Interesting discussion. I don't have a dog in this hunt really. Not sure why Ray seems to feel the way he does about Chapuis, but I have a hunch. I also have a hunch I know why he has what he has now. I usually agree with Ray, but don't agree with him about Chapuis. Not a big deal though.

I bought my last double rifle shortly after the imporation of the Heym 88 started. I didn't like it, and the current Muckles (yeah, I mean Merkel, but it always comes out the other way), Chapuis, etc. weren't available yet, so I bought two very nice used British double rifles, which left me with $2500 change from the price of one new Heym. My, how times have changed. I'm not a snob - hey, I bought what was cheap at the time - but I've been spoiled by double rifles done correctly from butt to regulating wedge. Besides, I want a few more double rifles to play with and the better British stuff is no longer merely expensive, so I'm stuck in the same boat with everybody else.

For a NEW double rifle in the $8,000 to $16,000 price range, the Chapuis, Muckle, Heym, and Krieghoff are a fair trade for what you get at their respective prices. They aren't $60,000 to $100,000 British guns and you get what you pay for. I've handled and shot them all and, since I'm not overly fond of any of them, feel that my views about them are absolutely, unassailably, objective.. In terms of accuracy, durability (which is to say long-term reliability), handling dynamics, overall build quality, and stock design, the ones I like best are:

Accuracy: Krieghoff & Chapuis, but Muckle and Heym are very good.

Durability: My guess is Chapuis. All of these guns are still too new for any sample to have much long range validity. I've heard of problems with all of them, but nothing that would cause me to choose one over the other.

Handling dynamics: In small & medium bores, Chapuis & Muckle are pretty good, although too light. In large bores, none. No, Virginia, you can't build a .470 double rifle with sparkling handling characteristics on a rook rifle action.

Build quality: Heym.

Stock design: yuck.

I've been looking for a nice Rigby .350 No. 2 for quite a while and can't find one at a price that I can justify, so I've pretty much decided to get a 9.3 Chapuis as a project gun. They're accurate and, in 9.3, CHEAP - the small and medium bore Chapuis' can be had for half the price of their .470. My idea is to have J. J. reshape the fore-end, cheek-piece, and pistol-hand into something suitable for a double rifle (and I heard a rumor that Ray is having his new "sweet thang" restocked to feel more like a British rifle...hmmm); tear off the sights and start over, including adding a new folding moon bead; make and fit a set of claws, and re-regulate with the scope if needed.

Were I stuck with having to buy a new built .470, I imagine I would get a Chapuis, fix the sights, and re-stock it.

Aside from accuracy, a double rifle design succeeds or fails on handling dynamics, especially so one intended for dangerous game. Building a 10 lb. double rifle that handles like a game gun is a trick and the trick is weight distribution. The old British saw of concentrating half of the weight between the hands is still the only way. In the small and medium bores, most of these rifles are pretty good in this regard. In scaling up to .470 and .500, all pretense of proper scale is discarded. In .470, I honestly can't pick. To me, all four makes feel like a 4 foot length of 3 inch steel pipe poured full of concrete - the weight distribution is linear, rather than concentrated between the hands.

I imagine that this has entirely to do with hitting the price point these guns are built to - a certain amount of commonality must be had I suppose. I still think any of these makers could build a .470 on an action of proper size with barrels correctly profiled to properly distribute the weight, stock them fairly close to right, and do so profitably at their current prices. They just have to want to do it.

Given that this string seems to have been a serious discussion regarding Chapuis in particular and double rifles in general, I can't understand previous posters' references to Searcy rifles, which have no place in any such serious discussion. As the old saying goes, you couldn't run fast enough.....

------------------------------------