I'm in the process of reading a book on the history of C&H - it seems it was (is) a true London maker (actions/barells/wood) but the guns don't seem to have a great reputation.

Why are C&H not classed alongside Westley Richards, if not H&H and Purdey.

mike

I think (or have heard) they were the first to use some techniques akin to factory (machine) production, and as such, some attach a stigma of "not hand made, not hand fitted" to their guns. Earlier pieces were probably as good as any, but some may not be top tier pieces. I have a smaller-bore SXS rifle made (I believe) around 1909, and it seems as nice as any period piece from that era. I also have a 12 bore SXS shotgun, and it's every bit as nice as my Army & Navy, my Jeffrey, my John Venable or the one H&H magazine rifle I have. I think you need to judge the guns individually, and not make blanket judgments about various English makers. Just my opinion ......

C&H made a large range of weapons in every price range. They made a lot of bare bones bolt guns for African game departments with very little hand work done. I think, in part, this is where their reputation suffered. They would build you a Yugo or a Rolls, whatever you wanted. H&H and Purdey and others, only made "Best Quality" guns and so maintained their rep. I have a composed pair of C&H "Avant Tout" boxlocks that are very nice and compare favorably with my other English boxlocks. Some folks look down on C&H, but they are still in business, where other "better" makers went T/U or were absorbed by other gunmakers. I agree with Frank, each C&H gun should be rated on its own merits.

From I have read, heard and seen ( a few CH rifles and shotguns, almost bought a well priced .375 many years ago) CH do have a very good reputation, but as others said, did not build as many aesthetically pleasing 'best quality' bespoke guns.

CH also did some of their own unique work, like the Certus bolt gun, one of which appeared here a while back....

They built more working guns. I don't think Jeffery built as many 'top end' 'Royal Quality' guns as the others either (I stand to be correct of course), but they also commercialised cartridges...

Don't forget, WR also built 'working guns' (The White Hunter model I believe) and some of those were apparently not much to to rave about at all - reliability problems.

go to griffin & howe,s sight there is a cogswell 308 bolt rifle there for 6500which is not a bad deal considering the bells and whistles 5 months ago the same gunsold for a mere 3500 on hallowells sight compare thais gun to a holland or westley or even a california rigby and it starts to really look like a bargain...paul

My first DR was a 450/400 C&H that I purchased as a teenager in 1951. Only got 3 rounds with it. Shot those and made a reamer and set of loading dies for it when I went to Gunsmith school the next year. Could never find brass so traded it for a 9x57 O/U that had no stock and was not blued. Had been 'liberated' from the manufacturer in Germany. Wish I had both now but remember the C&H fondly as it was really a nicely built rifle and fit like it had been made for me. Such is the impatience of youth, I wanted something to SHOOT not fondle and look at. Such is life.

C&H decided to make their actions very different from the other English makers. They are certainly different and need to be "tuned up" once every 1 or two years. The double gun repairmen don't like them as they are more difficult to work on and frequently have problems. The fit and finish is fine but the internal workings are the problem

Different in what way?