I had an interesting discussion with dpcd on the thread about the merits of over-and-under doubles and beavertail forearms that got me to wondering if all of us gun guys, especially the double rifle guys, are becoming a bunch of luddites. When it comes to doubles, we are quick to reject anything new. A gun has to have a certain "look". I know because I am guilty of this too. I prefer a splinter forearm but I can't really say they shoot or handle any better than my guns with a beavertail forearm. At first the cocking mechanism on the Krieghoff was roundly rejected. I have a K-gun and have never had any problem with it and frankly, I do indeed think it is "safer" than a traditional safety. The 450/400 is a resounding success but the 500/.416 landed with a thud. For reasons that I can't seem to grasp, a side-by-side double is held in higher regard than an over-and-under in the same caliber even though the side-by-side shotgun has faded into obscurity compared to the over-and under guns.

Bolt guys seem to have the same prejudices. A Mauser type action is coveted while the Blaser R8 or R93 don't typically sell well in this country. I have an R93 and IMHO it is THE finest takedown rifle made today. The straight pull bolt is almost as fast as a double for two shots and much faster than a double for three shots. However, American shooters seem to regard the Winchester or Mauser as the pinnacle of rifle development.

So my question is this, when it comes to guns, have we all become a nation of luddites?

Dave, A big 10-4 on the Blaser magazine rifles. I didn't consider one for years, as I couldn't see how a rifle that comes apart with 2 bolts could be very accurate....WRONG! They are phenomenal, and the take-down feature is addicting once you travel with one...like bringing your briefcase on a hunt.

Doubles are a WHOLE different deal. Folks buy them for tradition, not function. If function was the key, everyone would be toting a scoped magazine rifle in 416 or 458. Any "improvements" to the DR design are seen as heresy. Hey, if you can manage a 3" group at 50 yards, you've got a winner and a smile on your face. If a bolt rifle performed like that, it would be in the classifieds in a heartbeat!

I love them too....but go figure! :-)

There are some definitely outspoken critics of "something different" than what they have on here. I, for one, own 2 .470's. One is a Blaser S2. There, I have come out and admitted it. I love it. It is SAFE, accurate (2 shots touching at 50), pretty and didn't break the bank when I bought it. The other is a more classic Searcy sidelock. I have a few Rugers. No winchesters and a whole lot of Remingtons. While I have had 2 of the aforementioned problems with 2 different Remingtons, the problems were corrected and now they function flawlessly and shoot outstanding. Would love to be able to try the new R8 but that would cut into my hunting fund and I already own enough guns to scratch my itch.
Personally, I think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man's junk is another man's treasure type of thing.

Doubles, I have some things that I'm tradition bound on and others, not so much. For instance, I love the splinter and hate the beavertail. I do own a Chapuis. It also has a scope as the 9.3X74R caliber lends itself to longer range shooting. I've shot it at 200 yards and would have no problem hunting with it at that range. Probably longer but I haven't tried it yet. So, with a scope and beavertail, it's a bit of a pariah with double rifles. But it is a great performer!

I see no reason not to like the 500/416. Rigby performance in a DR. The best of both worlds. I don't care about tradition on this one. I do have an interest in a .40 cal DR and I'll probably have it built in the 500/416. Maybe a scope on this one as well?

The cocking devise on the K-Gun? I think it's very safe and just a little practice makes it second nature. A non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The S-2, I cannot vouch for as the auto safety feature is just wrong for a Dangerous Game rifle and is likely to get someone stomped on one of these days. The S-2 objection is not a tradition / progress issue but rather an outright safety (no pun) issue. It's also an ugly rifle.

As far as the R8, I've got no problem with the action. But damn, that's an ugly rifle as well. I don't care how much lipstick you put on it, it's still best suited for sausage IMO. I hate that super closed grip among other things. Putting gold or ivory inlays on it just makes the gold or ivory less valuable IMO.

I do like the little Blaser Stutzen Attache single shot however. Wouldn't mind having one of those at all.

Dave, next time I'll tell you how I really feel and not sugar coat it so much!!

As far as overall technology goes, I 'm a major Luddite...but I own guns of many, many styles & actions

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut:

I, for one, own 2 .470's. One is a Blaser S2. There, I have come out and admitted it. I love it. It is SAFE, accurate (2 shots touching at 50), pretty and didn't break the bank when I bought it.

Personally, I think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man's junk is another man's treasure type of thing.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

Dave, next time I'll tell you how I really feel and not sugar coat it so much!!

Todd, how are these for a couple of ugly Blasers? :-)

Since "beavertail forearms" have been brought up again, I'll explain my preference for them and we'll see if that makes for a "Luddite".

But first, it's important to know not all "beavertail forearms" are the same piece of furniture. They come in different sizes and shapes and I admit some are too big for some guns while others look more like a slightly enlarged splinter. And so on.

But, that "type" in general is what I first knew and was used to, with guns like Browning. The splinter forearms I came to know later with guns like Parkers and Smiths, and I loved these old pieces, but those forearms made me feel I was being "shortchanged" on gun parts.

To put it another way, consider again my beloved Model 21. Well, you know what the prices have done on them. But, did you know they came with either splinter or beavertail (actually the Model 21 is NOT a full beavertail). And did you know which goes for the most in today's market? The beavertail. The splinter versions sell at a significant discount. And for good reason. They don't LOOK as good to most Winchester fans, in light of what we were USED to seeing. The beavertail just has a more elegant, balanced look. Those who are used to that particular tradition, no more want to hold metal barrels with one hand than we'd want to hold a metal pistol grip with the other hand. It's just that there's supposed to be some WOOD out there. That's about what it is.

So, back to our Luddites. Is it just resistance to change for the sake of resistance?

Well I guess the answer is largely YES. But in just the opposite way from how and where fans of splinters see it.

Which just might mean, we're ALL Luddites...

..actually, Reactionary might be a better descriptive word...although that sounds more at home on the political board, does it not..

Actually, Todd, the knob where the safety device is supposed to go also cocks the S2, like the K gun so I don't think it is unsafe at all. Yeah it ain't as pretty as some of the high dollar doubles you have and isn't as pretty as the Searcy I have but it shoots good.(even tho' you're wrong, it ain't ugly, you are entitled to your opinion!)

Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion :-)

Todd:

One other thing about the S2 as well as the R8 and R93. There is no muss or fuss about mounting a scope on a Blaser. The bases are already built into the rifle and Blaser has absolutely the best scope mount ever conceived. In a matter of seconds you can take your scope off your bolt gun and mount it right on your double.

Biebs those guns are superb. I love the double rabbet.

I am quite embarrassed go admit that I had to look up the meaning of the term "Luddite". Now I know.
There is a unique quality in admiring the old, traditional articles, regardless of their actual utility. I like and respect the old ways. I am guilty of that to a large degree. The connection to my ancestors who settled land in southern WV and built it up with flintlock and broadaxe, where we still own land and my relatives still live, cannot be measured, nor rationally explained. I do build and shoot flintlocks, and don't think much of cap locks. Cars? I drive a 73 Barracuda and a 67 Power Wagon. Bolt actions; Mausers. DRs; traditional looking ones. Having said all that, I do embrace all the tenets of modern society (I am on the computer aren't I?) and own and use modern cars, rifles, etc, as well. Some people don't feel the connection to the past and I guess that's OK, but I feel a bit sorry for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Todd, how are these for a couple of ugly Blasers? :-)

and double

Sorry. Nice wood. Ugly guns! Again, the nice wood is lipstick on a pig! IMO! Your mileage may vary.

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut:
Actually, Todd, the knob where the safety device is supposed to go also cocks the S2, like the K gun so I don't think it is unsafe at all. Yeah it ain't as pretty as some of the high dollar doubles you have and isn't as pretty as the Searcy I have but it shoots good.(even tho' you're wrong, it ain't ugly, you are entitled to your opinion!)

The problem is not the cocking device. It's the auto safety. I don't want to have to re-cock a dangerous game gun in the middle of a fight every time I open the action. It's fine on a shotgun for shooting quail. Has no business on a DR for Buffalo or Elephant.

Oh, and did I say it's:

And we haven't even started talking about the 1911 and the 45ACP (invented by God but handed down to John Browning)!!!!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
I had an interesting discussion with dpcd on the thread about the merits of over-and-under doubles and beavertail forearms that got me to wondering if all of us gun guys, especially the double rifle guys, are becoming a bunch of luddites. When it comes to doubles, we are quick to reject anything new. A gun has to have a certain "look". I know because I am guilty of this too. I prefer a splinter forearm but I can't really say they shoot or handle any better than my guns with a beavertail forearm.

Dave you are partially correct IMO, because tradition has a lot to do with the likes and dislikes of a shooter for any type of firearm. However, there are legitimate reasons to reject things that change a particular firearm when it doesn’t improve the way it works and actually hinders the way it works! A luddite rejects things simply because they are changed, even if they improve the operation of a tool or product. That is not the case with a double rifle people who know how they work best. They only reject changes that have potential to make a rifle that is made to protect life and limb less efficient in that endeavor .

quote:

At first the cocking mechanism on the Krieghoff was roundly rejected. I have a K-gun and have never had any problem with it and frankly, I do indeed think it is "safer" than a traditional safety.

In regard to the combi-cocking system of the K-gun you are correct in your statement that it was rejected when it first came out. That was a prudent rejection IMO, because the maker did not make it clear how the thing worked and $10,000 usd is a lot to risk on something not proven. It was assumed that it worked the same way the Blaser S-2 works with a condition of having to be re-cocked manually because the rifle had no automatic re-cocking when the rifle when opened for a re-loading of the barrels in the middle of a fire fight with something that wanted to bite or stomp you in the dust. That was a genuine concern! As we found out later the K-gun does re-cock its self after fireing and breaking for re-loading the barrels, the Blaser S-2 does not and is still on the crap list with most double rifle hunters. In this case the rifle is fine but the de-cocking system is not. Only changes that improve safety, without hindering the operation of a double rifle will ever be accepted and that makes no difference if it is a double rifle or a bolt rifle, so that rejection didn’t make anyone a Luddite!

quote:

The 450/400 is a resounding success but the 500/.416 landed with a thud. For reasons that I can't seem to grasp, a side-by-side double is held in higher regard that and over-and-under gun in the same caliber even though the side-by-side shotgun has faded into obscurity compared to the over-and under guns.

The 500/416K is a good cartridge, but it shouldn’t be compared to the 450/400NE , but compared to the 416 Rigby as being a better cartridge for the double rifle, than the rimless 416 Rigby. This is where the 500/416K shines in a double rifle, not comparing apples to oranges with the 450/400NE. In this case a misdirected judgment, it seems one made by many here!

quote:

Bolt guys seem to have the same prejudices. A Mauser type action is coveted while the Blaser R8 or R93 don't typically sell well in this country. I have an R93 and IMHO it is THE finest takedown rifle made today.

Here too, IMO, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the difference between the two systems, and no matter how it is explained it simply goes back to what brand a guy likes instead of what works best and safest. To me that is where the Luddite comes out. The key here is CONTROL feed that takes the nut behind the rifle out of the equation. It has nothing to do with accuracy or who made the rifle or which way the bolt moves, but simply which protects the shooter best. That is what a dangerous game rifle is made for.

quote:

The straight pull bolt is almost as fast as a double for two shots and much faster than a double for three shots. However, American shooters seem to regard the Winchester or Mauser as the pinnacle of rifle development.

Sorry Dave it is not only the American shooters who hunt dangerous game that prefer CRF actions in a dangerous game rifle! For hunting anything else control feed is not so necessary. IMO when you talk about double rifles, in most cases , you are discussing a rifle for dangerous game, the same applies to bolt rifle used for the same purpose. For anything else almost anything that will hit a target will do! For dangerous game reliability and simplicity is far more important than accuracy, or style.

quote:

So my question is this, when it comes to guns, have we all become a nation of luddites?

I think not, just informed and misinformed!

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

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:

Doubles are a WHOLE different deal. Folks buy them for tradition, not function. If function was the key, everyone would be toting a scoped magazine rifle in 416 or 458. Any "improvements" to the DR design are seen as heresy. Hey, if you can manage a 3" group at 50 yards, you've got a winner and a smile on your face. If a bolt rifle performed like that, it would be in the classifieds in a heartbeat!

I love them too....but go figure! :-)

Biebs as long as the IMPROVEMENT is actually an improvement it will be accepted, but it will take proof, that it is, before it will be! The above mentioned K-gun Combi-cocker is a fine example of an improvement that was accepted, but only after it proved its worth.

When discussing DGRs you take nothing for granted, because it take very little malfunction to get you or someone else hurt or killed. If you are shooting paper targets or whitetail it matters not!

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

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut:
There are some definitely outspoken critics of "something different" than what they have on here. I, for one, own 2 .470's. One is a Blaser S2. There, I have come out and admitted it. I love it. It is SAFE, accurate (2 shots touching at 50),

No winchesters and a whole lot of Remingtons. While I have had 2 of the aforementioned problems with 2 different Remingtons, the problems were corrected

Personally, I think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man's junk is another man's treasure type of thing.

Is the Blaser S-2 safe? It may be for others while carried loaded, but is it safe for you and the others when you forget to re-cock in the middle of a charge after a re-load? Something to think about! On the PF rifles one problem may be all it takes!

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

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut:
Actually, Todd, the knob where the safety device is supposed to go also cocks the S2, like the K gun so I don't think it is unsafe at all.

Pago, the S-2 system is not the same as the K-gun! The K-gun doesn't de-cock the rifle when the rifle is opened for any reason. The S-2 must be re-cocked manually if opened for any reason. The K-gun, once cocked, and fired or opened for ay reason will remain cocked, or if fired and opened for a re-load, re-cocks its self, the S-2 does not! That is a very big difference between the two, and it makes the S-2 less safe in a fight with a mad animal. If however the Blaser would employ the same system of the K-gun then it would be a lot safer to defend yourself with! FACT, not opinion!

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

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut:
Actually, Todd, the knob where the safety device is supposed to go also cocks the S2, like the K gun so I don't think it is unsafe at all.

Pago, the S-2 system is not the same as the K-gun! The K-gun doesn't de-cock the rifle when the rifle is opened for any reason. The S-2 must be re-cocked manually if opened for any reason. The K-gun, once cocked, and fired or opened for ay reason will remain cocked, or if fired and opened for a re-load, re-cocks its self, the S-2 does not! That is a very big difference between the two, and it makes the S-2 less safe in a fight with a mad animal. If however the Blaser would employ the same system of the K-gun then it would be a lot safer to defend yourself with! FACT, not opinion!

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

Mac,

Agreed!! 100% But you forgot that the Blaser is just plain !!!

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Todd, how are these for a couple of ugly Blasers? :-)

Jon, quite honestly, they are as ugly as a bucket full of ass holes!! Hogback stocks, schnabel foreskin (on a modern gun), big objective bells.... Honestly!! Are your eyes broke? You can have two shares, your share and mine.

Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun or dog!

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun or dog!

465H&H

+1!!

I like SXS doubles better than O/U doubles in both rifles and shotguns. I have owned and still own both forms of rifles and shotguns, and personally find the SXS versions much easier to handle and shoot well with when in a real hurry.

To me swinging an O/U is like swinging a 2x6 held with the side edge up. Plus, I can reload the SXS much faster.

I recall when the SxS guns were KING, and then a bit later, when the O/U guns were really just getting into the popular marketplace. The heavily bleated advantage of the O/U was that it has only "one sighting plane", thus presumably making it "easier to sight down the barrels".

Maybe for some folks, but for me that is hogwash. One doesn't "aim" a double when in a "tight" or otherwise pressed for a quick shot. He watches the target as the gun swings onto it, and lets the gun and his muscle memory "aim" themself....which is why proper gun fit and a "natural feel" to the weapon are both so important.

If one wants to know when the gun is properly onto the target, it is a lot easier to pick up the mass of two SxS barrels in one's lower peripheral vision than it is to pick up just one.

That is only important at all if one is looking where he is supposed to be looking...at the animal...rather than trying to line up a single barrel's one sight plane as if trying to shoot a tiny group with it. If he isn't watching the animal which is trying to kill him and moving the gun as quickly as humanly possible, then I feel it really doesn't matter what he is too slow with.

YMMV, of course. And if that makes me a luddite, so be it. I'll likely have some good company sharing that label.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I like SXS doubles better than O/U doubles in both rifles and shotguns. I have owned and still own both forms of rifles and shotguns, and personally find the SXS versions much easier to handle and shoot well with when in a real hurry.

To me swinging an O/U is like swinging a 2x6 held with the side edge up. Plus, I can reload the SXS much faster.

I recall when the SxS guns were KING, and then a bit later, when the O/U guns were really just getting into the popular marketplace. The heavily bleated advantage of the O/U was that it has only "one sighting plane", thus presumably making it "easier to sight down the barrels".

Maybe for some folks, but for me that is hogwash. One doesn't "aim" a double when in a "tight" or otherwise pressed for a quick shot. He watches the target as the gun swings onto it, and lets the gun and his muscle memory "aim" themself....which is why proper gun fit and a natural "feel" to the weapon are both so important.

If one wants to know when the gun is properly onto the target, it is a lot easier to pick up the mass of two SxS barrels in one's lower peripheral vision than it is to pick up just one.

That is only important at all if one is looking where he is supposed to be looking...at the animal...rather than trying to line up a single barrel's one sight plane as if trying to shoot a tiny group with it. If he isn't watching the animal which is trying to kill him and moving the gun as quickly as humanely possible, then I feel it really doesn't matter what he is too slow with.

YMMV, of course. And if that makes me a luddite, so be it. I'll likely have some good company sharing that label.

Everything you said is so spot on. Instinctive shooting is much easier with a sxs, but gun fit is the most important issue.

When a gun fits properly, shooting it becomes natural and instinctive.

Mac,
Thanks for the education on the K gun. Hopefully everyone will excuse my ignorance. I assumed......
Todd,
If I had any feelings, they would be hurt. All this time I thought you were one of the nice guys.
I have already faced a wounded buffalo charge with the S2 and I am still here. I put about 800 rounds through the rifle before I took it hunting and was used to the "have to cock it again before it will fire" nonsense. It did stop the buffalo and did not confuse me. Get over it. I am impressed with the safety of the rifle and will continue to use it until Butch gets my .470 back to me. The safety aspect or cocking motion doesn't upset me. I'm one of those believers in one well placed shot should suffice. If it doesn't then I reload.

I think Todd's been hitting the Kool-Aid pretty heavy these days :-)

One essential fact is, the guns that are the best looking and bring the most dollars are the ones with the most tradition behind them.

And each type of weapon has its "most desirable" example.

In handguns it's Smith N-frames in double action and Colts in single action. In semi handguns it's the 1911. In American classic shotguns, it's the Model 21 first and the Parker second. In O/U it's the Superposed. And so on and so forth.

So us Luddites know our fine guns.

This thread is hysterical, particularly DoubleDon's post.
Luckily the screen of this POS iPad is apparently unaffected by white wine. My nostrils, on the other hand ...

quote:

Jon, quite honestly, they are as ugly as a bucket full of ass holes!!

And which bucket, sir, do you reside in? :-)

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut:

If I had any feelings, they would be hurt. All this time I thought you were one of the nice guys.

Pago,

I am a nice guy ... as far as I know!!

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
I think Todd's been hitting the Kool-Aid pretty heavy these days :-)

Hey, it is the weekend after all!!

Wait until you get you 577....you'll be drowning in Kool-Aid!

quote:

Originally posted by DoubleDon:

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Todd, how are these for a couple of ugly Blasers? :-)

Jon, quite honestly, they are as ugly as a bucket full of ass holes!! Hogback stocks, schnabel foreskin (on a modern gun), big objective bells.... Honestly!! Are your eyes broke? You can have two shares, your share and mine.

I can't quite put my finger on it exactly. It's a bit like those women body builders who take steroids and grow large noses, deep voices, and facial hair. eeeerrrrruuuuggggghhh!!!

Biebs:

Fantastic looking guns. I find that most Blaser bashers don't have any experience with them. I have a Prestige with two barrels, a 30-06 and a 9,3X62. They are just superb guns and they feed and function perfectly. I don't have any African experience but I would not be afraid to hunt DG with an S2 or an R93 in an appropriate caliber like so many European hunters do each year so, while I respect Mac's opinion, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and that's alright too. As to the aesthetics, I love the R93 but Todd and DoubleDon are certainly entitled to another choice as well. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Recreational hunting is nothing if not an atavistic pursuit. Every time the technology moves forward we do and should wonder if we are endangering fair chase.

There are some elements of the shooting community who want the very latest thing, of course, ultimately some kind of tactical or assault rifle. As you may have noticed, I'd rather not go there.

In regard to the modern short-bolt-action European rifles, I think their two-piece stocks offend the traditionalist's understanding of how to keep long-term accuracy. Their tendency to have metallic panels covered with faux engraving fails to impress the 'Anglosphere'; the only one that ever really caught my attention was the single-stocked original - the M66 Mauser - and it had the bolt handle too far forward.

The double-barrel issue is even more traditional, with the basic aesthetic going back a couple of centuries. The English would say the splinter fore end is really just to stop the barrels falling off when you open the gun. In order to keep the hands in line, they don't even like to hang on to it but put leather thongs around the barrels to keep from burning hands when the shooting hots up. They don't like beavertails, for look, weight and balance reasons.

O/U guns and rifles are not U in some toffy circles, possibly thought unsporting because they make aiming too easy. Some object to the greater opening angle and weight. Apparently some of the ... wonders find it hard to lift a seven-pound gun after a while. What they make of the Woodward-Purdey, I'm not sure.

Sorry if I've crossed old territory but it's hard to explore an outlook without wandering across the purview of others.

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Recreational hunting is nothing if not an atavistic pursuit. Every time the technology moves forward we do and should wonder if we are endangering fair chase.

There are some elements of the shooting community who want the very latest thing, of course, ultimately some kind of tactical or assault rifle. As you may have noticed, I'd rather not go there.

In regard to the modern short-bolt-action European rifles, I think their two-piece stocks offend the traditionalist's understanding of how to keep long-term accuracy. Their tendency to have metallic panels covered with faux engraving fails to impress the 'Anglosphere'; the only one that ever really caught my attention was the single-stocked original - the M66 Mauser - and it had the bolt handle too far forward.

The double-barrel issue is even more traditional, with the basic aesthetic going back a couple of centuries. The English would say the splinter fore end is really just to stop the barrels falling off when you open the gun. In order to keep the hands in line, they don't even like to hang on to it but put leather thongs around the barrels to keep from burning hands when the shooting hots up. They don't like beavertails, for look, weight and balance reasons.

O/U guns and rifles are not U in some toffy circles, possibly thought unsporting because they make aiming too easy. Some object to the greater opening angle and weight (apparently some of the ... wonders find it hard to lift a seven-pound gun after a while). What they make of the Woodward-Purdey, I'm not sure.

Sorry if I've crossed old territory but it's hard to explore an outlook without wandering across the purview of others.

sambarman338, I guess anything worth saying is worth saying twice!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
sambarman338, I guess anything worth saying is worth saying twice!

Mac, do you mean like: and