Which is more desirable round body/bottom or traditional on Verney - Carron?
We like the traditional ourselves as in the AZUR SAFARI PH. The brochure states "Ejector"

Well desirable is a subjective thing, but I have had both. I prefer the round body. Primarily because I think it looks better. There is also a secondary benefit in that the round body actually leaves more "meat" on the receiver compared to the traditional pattern when it is milled. On the round body, all the metal that would normally be milled away to form the bolsters and leave the area below the bolsters is retained. I have to believe that leaves the round body slightly stronger (although it is undoubtedly a moot point since the traditional receiver shape is plenty strong too). I am sure there is someone with an opinion going the other way that will weigh in as well.

I like the round-body as well..and I believe it is a bit less expensive as well.

I prefer the traditional, like Mike says, this is a very subjective issue. Check them both out and select the one you like best.

I prefer the round body because I like the feel and looks of them, and since I am from Scottish ancestry, anything that reflects on the great tradition of John Dickson or David McKay Brown just fits with me.

We must mention however, that the Verney Caron is not a true trigger plate like the Dickson or McKay Brown. It is merely a round body boxlock that mimics the great Scottish makers.

And that's OK. Many other builders have tried to find the elegance and handling of the great Scots by copying them on a round body boxlock. They come close, but not nearly the same.

Put a McKay Brown in your hand, and it's over. Best handling SxS's of all time.

IMO

Aesthetics and desirability aside you might find that the round body fits in the hand better when carrying the gun.

Here are a couple of pictures showing each style. Top is a round body .470, bottom is a traditional body .577. As you can see, both are quite nice. Just comes down to personal preference.

Round Body gets my vote!

I don’t think there is 10cents worth of difference between the two structurally, and IMO the deference is esthetic only! I prefer the traditional, but have nothing against the round body. It is simply a matter of taste. Either one is made strong enough for the cartridge and load it is regulated for!

...............................................................

Though the round body sits nicely in the hand when carried, I prefer the traditional. My VC Safari Luxus is just about 5 months away. Just in time for the latter half of bear season.

quote:

Originally posted by Fo Fiddy NE:
Though the round body sits nicely in the hand when carried, I prefer the traditional. My VC Safari Luxus is just about 5 months away. Just in time for the latter half of bear season.

Same ones we were looking at and I have to agree. We really like this style.
http://forums.accuratereloadin...0101804/m/8561046881

I like the round body...looks very classy to me..

quote:

Originally posted by Pondoro:
I like the round body...looks very classy to me..

Round Body = +3

Some other options below, the internals are all the same. The only real difference is that the owner can customize there gun the way they want it. I have another frame shape coming, it should be finished for the safari shows in Jan.

Really nice!

Just curious are these pads for a QD scope mount Ken?

Yes, EAW bases

I've owned both types of VC as well. I'm a round body fan.







But they are all nice.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
There is also a secondary benefit in that the round body actually leaves more "meat" on the receiver compared to the traditional pattern when it is milled.

Would this also imply that a round action rifle (with a meatier/wider receiver) has wider wood on both sides of the tang compared to a std. receiver? If so, this added strength in a weak part of the weapon would strike me as an additional benefit of the round action. Even without this though, aesthetically speaking, it is very hard for me to argue in favor of anything other than Todd's recently acquired rifle. Gorgeous.

I will defer to Ken on that one. I would just reiterate, I think both are plenty strong and neither is going to be problem, that is why, to me it all comes down to aesthetics and personal preference.

There isn't a stronger action out there than the VC.

I went with the round body for comfort. It feels much better in MY hand.

/

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
There isn't a stronger action out there than the VC.

Jorge:

How did you reach that conclusion? What makes it stronger than a Heym, Krieghoff, Chapuis or a Merkel? Just asking. Actually, excluding the Bailey Bradshaw, I think the Blaser S2 is by far and away the strongest action but that's just me.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
There isn't a stronger action out there than the VC.

Of course you have done all the strength testing, have the metalurgy results,fired thousands of over proof loads through each and every one to be able to make that statement ?

Please enlighten us as to how you came to that conclusion.

Smart assed Tosser comments notwithstanding, I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to come up with that all by myself. I will try and find the post where a forum member did a very good treatise on the VC action, which if I remember correctly was created by a Paul Dumas disciple. It had something to do with the triple hinges the VC sports. Dave you probably are correct on the Blaser, then again we were talking about doubles

Love that Boss style forearm on the over and under!

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
I think the Blaser S2 is by far and away the strongest action but that's just me.

That's not a proper double rifle! Let's stay on topic!

Here is the quote from another forum where I chronicled my rifles progress:

"It is worth underlining that the side by side double action of the Atelier Verney-Carron has an exceptional design: instead of having a single hook between the barrels, as is common in the old and common designs, it has 3 parallel hooks which provide for an in line resistance to the opening efforts when a round is fired from either barrel.

The 3 parallel slots in which the 3 parallel hooks insert themselves can be seen on the above picture.

This break-action was designed by Paul Demas who had previously designed the Chapuis action which has 2 parallel hooks. When he designed the Azur with a 3rd parallel hook, Demas made the ultimate step forward: the design can be seen as perfect. No action can be stronger.

I consider the Verney-Carron Azur action with 3 hooks to be the finest design for double rifles. Definitely the type of action I would want on a double rifle for serious big game.

I look forward to the pictures that jorgeI will make and I hope he will include pictures of the hooks.

jorgeI congratulations for a superb and clever choice."

And the link with the quote on page four (4):

Verney-Carron

Have at it...
_____

Wouldn't the three hooks have to be thinner to maintain the same size action. Two bigger hooks or three smaller hooks. Six of one, half dozen of the other....

jorge

I don't see too many loose English guns,
are we talking over engineering here when
maybe the need isn't required ?

If the Anson and Deeley action wasn't strong enough,
why is it the most copied action ?

No issues, 505G, but there have been posts here regarding old guns shooting loose. it just made sense to me, then again, I'm biased!

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
it just made sense to me, then again, I'm biased!

We know that, otherwise you would have said
Merkel's were the better guns

I have had my Gibbs 450 NE for ten years this Jun and have put countless rounds through it. That pace increased over last summer as I prepared for my trip to Africa. This winter I had the action worked on as it was starting to get loose, the action was still on face but the bolt was getting worn which was evident by the top lever to the left of center. The Gunsmith built up the bolt then re-fitted the bolt to the bites, she is now good to go. Does this mean that the gun has a weaker action then today's new guns? It's 108 years old who knows how many rounds have been put through the gun. I would have to think that today's metallurgy is better, VC's treble hooks is certainly unique and perhaps a better mouse trap, one thing is for certain is that this conversation could rapidly become Chevy's and Ford's.
Think about the use these guns get today and by the shooters on this forum. I would speculate that my gun was shot more last summer than in most of its life time. That the average Double rifle that is carried day in day out by a PH is shot what 20 times during the course of the year? Their wear is more cosmetic than structural. I just don't think that the "average" shooter will shoot their big bore double loose in the course of their life time. If you do, good for you for enjoying your guns and keeping up your skills. If they do shoot "loose" than get them repaired.
Perhaps to observe break action guns and their comparative strength one would have to look at the shotgun world where the round count by some is in the hundreds on a weekly basis and the tens of thousands during the course of the year.
My criteria if I were to buy a new Double today. see how much money I realistically had to spend find another five grand someplace and then enter into the Chevy vs Ford argument.
Good shooting and hot barrels

I'd give my right brass ball for that Gibbs

That said, it would make for an interesting treatise for a structural engineer to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of all the actions discussed.

Double Rifle Action Strengths Compared, Respected French Paul Demas designed Verney- Carron, compared to less respected Italian Sabatti


French Paul Demas designed Verney-Carron Actions:
The Standard Directory of Proof Marks says “France joined the rest of the proof countries at the International Proof Conference in 1914, and the French proof mark is held equal to those of other countries where proof is compulsory.” In France, “proof of rifled barrels is accomplished by firing a proof load which produces an excess pressure of 30% over the normal pressure.” “Normal pressure,” usually called “service pressure” is defined as an average of the normal factory loaded pressures for specific caliber cartridges. In the 1920s, “the exploitation of high pressure as a means of advertising became widespread in France,” says the Directory, and continues somewhat to this day, with literature from the Paul Demas designed Verney-Carron Azur side by side double barreled rifle advertising boasting their “fine receivers that absorb very high pressure levels of 5,700 BAR” (the 5,700 BAR pressure was from a proof load; not from a normal service factory load, so it was 30% higher than the highest average pressure factory loaded cartridge normally chambered in this rifle, the service load). Part of the reason for this ability to absorb such a high pressure proof load, was due to their actions being made from a modern high tensile strength alloy steel, 35 NCD 16 steel. 35 NCD 16 is a French designation for this steel; it is among the highest strength, toughest steel available in the world today, with similar strength and characteristics to the American S7 super steel with. The Paul Demas designed Verney-Carron boxlock actions are a modified, improved, version of the French Chapuis action design, as Paul Demas originally worked with Chapuis before leaving that firm to begin his own firm, eventually becoming Verney-Carron, so he early on was intimately familiar with the Chapuis design. Both the Chapuis and the Paul Demas designed Verney-Carron are radically different from the more traditional action designs begun originally by the British, which have a central lump with single point hinge pin contact, and a single recoil surface on that lump. The Chapuis, on the other hand, has two point hinge pin contact with no recoil surface on lump, so barrels are sandwiched between a single wide locking bolt, while the Verney-Carron has three point hinge pin contact with a triple recoil surface, thus the Verney-Carron has three lumps in a row on underside of monoblock. Both of these French systems use a single wide under bolt, with the Verney-Carron version being 24 mm wide by 6 mm thick. The Verney-Carron uses monoblock barrel construction, which imparts good strength.

Italian Sabatti :
The Sabatti model 92SF big bore double rifle, chambered in various calibers, with all calibers using one action size and style of a traditionally designed, robust side bolstered boxlock, bolted by a traditional Purdey type top lever activated underbolt 16 mm wide by 6 mm thick, the same thickness as used on the French Verney-Carron. These Sabatti actions are also made from a tough, modern high tensile strength tri-alloy steel comparable with the strength and specifications of the French 35 NCD 16 steel and with the American S7 steel. They use monoblock barrel construction too.
The Sabatti double rifle Instruction Manual, that comes with all these rifles, shows calibers they are chambered for, along with normal factory loaded cartridge service pressures for each caliber (page 13):

.500 NE = 2800 BAR (40,610 psi) .375 H & H magnum (belted version) = 4300 BAR (62,366 psi)
.416 Rigby = 3250 BAR (47,137 psi) .450/400 NE = 2800 BAR (40,610 psi)
.470 NE = 2700 BAR (39,160 psi) .458 Winchester = 4300 BAR (62,366 psi)
.450 NE = 3050 BAR (44,236 psi)
__________________________________________

The Standard Directory of Proof Marks, regarding Italian proof, says “Arms with rifled barrels are proofed with a load that creates between 30% and 50% excess pressure” over normal service load, so these actions must absorb between 1,290 BAR (18,710 psi) and 2,150 BAR (31,183 psi) in excess of the normal factory service load for the most severe pressure factory service loaded cartridge these rifles are chambered for, the .375 H & H belted or the .458 Winchester, which both create 4300 BAR (62,366 psi)normal factory cartridge pressure. Thus, for minimum Italian proof of 30% excess pressure over service load, proof equals 5,590 BAR (81,076 psi), while maximum Italian proof, 50% excess pressure over service load, proof equals 7,450 BAR (108,053 psi). Notice that the Italian proof calls for somewhat higher proof, between 30% to 50% higher than service load than does the French proof of 30% higher than service load, so it is reasonable to assume that the proof pressure on these actions, French and Italian, are at least equal, with the Italian Sabatti probably slightly higher. Note: Proof is more applicable to barrel strength than to action strength, so aforementioned BAR pressures, normal factory service loads for specific Sabatti calibers, needs to be observed and not exceeded, but the data contained herein indicates the excellent strength of Sabatti and Verney-Carron double barreled rifle actions, and, certainly, the barrel strength is more than adequate for calibers involved too.

CIP calls for a maximum proof pressure, over standard service load, of 25%, just 5% under the 30% designated by The Standard Directory of Proof Marks for France and Italy, with Italy calling for a designation between the 30% and 50%. I am certain that the upper end figure of 50% is never done, since it is so horribly high pressure, but I am not certain how far above the 30% figure is normally done in Italian Proof Houses. I am quite certain, though, that The Standard Directory of Proof Marks is more accurate than the CIP standards, because I have seen numerous of the aforementioned Sabatti rifles (I own three of them in different calibers), with factory supplied proof certificates that clearly state that proof was done with loads between 30% and 50% above the service loads.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I don’t think there is 10cents worth of difference between the two structurally, and IMO the deference is esthetic only! I prefer the traditional, but have nothing against the round body. It is simply a matter of taste. Either one is made strong enough for the cartridge and load it is regulated for!

...............................................................

I agree with Mac. This is just a matter of aesthetics. Both are great guns. Pick the one that feels the best to you. I would have to say I also find the traditional VCs with the Rigby style rounded "mustache" style bolsters to be very attractive. I also prefer a coin finish with rose and scroll engraving. However, like Todd said, the round body may "feel" better in the hand and that means a lot too.

If you go to Heym web site, click on inventory, Chris has several nice used VCs for sale, presumably they were traded in on Heyms. Need a 577, he's got got one. I think Sam Rose has a 500 and a 577 for sale as well.

All that being said, I am still a Chapuis/Krieghoff kind of guy because you can buy them so much better and there is only so much that I am prepared to pay for a gun. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but I think the VCs are overpriced, even on the used market. I just can't find room in my budget to pay $13,500 for a used Azur Safari 470 when I can buy a New Chapuis Brousse built to my specs for $9,500. Just my two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:

All that being said, I am still a Chapuis/Krieghoff kind of guy because you can buy them so much better and there is only so much that I am prepared to pay for a gun. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but I think the VCs are overpriced, even on the used market. I just can't find room in my budget to pay $13,500 for a used Azur Safari 470 when I can buy a New Chapuis Brousse built to my specs for $9,500. Just my two cents.

Dave, how much first hand experience do you have with the VC doubles? Handling them, and shooting them?

Todd:

None. I have never even seen one in the flesh but I am sure they are very nice. However, I would add this quote from the Champlin Arms web site:

"We have had every current made boxlock double rifle in our shop, have shot them all, worked on all, had all of them apart and we know for fact that you can't buy a better one for the money than a Chapuis."

Here is a nice example:

http://www.champlinarms.com/De...StyleID=3&GunID=2229

I just think the Chapuis is the better "value." On the used market, you can usually make a very good deal on a K-gun. My 500 K-gun was listed for $8,200 and I'll bet if hadn't had more than 20 rounds through it. I think someone bought it and found the recoil to be too much.

Did not mean to hijack the thread.

Dave, and Todd I’ve handled and shot VC double rifles quite a lot! Dale Niegard (spl?) brought three brand new VC double rifles down to the 4K ranch for the DRSS to run through the paces. He brought a 450-400 3 in, a 450NE 3 1/4 in and a 470NE double along with several boxes of ammo for each rifle for about 15 members to shoot and evaluate to see if he wanted to import a small number of them. These were new rifles, and after they were run through the mill by us, he offered them to the members at used price, because he could no longer sell them as new rifles and offered them to us a used demonstrators. He also wanted to get these three rifles in the field because he knew we would write them up on AR, and NE to get the word out.

We found each of them to be very well regulated, and accurate! They were well built, and the new to the line multi under-lug system was considered to be very strong, and wasn’t likely to be prone to being shot off face easily, even though a top fastener was not employed we thought it was not needed because of the three under lug locks.

The fit and finish was very good, the wood was well fitted, and of high quality in grain structure. The selective ejector system was very positive, well timed and reliable.

The rifles had features not usually found on rifles in that price range, and we all agreed these were quality above their price at that time.

Having done this exercise myself and having field stripped them the only thing I found not to my liking was the screw that holds the ejectors in place has a tendency to work loose, and should have tiny set screw to the side to lock the ejector retainer screw in place. That was some time ago and may have been taken care of by now. If not this could be taken care of with blue locktite on the threads. However If that hasn’t been taken care of I would have JJ install a set screw in one I bought.

It is rare to find a rifle that is a relatively new design that doesn’t have a thing ot two that could be better. That lack of a set screw was the only thing we found, and an easy fix.

I would say anyone who wants a quality double rifle in the 20K range the VC Double fits the bill! I would readily recommend the VC rifles to anyone wanting a good working quality double rifle!
....................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Todd:

None. I have never even seen one in the flesh

Exactly! Sorry Dave. I don't mean to offend, but those statements you made concerning VC are a perfect example of being a keyboard expert on this subject. How can you say they are overpriced, and the Chapuis is the better buy for the money, when you haven't even seen a VC in the flesh?

Mac, I'd say your comments are spot on.

There is nothing wrong with Chapuis, just as there is nothing wrong with Merkel. But those rifles are not in the same class with VC.

I have both a VC and Chapuis. I love them both, but they are NOT created equal! They will, however, both get the job done for what they were designed to do.

There is a reason Merkel, Chapuis, Kreighoff can all be purchased in the price range at which they are usually offered, as is the case with VC and Hyem!