At the risk of sounding like Saeed on his high horse campaign against Mark Sullivan or SCI, I'm participating in a discussion on Face Book concerning Sabatti rifles ... yep, here we go again. Anyway, I pointed out that the initial batch of rifles had issues with ground muzzles and that it is something one should check for.

There is a guy in the discussion (John Underwood), who claims to be a PH who owns a Sabatti, claiming that grinding the muzzles on double rifles is an "old and accepted method of regulating double rifles and has been performed by the most respected names in the double rifle world"

I'm calling BS but am open to hearing more on the subject. Anyone know of other "well respected" makers pulling the Sabatti trick and how well it was "accepted"?

Todd, I'm with you, I think that is pure horse shit.

Deliberate introduction of instability to a bullet just cannot be anything a good British or Continental maker would have done. Just can't be.

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
It is true and has been done for many years, well before Sabatti existed.

Can you enlighten us? Articles, photos, references to other discussions, etc?

I am channeling the many noted double makers from days gone by. Mr. Greener...John Wilkes...Lancaster...Osborne...Holland...wait.....I'm feeling their presence....in unison they are screaming....Bollocks!!!!!

Dremel-tool-queens and Sabattis go hand-in-hand.

Dutch

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
It is true and has been done for many years, well before Sabatti existed.

Can you enlighten us? Articles, photos, references to other discussions, etc?

Does deleting the post count as a "no"?

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
It is true and has been done for many years, well before Sabatti existed.

Can you enlighten us? Articles, photos, references to other discussions, etc?

Does deleting the post count as a "no"?

lol Look at that. He did delete it didn't he! I guess that DOES mean a "NO"!

I wonder if jaz IS John Underwood?

Hi Todd

Back in the early 90's I had just got started in the hunting business and my clientele consisted mainly of European hunters. I remember the conversations around the fire turn to double rifles more than once and on a few occasions the practice of muzzle grinding was brought up. I specifically remember a Belgian gunsmith explaining to me what it was , and that it was a shortcut taken by some , but not acceptable. I do not recall any names connected to this.
I think this is long before Sabatti decided to produce double rifles.

As one respected poster here states--show us a picture or it didn't happen. It is interesting that in all the threads and post on the grinding issue only came to light with Sabatti. All Mr. Underwood has to do is to show some pics or other documentation (ledger page) of Holland, Purdey, Rigby, Wilkes, Watson, et. al. doing muzzle grinding.
If they don't show, it's bullshit. If they do I will write Biebs a love letter (and use the word ostentatious to confuse him).
Cal
PS. Before I write said letter, it is understood the vintage muzzle grinding is to be an original specification. I don't want Mr. Underwood buying a vintage Royal .577 and grinding the muzzles himself just to see the letter!!

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
As one respected poster here states--show us a picture or it didn't happen. It is interesting that in all the threads and post on the grinding issue only came to light with Sabatti. All Mr. Underwood has to do is to show some pics or other documentation (ledger page) of Holland, Purdey, Rigby, Wilkes, Watson, et. al. doing muzzle grinding.
If they don't show, it's bullshit. If they do I will write Biebs a love letter (and use the word ostentatious to confuse him).
Cal
PS. Before I write said letter, it is understood the vintage muzzle grinding is to be an original specification. I don't want Mr. Underwood buying a vintage Royal .577 and grinding the muzzles himself just to see the letter!!

Now THAT would be a very costly way to win an argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
It is true and has been done for many years, well before Sabatti existed.

Can you enlighten us? Articles, photos, references to other discussions, etc?

Todd I agree that names need to be posted of those who do this today. In fact JJ also told me that it has been done in the past by a lot of makers. However they used to make cartridges out od coiled brass sheet metal over cardboard, but I don't think you will find anyone today doing that, and anyone today grinding in the muzzles to regulate a double rifle must have learned that from someone from 100 yrs ago, because it is plumbing not gun smithing!
........................................................................

I deleted my post for the reason of "how would I prove it?" and taking heat without proof. Most of the opinions I read are without much experience.Perhaps Simon Clode could be contacted or another maker. I was told by one of the better double gun gunsmiths. Other collectors I know agree as well.
The Sabatti rifles are regulated on a jig, hence the problems. I do think that they represent the best value by far in a double. Buy one and have Ken Owen regulate it if it does not shoot. They are not my personal taste but the value for money cannot be beat. I do not like the Merkel nor the Searcy. For $3000 a 9.3 x 74 original rifle??

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
Most of the opinions I read are without much experience.

Considering some of the guys who have opined here (Cal, Mac, Dutch, etc.), I have to say: WOW!




Actually, I wasn't trying to play a game of "gotcha". I was / am seeking actual documentation of muzzle grinding other than Sabatti and its "acceptance" as a long established and "honored" method of regulation. I'm not saying Sabatti is the first, but I AM saying the practice has never been accepted as a proper method of regulating a double rifle. It is, and always has been, a Rube Goldberg solution to getting around short cutting the most important part of building a DR.

But it's funny that this John Underwood fellow over on FaceBook also claimed "lack of experience" when it was suggested that he is wrong in asserting that muzzle grinding is an accepted practice by big named rifles makers. Not to mention that the only place Merkel or Searcy was mentioned was in one of my FB responses, but Jaz has referred to those two makes here without additional context!

Jaz, are you really John by any chance?

I have my fingers crossed that someone doesn't post a pic of a Royal with ground muzzles. The world would be dead to me.

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
Most of the opinions I read are without much experience.

Wow. You should be the press secretary for the Obama administration or maybe work on Hillary Clinton's campaign. You are obviously a delusional know-it-all. Pot calling the kettle black maybe?

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
I deleted my post for the reason of "how would I prove it?" and taking heat without proof. Most of the opinions I read are without much experience.

You just can't stop putting your foot in your mouth.

Psmith and Fjold - get bent.
To criticize me for my opinion is low. I have practical experience with doubles from all the great makers but I doubt you do. I deleted my post for this exact reason. You don't like to hear people disagree so you say they are wrong. Please tell me your practical experience with these double weapons and we can compare our real experience. I have no dog in the fight with Sabatti rifles but listen to someone like Ken Owen who says the are great values. Do you know more than Ken , one of the few gunsmiths who builds and knows double rifles?
My experience is with collecting and owning double English rifles. Words are cheap and unfortunately that is what I am reading.
Please explain why a double rifle with ground muzzles for $3,000 is an abomination when a Searcy, mono-blocked on a shotgun action is a great rifle for three times the price?
Criticizing without proper knowledge is a sin. I never said a disparaging thing but only stated what I know to be true. Mac here even said it was done but noted that it was a hundred years ago.
Why am I wrong?

and Todd...
I am not that John
If you have ever handled a Holland double, then picked up a Searay or a
Merkel, you would know exactly what I am talking about.If you can not appreciate the difference, good night.

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
and Todd...
I am not that John
If you have ever handled a Holland double, then picked up a Searay or a
Merkel, you would know exactly what I am talking about.If you can not appreciate the difference, good night.

OoooKaaaayy! Moving right along! lol

May I meekly join in and ask an honest question from you knowledgeable double owners.

I have only ever shot two true doubles, a beautiful Holland hammer gun in 303 British and a fine Belgian double in 10.75 x 47, an old cartridge based on the Mauser concave head case.

The question: how well or often do double barrels shoot to the bore i.e if bore sighted are the barrels shooting to the point of aim of the sights?

Obviously regulating a double is just bringing each barrel to shoot to the same impact point indicated by the sights (or within expected accuracy needs around the sighting point) and not necessarily bringing the barrels to bore sight.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
May I meekly join in and ask an honest question from you knowledgeable double owners.

I have only ever shot two true doubles, a beautiful Holland hammer gun in 303 British and a fine Belgian double in 10.75 x 47, an old cartridge based on the Mauser concave head case.

The question: how well or often do double barrels shoot to the bore i.e if bore sighted are the barrels shooting to the point of aim of the sights?

Obviously regulating a double is just bringing each barrel to shoot to the same impact point indicated by the sights (or within expected accuracy needs around the sighting point) and not necessarily bringing the barrels to bore sight.

Eagle27, The line of sight (bore sighted) were brought to show the same point of aim on the target at the distance engraved on the back sight the rifle would not regulate at all.

If you take a pair of barrels off a double rifle that is regulated perfectly, clamp the lumps in a padded vice with the sights pointing to the aiming point on the target at the distance engraved on the back sight. What you will see through the barrels is the RIGHT barrel will be pointing to a place on the target that is LOW, and on the LEFT of the aiming point on the target. The LEFT barrel will be pointing to a place that is LOW and on RIGHT of the aiming point on the target.

The reason for this is regulation depends on the recoil and barrel flip to regulate properly.

When the RIGHT barrel is fired the recoil moves the barrel UP and AWAY from the other barrel just enough to be in line with where sight was when the trigger was pulled, and vice versa for the other barrel.

If the barrels are set and soldered exactly parallel the rifle will shoot wide and very high and will get farther apart as the bullets go down range.

The trial and error method is the only proper way to regulate a double rifle, and there are no shortcuts! The double rifle cannot be bore sighted to regulate it Period!
..................................................................

Thanks Mac, I was just curious to know if any double rifle barrels did happen to shoot to where the bore was aimed. Some single barrel rifles do quite well, others not so good and this is where you usually see one or other or both open sights set well off line with the barrel. Of course a scope disguises this issue provided it doesn't run out of adjustment.

http://tinypic.com/m/iw5j4m/1

http://tinypic.com/m/iw654m/1
http://tinypic.com/m/iw658j/1

Here Are three pictures from a well known maker in Ferlach who sent me these pictures. "this is a well accepted method in Ferlach to fine tune barrels"

How about an apology Fjold or Psmith ...

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
How about an apology Fjold or Psmith ...

http://oi59.tinypic.com/wthks5.jpg

No apology is due you, the pictures you posted are not what we are discussing. Grinding the muzzle in the pictures are simply a crowning , and that is not what Sabatti did!

Sabatti stuck a MOTO TOOL inside the muzzle and ground the rifleing away on one side or the other of the bore to cause the bullet to yaw in the direction to the side where the rifling was REMOVED.

T%he picture you posts above simply coned the muzzle the same all the way around, and the grinding Sabatti did made the bore egg shaped near the crown.

So the gunmaker lied....
I give up. His response was specifically to address these threads.

Don't beat your head on this one MAC. You spoke the truth and one can't elaborate of the facts.

If anyone out there has a copy of my latest book there is a pic of Sabatti's grinding work and the out-of-round shape of the muzzle is plainly seen. Feel free to post it here if anyone can.

Cal

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
Psmith and Fjold - get bent.
To criticize me for my opinion is low. I have practical experience with doubles from all the great makers but I doubt you do. I deleted my post for this exact reason. You don't like to hear people disagree so you say they are wrong. Please tell me your practical experience with these double weapons and we can compare our real experience. I have no dog in the fight with Sabatti rifles but listen to someone like Ken Owen who says the are great values. Do you know more than Ken , one of the few gunsmiths who builds and knows double rifles?
My experience is with collecting and owning double English rifles. Words are cheap and unfortunately that is what I am reading.
Please explain why a double rifle with ground muzzles for $3,000 is an abomination when a Searcy, mono-blocked on a shotgun action is a great rifle for three times the price?
Criticizing without proper knowledge is a sin. I never said a disparaging thing but only stated what I know to be true. Mac here even said it was done but noted that it was a hundred years ago.
Why am I wrong?

I didn't criticize your opinion, I criticized your criticism of the other's opinions because the other people are without much experience.

quote:

Originally posted by jaz:
So the gunmaker lied....
I give up. His response was specifically to address these threads.

Actually, I think we are just talking about two different issues here. Yes, grinding to shape the muzzle crown is what your photos show. We are talking about removing a portion of the rifling down inside the barrel at the muzzle end to cause the bullet to yaw in one direction in order to get it to strike the paper (regulation target) at a acceptable spread, giving the indication that the rifle is actually regulated properly.

Two major issues with that. One, the bullet strikes on the paper are not likely to be at an acceptable spread at any other distance than for what the dremel tool work adjusted for. In other words, closer or farther distances to the target are not likely to show the same spread because the bullet is yawing, wobbling and is unsteady.

Secondly, with the bullet yawing and wobbling like that, when it strikes the target, paper or animal, it is likely to keyhole or strike partially sideways instead of flying straight into the target like a tight spiraling football. Any deviation from perfectly straight on and penetration will be affected. This may or may not be an issue. But with elephant, and buffalo going away on a follow up shot, solids are usually called for, meaning penetration is the main concern. Anything affecting penetration depth in those instances is a detriment to the functionality of the rifle's performance.

I have never heard of any "high quality" double maker considering this method of regulation to be "acceptable". That's the issue I'm interested in, not shaping the muzzle's crown per the tooling you showed.

Not questioning that Sabatti did undertake muzzle grinding to try and regulate their doubles, have seen some photos somewhere of this, but is the point that the bullet is destabilised have merit?

It will be kicked out to a different point of impact, after all that is what the idea is in muzzle grinding, but I also thought that the whole idea of rifling was to apply enough spin to the bullet to stabilise it against any upsetting forces in terms of keeping it in a straight line once it has left the muzzle where ever that straight line takes it (excluding gravity of course)?

Using the example of a spinning top, it can be moved or bumped while spinning and it restabilises itself again until it gets to the point where the spin is too low and it loses stability, woggles and tips. Likewise an electric drill does the same thing and tries to overcome any attempt to 'destablise' it. The drill can be 'kicked' or 'steered' in another direction but will always remain stable to the axis of its spinning rotor.

Bullets fly and keyhole when the rifling is worn or the twist and or bullet velocity is not optimised to apply a high enough spin to the bullet to stabilise it.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
Not questioning that Sabatti did undertake muzzle grinding to try and regulate their doubles, have seen some photos somewhere of this, but is the point that the bullet is destabilised have merit?

It will be kicked out to a different point of impact, after all that is what the idea is in muzzle grinding, but I also thought that the whole idea of rifling was to apply enough spin to the bullet to stabilise it against any upsetting forces in terms of keeping it in a straight line once it has left the muzzle where ever that straight line takes it (excluding gravity of course)?

Using the example of a spinning top, it can be moved or bumped while spinning and it restabilises itself again until it gets to the point where the spin is too low and it loses stability, woggles and tips. Likewise an electric drill does the same thing and tries to overcome any attempt to 'destablise' it. The drill can be 'kicked' or 'steered' in another direction but will always remain stable to the axis of its spinning rotor.

Bullets fly and keyhole when the rifling is worn or the twist and or bullet velocity is not optimised to apply a high enough spin to the bullet to stabilise it.

What happens to accuracy if you nick or damage the muzzle's crown on a rifle?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
Not questioning that Sabatti did undertake muzzle grinding to try and regulate their doubles, have seen some photos somewhere of this, but is the point that the bullet is destabilised have merit?

It will be kicked out to a different point of impact, after all that is what the idea is in muzzle grinding, but I also thought that the whole idea of rifling was to apply enough spin to the bullet to stabilise it against any upsetting forces in terms of keeping it in a straight line once it has left the muzzle where ever that straight line takes it (excluding gravity of course)?

Using the example of a spinning top, it can be moved or bumped while spinning and it restabilises itself again until it gets to the point where the spin is too low and it loses stability, woggles and tips. Likewise an electric drill does the same thing and tries to overcome any attempt to 'destablise' it. The drill can be 'kicked' or 'steered' in another direction but will always remain stable to the axis of its spinning rotor.

Bullets fly and keyhole when the rifling is worn or the twist and or bullet velocity is not optimised to apply a high enough spin to the bullet to stabilise it.

What happens to accuracy if you nick or damage the muzzle's crown on a rifle?

You and I know the answer to that, it can affect accuracy, nicking or damaging the muzzle of a rifle usually involves raising metal at the muzzle (a nick will see the metal either side of the nick raised likewise a bruise) which then can damage the bullet on exit.

I'm certainly not suggesting that grinding muzzles is an acceptable method to regulate a double but it seems it may have been one way of achieving it, satisfactory for the intended game and close range it would normally be shot at. What has been the effect of grinding the muzzles, keyholing bullets, hopeless grouping?

I was the originator on this site of the muzzle exposure.
The 500 i had did not keyhole.
The individual barrels actually grouped superbly.
One group of 3 shots in one hole and the other a cloverleaf.
The issue was with the same ammo the gun was allegedly regulated with these groups were 8" apart.

Nitro

I wish i had kept those targets!

DM

Thanks for posting the photo from my book.
What a POS.
I don't recall any English makers doing this now or in the past.
What a POS.
Cal
PS. What a POS.

My 450:

And INITAL groups at 50 yards with Hornady Factory ammo and my handloads:

Still, I could not live with that muzzle. That said, I completely agree with those here who've had good luck with theirs. When it's a good one, it's way ahead of a Merkel..

quote:

Originally posted by DM:


DM

Thanks for the photo DM.

Yes, Jaz, take a look at this rifle. Specifically the 3 O'Clock position of the barrel on the right and the 5:30 to 6:00 O'Clock position of the barrel on the left. The rifling and crown has been removed. Your photos showed the set up to shape the crown properly, not this type of damage.

So just to be clear, are you saying that your gunsmith friend states that this practice has been performed by "quality" or "big named" double rifle makers as a respected and accepted practice? That's my original question. So far I haven't been able to find any evidence of it.

Gents: I spoke with a good friend of mine who posts here occasionally and also been around "the business" for a few years, rubbing elbows with the likes of Keith, Bill Jordan etc. He related to me a story told to him by a former H&H employee who immigrated here after the demise of doubles in the 60s, that "shaving"(sic) of the muzzles to fine tune was indeed an accepted practice by all doublegun makers. Hearsay to be sure, but I'll just put it out there. Suffice to say, I would never consider a weapon with evidence of same.

Jorge, can your friend provide any photos, articles, gunsmithing technical manuals, etc. with this info?

I don't think so. It was a conversation we had last night. He posts here so maybe he'll amplify.

That would be great if he would chime in.