That's a good round for and H & H!

Westley Richards really do spend the time making sure their double rifles regulate, and I am quite sure they would be able to provide the details of the regulation load. Below is an informative article on the WR regulation process:
WR Regulation

Hard to say.There may be people out there with the answer-if indeed one is best.This is difficult to know IMO as you will get opinions of all sorts and it can be impossible to know who is right.Everyone is convinced they are right and that they have the answer.People cant be an expert on everything.If you can make a beautiful stock it does not mean you know rifles and how they shoot etc...It takes years to learn how rifles shoot with alot of active range time-I know people will not agree.A complicated issue with a reloading component can be blamed on the rifle for examople.If it is looks you are interested in alone then the answer is not difficult-It is the rifle you think is nicest.

Shame it's not a 500NE, that is a rare bird in a Royal.

The 500/465 is a great round but very limited with bullet selection. I always preferred the Hollands in 500/450 and recently saw a 450no2 Royal, very rare. Can't beat the bullet selection in the 45's.

quote:

Originally posted by 470Evans:
Shame it's not a 500NE, that is a rare bird in a Royal.

The 500/465 is a great round but very limited with bullet selection. I always preferred the Hollands in 500/450 and recently saw a 450no2 Royal, very rare. Can't beat the bullet selection in the 45's.

With woodleigh bullet availability who cares about a trivial thing such as bullet selection

Speaking of Woodleigh, how is that new reloading manual for double calibers? They are showing up in the States shortly but not yet.

My vote for the .465 as it is the classic Holland round.


Dutch

For my way of thinking, condition would have much to do with it. An old beat up anything is not as good as a newer rifle in excellent shape.

That said, I will assume they both are in good shape and in that case the H&H Royal wins hands down. Yes, the Droplock has, well, locks that "drop" out but a Holland & Holland 'Royal' has hand-detachable sidelocks. Which would you rather be detaching, boxlock locks or sidelock locks? Sidelocks of course!

If made, I believe, from 1926 on the Holland & Holland has an assisted opening action.

One is a Bentley the other is a Range Rover and we all know which is which - enough said on that.

Both rifles should hold their value.

My personal belief is that eating out good metal just to make the lock work of a droplock removable is not a good idea. I don't think it matters much in a low pressure gun like a shotgun. But a double rifle needs all the strength the action can give. A well made boxlocks is a very, very strong action. Carving out so much of it just weakens the action unnecessarily. Again, this is my personal view and I have neither test data to point to nor the advice of an engineer. Rather, I attribute my opinion to common sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
My personal belief is that eating out good metal just to make the lock work of a droplock removable is not a good idea. I don't think it matters much in a low pressure gun like a shotgun. But a double rifle needs all the strength the action can give. A well made boxlocks is a very, very strong action. Carving out so much of it just weakens the action unnecessarily. Again, this is my personal view and I have neither test data to point to nor the advice of an engineer. Rather, I attribute my opinion to common sense.

That makes sense but it was not the WR our grumpy correspondent said tended to come off face quickly - and the droplock rifle does at least have a doll's head.

Also, though the droplock may require metal cut out beneath, it does away with the need for a tumbler axle through the body of the action near the angle, a cause of weakness in conventional boxlocks. The slab-sided WR would also have meat in it not shared by the bar-action sidelock, which is reduced to a girder cross-section by the side-plate and mainspring's intrusion.

quote:

Originally posted by 470Evans:
Shame it's not a 500NE, that is a rare bird in a Royal.

The 500/465 is a great round but very limited with bullet selection. I always preferred the Hollands in 500/450 and recently saw a 450no2 Royal, very rare. Can't beat the bullet selection in the 45's.

I agree....H&H didn't make very many guns in certain calibers. I've seen one pre-war H&H Royal in 500NE. I wish I would have bought it, but it seemed like a lot of money. However, that gun is continuing to appreciate in value.

I'm sorry, but a detachable lock westley only has a little bit more metal removed than a fixed lock Anson&Deeley. To combat this double rifles are left wider in the action bar leaving more metal beside the locks. the action doesn't have the three holes drilled in the side for the pivots, the tumbler axle being the weak link. Furthermore the last WR I handled had an integral hinge pin, this really strengthens the action bar. Most boxlocks don't have an integral hinge. This Pre-war gun in .470ne was still tight as could be...with that less than perfect steel. A modern day WR with modern steel, just that much less to worry about.

I think using this as an argument against the WR is unwarranted, and I feel you're looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

Aaron and sambarman have more knowledge on the internal workings of the WR than I do. Thank you for the info.

However, the statement, "The slab-sided WR would also have meat in it not shared by the bar-action sidelock, which is reduced to a girder cross-section by the side-plate and mainspring's intrusion" does not apply to the H&H rifle.

The H&H 'Royal' double rifle uses a back-action sidelock while the 'Royal' shotguns are bar-action sidelocks. I do not know if that has always been the practice or, if not, when they began doing that.

Below is a picture of H&H's 'Royal' double rifle with the hand detachable back-action sidelock action. It leaves considerably more metal in the action than the bar-actioned 'Royal' shotgun does.

You are correct that sidelocks typically have more metal in the action bar and depending on design the standing breach. The one issue with sidelocks is the head of the stock has more wood removed. I've seen a lots of sidelocks with cracks in the inletting area. It's all give and take.

That is a very good reason to have hand-fitted lockwork as opposed to a mass produced hollowing out or a quick fit with a dremel. You want them to have taken only what wood is needed for the lock to fit and to leave as much wood behind as possible.

Will,

I would go with the H&H 500/465, works great for elephant!


I also took your advice & will be hunting leopard with Thierry in Sango
in about two months. Hope I do half as well as you did!

Jim

Jungleboy that looks like a lovely early 465.

Cheers,

Chris

No one has commented on the $75K price for both??
Now that we know the H&H Royal is the more common 500-465, isn't $75K a bit rich...perhaps more like $55-60K in real cash terms?
Is the WR Droplock a 500 NE....or is it also the 500-465?....regardless I wouldn't pay 75K for the WR-DL unless heavily embellished, cased with tools and in perfect condition!
Would you believe that I was in an office in Australia about 10 years ago looking at doubles....there were THREE H&H Royals in 500 NE in one place...one with a Maharajah crest!! YUP, TRUE!!
Cheers,

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
A well-known contributor once complained that a certain prestigious brand was inclined to come off face within 30 shots when made in the bigger calibres, blaming the lack of a third fastener.

Incredible as that sounds, I would bear it in mind when making my choice.

You are definitely talking about H&H, and what you say is perfectly correct. I heard it from the mouth of someone who worked for the firm and saw them coming back. The diagnoses though was slightly different as he blamed the size of the hinge pin when compared to the more sound Purdey design.

To OP, go with the modern WR. Built exceptionally well. Just follow the advice given by others and have either examined very well by an expert gunsmith before spending that money.

That is interesting Maskayev...can you please elaborate this...?

Did the rifles not regulate well with the ammunition they where regulated for..or was there other issues..?

What calibres are we talking about..?

Holland and WR are not in competition with each other. A better title for this thread be Holland or WR.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
However, the statement, "The slab-sided WR would also have meat in it not shared by the bar-action sidelock, which is reduced to a girder cross-section by the side-plate and mainspring's intrusion" does not apply to the H&H rifle.

The H&H 'Royal' double rifle uses a back-action sidelock while the 'Royal' shotguns are bar-action sidelocks. I do not know if that has always been the practice or, if not, when they began doing that.

Touche, Grenadier. Obviously I'm not keeping up with H&H's practices. I'd thought their back-action was a slightly more humble offering with a rounded bar. The .465 Royals on the front of Graeme Wright's first and third editions appear to be bar actions, without even noticeable bolsters.

I don't suppose the newer ones include a top fastener as well by now?

H&H has built the nitro rifles on a back action design from the very beginning as far as I know. The earlier ones without the bolsters have the look of a bar action but are also back action in design.

The use of a third bite(typically referred to as a Purdey third bite)by H&H has long been a standard. At least since the 1920's or so, maybe earlier.

I thought a good bit of what made these rifles so costly is that they were made to fit a customer's measurements. If you are actually going to use the thing, why buy a double rifle not made specifically for you?

+1 What Steve (skb) said about the 'Royal'.

It is my understanding that the new round back-action sidelock is very, very strong. If I was to order a new rifle it would probably be an H&H round action sidelock. The 'Royal' is the epitome of gunmaking and a great investment that never ceases to increases in value. But, to my way of thinking, the H&H round action rifle is a little known gem worthy of great praise and well worth the price.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The .465 Royals on the front of Graeme Wright's first and third editions appear to be bar actions, without even noticeable bolsters.

I don't suppose the newer ones include a top fastener as well by now?

The rifles on the book are like this one below, back action idelocks. You can tell by the loaction of the pins:


The pin arrangement on the bar action shotgun is different. Here is a 'Royal' shotgun. Note the location of the pins:


And, Holland & Holland has been using a third bite on their rifles for a long time. You will also find many H&H heavy shotguns, pigeon guns for instance, with the third fastener, as well as H&H Paradox guns. Here is the face of a 1913 'Royal' in 500/465:

Thanks Grenadier - good pics.

It would appear our erstwhile critic would have been familiar with the top-fastening you show but did not consider it comparable with the doll's head, rising bite etc.

I have something similar on my AyA 117 shotgun (possibly copied from H&H) and, while it would resist opening and does not impede loading, seems a little rudimentary for fighting the bending forces Burrard explained.

PS: as I exited this thread, safari-lawyer's original post came up and I was reminded that the original H&H in contention was a 1920s Royal, to be evaluated against a year-2000 WR - so possibly my bar-action comparison was not out of place.

Holland & Holland was already using the back action Royals long before 1920 as you can see in the top and bottom pictures I posted of 1906 and 1913 Royal double rifles respectively. In the 1920's things changed. It was some time in the 1920s, 1926 perhaps?, that assisted opening was added to the 'Royal'.

Sorry I did not appreciate the subtlety of your captions, Grenadier - as said, I only noticed safari-lawyer's conditions as an afterthought.

However, looking again at your pictures, I still can't see that the rifle is a back-action one, as the sideplate appears, at least within the resolution of that pic, to extend along the bar. If this the case and there is indeed no spring under there, then the bar has been compromised purely for aesthetics.

On the earlier guns the lockplate was as long on a back action lock as a bar lock but the amount of material removed to accommodate just the plate was a small fraction of what needs to be removed for the spring. The plate is maybe 20% of the thickness of the total lock including the spring, therefor much less material has been removed from the action itself on a back action lock.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
On the earlier guns the lockplate was as long on a back action lock as a bar lock but the amount of material removed to accommodate just the plate was a small fraction of what needs to be removed for the spring. The plate is maybe 20% of the thickness of the total lock including the spring, therefor much less material has been removed from the action itself on a back action lock.

Being of a squarer section than the usual rounded bar in a back-action, I guess it would be stiffer, with some girder aspect to resist compression on the lower side. For all that I still see some element of misrepresentation.

quote:

Originally posted by 470EDDY:

Would you believe that I was in an office in Australia about 10 years ago looking at doubles.
...there were THREE H&H Royals in 500 NE in one place...one with a Maharajah crest!! YUP, TRUE!!
Cheers,

Was the gentleman's first name who had the guns, Bill?.. surname beginning with S...?

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
Below is a picture of H&H's 'Royal' double rifle with the hand detachable back-action sidelock action.
It leaves considerably more metal in the action than the bar-actioned 'Royal' shotgun does.

Rigbys famous 'rising-bite' rifles, Purdeys SxS rifles and Hartmann-Weiss SxS rifles*, are made in bar-action.
- has that really ever caused any valid strength issue concerns?? (* H&W also do back-action SxS rifles)

I see SxS bar-action rifles that are supposedly weaker in design, yet the manufacturer includes no reinforcements in their design.
EG: Rigby Rising-bite.

Then I see back-action SxS rifles that are by design already stronger, yet manufacturers go to the trouble of including the reinforce feature.

EG:
H&W back-action

Piotti Express

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:

,Holland & Holland has been using a third bite on their rifles for a long time. You will also find many H&H heavy shotguns, pigeon guns for instance,
with the third fastener, as well as H&H Paradox guns.

Third fastener type features from various makers were invented in times when gun metallurgy & strength was not what it is today,
as such back then British manufacturers in order to get market share,promoted their products as being superior(in strength & safety) by having such type feature.
Birmingham makers like WW.Greener emphasized the strength of their guns, as opposed to the London reliance on Purdey under bolts.

Yet if ones looks at a modern alloy steel Searcy H&H type sidelock rifle, it has no third-fastener feature.

For some reason London got the reputation for the finest guns, yet fact remains that Birmingham makers like WC.Scott and Stephen Grant,
produced sidelock firearms the equal of any of the best from London.

All good points, Trax. My concern with strength in the bar only came from the assertion by a (former?) member of this forum that one prestigious London maker's rifles had a tendency to come off face after about 30 shots in the larger calibres, and his wondering about the lack of a (decent?) top fastener possibly being to blame.

I am also perplexed that this firm apparently warned owners not to fire full-metal-patch bullets in their double rifles. Now, while I realise such projectiles put additional strain on everything, if you can't shoot solids from an 'elephant gun'
there is something wrong, somewhere.

Trax- NO, not even close.

Cheers,

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I am also perplexed that this firm apparently warned owners not to fire full-metal-patch bullets in their double rifles. Now, while I realise such projectiles put additional strain on everything, if you can't shoot solids from an 'elephant gun'
there is something wrong, somewhere.

That is another issue and more than one gun maker had concerns. By no means am I an expert, but as I recall, the concerns centered on modern solid homogeneous bullets (monos) that didn't exist decades ago.

I recall reading and hearing several discussions. Double rifle barrels are usually thinner walled than their bolt and single shot counterparts. On the one side were rifle manufacturers and shooters claiming that the practice of shooting the monos could stress the barrels to the point that the effects were visible on the outside of the barrels. On the other side were bullet manufacturers and other shooters who insisted that shooting their bullets did not cause undue barrel strain. Pressure tests, photos of barrels, photos of rifling, measurements and claims on both sides were in abundance. I believe the concerns were legitimate but my opinion is irrelevant.

The end result was that bullet manufactures made various design changes involving things like slightly reduced bullet diameter, adding rings or ridges to engage the rifling instead of the full bullet surface, and the selection of more forgiving bullet metal. In other words, bullet design advanced and that seems to have quieted the uproar.

Thanks Grenadier, but having had my ears burnt on that one by some with fingers in the pie, I'll bow out at this point

quote:

Originally posted by Butch Searcy: posted 11 May 2010 01:29

Will it isn't Physics per say. It's the trash steel in the pre war guns. And I did say banded bullets. Also I've rebarreled old English rifles that burst
half way down that used the Woodliegh softs. Looked like a tripod. There's no mystery in my mind.

What people who blame the solids has not told you all is that the old English made barrels were not all to spec. as to the bore and groove diameters.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush: osted 10 May 2010 23:14

..You can take this for what it is worth. I just got off the phone with Ty, one of the technical guys at Barnes. While I was mostly asking about the Barnes
banded solids, he said there is absolutely no issue with Barnes bullets in double rifle. He said they will not cause OSR or cause your rifle to de-laminate
and in fact, they are getting very close to finishing up and publishing the results of their testing with strain gauges and such to finally put this issue to rest.

Ty told me that the OSR question came up with homogenous bullets because some of them were fired in vintage guns and were not the correct size for that particular bore. Again, when in doubt, slug your bore, right? ...

Barnes it seems , is saying the same thing as Mr.Searcy.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Some like redheads some like blondes.

Make mine a brunette

Hello Friends-

Here is a great response from a long time friend and a VERY prolific Double Rifle owner and shooter-


That would be a end use call.
For shooting and hunting I would go Westley. I have shot 500 and 450 drop locks both very nice but bulky almost pregnant looking. Especially the 500 plus.
The Holland would be the finer external, Nicer lines easily appreciated
An artist would appreciate the Holland while it would take a true gun person to appreciate the simplicity of the Westley.
Chris

These are great thoughts and I agree, along with my earlier comments about prices. Just yesterday I was offered a local Holland Royal, cased with all accessories at $50K, 500-465. Same guy recently sold a 500-450 same price!! I just about jumped out of my skin a couple of months ago when he called me and told me it was a 500NE for sale....I let is slide when I found out it was a 500-450....now I am thinking again, but I planted a seed saying it might be a $45K gun, leaving some room for a commission...

So Safari-Lawyer- WHAT SAY YOU??
Have you decided or jumped yet?? What's the answer, we are all standing by holding our breath!! PICTURES??

Clarify- is the WR Droplock at 500NE or 500-465?

Cheers,

quote:

Clarify- is the WR Droplock at 500NE or 500-465?

Cheers,

The H&H is a 500-465.

The WR is a 500ne.

Interesting....now you also need to decide if you REALLY need the 500NE between the two vs just collector- H&H or shooter-WR.

The 500NE is about 20% more energy than the 465, and it will pound you a lot harder than the 465....even in the heavier WR. Frankly I don't like the extra recoil.

HUMMMMMM, now what??

Cheers,