Quote:

---

Boy,
You guys really know how to derail a good opportunity to learn something here.
I don't think 470Evans intended his post to take this path.

I would not put any member of this forum in the "ignorant" pool - let alone put them in league with Nancy Pelosi!
The fact that they are on this site proves that, even if they don't have a voluminous knowledge of Brit doubles, they do have a desire to build on what they do know.
No need for disparagement.

Now, back to the gun at hand.
There is a lot that Pugs leaves out. Such as when, where, and by whom this gun was modified. (forget the "why" - nobody but the man who had it done can answer that)
IMO, worth the ask? No, of course not. Nothing on his site is.
"Better" than an original? Not to me or most others but maybe to some.
Well done? Yes, even if not to a Brit type style or finish.

The way I see it, this isn't too different than the treatment that thousands of Mausers get every year in the custom bolt gun trade. I don't see too many custom type A's being built these days... The primary difference being that the start of the project happened to be a rare and desireable double rifle and not a Mauser.

Let's face it (can't help myself) still better than a CalRigby!

---

With that last line you did exactly what the rest of us have been trying to tell ZIM! The Cal Rigby is a fine example of what we have been saying. The CA Rigby is in exactly the same boat as the rifle that started this thread. Both are Tarted up imitations of the original, and neither is anyway close to being worth their asking price. Both remind me of corn rows, Gold teeth, and ten pounds of gold chains hanging around the neck of a hip-hop rapper, a look that matches the words that he uses in his GANGSTAH RAP!

400 is right ZIM has been on his case for at least two or three years! I'm sure it is beginning to get a little old. I know it would be with me. There is nothing wrong with Zim liking the rifle that started this thread, but why was it necessary to get angry and slam other who have a different opinion. The fact is the so-called restoration was very poorly done, and the fact that it looks good to some doesn't change that fact.

The original question was "what can be reversed and what would it cost" (Paraphrased). I think all the answers were right on target to the original question. I see no need to condemn anyone for giving an answer to that question. Instead of jumping down the responder's throat because you like the rifle the way it is, Zim should have simply said "I like it the way it is now, apparently others may not!" and be done with it, but it seems that is not his style.

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