Forums.NitroExpress.com

From: Anthropoid (Original Message) Sent: 11/17/2002 9:42 AM
Double or Magazine
When the chips are down and your life is at stake, which is better: an accurate, powerful bolt action or the fast, traditional double rifle?
By Col. Craig Boddington

The question seems to come from a bygone era, the halcyon days of the British Empire when men were men, and you knew it by the big Nitro Express cartridges in the bullet loops of their khakis. Except that from the very inception of repeating rifles and smokeless powder, not every ivory hunter, professional hunter or amateur adventurer actually carried a double rifle. Many of the best and most-experienced preferred the accuracy and firepower of the newfangled bolt action. Most of the classic books on African hunting ask--and attempt to answer--the question of which is best for dangerous game, the double rifle or the bolt action.

The discussion about which is better for dangerous game--the double rifle or the bolt-action repeater--is at least a century old. With a resurgence of interest in the double, it's worth revisiting.
So it's an old question. It is not an obsolete one, but it almost became so. The once-extensive British gun trade used to supply most of the world's double rifles. The actual number of double rifles never was large, and the total number of doubles extant in the entire world would probably not equal the annual production run of the Remington Model 700. However, dangerous game rifles have always commanded an inordinate level of interest compared to their actual use. Not only are their huge cartridges intriguing, but the hunter literally trusts his life and the lives of his companions on his rifle's reliability and stopping power--not to mention the skill to employ it properly! From the start, campfire arguments between serious hunters and armchair safarists alike centered around the question of double versus magazine rifles.

The discussion nearly became moot when the British gun trade took a severe whack during the Great Depression. World War II was even worse. Some shops were bombed out, and during Britain's almost total mobilization, many artisans were killed and many others went on to other trades after the war. Most of the best-known gunmakers resumed production of sporting arms after World War II, but the world would not be the same. Britain's economy was slow in recovering, and shortly after the war she started divesting herself of game-rich colonies. African hunting continued, and actually escalated, but the new safari market was nouveau-riche America. Americans tended to buy Winchester or Remington .375s or perhaps one of those fast, fancy rifles Roy Weatherby was selling.

REBIRTH OF THE DOUBLE
Mind you, the bolt action didn't always win the argument, as the situation was clouded by a flood of used doubles from newly-independent India. The demand for new double rifles was almost nil. For many years after World War II, very few doubles were built anywhere in the world. The British firm of Kynoch was the traditional manufacturer of the big Nitro Express cartridges. In the 1950s, they began discontinuing the large calibers, starting with the least popular until they were out of the big-bore business. This was the low point for the double rifle; professional hunters in the field may have believed in the concept of the double, but without fresh, reliable ammunition there wasn't much point. More used doubles went for a song, and inexpensive bolt actions in .458 Winchester Magnum became standard for use on dangerous game.

It was the uniquely American practice of handloading that kept the double rifle alive. Fred Huntington made the dies, Barnes made the bullets, and in time Jim Bell, sensing a market, started making new brass (and later loaded ammo). Interest in double rifles had never died away and with the ammunition problem simplified, if not solved, demand started to grow. It has continued to grow, and it is not an exaggeration to say that there are more double rifles being made today than at any time since before World War II--and quite possibly since the advent of breechloading rifles. The best-known English firms are all back in the double rifle business--James Purdey, Holland & Holland, Westley Richards, John Rigby (now relocated to Paso Robles, California). The great gunmakers of Ferlach, Austria and Liege, Belgium are turning out doubles left, right and center. In Germany, Krieghoff and Heym, among others, are knee-deep in the double rifle business. In Italy, honored firms like Beretta and Perugini-Visini are producing exceptional doubles. In America, Butch Searcy led the charge. Rogue River Rifleworks followed, and other shops are now dabbling in doubles.

A well-made double rifle should be extremely reliable provided reasonable maintenance and care in feeding. The ejectors of a good double will be "timed" so both empties fly out in parallel arcs.

A potential weakness to the double rifle is lack of extraction power, which is a problem if you insist on chambering a double to a belted rimless or rimless case. This was often done when no ammunition for rimmed Nitro Express cartridges was readily available. Federal's excellent .470 Nitro Express ammunition changed that. The vast majority of modern double rifles are chambered to .470, and usually regulated with Federal. But it is not the only choice, and .470 is not the only available cartridge. The Kynoch brand is back, plus there's A-Square, Superior, Rigby and much more. The obscure Nitro Expresses are still obscure, but more common numbers like .500, .450 and .475 No. 2, .450/.400, the new .500/.416 (developed by Krieghoff), and even the big .577, are simply no problem. So today there are double rifles and good ammunition readily available from multiple sources. When chambered to a belted or belted rimless cartridge, any potential, real, or imagined reliability advantage inherent to the double rifle goes out the window! Although there are some very good and very clever systems for getting a double rifle to extract/eject rimless and belted rimless cartridges, all of them will fail sooner or later when the extractor/ejector slips over the case head. For my money, a double rifle is not a sound dangerous game rifle unless it is chambered to a rimmed cartridge.

THE OLD ARGUMENTS
Although manufacturing techniques have changed, neither the double rifle nor the bolt action are exactly new. The double-barreled rifle has undergone relatively little change since Holland & Holland perfected the hammerless action in the 1880s. Many believe the bolt action rifle reached its peak of development with the '98 Mauser, and even the enclosed bolt face, push-feed design is now more than 50 years old. The arguments used to settle the double rifle versus bolt action have thus been well-formed for the best part of a century and revolve around: reliability, cost, handling qualities, speed and accuracy.

WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?
It must be understood that these subjects can only be addressed from the standpoint of personal experience. Research is good and invaluable, of course. From their writings, I know how most of the old-timers felt. Karamoja Bell was a bolt action man. Pondoro Taylor preferred doubles. Jimmy Sutherland used a pair of .577 doubles. John Hunter used both, but apparently preferred a double .500. Harry Manners never found his over-the-counter Winchester Model 70 .375 lacking. Harry Selby started with a double, but has used bolt actions for most of his 50-year-plus career. I know that these men, and the many more great heroes of Africana, acquired far more experience than I will ever have. Regrettably, it is not possible to generalize upon one's own limited experience and expect universal truth to be the result.

RELIABILITY
Provided a rifle is well-made in the first place, and especially provided you've spent lots of time on the range checking out all functions--not just accuracy--and further provided you have good ammunition, neither the bolt action nor the double have any chronic ills or weaknesses. Both require normal cleaning and maintenance. Given that, both types should function properly with monotonous reliability for many decades. There is a caveat. I personally love vintage doubles that have seen honest use. Keep in mind that a used hammerless double originally proofed for smokeless powder could still be more than a century old. Worn springs and firing pins are possible, and 1898 steel wasn't as good as gun steel today. Exactly the same thing can be said about a classic Mauser!

This is what dangerous game rifles are all about--in the thick stuff, trying to get a shot. Whichever you choose, you must have total confidence in your choice.

One old argument in favor of the double that has some validity is that a double is essentially two barrels and actions on one stock; anything short of a catastrophic calamity to one will probably not impact the other. So with a double, a broken firing pin still leaves you with a single shot, and a misfire in one barrel can be instantly corrected with no movement and no noise. This is not the case with a bolt action. Although misfires with modern ammo are exceedingly rare, Mr. Murphy lies in wait for the unwary. I have experienced not one, but two misfires on dangerous game, both with bolt actions. In these events I was a little busy, so I didn't instantly wish for a double, but the thought occurred to me later. Based on this alone, and not on any difference in mechanical reliability, I must give the edge to the double rifle.

COST
The most inexpensive large-caliber double rifle worthy of the name that I know of is the Krieghoff. It's a great gun, and it retails for around $9,000--lots of gun for the money. Most new boxlock doubles today run from somewhere around $11,000 to the high teens. Perhaps surprisingly, vintage guns are much the same, depending on caliber and who made it. For sidelocks, double that "high teens" figure and go up from there.

It is quite possible to spend $20K and more on a custom bolt action, but there are few makers who can command such a figure. Most really good custom bolt actions stocked in fine wood run from about $7,000 to $12,000, and you can cut that in half for even the best synthetic-stocked rifles. There are a few good $500 production rifles, but most companies charge premiums for the larger chamberings. Even so, there are a lot of great production rifles between about $800 and $1,500.

Most discussions about cost in relation to dangerous game rifles wind up with a question about how much your life is worth. Valid point, but not relative if you can't afford it. Regardless of the outcome of any of these discussions, you do not have to have a double rifle to hunt dangerous game. I cannot tell you with a straight face that a basic double is 10 times better than a darned good bolt action, no more than I can tell you that the best custom bolt gun is 20 times better than an over-the-counter Ruger, Remington, Winchester or whatever. So the cost argument must go in favor of the bolt action.

HANDLING QUALITIES
Double rifle men will always argue that nothing matches the feel and fast-handling qualities of a well-fitting double. Double shotgun men make the same argument, but not everybody likes or shoots well with a double shotgun. It's the same with rifles, too. Some people are so accustomed to a certain way of shooting that they simply cannot adapt to a double's tang safety or its double triggers. The double is not for everybody.

Rory Muil and the author approach a good Zimbabwe buffalo. This bull required a long and scary follow-up, and Boddington was extremely grateful for the .500 double I borrowed for the purpose. Its "one-two" punch prevented a dangerous charge.

I happen to like the feel of a double, with lots of weight between the hands--provided it is stocked so that the rifle comes up with the sights aligned. On the other hand, I also like the feel of a fine bolt action stocked with a good American Classic straight-combed stock. I cannot tell you that a double handles better, faster, or more responsively than an equally well-stocked bolt action, at least not for me.

The double does have one thing going for it. Because of the break-open action, a double is a good 5 inches shorter than a bolt action of identical barrel length. Yes, you can cut a bolt action's barrel short, and at the close ranges at which dangerous game is shot you'll never miss the velocity. But a double puts plenty of weight up forward for smooth swinging, so is generally more responsive and steadier than a short-barreled bolt action. Even so, a well-stocked bolt action feels so good that I have to give this one a "neutral."

SPEED
Collectively, I suppose I have taken more buffalo with a bolt action than with a double, so I have a lot of confidence in bolt actions, and I'm very comfortable with them. Although I'm left-handed, I grew up with right-handed bolt actions, operating them by reaching over the top with my shooting hand. I learned to do it pretty fast. It was a revelation when I switched to left-handed bolts and learned to operate them like right-handers always have. Man, is that fast! Empirically I have always accepted that a double rifle was faster for the second shot, but only recently did I have an experience where it might have made a difference.

In June of 1999, I was hunting in Russ Broom's area in the Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe. One morning Rory Muil and I tracked up a herd of troublesome elephant cows, and after several hours we got in position for a shot on a gently sloping ridge. The animal we had selected was feeding in some thick stuff just down the ridge, a little below us. I was shooting my left-hand .416 Rigby, and I went for a frontal brain shot at about 30 yards. The downhill angle confused me and I flubbed it, passing the 400-grain solid just under the brain. The brain shot is tricky, but the good thing about it that you know instantly whether you've made it or not. I knew I'd messed up as the elephant started to whirl, and as she turned I pretty much slam-fired the .416, placing the second shot nicely in the shoulder. The two reports were milliseconds apart, and although I kicked myself for poor placement of the first shot, I was pleased with my ability to launch that badly needed second shot so quickly. At the time, I didn't think a double would have been quicker.

Two days later Rory and I got into three buffalo bulls in some very thick stuff. Same .416, except that its scope had taken a bad knock while packing elephant meat, and I didn't know it. We got in close, picked out a very nice bull, and I held for a shoulder shot as he walked through a little clear spot. At the shot, he launched into high gear, almost instantly passing behind a thick screen of brush. When he came out he was mixed with the other two bulls, and although there was all the time in the world neither of us could be certain which bull was the right bull. There was no second shot, and he was not hit nearly as well as I thought he was. We got him, but only after a long and very scary follow-up in the Zamebezi's legendary jess bush. I may be fast with a bolt, but in that situation I wasn't fast enough, and I'm not sure anyone else would have been. With a double, I know I could have gotten a second shot into that bull. Mind you, shot placement is always better than firepower. Since the rifle was out of zero and I didn't know it, I must assume the second shot would also have been misdirected. Even so, I believe a second bullet--a solid from the left barrel of a double--would have helped.

A cow elephant taken in Zimbabwe with the author's Rigby .416. Boddington missed the frontal brain shot but was able to get a much-needed "insurance" shoulder shot very quickly. With practice, bolt actions are fast--and usually fast enough.

No other action type offers the instantaneous second chance that a double gives you. You may not have to call on it all that often, but it's there. Here is where my thinking diverges from much of the classic writings on this subject. Old time double riflemen often recommended holding the second barrel "in reserve." The modern situation differs in two ways, at least from the standpoint of the sport hunter. First, the days of market hunting and ivory hunting are over. I will never wade into a herd of buffalo or elephant with the intention of taking more than one animal. Second, I am very unlikely to go in on dangerous game alone. Chances are a licensed professional hunter will be at my side. My objective is to take a single carefully chosen animal as efficiently as I can, preferably without my PH's collaboration. The instantaneous "one-two" punch of a double is excellent insurance.

In days gone by there was also a reverse argument. Many of the old-timers preferred magazine rifles for their firepower, figuring they were better off in a herd with a five or six-shot bolt action than with a two-shot double. For those who do control work the point remains valid. The double is always faster for the second shot. Beyond that the magazine rifle takes over. For my purposes as a sport hunter, I'll take the instantaneous second shot. The double wins on the speed issue.

ACCURACY
Ultimately there are limits. A double rifle lacks the accuracy potential of a bolt action. This is bothersome to many Americans, because we are "group freaks." We want serious accuracy, and a rifle that won't produce minute-of-angle groups just isn't worthy of being called a rifle. Okay, if you simply must have exceptionally tight groups in order to have confidence in a rifle, a double probably isn't for you. Legendary gunmaker Kenny Jarrett now offers a "Professional Hunter" rifle that is probably your cup of tea--controlled-round-feed action, well-mounted scope with backup scope supplied, good iron sights, synthetic stock, rustproof finish. And since Jarrett makes it, it will group. I mention this particular rifle because in his promotional literature, Jarrett--a gunmaker whose forte has always been accuracy--rails against the double rifle for its lack of accuracy.

On average, a well-made bolt action will be more accurate than a well-made double, so the bolt action wins the accuracy debate. On the other hand, keep in sight the issue of adequate accuracy for dangerous game. We aren't shooting woodchucks at 400 yards. We're shooting very large and potentially dangerous beasts, almost always within 100 yards and usually within 75 yards. So long as we're talking about a well-made rifle, any double is capable of this kind of work, and most of them offer accuracy that far exceeds the practical limits of their cartridges and sights.

THE BOTTOM LINE
To a large degree, your choice should depend on your comfort level and familiarity. Consider this, though. When Rory and I had to dive into the jess to clean up the mess I'd made in wounding my buffalo, I gratefully accepted Russ Broom's offer of his double .500 (which happens to fit me, since Russ and I are about the same size). The bull didn't charge--but that is quite possibly because he took both barrels the instant we confirmed that a black shadow lurking in the bush was indeed the buffalo. This was not the only time I have carried a double rifle on a follow-up. As I said, I have never seen a buffalo charge, but there have been several occasions when I am fairly certain the one-two punch of a big double precluded further excitement.

Ninety-nine percent of the time, year in and year out, there is no clear cut advantage one way or the other, which means that most Americans will be more comfortable with an accurate, versatile bolt action (and their wallets will be happier, too). Things change when the chips are down, and this is what the double rifle is all about. At close range in the thick stuff, when things are serious and lives are at risk, the short, sleek profile of a double rifle and its instantaneous, absolutely available second shot suddenly become very important. Today's sportsman can get along very well without a double rifle, and chances are he can experience multiple safaris with no mishaps. If there are problems, chances are he can shoot his way out, with or without the help of his PH, regardless of the type of rifle he is carrying. But once in a while the double rifle--and only the double rifle--can save the day. I am fairly certain this is why the double rifle didn't fade away, and why there is so much renewed interest in it today: Genuinely tight spots are rare, but after more than a century there is still nothing better when the chips are really down.

First Previous 2-6 of 6 Next Last Delete Replies

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 2 of 6 in Discussion

From: Nitro Sent: 11/18/2002 2:56 PM
Anthropoid

I think that if I could afford one (or two) a double in a calibre such as 470 NE, 500/465 H&H, 450 No.2, 500/450 3 1/4", and up to the 500 NE would have to be the best firearm for dangerous and very large game in close cover and say up to 70 to 80 yards. Further if the shooter knows how the cannon shoots at longer ranges.

The "pointability" of a double and the availability of a second shot with knock-down power would be a real asset.

A second double in a 360, 9.3x74, 375 or even a 400 would make a nice lighter weight "fun" gun for other game and could also be used for DG as well if required.

There is no doubt however that a bolt action is better at longer ranges and is certainly more affordable. Why we mostly all use them. For a non-PH I think a bolt action in 375 H&H or 416 Rigby is fantastic medicine and in 99.9% of occasions all that would ever be required.

My ideal "battery" would probably be two doubles in 500/465, a 9.3x74R and added to this a M98 375 H&H and a M98 416 Rigby. One-quarter the way there.

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 3 of 6 in Discussion

From: Honey badger Sent: 11/18/2002 5:13 PM
This has all been said before but, man, do we enjoy saying it all again! Many more magazine rifles were used in Africa than doubles, probably due to the expense of even an average double. The death knell was almost sounded for doubles with the introduction of .458 in 1958, followed a few years later by Kynoch going out of the ammunition business. Happily, interest in doubles, and Nitro Expresses in general, has revived and the ammunition situation has been resolved. I think a lot more hunters would use doubles, were it not for the cost.

Nitro, your reply has given me an idea for another subjest!

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 4 of 6 in Discussion

From: Anthropoid Sent: 11/19/2002 11:00 AM
I'd prefer the double.

But I'm financially embarrassed at the moment.
I say! HB...I don't suppose you could see your way clear...(cough)....well you know what I mean old boy. I'd pay you back old chap...honest. :-)

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 5 of 6 in Discussion

From: Honey badger Sent: 11/19/2002 7:25 PM
Of course old chap. Straight after I've bought mine - and a brace of Purdeys and a new Bentley and Bleinheim Palace and....etc

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 6 of 6 in Discussion

From: Anthropoid Sent: 11/20/2002 11:05 AM
Jolly decent of you old boy. I'll get my manservant to contact yours to make the arrangements. :-)

--------------------
*****
Message from previous message board