Since I am a newbie to double rifles and this forum, just wondering if "screw timing" and rifle attractiveness has anything to do with how it shoots?

Larry Sellers
SCI (International) Life Member
Sabatti "trash" Shooter

No, but you get style point deductions for poorly timed screws.

It's an indication of attention to detail in the building process. Just another shortcut showing itself.

Thanks Mike, good answer. Just wondering, do you check the time it takes to take a screw out or to put it back in???

Larry Sellers
SCI (International)Life Member
Sabatti "trash" Shooter

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
No, but you get style point deductions for poorly timed screws.

i think screws that take a long time are better... at least that's what i am told

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
I wonder why someone would need a matched pair of DRs?

Driven cape buffalo!!! Duhhh!!!

Brett

PS> Perhaps they'd be handy with a gun boy on a cull hunt in Australia.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
I do not own a Searcy Double nor do I intend to. I know folks who have them. I know folks that are personal friends with Butch and he comes highly regarded as a very nice guy.

He also comes highly regarded as someone who stands behind his guns as far as repairs and corrections are concerned. I think that is a good trait. The worrisome part could be that he needs to repair or stand behind them at all. I've seen many a reference to this need for repairs here on AR. That would concern me and certainly keeps me from considering one.

Frostbit, I don’t understand your post above. Maybe I am simply not reading it correctly.
It seems you are saying that if a maker won't stand behind his product, then he is not someone to be avoided, and his rifle never need repair, but then if he does stand behind his product even when the product has been bought and sold several times, it is somehow because his product is inferior, and needs lots of repairs and is to be avoided.

I fail to see how a maker can win your confidence!

The fact is almost every brand I have seen posted here as having need of repair except a B. Searcy, in most cases have to be sent to JJ or someone other than the maker to get it working at great expense to the buyer. While in my experience in most cases, if there is any charge at all, on a Searcy, it is minimal (comparatively) for anything he does to one of his rifles! I’d say that alone trumps any other repair work done on any other brand of double rifle.

As I've said on many occasions, I have never owned a Searcy rifle, so I have no dog in this fight, other than knowing Butch as I do. I have known many who have owned Searcy doubles, and I have not found his rifles to be more likely to need repair than most other brands.

Of course nobody here asked my opinion, but there it is for what it's worth.

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

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
I do not own a Searcy Double nor do I intend to. I know folks who have them. I know folks that are personal friends with Butch and he comes highly regarded as a very nice guy.

He also comes highly regarded as someone who stands behind his guns as far as repairs and corrections are concerned. I think that is a good trait. The worrisome part could be that he needs to repair or stand behind them at all. I've seen many a reference to this need for repairs here on AR. That would concern me and certainly keeps me from considering one.

Frostbit, I don’t understand your post above. Maybe I am simply not reading it correctly.
It seems you are saying that if a maker won't stand behind his product, then he is not someone to be avoided, and his rifle never need repair, but then if he does stand behind his product even when the product has been bought and sold several times, it is somehow because his product is inferior, and needs lots of repairs and is to be avoided.

I fail to see how a maker can win your confidence!

The fact is almost every brand I have seen posted here as having need of repair except a B. Searcy, in most cases have to be sent to JJ or someone other than the maker to get it working at great expense to the buyer. While in my experience in most cases, if there is any charge at all, on a Searcy, it is minimal (comparatively) for anything he does to one of his rifles! I’d say that alone trumps any other repair work done on any other brand of double rifle.

As I've said on many occasions, I have never owned a Searcy rifle, so I have no dog in this fight, other than knowing Butch as I do. I have known many who have owned Searcy doubles, and I have not found his rifles to be more likely to need repair than most other brands.

Of course nobody here asked my opinion, but there it is for what it's worth.

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

Maybe that was worded poorly. Sorry about that.

1) No dog in the race either - Never owned a Searcy

2) Many on here, at least it seemed like many, have raved about Butch being a great honorable guy that stands behind his rifles. On most of those statements it's because he HAD to stand behind his rifles. Agreed, it's a good trait to stand behind them. Not sure it reflects positively that they need stood behind.

Lastly, whether it's accurate or hearsay on AR, sounds like he's backing off from the business a bit. That would concern me as far as repairs are concerned.

That being said, there is no Webley or Army Navy to "stand behind" my double, or Lawn & Alder / Osbourne to stand behind Joyce's. They are both over 100 years old. I hope the "kinks' have been worked out by now.

Screw timing has one huge benefit. That is you can see if one of the screws is coming loose. Just as truckers here in Europe put those funny plastic triangle shaped things on their wheelnuts.

I would not hestitate in taking a quality weapon, of any type, out shooting as long as I though that it was robust and unlikely to fail.

In fact I'd have more confidence in an expensive "name" weapon than in a cheap weapon of unknown or uncertain make.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frostbit:
I do not own a Searcy Double nor do I intend to. I know folks who have them. I know folks that are personal friends with Butch and he comes highly regarded as a very nice guy.

He also comes highly regarded as someone who stands behind his guns as far as repairs and corrections are concerned. I think that is a good trait. The worrisome part could be that he needs to repair or stand behind them at all. I've seen many a reference to this need for repairs here on AR. That would concern me and certainly keeps me from considering one.

As someone who is seriously considering buying a double big bore rifle I been reading every post here for about the last 4 months. I would be a lot more worried about the VC rifles that had to be re regulated. Srose and Todds come to my mind quickly. Also seems to be a lot of VC rifles that have seen little use being offered for sale here. Must be a reason they keep on popping up for sale on a regular basis. Seems pretty sure that in every case Mr Searcy takes the time to post his opinion and offers to fix the rifles he built.

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frostbit:
I do not own a Searcy Double nor do I intend to. I know folks who have them. I know folks that are personal friends with Butch and he comes highly regarded as a very nice guy.

He also comes highly regarded as someone who stands behind his guns as far as repairs and corrections are concerned. I think that is a good trait. The worrisome part could be that he needs to repair or stand behind them at all. I've seen many a reference to this need for repairs here on AR. That would concern me and certainly keeps me from considering one.

As someone who is seriously considering buying a double big bore rifle I been reading every post here for about the last 4 months. I would be a lot more worried about the VC rifles that had to be re regulated. Srose and Todds come to my mind quickly. Also seems to be a lot of VC rifles that have seen little use being offered for sale here. Must be a reason they keep on popping up for sale on a regular basis. Seems pretty sure that in every case Mr Searcy takes the time to post his opinion and offers to fix the rifles he built.

I wouldn't be concerned about purchasing a VC at all. I've owned two now and I'm looking at another. Firstly, Sam's rifle that needed re-regulation was his Hyem, not his VC. But yes, mine needed work. However, VC stood behind the repair 100%. Paid for everything and got the rifle put at the front of the line for the repair work. I wasn't happy about it needing repairs. Not at all. But I'm 100% satisfied with the way they stood behind it and the rifle is 100% today. No problems at all and it shoots very well.

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:
As someone who is seriously considering buying a double big bore rifle I been reading every post here for about the last 4 months. I would be a lot more worried about the VC rifles that had to be re regulated. Srose and Todds come to my mind quickly. Also seems to be a lot of VC rifles that have seen little use being offered for sale here. Must be a reason they keep on popping up for sale on a regular basis. Seems pretty sure that in every case Mr Searcy takes the time to post his opinion and offers to fix the rifles he built.

AKCaster on the rifles that had to be re-regulated, I agree that would worry me more than anything about any rifle make. That is the one place where I see no legitimate excuse for a rifle to leave the maker's shop with that problem. However because you see a lot of fairly new doubles for sale on the market doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with them. Most "off the shelf" double rifles sold new are bought by first time buyers to double rifles. That fact alone is one reason you see them for sale. Many buy them then find they are not what they thought they were, and discover they are not really double rifle people and they cannot be treated like a bolt rifle with two barrels, and become disillusioned with them quickly.

Then you have guys like Biebs, and Todd Williams, who simply buy new different doubles often, not because there is anything wrong with them but they simply want something different, so they sell one to finance the new one. In the case of Todd he bought a new V/C 577NE double, and found he liked a 500NE better so sold the 577NE to buy a new 500NE round body V/C. Simply a matter of preference.

I have always recommended anyone new to double rifles buy NEW, in preference to a vintage double rifle. For the main reason listed above. If he finds he is simply not a double rifle man, the little loss percentage on the resale will be a lot less than it would on a vintage, and sell more quickly. One other thing most people who are new to double rifles tend to buy a double chambered for a cartridge in too large like a 577NE chambering, when the biggest thing they have ever shot is a 338 win mag. then find they will not shoot it enough to develop proper handling, and instinctive shooting necessary to become proficient with the rifle. So it goes up for sale to buy a new stainless steel bolt action rifle in 375H&H with a scope and synthetic stock. ..............And I buy the double rifle!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

I have always recommended anyone new to double rifles buy NEW, in preference to a vintage double rifle. For the main reason listed above. If he finds he is simply not a double rifle man, the little loss percentage on the resale will be a lot less than it would on a vintage, and sell more quickly.

Mac, I disagree. If the foregoing is your logic, someone should actually buy vintage not new. The odds of losing money on a vintage rifle are a lot less than losing money on a new rifle. A new double is like a new car, as soon as it leaves the lot it is worth less than it was sitting on the lot. I have never made money on a new double I sold; I have never lost money on a vintage double I sold. Also, in general, you will move a good vintage rifle quicker. Just look at the classified section on AR. Lots of late model doubles that tend to sit there for sale a long time, particularly ones that are >$10K. And as someone else pointed out, you generally hear about fewer issues with the vintage rifles since most problems/issues, if any, have been sorted a long time ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frostbit:
I do not own a Searcy Double nor do I intend to. I know folks who have them. I know folks that are personal friends with Butch and he comes highly regarded as a very nice guy.

He also comes highly regarded as someone who stands behind his guns as far as repairs and corrections are concerned. I think that is a good trait. The worrisome part could be that he needs to repair or stand behind them at all. I've seen many a reference to this need for repairs here on AR. That would concern me and certainly keeps me from considering one.

As someone who is seriously considering buying a double big bore rifle I been reading every post here for about the last 4 months. I would be a lot more worried about the VC rifles that had to be re regulated. Srose and Todds come to my mind quickly. Also seems to be a lot of VC rifles that have seen little use being offered for sale here. Must be a reason they keep on popping up for sale on a regular basis. Seems pretty sure that in every case Mr Searcy takes the time to post his opinion and offers to fix the rifles he built.

I wouldn't be concerned about purchasing a VC at all. I've owned two now and I'm looking at another. Firstly, Sam's rifle that needed re-regulation was his Hyem, not his VC. But yes, mine needed work. However, VC stood behind the repair 100%. Paid for everything and got the rifle put at the front of the line for the repair work. I wasn't happy about it needing repairs. Not at all. But I'm 100% satisfied with the way they stood behind it and the rifle is 100% today. No problems at all and it shoots very well.

Quote from Sroses post:
"Verney Carron 577 had triggers lock up after first two shots. Dealer offered to send to gunsmith but I didn't have time to wait so I disassembled the gun and fixed it. The same gun later started spewing rust and salts out between the ribs. Dealer sent it back to factory for repair and 8 months later I got gun back and was unhappy with to results so I had them make me a new gun. Took 8 months to get that one".

He mentioned needing trigger work on his Heym, no problem with regulation. This is his quote:

"Heym 577 that I ordered had firing pins that didn't protrude enough and had a few misfires. Chambers were really tight so sent it to JJ for adjustment and rechambering. Just got thaat one back and am happy with the results".

Interesting, I don't think I have ever read a post on here about a Heym needing to be re regulated.

I am leaning towards a Heym if a new rifle is ordered but think vintage is currently winning the race for me. From what I been reading the only other newly produced double rifle that has more regulation issues than the VC is a Sabatti. If I am incorrect please fell free to tell me about other brands in the 10K + $$$ range that have as many regulation issues. I am here to learn, not to argue.

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frostbit:
I do not own a Searcy Double nor do I intend to. I know folks who have them. I know folks that are personal friends with Butch and he comes highly regarded as a very nice guy.

He also comes highly regarded as someone who stands behind his guns as far as repairs and corrections are concerned. I think that is a good trait. The worrisome part could be that he needs to repair or stand behind them at all. I've seen many a reference to this need for repairs here on AR. That would concern me and certainly keeps me from considering one.

As someone who is seriously considering buying a double big bore rifle I been reading every post here for about the last 4 months. I would be a lot more worried about the VC rifles that had to be re regulated. Srose and Todds come to my mind quickly. Also seems to be a lot of VC rifles that have seen little use being offered for sale here. Must be a reason they keep on popping up for sale on a regular basis. Seems pretty sure that in every case Mr Searcy takes the time to post his opinion and offers to fix the rifles he built.

I wouldn't be concerned about purchasing a VC at all. I've owned two now and I'm looking at another. Firstly, Sam's rifle that needed re-regulation was his Hyem, not his VC. But yes, mine needed work. However, VC stood behind the repair 100%. Paid for everything and got the rifle put at the front of the line for the repair work. I wasn't happy about it needing repairs. Not at all. But I'm 100% satisfied with the way they stood behind it and the rifle is 100% today. No problems at all and it shoots very well.

Quote from Sroses post:
"Verney Carron 577 had triggers lock up after first two shots. Dealer offered to send to gunsmith but I didn't have time to wait so I disassembled the gun and fixed it. The same gun later started spewing rust and salts out between the ribs. Dealer sent it back to factory for repair and 8 months later I got gun back and was unhappy with to results so I had them make me a new gun. Took 8 months to get that one".

He mentioned needing trigger work on his Heym, no problem with regulation. This is his quote:

"Heym 577 that I ordered had firing pins that didn't protrude enough and had a few misfires. Chambers were really tight so sent it to JJ for adjustment and rechambering. Just got thaat one back and am happy with the results".

Interesting, I don't think I have ever read a post on here about a Heym needing to be re regulated.

I am leaning towards a Heym if a new rifle is ordered but think vintage is currently winning the race for me. From what I been reading the only other newly produced double rifle that has more regulation issues than the VC is a Sabatti. If I am incorrect please fell free to tell me about other brands in the 10K + $$$ range that have as many regulation issues. I am here to learn, not to argue.

My mistake then as I thought Sam had to have the Heym re-regulated. Still, he had issues with the gun that needed attention. I have a good friend that had to have his bespoke Holland and Holland Royal re-regulated last year as well. With the exception of my VC, who else had regulation issues with a VC. I know Snowolfe had issues with getting his to shoot and sent it back to Ken, but the fellow who purchased it did NOT have issues with how it shot. Who knows what the deal was on that one? I'd say that one is still up for discussion.

The point being that any of these guns, including new H&H rifles, Heym, VC, etc. can all be subject to malfunctions and what really matters in the long run is whether or not the company making them will stand behind them. In my case, VC stepped up to the plate with no questions asked except how I wanted to handle it, giving me the option of sending back to the factory in France or to JJ at Champlain Arms where it could be re-regulated with MY personal handloads. I chose that route and VC got it moved to the front of the line where JJ completed the work and returned the rifle to me in 3 weeks time IIRC. I'm 100% completely happy with the rifle at this point and the way VC stood behind it.

So with the exception of my rifle, and possibly Sonewolfe's, what other VCs have had regulation issues?

The problem with comparing Sabatti in this discussion is that unlike what happened with my rifle, Sabatti knew of regulation issues, not on a gun or possibly two, but on MANY rifles. What's worse is that instead of standing behind the rifles with problems and taking the steps to CORRECTLY rectify the situation, they committed a fraud on unsuspecting customers by adjusting the regulation with a dremel tool, then passing them off with a regulation target showing "final tuning"! BIG DIFFERENCE!

I must also agree with Jines' comments concerning the value of vintage vs new guns. Sorry Mac as you got part of that correct. I had a 500NE Merkel but just wanted a nicer gun after playing with the Merk for awhile. The 577NE became available while my VC 500 was being built and I traded / purchased the 577 to play with for a single safari until my new gun was delivered. Meant to trade it all along. But yeah, you'll loose money each time you trade / sell a NEW current production rifle whereas a vintage gun will likely appreciate, even in a short time between trades.

Going forward, finances permitting, I am looking at getting another VC, simply because I can have it built to exactly the specifications I want in a bespoke gun, and in the unlikely event a problem does arise, I know I can count on it being corrected PROPERLY. But I'm also interested in a vintage rifle or two, simply for the cool factor as well as the investment angle.

Gents:
To stimulate the conversation……
I have read many times over the problems with new doubles. Tell me, please, you gents who collect and shoot vintage doubles from the UK, what problems arise with rifles made between 1870 (approximately) and 1939? In my own limited and humble experience none I have owned have had any problems (and I've had over two dozen). I have sent rifles off for refinishing and to correct abuse such as dropping on rocks, but never a problem with regulation, loose ribs, ill-fitting wood, broken strikers or main springs, etc. One correction, a mis timed ejector on my .450-400 is the only one that came to my mind whilst writing this post.
What say you? Do you think the old timers were made to a higher standard?
Opinions only, no attacks, as I'm too sensitive.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gents:
To stimulate the conversation……
I have read many times over the problems with new doubles. Tell me, please, you gents who collect and shoot vintage doubles from the UK, what problems arise with rifles made between 1870 (approximately) and 1939? In my own limited and humble experience none I have owned have had any problems (and I've had over two dozen). I have sent rifles off for refinishing and to correct abuse such as dropping on rocks, but never a problem with regulation, loose ribs, ill-fitting wood, broken strikers or main springs, etc. One correction, a mis timed ejector on my .450-400 is the only one that came to my mind whilst writing this post.
What say you? Do you think the old timers were made to a higher standard?
Opinions only, no attacks, as I'm too sensitive.
Cal

Cal, I'd say it is highly possible the old timers spent more time on the guns ensuring zero defects, but something tells me that's not exactly the case. All things mechanical are prone to malfunction. Who knows the actual reason for lack of issues with the vintage guns but it's entirely possible that the issues, if any, with vintage guns were simply corrected long ago. Question for you since I know you are very well versed with the log books of the old companies, but were repairs, warranty or wear related, to specific rifles logged? If so, that could provide some insight to your question.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gents:

What say you? Do you think the old timers were made to a higher standard?

Cal

Perhaps the "riff raft" got weeded out in the last 75 years and the ones left are the survivors?

Certainly doesn't play into the "value" portion of the discussion but holding and looking at one of those old "trash" guns is just special.

While I was looking at buying my first double, my major concern was not so much the mechanical function or finishing side of things, so much as the regulation. I read everything I could on it, back to the beginning of the various forums that featured talk about doubles and big bores.
They will all try to make them look as good as they can, at the price level they are working at. My thoughts on the regulation went towards the theory that the mfgr that would regulate to the longer ranges, had to do a good job of it.
I would love to have been able to cheap out and buy in the bottom dollar brands, but got a certain amount of caution built up, with what I had read. I am glad I bought what I did, things worked out well for me. I wasn't going for the pretty stuff, I wanted a practical, well made gun, that had some good features, and got built pretty much the way I wanted it, and to have it regulated right.
From the start, I knew some of the features were not worth anything much in resale terms, compared to what they cost me, other than providing some versatility as a selling feature.
Lose more than the value of the gun in total, with a new truck, and driving it off the lot.
If I have this gun for 10yrs, and lose 3-4000 on it, I will have got enough enjoyment out of that to cover that. Fun costs money in most cases.
Tough to get it fixed, probably, but, that is a result of where I live. Worry about that if or when the time comes.
Right now, I think I have a good one, that is what I could afford, and I think I got my money's worth.
If I could afford the H&H's, why not use them.
I'd probably use them as fair weather guns, but, I'd likely own 1/2doz "beater doubles" anyway. At that level, fixing them is a minor inconvenience, probably entirely at the mfgr's expense.If I had 1/2mil to blow on those, what's 5-10 more at 20-50000.00 a pop to have around as beaters. Maybe one lees car or boat for a toy, or not.

Cal,

My guess is that the older rifles were built to a higher standard. I think like many things that require a true artisan to do, there are simply fewer artisans today than eighty years ago. Today there is a greater reliance on computer machining, etc., things that increase production but not necessarily quality workmanship (although I think things like metal quality have improved). That said, I am also sure that there were pre-war doubles that were delivered that had issues. My point is that those that had issues, had the issues identified and addressed years ago and so the likelihood of encountering an issue today is reduced. So bottom line, yes, I think the vintage rifles were built to a higher standard of workmanship than modern rifles and yes, I think you are less likely to encounter a problem with one today than a modern rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gents:
To stimulate the conversation……
I have read many times over the problems with new doubles. Tell me, please, you gents who collect and shoot vintage doubles from the UK, what problems arise with rifles made between 1870 (approximately) and 1939? In my own limited and humble experience none I have owned have had any problems (and I've had over two dozen). I have sent rifles off for refinishing and to correct abuse such as dropping on rocks, but never a problem with regulation, loose ribs, ill-fitting wood, broken strikers or main springs, etc. One correction, a mis timed ejector on my .450-400 is the only one that came to my mind whilst writing this post.
What say you? Do you think the old timers were made to a higher standard?
Opinions only, no attacks, as I'm too sensitive.
Cal

Cal, I'd say it is highly possible the old timers spent more time on the guns ensuring zero defects, but something tells me that's not exactly the case. All things mechanical are prone to malfunction. Who knows the actual reason for lack of issues with the vintage guns but it's entirely possible that the issues, if any, with vintage guns were simply corrected long ago. Question for you since I know you are very well versed with the log books of the old companies, but were repairs, warranty or wear related, to specific rifles logged? If so, that could provide some insight to your question.

Todd:
Good question. Let me look through the ledger pages I have and see what is listed for rework or repairs or ??
Cal

My hunch is, and this is purely an uneducated guess is the vintage rifles were made better for one reason. That reason is the builder of double rifles knew the rifle was being built for someone who would use it to hunt dangerous game.

Todays builders and rifles are different. Doubles are more common than ever and a builder realizes more than a few buyers will rarely even use the rifle other than taking it out of the safe to show their friends or for an occasion trip to the range.

It's hard to argue the care and craftsmenship of the older rifles, but are they truely better? When I go back and read the old threads on "approved " bullets for doubles the general concensus was that the modern hard bullets were ok for modern doubles but could cause seperation issues for the older guns.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Tom:
It's hard to argue the care and craftsmenship of the older rifles, but are they truely better? When I go back and read the old threads on "approved " bullets for doubles the general concensus was that the modern hard bullets were ok for modern doubles but could cause seperation issues for the older guns.

I think you need to go back and re-read that then. Start with the "Double Rifle of the Future" thread. There you will see that the "approved" bullets such as the Hornady DGX, DGS, and Woodleigh FMJ bullets, consistently, across the board in terms of caliber and weight, always produce the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd highest barrel strains, where the CEB and North Fork monos are typically at the very bottom in terms of amount of barrel strain.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Tom:
It's hard to argue the care and craftsmenship of the older rifles, but are they truely better? When I go back and read the old threads on "approved " bullets for doubles the general concensus was that the modern hard bullets were ok for modern doubles but could cause seperation issues for the older guns.

I think you need to go back and re-read that then. Start with the "Double Rifle of the Future" thread. There you will see that the "approved" bullets such as the Hornady DGX, DGS, and Woodleigh FMJ bullets, consistently, across the board in terms of caliber and weight, always produce the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd highest barrel strains, where the CEB and North Fork monos are typically at the very bottom in terms of amount of barrel strain.

Has anyone ever proved that higher barrel strains actually damaged any barrel?

I just by what I like and that happens to be vintage. Thankfully I am not to discuss my own taste with anybody but my wallet.

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Tom:
It's hard to argue the care and craftsmenship of the older rifles, but are they truely better? When I go back and read the old threads on "approved " bullets for doubles the general concensus was that the modern hard bullets were ok for modern doubles but could cause seperation issues for the older guns.

I think you need to go back and re-read that then. Start with the "Double Rifle of the Future" thread. There you will see that the "approved" bullets such as the Hornady DGX, DGS, and Woodleigh FMJ bullets, consistently, across the board in terms of caliber and weight, always produce the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd highest barrel strains, where the CEB and North Fork monos are typically at the very bottom in terms of amount of barrel strain.

Has anyone ever proved that higher barrel strains actually damaged any barrel?

Dejavu ... all over again! What was that Bill Murray movie? That's it ... Groundhog Day!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Tom:
It's hard to argue the care and craftsmenship of the older rifles, but are they truely better? When I go back and read the old threads on "approved " bullets for doubles the general concensus was that the modern hard bullets were ok for modern doubles but could cause seperation issues for the older guns.

I think you need to go back and re-read that then. Start with the "Double Rifle of the Future" thread. There you will see that the "approved" bullets such as the Hornady DGX, DGS, and Woodleigh FMJ bullets, consistently, across the board in terms of caliber and weight, always produce the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd highest barrel strains, where the CEB and North Fork monos are typically at the very bottom in terms of amount of barrel strain.

I didn't read that thread. I got my info from some of the Barnes and monolithic solid threads. Also seems to me that if barrel stress on older guns is a non issue then there wouldn't be a need for an "approved" bullet.
I will read the thread you suggested and see what I can learn. Thanks

Tom, that thread runs about 18 pages last time I checked. It went along with the 291 page "Terminals" thread but focused specifically on bullets for use in double rifles. The early Barnes bullets, without groves, such as the original X bullet, certainly did produce higher strains, but what is available today is vastly different. Lots of very good info in that thread but it'll take you awhile to read it all. Still, good stuff.

If my new Chapuis is any indication, they need to tighten up their regulation process. (I ordered a 2 inch L&R spec at 100 and have a 5 inch shooter) And no, it isn't me. I have read, here, about others as well, that were not regulated to the test target either. As I recall.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gents:
To stimulate the conversation……
I have read many times over the problems with new doubles. Tell me, please, you gents who collect and shoot vintage doubles from the UK, what problems arise with rifles made between 1870 (approximately) and 1939? In my own limited and humble experience none I have owned have had any problems (and I've had over two dozen). I have sent rifles off for refinishing and to correct abuse such as dropping on rocks, but never a problem with regulation, loose ribs, ill-fitting wood, broken strikers or main springs, etc. One correction, a mis timed ejector on my .450-400 is the only one that came to my mind whilst writing this post.
What say you? Do you think the old timers were made to a higher standard?
Opinions only, no attacks, as I'm too sensitive.
Cal

Hi Cal,

Top rifle, my own Webley & Scott .450/.400 3 1/4" N.E. made in 1922-23, no big issues so far, but as it is only + 90 years old it is only breaking in so to say, who knows what will happeneds in the next 20-30 years?

Bottom rifle, a Army & Navy .450 N.E. made in 1905. Refurbished by Westley Richards. Used as daily "working tool" by my friend a Kruger National Park Ranger. No big issues except for the touch up by WR.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Tom:
It's hard to argue the care and craftsmenship of the older rifles, but are they truely better? When I go back and read the old threads on "approved " bullets for doubles the general concensus was that the modern hard bullets were ok for modern doubles but could cause seperation issues for the older guns.

I think you need to go back and re-read that then. Start with the "Double Rifle of the Future" thread. There you will see that the "approved" bullets such as the Hornady DGX, DGS, and Woodleigh FMJ bullets, consistently, across the board in terms of caliber and weight, always produce the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd highest barrel strains, where the CEB and North Fork monos are typically at the very bottom in terms of amount of barrel strain.

Has anyone ever proved that higher barrel strains actually damaged any barrel?

Dejavu ... all over again! What was that Bill Murray movie? That's it ... Groundhog Day!

Think I've read all the threads, seen the movie as well. I am just interested in answers. Have high barrel strain readings ever proved to have damaged a newly manufactured barrel? If it has, what brand barrels were damaged by what bullets?
Not arguing, just want to see results.

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by AK Caster:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Tom:
It's hard to argue the care and craftsmenship of the older rifles, but are they truely better? When I go back and read the old threads on "approved " bullets for doubles the general concensus was that the modern hard bullets were ok for modern doubles but could cause seperation issues for the older guns.

I think you need to go back and re-read that then. Start with the "Double Rifle of the Future" thread. There you will see that the "approved" bullets such as the Hornady DGX, DGS, and Woodleigh FMJ bullets, consistently, across the board in terms of caliber and weight, always produce the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd highest barrel strains, where the CEB and North Fork monos are typically at the very bottom in terms of amount of barrel strain.

Has anyone ever proved that higher barrel strains actually damaged any barrel?

Dejavu ... all over again! What was that Bill Murray movie? That's it ... Groundhog Day!

Think I've read all the threads, seen the movie as well. I am just interested in answers. Have high barrel strain readings ever proved to have damaged a newly manufactured barrel? If it has, what brand barrels were damaged by what bullets?
Not arguing, just want to see results.

I think the answer to that is no. However, some will still argue that point, even against the data produced in those tests.

There is good info in the Double Rifle Bullet of the Future thread that specifically addresses that question, especially toward the end of the research with their OSR tests using STEEL OVERSIZED bullets. Maybe Michael458 or SRose will chime in as they did all of the work.

Thanks for answering. IMO high barrel strain readings seem to be, simply high barrel strain readings. If they do not seem to cause any issues with newly built double rifles I don't see the need to fret about it.

But I will be quick to change my mind if anyone shows proven results that readings above a certain point causes damage in newly built doubles.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

I have always recommended anyone new to double rifles buy NEW, in preference to a vintage double rifle. For the main reason listed above. If he finds he is simply not a double rifle man, the little loss percentage on the resale will be a lot less than it would on a vintage, and sell more quickly.

Mac, I disagree. If the foregoing is your logic, someone should actually buy vintage not new. The odds of losing money on a vintage rifle are a lot less than losing money on a new rifle. A new double is like a new car, as soon as it leaves the lot it is worth less than it was sitting on the lot. I have never made money on a new double I sold; I have never lost money on a vintage double I sold. Also, in general, you will move a good vintage rifle quicker. Just look at the classified section on AR. Lots of late model doubles that tend to sit there for sale a long time, particularly ones that are >$10K. And as someone else pointed out, you generally hear about fewer issues with the vintage rifles since most problems/issues, if any, have been sorted a long time ago.

You are correct Mike assuming the person that is new to double rifles has the knowledge needed to buy a GOOD vintage double rifle rather than a pig in a poke re-finished piece of junk!

When buying vintage double rifles a new person to doubles should get together with some one like you, or Mark cash before dropping that amount of money on a vintage double to avoid exactly why I recommend a new guy buy a clean used or new one of the two or three newly made doubles. Even if he gets hooked for half the funds, it will still be better than losing half of what he paid for a wall hanger vintage double!

....................................................................... What CHa thank?

Mac, I think that what you are saying makes sense for making any large investment in something used, a house, a car, a boat or a double rifle. A couple of ways someone can protect themselves in buying a vintage double, (1) buy from someone reputable who stands behind what they sell, like George Caswell with Champlin, and (2) buy the rifle with an inspection period stipulated and get someone like JJ to check it out before the deal is sealed. There is no reason that someone should get burned buying a vintage double rifle if they do their homework and deal with a reputable seller.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Mac, I think that what you are saying makes sense for making any large investment in something used, a house, a car, a boat or a double rifle. A couple of ways someone can protect themselves in buying a vintage double, (1) buy from someone reputable who stands behind what they sell, like George Caswell with Champlin, and (2) buy the rifle with an inspection period stipulated and get someone like JJ to check it out before the deal is sealed. There is no reason that someone should get burned buying a vintage double rifle if they do their homework and deal with a reputable seller.

..........................................................Is there an echo in here?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gents:
To stimulate the conversation……
I have read many times over the problems with new doubles. Tell me, please, you gents who collect and shoot vintage doubles from the UK, what problems arise with rifles made between 1870 (approximately) and 1939? In my own limited and humble experience none I have owned have had any problems (and I've had over two dozen). I have sent rifles off for refinishing and to correct abuse such as dropping on rocks, but never a problem with regulation, loose ribs, ill-fitting wood, broken strikers or main springs, etc. One correction, a mis timed ejector on my .450-400 is the only one that came to my mind whilst writing this post.
What say you? Do you think the old timers were made to a higher standard?
Opinions only, no attacks, as I'm too sensitive.
Cal

Cal, I'd say it is highly possible the old timers spent more time on the guns ensuring zero defects, but something tells me that's not exactly the case. All things mechanical are prone to malfunction. Who knows the actual reason for lack of issues with the vintage guns but it's entirely possible that the issues, if any, with vintage guns were simply corrected long ago. Question for you since I know you are very well versed with the log books of the old companies, but were repairs, warranty or wear related, to specific rifles logged? If so, that could provide some insight to your question.

Todd:
Good day, mate.
Had some time this afternoon and went through the photo copied ledger pages I have in my files. I have more crap than I know what to do with--4 legal size file drawers full of vintage double rifle stuff!).

The old ledgers are quite easy to go through at a quick glance. Later entries were added above or below and in a different pen and penmanship so it is easy to quickly see later work.

Not science or carved in stone but here is what I see: lots of entries added for later work such as refinish, stock change as to pull, etc… I did not notice any thing or replacing parts such as sights, springs, etc.

I think today's problems with doubles mirror the attitude of workers and companies prevalent today--do minimal work to pass the test and make a sale. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone but today's products--just about everything--is poor quality and made overseas. Hell, if Cabelas dropped its China-made stuff the catalog would be 10 pages long. Kenetrek Boots of Montana should be renamed Kenetrek Boots of Thailand and Italy. Quality of today's double may be OK, and I've said many times I would like to own a VC if I was to buy a modern day double, but I stand by my belief that the vintage double rifles are to a higher standard.

I think an action maker will show more love for his product if he hand files and fits it with smoke more than he will if he punches in the code for a CNC machine or buys the action from another and simply puts his finish on it.

Hope I didn't piss off any of you but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Cal

Good info Cal. Always nice when we can put some actual data into the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Good info Cal. Always nice when we can put some actual data into the discussion.

And when the data validates what everyone knew in the first place.