rell

You miss my point, perhaps I should have been clearer.

If one were to build a new Double, but use the same steel that was used in 1920, would that rifle not be good enough for the NE cartridges? Would it not last 100 years like it's predecessors?

Was it not sufficient for the purpose? To build a Double Rifle that would last 100 years??

What advantage, in practical terms, do the newer steels that are being used today give? Do we need a steel that will hold together under pressures that will never be attained?

Do we need a rifle that will shoot a monolithic solid? Why? What is wrong with the older bullets?

Do stock makers make more today than they did in 1920?