"I have many, many days and tens of thousands of rounds through O/U shotguns on the skeet, clays, and hunting fields, and can tell you that the above statement simply isn't true."

Why on earth would one want to spend all that time and expend that many shells through an "inferior design" which presents such loading difficulties?

It seems to me that the crucial feature which separates double rifles from other weapons is their handling qualities. All the other features of a double rifle: two shots without reloading, two separate mechanisms in case one fails, two triggers for the same reason are equally shared by both configurations.

At the risk of seeming obtuse, perhaps you could explain to me why O/U shotguns are preferred over S/S in competetive shooting, when handling qualities are especially important. Then you could explain to me why the handling qualities of a S/S rifle are superior to an O/U, when the relationship of shot barrel to rifle barrel is the same.

I can understand a preference for S/S rifles based on the premise that O/U rifles are generally lighter and built for European style hunting, with perhaps less weight concentrated between the hands, which is a handling issue, but is not defined by barrel configuration.

My Krieghoff O/U has a Kersten locking system, which some may find objectionable, but I do not. Other O/U double rifles do not share this feature. My Westley Richards Ovundo did not.

A simple ad hominum characterization of "inferior design" will not convince a discerning reader without further exposition.