Guys,

I've been watching this thread develop, and it is an interesting discussion.

I have never owned a C&H. The ones I have seen have ranged in quality from so-so to excellent. I've never shot one and can't comment on that.

Likewise, I've never owned a Westley Richards. I've seen some to die for, and I've seen some that were obviously just working guns. I don't think I have ever seen a WR double rifle I would call poor quality.

However, last year I set out to buy a Westley Richards 20ga. sidelock ejector. I paid the price and received the gun on a three-day approval. It was represented to be just like new, and it was. But it must have been one of those made during the very hard times of the British trade. The fit and finish was absolutely horrible. This was not from wear or poor handling, mind you. An Arrietta 557 would put it to shame. I was shocked, and sent it back. Likewise I have seen H&H guns made during the low point that look bad.

My point is much in agreement with Dugaboy1. One must carefully evaluate the gun you are holding in your hands. The name means something (maybe it's mostly an indication of how deep you will dig in your pocket, as Dugaboy1 said), but the most important thing is the quality of the gun itself.

As names go, I think without a doubt Westley Richards commands higher respect than Cogswell & Harrison, all other things being equal.

Finally, I have never owned or shot a Searcy either. I have a hard time warming up to the lines, though. The action is kinda like a shoe box with balls on the side for bolsters. At the same price, I'll take a sound English gun over that. My current production .500 Nitro Merkel 140-2 is pretty ugly too. But to my eye the lines are better; more traditional than the Searcy. I'd take the Merkel at the same price, but in fact, it cost less.

Just my most humble and admittedly uninformed opinion. Thanks for listening (or reading)!

CptCurl