today, our customers are taller and average 6' 0." In the end, we can make the grip circumference whatever the customer wants (within reason), but also know that the circumference chosen when making our stock reflects the shooter's hand measurements taken while fitting.

Great info. I'm a double neophyte, so let me ask an ignorant question so I am no longer ignorant: it seems these older rifles had plenty of LOP. If the average person was shorter by 4", why were the LOPs about the same as I see with current rifles? I've held many 100+ year old doubles and definitely noticed the small grip, but LOp felt good for my 13 3/4 preference on bolt guns. What am I missing? Again, great info. Thanks.

31 July 2017, 22:56

HistoricBore

I too wonder about the current Length of Pull on current American rifles - usually about 13.5". For us here in Britain at least another half an inch is needed, and preferably a full inch more. Plus we are probably smaller than the average Yank, because of rationing, etc.

Or is just soo cold in the USA that you wear six layers when out hunting??

01 August 2017, 03:52

Clan_Colla

Typically LOP on a bolt rifle is less than a DR.

A DR LOP is similar to that of a properly fitted SxS two trigger shotgun.

Usually just a tad longer , to keep your thumb off your nose during recoil.

On larger DR's ,a larger footprint is desirable on the butt,
As well as less drop in the stock.

01 August 2017, 04:28

DoubleDon

Simply stated. Generally LOP to the front of the front trigger of a double trigger gun is pretty close to 1" longer than front of same fitted single trigger gun.

01 August 2017, 10:40

new_guy

quote:
Originally posted by DoubleDon:
Simply stated. Generally LOP to the front of the front trigger of a double trigger gun is pretty close to 1" longer than front of same fitted single trigger gun.

Don is right: it's not that the stock is necessarily that much longer on a double, but the relative point from which they are measured is different, as a bolt gun has one trigger, and a double has two.

Having said that, I do find most American made stocks are on the shorter side.

01 August 2017, 18:50

McKay

I like 15.25" on doubles and 14 - 14.25" or so on bolts. I have a hard time operating the bolt while on the shoulder if it is much longer.

01 August 2017, 19:31

BaxterB

Thanks for the extra info.

02 August 2017, 17:28

tomahawker

Just received ArmyNavy 500 bpe. Immediately felt the trim and slim grip. Elegant too say the least and immediately referred to her as female.

02 August 2017, 18:06

big will

where do you see the Turks in the double rifles trade in the future?I know for now the they cannot
make rifles or anything with rifled bores.

02 August 2017, 18:59

cal pappas

If someone wants a double rifle in the British "style" then why not buy a British rifle? It seems odd a German maker would make a double to look British. If one wants a German (or Continental) double in that style, buy it. The European look is favored by many.
Cal
PS. It is interesting that English makers don't make doubles in the German "style." Why is this?

02 August 2017, 21:18

BaxterB

Cal, I'm only speaking for myself when I answer this: I'd like a German-made British-looking rifle because I can't afford a new British double, and don't want to risk a lemon in an older (read more affordable) British double that I have to worry about. The idea of German engineering and British looks is appealing to someone like me who, if they bought a double, would likely only be able to buy one. If the Japanese made doubles, hell, maybe I could afford two. ;-$

02 August 2017, 22:02

skb

If anyone has a Max Ern double they want to sell cheap due to its German heritage, please let me know. Same goes for H&W. There are some extraordinary Continental makers and I am an Anglophile through and through. Quality, like a deal, is where you find it.

02 August 2017, 23:11

cal pappas

quote:
Originally posted by BaxterB:
Cal, I'm only speaking for myself when I answer this: I'd like a German-made British-looking rifle because I can't afford a new British double, and don't want to risk a lemon in an older (read more affordable) British double that I have to worry about. The idea of German engineering and British looks is appealing to someone like me who, if they bought a double, would likely only be able to buy one. If the Japanese made doubles, hell, maybe I could afford two. ;-$

Understood 100%. Thanks for the good answer.
Cal

03 August 2017, 02:36

Beretta682E

Cal

Have you researched how many doubles were built in the inter war years ? Who were they built for ? Where they were sold ? Price point at which they were sold?

You might find some very interesting information.

I will bet in recent double rifle production the high end British guns are the most expensive and the least bespoke.

Mike

03 August 2017, 04:05

Atkinson

Being primarily a hunter, most of my doubles have been British, I love the Jefferys, Army Navy guns and the old Froncotte doubles are as good as it gets.

Todays guns are mostly too thick in the grip, too wide in the forend too wide in the butt, and these folks have reasons for such design which have been used so much folks actually believe them, but I'm real careful about what I buy off on them, and there guns just dont point like a double should. It amazes me what some folks call a beautiful rifle, but to them it is and that's what counts..

03 August 2017, 12:47

nickh

Mike (Beretta 682E),

I beg to differ on your comments re modern day British double rifle manufacture.
They are all bespoke guns! Non are made as a "stock item"
Each one is ordered and made for a client.
When companies like Westley Richards make 35 guns total a year( and this includes shotguns!)and have an order book Of over 100, they just can't make guns for stock sale.

The same holds more true for Purdey and Holland as there production is nearly all shotguns,again
Ordered by a client to individual specs.

The math is simple.

Cheers

Nick

03 August 2017, 18:09

Transvaal

Nickh;

Well said.

Kindest Regards

03 August 2017, 19:12

Huvius

There will always be exceptions to the rule - that is, if any rule applies here.
I am sure that blindfolded, none here could discern that my Springer double was not British.
Also, the notion of British doublegun superiority is largely based on style.
In their element, European doubles can be faultless in function and ergonomics.
Not always great in the looks department but in driven forest hunting might even be better than an English double of similar caliber.