Having had both, I would not opt for another O/U double rifle unless I simply, absolutely, couldn't afford a SxS.



I never found an O/U which balanced as well as a SxS for really quick shooting, particularly among the less expensive of either. I also found the O/U to be more awkward to carry, particularly over long distances. (The SxS barrels lie nicely over the shoulder without having to turn the buttstock to an awkward position.)



And, breaking the O/U enough for reloading is definitely much slower. Though the added distance you have to open the action is not much in inches, it DOES have to be kept twice as far open to insert the second fresh cartridge. Not my cup of tea should I be facing something up close with speed, strength, teeth, claws, and anger on its side.



I guess "why" a person selects a double is also important in the decision. With a shotgun, shooting in a game where the angles are pretty standardized, and the firing positions not too sudden or awkward, and the appearance of the quarry not too surprising, I suppose the single sighting plane of an O/U might be a slight advantage. But, when the angles can be anything at all, the appearance of the game at the worst possible time, reloading a sometimes life or death matter, and the whole business SERIOUS, not a game, I'll always take the SxS.



By the way, I'll take two triggers, too. And two completely separate locks. Not a single trigger, operating "sorta" two locks, but two complete single shot rifles joined together at the hip.



YMMV



AC

Pollard's History of Firearms has pictures of a side opening O/U shotguns with double "underbites" (I guiess they would be called "sidebites" here) as made by John Dickson in the 1920s. I have never seen any other pictures of these guns anywhere else and am not sure the Dickson company makes them anymore but they would have been a good choice to counter the long opening arc of traditional opening O/Us.

Good hunting!

I am not expert - not even an informed amateur as far the technical aspects of various types of guns are concerned but I remember reading an interview with Ivo Fabbri some time ago where he asid that his company made only O/Us because they were significantly stronger than Sxs. Also, some of the literature that I have back in India seems to suggest that the first double barreled guns were O/Us and that the SxS came later as they offered a better sighting plane and were better balanced. I think this was from John Marchington or another British shotgun expert - not sure who.

Just my 2c.

Because, as a rule, O/U actions are much deeper than SXS actions, requiring more time and physical effort to open all the way, and present a more difficult proposition in reloading the bottom barrel rapidly.



This is, of course, macht nichts when shooting at anything except dangerous game, but of course, the .470's + up are supposed to be used for dangerous game. Then reloading speed becomes a consideration.



In addition, the SXS is usually a lighter, faster handling, and better balanced setup for fast shooting.

mehulkamdar



Interesting information, soo the O/U was first design for the break top shotguns.



I think the SXS is more classic looking and handles better than the, but with these facts one should have a O/U shot gun and a SXS double



I heard that the most important thing is an double action has long action to support the barrels. Maybe, this was why the winchester M-21 lasted longer than the purdey, I'm thinking about the torture test you mentioned some time ago



Cheers

/ JOHAN

Johan,

I remember reading the article a very long time ago and when I posted here, ALF had put the details up on the Purdey vs Winchester Model 21 competition.
http://www.accuratereloading.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=47463&Forum=
The British guns were not made for this kind of use at all and were proven to be delicate.

No flames please - please don't shoot the messenger!

Good hunting!

I have to admit major surprise that O/U doubles would pre-date SxS double rifles...especially as the SxS double form was well established in shotguns in the first half of the 19th Century...even earlier, actually, with some of the flint doubles.



I don't personally recall from my reading even the O/U shotgun really being around until almost the turn of the 20th Century, let alone the O/U double rifle.



Who were some of the makers and who were some of the users? Do you recall the writer having mentioned any?



I am not questioning your report, just want to learn more about this..........



Thanks,



AC

Alberta Canuck,

I would be more than happy to be corrected if I were wrong, please don't worry about questioning me as I am a learner and not at all an expert like some of the posters here.

I am currently in the USA and the books that I have collected over the years are all in India at my home there, leaving me without any way of checking where exactly I read this about O/Us or U/Os as the Brits call them but I think John Marchington is the authority who says this. I remember this because the author indicated that this was because the SxS was designed as an improvement over the earlier O/U design.

And it is not the modern break action cartridge double shotguns that he speaks about when talking about the origins of the double but the much earlier muzzle-loading arms.

I shall scan and e-mail the copy of the article to you when I get back, if you'd like it.

Good hunting!

johan,
I assume this is a pot stirrer.. as no PROPER english double is o/u

jeffe

Thank you very much for the offer of e-mailing me a copy of that article. I would really appreciate it. The reason for my surprise is that I have many of the books written by the likes of Geoffrey Boothroyd, et. al, on English guns & rifles. Have also collected over 30 years worth (late 1950's to early 1990's) of "Shooting Times & Country Living" magazine, the UK weekly which had a feature on some rarity of the gun genre every week, together with historical articles, and have never before seen that stated.



I DO know that some early double muzzle-loader rifles were stacked over/under fashion, but the two barrels were usually rotated to bring the second barrel up under the same lock after the first had been fired. Knowing the propensity of small English firearms makers to make EVERY firearm a "one-off" to some degree or other, though, I would not be at all surprised to find that some double rifles also had both over & under locks as well.



I also recall, that even among the semi-pro and pro hunters in Africa as early as Sir Samuel Baker, they were already using SxS doubles even though they were still muzzle-stuffers (of 4-bore & 2-bore, yet!). Most who didn't use a SxS apparently used single shot muzzle loaders until the advent of the break-action cartridge rifles.



Still, it's sure possible something else was discarded in favor of the SxS at some past time , so would be very interested in reading the article in question.



Thanks again,



AC

jeffeosso

Actually, I have no intentions stirr...

I was just wanted to get some new aspects regarding SXS vs. O/U.

Cheers
/ JOHAN

While it is true that there were few, if any, O/U double muzzleloaders with two locks, there were the swivel-breech types which had the same geometry as current O/U's but only one lock, requiring the barrels to be rotated so the under barrel beame the upper when it was time to fire it. Some did have a separate pan and frizzen mounted on each barrel, however, which moved with the barrel when it was rotated.