Forums.NitroExpress.com

I beleive that a modern rifle can be and generally is built with better materials.. This goes from the steel and often to the wood.

I also believe that the double rifle design reached its zenith with the back action sidelock ejector long, long ago. Also at the zenith is the drop lock and round action - as in trigger plate action.

The problem with the older steel wasn't that it wasn't stong "enough" it generally was. The problem was that it wasn't consistant. We hear of a few barrels blowing up on older guns or chanbers bulged or the rifleing being over stressed by mono bullets. These are isolated incidents now since rifles still in use have largely proven themselves. And who knows the causes, latent defects or impurities in the steel, bad reloading, too much oil or seized grease... But I'd love to know how common the problem was in the proof house and in the feild "back then". A whole lot more common I'd bet. 70 or more years tends to weed out the rifles that started as poorly made junk, or those well made but with hidden flaws.

I wish every maker could make a set of barrels as good as a good English set but few can or do. I think this is the root of clubbiness and less than dynamic handleing.

On the no garuntee for reloading, well, chalk that one up to liability laws and lawyers. With a second going to some of our over enthusiastic or overly careless reloaders. A double only has to shoot well to the time proven ballistics to be a complete success on this front. There is no reason for a 470 double to shoot at say 2350fps.

I don't think modern "entry level" doubles should be compared to English rifles as a whole. They are really apples and oranges. But even as I say this I have to add that there were/are plenty of English rifles that couldn't hold a candle to a Searcy or a Merkel. Folks are talking of the Searcy, Merkel...being tools. All doubles rifles are tools, some just better and nicer than others. Plenty of clubby, cobbled English guns were made but some of the nicer tools were made by the English too.

It comes down to the individual gun and individual shooter really. Some rifles I pick up and think , "WOW!"; some I pick up and say, "whoa." The next guy might think differently, even if only because one fits him better. Some I wish I could pick up blindfolded cause I just can't get past the ugly or the beauty and how it fits, handles and shoots is really what counts. But I just can't live with the ugly!
But a good shooting, good fitting, ugly club is a better tool for the DG hunter than a beautiful ,well balanced, ill fitting show case.

JPK