Double Rifle Gentlemen:
I know this post will raise the ire of many here but my questions is sincere. That said, I beg your forgiveness in advance.

Why is there such a big (relatively speaking) market for low end double rifles, and rifles in general for that matter? Allow me to explain.

The Sabattis are familiar to everyone here. But there are others available for low cost and thus low quality. Why? In the same frame of thought, why do so many new bolt action and single shot rifles, big bores and others, so popular but have no workmanship or quality? I mean synthetic stocks, laser or acid etched engraving, CNC machine work for (it seems) 100% of the metal work? Is it just to save money or are American's perception of quality and style changing?

So many of the newer rifles (Weatherby and Remington to name two), that are sold on the AR classifieds with plastic stocks. What happened to hand checkered walnut? And, if it is real wood, then pressed or laser carved patterns. Laminated birch stocks? What's next--a stock from OSB?

I understand being on a budget--I'm just a retired school teacher. However why did (perhaps) thousands of men buy Sabattis,
Siacce, etc., doubles when, for approximately the same money, a vintage black powder express could be bought? A .500 bpe can drop anything safely except elephant, hippo, and maybe a big brown bear. Buffalo are no problem for a .500 bpe. And, the quality is superb. With a history to match. Sometimes a vintage nitro double in .450-400 to .470 comes up in the $10K area.

Maybe this is a good thing as bpe rifles are still reasonably priced and if demand was higher the price would go up.

So what say you, men? Are our values changing? Is it just finances? Enlighten me and, again, if I offended any, my apologies to you.

Cheers,
Cal

Cal,

just invite me to that Blaser dinner with Biebs and I will tell you, ref the other thread

Morten

I feel frankly that it's your perception. If I wanted a BPE vintage rifle I would buy it. But why would I want it? I can buy a well made modern big bore in a modern caliber that is so much more than a conversation piece. Your opinion is that 100 years ago a craftsman with a file built a better rifle than they do today. I disagree. CNC machining is both accurate and repeatable when done properly. Elaborate hand engraving is a personal taste, and has absolutely nothing to do with the way a rifle shoots. I am a fan of good walnut, but not to the exclusion of composite when needed.

Cal your a well spoken and well read gentleman, but you assume that your likes and dislikes are the mainstream. I would disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by Macs B:
I feel frankly that it's your perception. If I wanted a BPE vintage rifle I would buy it. But why would I want it? I can buy a well made modern big bore in a modern caliber that is so much more than a conversation piece. Your opinion is that 100 years ago a craftsman with a file built a better rifle than they do today. I disagree. CNC machining is both accurate and repeatable when done properly. Elaborate hand engraving is a personal taste, and has absolutely nothing to do with the way a rifle shoots. I am a fan of good walnut, but not to the exclusion of composite when needed.

Cal your a well spoken and well read gentleman, but you assume that your likes and dislikes are the mainstream. I would disagree.

Agree 100% with Macs B. I have no desire to buy an older rifle. If I am going to spend serious money on a double rifle I prefer it be built to my specifications.

I'm with Cal on this one.

My Searcy double was a well built rifle, as was my Chapuis. Both under 10K, the Chapuis about 7K. But there are few, if any other options in doubles that are affordable.

As far as bolt rifles, I prefer to have craftsmen like Jim Kobe, and others of his craft level build them.

It is a lot of enjoyment to look for an action, pick out the perfect (for the project) blank somewhere like Walnut Grove, add a few touches, like the trap grip cap and butt plate from Duane Wiebe and decide on a checkering pattern. The exact caliber, barrel length and contour, for a specific or not so hunt.
It's way more entertainment than anything else except finding a very clean OM 70 somewhere in a caliber you don't have.

Quality demands its' price, but also has to deserve it.

There is no pride of ownership in a double that you tell your friends "will usually group four shots under six inches at 25 yards... Usually".

So yes, I am a fine walnut and blued steel guy. Add a couple yards of well done checkering, and I am in Heaven.

Biebs told me why buy any double rifle whose accuracy is best measured in hitting a oil barrel at 50 yards when you can get a modern high tech rifle like a blaser than breaks down just like a double

Doubles are expensive, inaccurate, not designed for rough hunting, ammo is expensive, shooting requires building up a skill set, don't work well with optics - the list goes on and on. Older doubles have all of these negatives exponentially increased.

I have no idea why I have one other than they are fun and cool. A pure discretionary toy.

Kind of like bow hunting - hunting with a doubles makes the hunt harder and more fun. I will find that out in may when I am hunting with the admiral in save conservancy. I will be taking a ruger 375 as a backup just in case.

Mike

quote:

Biebs told me why buy any double rifle whose accuracy is best measured in hitting a oil barrel at 50 yards when you can get a modern high tech rifle like a blaser than breaks down just like a double Smiler

How we're back to sanity! :-)

Lots of gun snobs around; if the shoe fits, wear it. Why is there a market for low priced double rifles, or bolt actions.? Simple. These are luxury goods; not necessities. Not everyone can afford the many thousands of dollars needed to buy nice classic rifles. But the desire is there even for poor people, so they gravitate to what they can afford. BPEs? Please; I have owned several but they aren't Nitros and most are side hammers; just not the same. It is a matter of affordability; easy to understand when you are at the lower end of the economic scale; hard to comprehend for the better heeled. Of course everyone wants to drive Ferraris but the vast majority of drivers can only afford Chevys, and they do get you from point A to B.
Economics, period.

Back then wild hunting potential was much more interesting than it is today.This IMO was the seed for a strong desire to build a fine rifle.

Well Cal!.

Good topic. My experience is that for most people they buy their guns with knowledge.That can either be with a little knowledge or a great knowledge. Often the money issue becomes a lesser priority. Some people are poor but they can save up money for the right thing over time. Some people can´t save up and have to spend whatever they have in their pockets right here and now.
I agree with 100% in the regards to the topic and the .500bpe. That medium caliber is much underrated to what it really can perform. I am sure many elephants in Mysore has been killed with a .500bpe.

quote:

I understand being on a budget--I'm just a retired school teacher. However why did (perhaps) thousands of men buy Sabattis,
Siacce, etc., doubles when, for approximately the same money, a vintage black powder express could be bought? A .500 bpe can drop anything safely except elephant, hippo, and maybe a big brown bear. Buffalo are no problem for a .500 bpe. And, the quality is superb. With a history to match. Sometimes a vintage nitro double in .450-400 to .470 comes up in the $10K area

For me, someone who catches animals for a living, it's all about budget. A BP double may "only" be 4k more than a new Sabatti [mine only cost me $3200 and it shoots great] but 4k to 7k for me is real money for something I can do without. Also I just don't want a BP double. At DSC I bought a sweet Merkel 961l 9.3 drilling for $6750.00 including the Kahles scope. Some on here consider the Merkel a cheap gun, for me it is my new pride and joy. It's all about your taste and perspective.

I too am with Cal on this.

I would rather have an old rifle, old furniture, an old truck, an old motorcycle, etc. than new. On the other hand I want new optics, new cameras, new bullets and such.

Luckily, I do have the old double rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by PSmith:
I too am with Cal on this.

I would rather have an old rifle, old furniture, an old truck, an old motorcycle, etc. than new. On the other hand I want new optics, new cameras, new bullets and such.

Luckily, I do have the old double rifle.

Paul:
Don't forget old women!
Gents:
Thanks for your replies. I will give some thought and post later today to clarify a bit.
Again, thank mates for your thoughts.
Cal

I also think passion has a lot to do with it. Cal and others are very passionate about old doubles, others like myself find them interesting and fun but that is where it ends for me. If I wanted and old double bad enough I could find a way to make it happen, I just don't have the desire to justify it. To each there own, everybody has their passion. It's almost like asking the Dall sheep hunter why he would spend 20k on a sheep when for 10k more he could have an elephant. Sheep are his passion, elephants are not.

Point is that there are still plenty of fine rifles being built. And there are still plenty of people with enough disposable income to enjoy them. BUT, some are ignoring the real fact that there are far more guys out here who like to, (or would like to) play (yes, it is a game) with Double Rifles and simply cannot afford the kind of money it takes to play in the game with the big kids. So, guys like me are forced to use the Krieghoff, Chapuis' and yes, even the Baikals of the world. These are the low end stuff that the real connoisseurs wouldn't touch. I am sure everyone likes the old, classic, expensive toys. Reality must be faced and it all comes down to money. From my perspective, it is easy to see; from the top looking down, it is hard to understand. Just save a bit more and buy an "X", I have to laugh when people say that.

"Why the low quality in many of today's rifles?" == Because many people can't or won't pay for better. Factories wouldn't be making rifles they couldn't sell. Apparently, lowest price point has become the driving force for much of the rifle consumer market.

Cheaper manufacturing techniques have been exploited to the max. Now, it appears, all that is left to cheapen is material, tolerances, and finish. Perhaps developments in 3-D printing or some other emerging technology will allow further reductions in cost. Everyone ready to buy the $150 plastic and sintered DGR?

Here are a few things I consider.

asthetics. I don't like the "look" of some guns so this rules them out regardless of price.

cost. I would love fully custom rifle with AAAA+++ wood. The reality is that I cannot afford this.

cartridge. I like to the 450-400 3" and while I appreciate a .600 NE it does not float my boat... well not at this point in my life. Things can change. How easy is it to get ammo/components. If you cannot shoot it due to hard to find components then why own it?

If something breaks on an old rifle where will you get it repaired and at what cost? The newer rifles provide some confidence against the rare manufacturing defect with factory and or distributor warranties.

I have some rifles with "plastic" stocks but my preference is for nice wood. I think to a large degree it boils down to personal preference. I don't care for Mercedes Benz but would love a BMW or Jaguar. Despite this I drive a RAM 1500. I like the design and it suits my needs.

Eric

I think the style, beauty and balance of an old british double is hard to beat....new doubles, exept V-C, dont do it for me and most new brits are in the stratosphere pricewise..

I am anything but rich, but have been able to aquire a largebore old english double, a Purdey shotgun and some vintage Mannlichers by years of dealing....it is possible, the bargains are still out there..

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

Doubles are expensive, inaccurate, not designed for rough hunting, ammo is expensive, shooting requires building up a skill set, don't work well with optics - the list goes on and on. Older doubles have all of these negatives exponentially increased.

Not sure I agree with any of the foregoing except that doubles and double ammunition are expensive (at least relative to off the rack bolt action rifles in run of the mill calibers), particularly the suggestion that older doubles are exponentially worse in each category. Doubles are intended for a particular type of hunting. In that regard they are more than accurate, were never intended to be used with optics and so rugged that in days past individuals that depended on their weapons for making a living and staying a live, almost universally chose a double rifle.

As to Cal's initial post, I think the appeal of low end doubles is not that different from the appeal of cheap scotch and cigars, inexpensive vehicles and the like. They are a great entry point or starter point. However, as folks develop a finer eye, a more discerning taste and more disposable income many tend to gravitate to English doubles, finer scotch, better cigars and nicer vehicles. There is also no doubt that English doubles do a far better job of holding their value than any other double.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

Doubles are expensive, inaccurate, not designed for rough hunting, ammo is expensive, shooting requires building up a skill set, don't work well with optics - the list goes on and on. Older doubles have all of these negatives exponentially increased.

Not sure I agree with any of the foregoing except that doubles and double ammunition are expensive (at least relative to off the rack bolt action rifles in run of the mill calibers), particularly the suggestion that older doubles are exponentially worse in each category. Doubles are intended for a particular type of hunting. In that regard they are more than accurate, were never intended to be used with optics and so rugged that in days past individuals that depended on their weapons for making a living and staying a live, almost universally chose a double rifle.

As to Cal's initial post, I think the appeal of low end doubles is not that different from the appeal of cheap scotch and cigars, inexpensive vehicles and the like. They are a great entry point or starter point. However, as folks develop a finer eye, a more discerning taste and more disposable income many tend to gravitate to English doubles, finer scotch, better cigars and nicer vehicles. There is also no doubt that English doubles do a far better job of holding their value than any other double.

Jines, you sitting down. If not please do. I agree with you.

This double, my first and supposedly last, is worth more now than the day I bought it. Joyce is considering selling her 1905 450/400 and there is no doubt it will bring a fair amount more than I paid for it.



There's a romantic notion when holding this gun even in one's living room. Gazing at it I see images of an old artisan sitting at his bench by the good light from a window carefully doing that scroll work by hand. No lasers, no machines.

I wonder what history that gun could tell me if it spoke. It was born in 1902 and who knows where it's traveled.

Opinions are like Hemorrhoids, sooner or later every asshole gets one so mine is no better than anyone else's but I'll say this.....

Buy a new Searcy, V-C, Hyem, Sabatti, or K-gun and enjoy it. When and if you sell it, someone else will enjoy it for likely less than you paid.

Cheers
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

Don't forget rare fine old women!

Fixed!!

Amen to that...

MJines,
Close on all points!
However, there are grades of all products and services. For example, a fine cigar for President Clinton is said to cost $1,000 each. For others the cost is $5 or 10 or 20 , ad infinitum. My real pleasure is finding a good cheap cigar that has all the attributes of an "expensive" cigar but cost. In fact I am presently enjoying every one of a box of 50 such "cheap" cigars which are equal to or better than the best Punch cigar around (and I have tried them). This is real satisfying and, no, I will not mention the name because as the demand goes up, so does the price. That has happened to me many times with wines, so now, I just enjoy and keep my mouth shut (on the cigar).

Hoarding cigar secrets . . . and from your double rifle compadres no less.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Hoarding cigar secrets . . . and from your double rifle compadres no less.

I thought of PM'ing him. I'll keep his secret.

quote:

As to Cal's initial post, I think the appeal of low end doubles is not that different from the appeal of cheap scotch and cigars, inexpensive vehicles and the like. They are a great entry point or starter point. However, as folks develop a finer eye, a more discerning taste and more disposable income many tend to gravitate to English doubles, finer scotch, better cigars and nicer vehicles. There is also no doubt that English doubles do a far better job of holding their value than any other double.

Mike

Eloquently said..

I can apreciate peoples love for fine craftmenship but speaking as someone who was supposed to be dead last may it still is just stuff

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Biebs told me why buy any double rifle whose accuracy is best measured in hitting a oil barrel at 50 yards

Size matters!!



But to Biebs' credit, a man has to know HIS limitations!

Men:
Allow me to clarify a bit and add an email from a gent who would prefer not to make his opinion known on AR. Let's forget my bias towards doubles and vintage doubles. Let's take a look at bolt action rifles of American manufacture for me to clarify my point(s) on quality.

The Winchester Model 70, pre 1964, is a fine rifle by anyone's standards. I don't think a hunter, shooter, or collector or whomever can find fault with the pre '64 Model 70s. Then Winchester cheapened the rifle. Pressed checkering, some stamped metal parts, push feed. People still bought the Model 70 and in the '90s (I think) Winchester brought back the control feed.

Look at other makers. Weatherby has always been a high end rifle of quality. (I own a 1952 Weatherby in .270 and it is as nice a a pre-'64 Model 70). Now, Weatherby makes synthetic stocks and their carving is done by laser. Why? Supply and demand. The makers only make what will sell and the American rifle buying public has changed over the years to accept lesser quality. Maybe it is for money, maybe it is change of values. Synthetic stocks are fine for coastal Alaska but so many makers, including many custom makers, produce injection moulded plastic stock they put on their sub minute of angle whiz bang magnum. It seems to me many of today's custom features were off the shelf two generations ago.

Here is the email from a gent who follows AR:

Hi Cal,
Reading your thread about classic DR's vs Modern, continental guns. I agree with you. The reason guys are buying the less expensive rifles is, they want to be "in the game" but really cant afford to. So, they take a much less expensive option and expect to be treated as if their $7000 Chapuis is the same as your vintage 600 Wilkes.
I replied with:
You made the choice to have a quality modern double built rather than a vintage double. Quality is quality regardless of age.
I equate what you say here with the gent who buys a modern single shot .600 but due to recoil he loads it down to a .400. But can still say, "I own a .600."

We all buy what we want and can afford. I just think it is sad so many "settle" for less. Rifles are a work of art (or can be). Even utility rifles of the 1950s were of a higher quality than many custom rifles today. I'm not being snobby here as I've always been a middle income school teacher. Personally, within my income level, I would rather have one quality rifle than five of the other.

Just my rants and what I like is only important to me. It is interesting to get other views and I thank all of you for that.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

Don't forget rare fine old women!

Fixed!!

No doubt, Jim, you lucked out. Tell me, does she have a single sister? Mother?
Cal

Cal at most gun shops or all the gun show in central florida you will be surprised to find a wood stocked gun.

We have moved into a world of tactical stuff. That is where the market is and where it is going.

Want to see good rifles you need to go to dsc or sci.

Ruger used to give you a damn good rifle in 375 and 416 ruger for sub 1000. But given new and improved world - we now get a crappy paddle stock and a muzzle brake.

Having grown up shooting old guns in India - its not a lot of fun when a govt. imposes only old guns on you. Especially when ammo is not available and quality of gun smithing sucks.

Mike

For me, performance and value always come first, and I usually will modify what I buy to make it better. While I love pre 64 M70s, I am down to only one. I just get better accuracy, lighter weight, and more reliable function out of a modern CRF M70 in a good synthetic stock. CNC machining is very precise and consistent, meaning the a newer rifle is much less of a crap shoot than an older rifle.

I find the same is true in most things. My 2011 Duramax is light years ahead of anything produced 20+ years ago in terms of power, durability, and reliability. I love the look of a '66 Vette, but even a big block '66 is way outmatched by a modern base coupe. My main hobby is playing trumpet and a good modern trumpet runs circles around vintage horns.

Now I do appreciate and admire the quality of hand fit craftsmanship, but not enough to spend double or triple just to have something pretty that performs no better.

Interesting topic. For me if it's not vintage, oddball and interesting I'm generally not interested. However the flip side of that is I have less "play time" in terms of number of guns owned than a lot of others simply because I couldn't afford to get in the game.

So as a lot of others have pointed out money talks (or lack thereof)...and certainly an appreciation of fine old guns is the determining factor when one considers which toys to play with.

Cal, you have a good point but I do think there is a place for “modern doubles”. You will have to admit not every double made in the past or as some are fond of saying “THE GOLDEN AGE” are quality rifles or shotguns. How many thousands of words are posted hear and on other places about checking out that old double so you don’t get a burnt. Yes I know the top tier makers did turn out quality rifles but many were destroyed by lack of care over the years. This is part of the reason they command top dollar.
Now the flip side if you don’t have an avenue to bring people into the world of doubles the demand for older quality rifles will go down. If a person can’t find a double that he can afford he will just go on shooting his bolt gun or Blaser. I would like to see someone make a $2500 double that shot well. This would be a starter rifle for many. I did not get by the Sabatti booth but I hope they can come back with a quality “starter” rifle. Once you have a new double shooter you can teach the difference in quality of the older rifles. The use of modern manufacturing can produce a rifle of the same quality or higher than the vintage rifles out of better materials.
Cal pointed out the pre 1964 Winchester Model 70 as an example of great rifle. Yes this was a good rifle but it was a starter rifle for many shooters. I can remember when the gun writers made their living writing articles on how to modify the model 70 so it would shoot better. One month the model 70 the next the Remington. This is where the fascination of the one inch group was borne. Yes they cheapened the rifle post 1964 but that was bean counters making decisions.
Bill

Mr. Pappas,
I greatly enjoy your posts and your writings have helped to fuel the desire to own a double but as of now, I do not own one. I’ll take a stab at answering your question because when it comes time to purchase one, it will be mostly likely be a Merkel or Chapius or maybe even a Sabatti. My short answer to your question as to why someone would buy a cheap double as opposed to a nice one would be to say it is a matter of perspective and what you think a rifle should be. And in my case I don’t want to mess with nasty black powder, patched bullets and some relic with exposed hammers (my opinion). The long answer would be: It’s a money thing but not in the way you think. Yes, I can afford to have Butch Searcy or Heym or similar build me a nice double. Would I? Most likely not, because to me, any firearm is a just a tool to be used and not a work of art to hang on a wall and admire. The beauty you see it lost on me. I will take function over form anytime. So with that thought, things become a matter of diminishing returns. $9,000 gets me a reliable rifle in 470, 450/400 or 500 NE. So at what point past “It goes bang every time and hits where I aim it” does all else become irrelevant? To me it happens pretty quick. But to phrase it another way, at what point do you define quality? Hand milled, fancy engraving, fancy wood, flawless fit and finish?
Are all those things that much better as far as durability, reliability and accuracy when compared to a CNC machined receiver, plain strong wood and no engraving or are they just fluff? If they both do as designed, is a Holland Royale really that much better than a Merkel or is it just more expensive because it took a few English craftsman a year to make it by hand? To you yes they are because that is what you appreciate. To me no, they both do the same thing. One does it $100,000 less than the other. Is it a butt ugly rifle to you? Maybe. To me, it’s beautiful.
As an example, I have a $400 package deal Savage in 22-250..tupperware stock, cheap scope, not a bit of handmade anything on it. It is the most accurate rifle I own and feeds and functions just fine. I have put 3 shots in a nickel @ 100 yards on several occasions when I am on my game and once under a dime. It ticks me off to think about really, because I have several bolt rifles, custom and semi-custom, that cost thousands more and don’t shoot as good. Is it that my rifle is just a one-off fluke? Maybe, but I have a buddy that has one in 223 and his shoots just as good. To my mind, that’s a quality rifle regardless of who made it or how. Would the best that D’arcy Echols or Jim Kobe make do that much better? Possibly in hands other than mine they might. Is it worth $15,000 to myself for a fancy stock and a hand lapped barrel and a 1/8” better grouping. Not to me.

Please don’t think I am trying to step on anyone’s toes with my comments because I am not. Only offering my views on your question. And please don’t think I don’t appreciate craftsmanship and beauty. I do, it’s just not something I am willing to pay a premium for.

All valid points with one left out.

I own a $750 Tikka Super Lite I use in the mountains. It weighs the same and shoots as accurately as a friends $4,000 Basner.

Now if that friends gun was a Winchester pre-64 feather weight in some rare caliber with the same weight attributes the difference would be this.

If either of us sold our rifles, I would maybe get $500 for mine a loss of 33% and he would likely get all he had in the Pre-64 and maybe more than he paid.

The vintage guns, especially British doubles, tend to increase in value and that fact matters to some people. For me, mine is a turn of the century work of art, that fits, like a glove, points instinctively, shoots accurately, and will travel to Africa this year.

That said, financially it's like a mutual fund I get to fondle and enjoy and then someday pass on to a family member or sell at a profit.

A modern gun can not be that in my lifetime.

Cheers
Jim

Well here's something to consider I think. Since the dawn of man, weapons have never been seen as strictly tools. Weapons form a distinct place in 'art', whatever that is. That's why since the Stone Age, weapon makers have added ornamentation or other decorative features to the weapons.

Example, have you ever held a Folsom spear point? The makers added the long flutes for reasons other than strict functionality. Lots of other arrow heads and spear points are like that. We have been making weapons artistically pleasing for thousands of years, I think originally because the weapons were the most important possession a man had, since his life (and his family's lives) depended on it, whether for warfare or hunting.

Go to any museum that has arms and armor (such as Chicago's) on display. You won't see a plain Jane sword there although of course a sword with ornamentation doesn't work any better than a plain one. Africans painted their shields (and themselves) just as the American Indians did.

Sure, a $500 Savage rifle can shoot just as accurately as a 1935 Holland & Holland or one of Duane Wiebe's modern masterpieces. So if you don't value the art and a rifle is only a tool then buy the Savage. Makes no sense not too. But on the other hand if you value the art and tradition of weapons then you might pay the money to have that art.

If you pick up an old English rifle then you are holding not just a tool, but a firearm that represents the whole history of English gunmaking; the craftmanship and artistry of weapons. And the history of the 'art' if you will, of the hunting fields. Every time I hold my Jeffery .450 No. 2 I think of Africa and India, and Bell, Selous, Corbett, Baker, etc.

Even hand tools are not just tools. Ever see a Cecil Pierce wooden plane? Or a Lie-Nielsen plane? I guess it comes down to which school of thought you follow, is a firearm merely a tool or is it more? In any case a firearm is an asset, and all assets have costs associated with their many attributes. That's what we mean when we say we pay for the name when we buy Holland & Holland or Jeffery, etc. Some rifles you have to pay for the artistry. Do they function any differently than a Savage? No, but that is not the point. A Prius functions 99 percent the same as a 1963 Corvette (as in going from A to B at the speed limit) but who among us would choose the Prius?

I just happen to appreciate history and old things. Not all of us do. There is no rifle I would rather have than a pre-war Rigby Rising Bite .450 NE. There is no motorcycle made that I would prefer to a 1950 Vincent Black Shadow. Is a new BMW a better motorcycle? Of course it is. If I could have any civilian airplane it would be a Beechcraft Staggerwing. I would trade my Hummer H2 in a heartbeat for a 1950 Dodge Power Wagon, and so on.

quote:

Originally posted by PSmith:
Well here's something to consider I think. Since the dawn of man, weapons have never been seen as strictly tools. Weapons form a distinct place in 'art', whatever that is. That's why since the Stone Age, weapon makers have added ornamentation or other decorative features to the weapons.

Example, have you ever held a Folsom spear point? The makers added the long flutes for reasons other than strict functionality. Lots of other arrow heads and spear points are like that. We have been making weapons artistically pleasing for thousands of years, I think originally because the weapons were the most important possession a man had, since his life (and his family's lives) depended on it, whether for warfare or hunting.

Go to any museum that has arms and armor (such as Chicago's) on display. You won't see a plain Jane sword there although of course a sword with ornamentation doesn't work any better than a plain one. Africans painted their shields (and themselves) just as the American Indians did.

Sure, a $500 Savage rifle can shoot just as accurately as a 1935 Holland & Holland or one of Duane Wiebe's modern masterpieces. So if you don't value the art and a rifle is only a tool then buy the Savage. Makes no sense not too. But on the other hand if you value the art and tradition of weapons then you might pay the money to have that art.

If you pick up an old English rifle then you are holding not just a tool, but a firearm that represents the whole history of English gunmaking; the craftmanship and artistry of weapons. And the history of the 'art' if you will, of the hunting fields. Every time I hold my Jeffery .450 No. 2 I think of Africa and India, and Bell, Selous, Corbett, Baker, etc.

Even hand tools are not just tools. Ever see a Cecil Pierce wooden plane? Or a Lie-Nielsen plane? I guess it comes down to which school of thought you follow, is a firearm merely a tool or is it more? In any case a firearm is an asset, and all assets have costs associated with their many attributes. That's what we mean when we say we pay for the name when we buy Holland & Holland or Jeffery, etc. Some rifles you have to pay for the artistry. Do they function any differently than a Savage? No, but that is not the point. A Prius functions 99 percent the same as a 1963 Corvette (as in going from A to B at the speed limit) but who among us would choose the Prius?

I just happen to appreciate history and old things. Not all of us do. There is no rifle I would rather have than a pre-war Rigby Rising Bite .450 NE. There is no motorcycle made that I would prefer to a 1950 Vincent Black Shadow. Is a new BMW a better motorcycle? Of course it is. If I could have any civilian airplane it would be a Beechcraft Staggerwing. I would trade my Hummer H2 in a heartbeat for a 1950 Dodge Power Wagon, and so on.

So well spoken, and from a gentleman hunter. Paul’s a class act.

I also share Paul’s feelings regarding vintage works of art. I own several, but cannot afford some that I would like to have.

I own a Bradshaw DR that to me is a work of art and is not vintage. I do own a vintage Scottish hammer shotgun and a couple of German drillings that I consider vintage. I have a Luxus Model 11 that is as fine as anything made 100 years ago, and a Steyr Mannlicher full stock, a Merkel sidelock shotgun which is every bit as nice as any English sidelock, and many more. In fact, I am probably gun poor, but I do love great craftmanship and engraving, and sleek lines, etc.

That’s probably why my favorite cartridge is the .300 H&H. Purely aesthetic and traditional. I would rather own only one classic firearm than 30 rifles/shotguns that will get the job done.

I also like fine watches, autos, classic golf courses, well designed clothing, Barbour and Le Chameau apparel and boots, and a certain beautiful and classy lady. But that’s just me.

To each their own. That’s what makes the world turn.

Paul, you nailed it. Very well stated . . . and from someone (yourself) who is normally pretty succinct in expressing his views.

For me a rifle is a tool no different than a hammer, which is one of my favorite tools. I understand the "art" aspect of owning a fine rifle. What I do not understand is the immediate denigration of almost anything not old and English.

While I will not buy a factory bolt action rifle for various reasons there are many excellent gun makers. My rifles in non-wood stocks fit me well, are more accurate than any old English rifle, and have been extremely dependable. I do not care if it was made on a CNC lathe or not. I guess since D’Arcy Echols sell plastic rifles he is not up to the standard set here. Why the hatred for fiberglass/plastic/ etc?

The same goes for the doubles. One look at a piss poor picture and a rifle is terrible. I respect the hell out of the guys buying Sabattis and hunting Africa with them. Trapper Tom, I hope you have a great trip and enjoy hunting with your double. (BTW I made a living once upon a time trapping). I can speak to Krieghoff since I own one. It is solid, well made, regulates well with different loads, and has been perfect in the dependability department. It looks a little worn with plenty of honest hunting wear but I enjoy hunting with it very much. Is it the same as an English double? No it is not, but for the purpose I use it the rifle cannot be beat.

That is all fine, and Cal, this rambling will not change your mind even if you read it and it really matters not to me. I learned a while back not to let things on a forum bother me. While you may look down on me for my trashy rifles I do not care.

What does bother me some is this.

quote:

The reason guys are buying the less expensive rifles is, they want to be "in the game" but really cant afford to. So, they take a much less expensive option and expect to be treated as if their $7000 Chapuis is the same as your vintage 600 Wilkes.

There pretty much is not a double that I cannot afford. I may not look or act like that is the case, but it is the truth. However, I would not treat a Sabatti owner any different than an H&H owner based on the rifle they shoot. But it is that typical arrogant attitude of many double rifle owners that keeps me from having any affiliation with the high end rifles as I prefer not to deal with or be associated that sort of person.

This should put a few people in a state of shock.



This one should win classiest rifle of the year.