Dugaboy - Like many Australians (and it seems, North Americans),I have no particular "truck" with things "English" per se. However I could be rightly accused of being "Anglophilic" when it comes to guns.

"That's my cross, etc...",so, for a moment can we put aside questions of Country, Investment Potential, Upfront Cost etc, and focus on what is quality when it comes to guns - in particular, English Guns, since that is the subject at hand.

Someone once noted that, when it comes to shotguns the ranking of the top three would be: Boss, Purdey then Holland and Holland, but, when it came to rifles the ranking was turned on it's head to: Purdey, Rigby and Holland and Holland.

So, if we are talking about Double Rifles, whoever this was, he is in agreement with you!

Having had limited experience with Purdey double rifles, only having owned some "blackies", I am at a loss to know why they would be ranked over a Rigby?

Yes, Purdeys can be racy, a .369 that a friend of mine owned was a real thoroughbred, but some of those snap underlevers were real dogs to use.

Probably, one of the prettiest doubles I have seen was a game-scene engraved .400 Light, but only because of it's "SHINE" factor.

But, historically,nobody seems to have commented on how Purdey's shoot, and since the original ammo that they were regulated for is no longer around, we may never know!

That being said, it's drawing a long bow indeed to compare the shooting ability (if that's your definition of quality?)of rifles built three generations ago for ammunition that no longer exists, with modern rifles built for contemporary ammunition. The fact that most of these old guns can still be made to shoot accurately, is I think, nothing short of a miracle!

Otherwise, they would be relegated to relic status.

Instead, they are still out there doing what they were designed for nearly 100 years ago; the flip-side of the sentiments that dispose you to "modern" guns is that that the old classics are kept more affordable for the likes of me, and that pleases me.