| 93x64mm |
| (.416 member) |
| 02/12/25 06:52 AM |
Re: Does the barrel to fence look right to you?
|
Quote:
I think there needs to be a greater acceptance here of the rules for British gunmaking.
The rules are: "There are no rules"!
The fact that something might look strange or even "ugly" 150 years after being made should not necessarily make it the subject of harsh criticism in my view.
Look, I'm happy to stand corrected, but it certainly appears that for whatever reason, Scott sometimes made them like that.
Went digging in my backup drives and found a pic of that Climax double I mentioned considering in an earlier post,
admittedly not as stepped at the breech as the subject of this thread but stepped none-the-less.
Similar era, browned barrels on Scott's typical hammerless sidelock of the day with coin finish.
It was definitely made that way.
Apologies for the poor-quality image, the seller's photography not mine!
I have seen a couple more built like this advertised many years ago (one of them must have been the crystal indicator) but would struggle to find pics now
(if in fact I ripped them at the time).
If a vintage double has been cobbled-up badly for sale to a sucker I would gladly cast the first stone,
but Scott-built sidelocks were at the peak of British gun-making at the time and if original should be appreciated and enjoyed for what they are.
Well bugger me!
After Marrakai's post here, then I guess it may alleviate the 'cobbled' doubt, perhaps the maker made too many actions of a certain larger size, only to get far more orders for a smaller calibre normally requiring a smaller action - rifle needed in a hurry perhaps, an easy option I suppose?