In reply to:

---

What I would like to know, and have not seen discussed on this forum, is, what were the classical makers' accuracy standards before they would consider a rifle ready for sale? What are the requirements today? Are they different for big bores and smaller rifles? For the different makers? How, for instance, does Searcy compare with Merkel, Kreighoff, Chapuis, the Italians? The Brits? If anyone has the facts, I would very much like to know them.

---

The standards of the makers were one of the main reasons that they tried to chamber for prepiatory (spl?)cartridges! The only way they could guarantee the accuracy they advertised was to have the ammo manufacturers make their loads to the letter! This is, IMO, why some of the doubles of today do not shoot factory ammo very well. Every ammo maker wants to make his own rules! I believe anyone who is serious about useing a double rifle for it's intended purpose, is fooling himself, to think he will get the best from a double without handloading! That is, unless he is a very lucky man!

In the days of old, when doubles were the norm, and other types were uncommon, where the big five were concerned, most folks did not handload! Even today, few people outside USA, and Austrailia handload for their for doubles, or anything else. Any decent double, today, can be made to shoot much better with handloads, than with most factory ammo! I have had several doubles, over the years, that would hold the first four shots on a standard playing card at 100 yds, with a decent rest, and I don't see that as a bad group for anyone's double, regardless of the name engraved in the steel!

The high cost of shooting some of these may not be a concern to you, but they certainly are to my budget!

--------------------
..........Mac >>>===(x)===>
DUGABOY1, and MacD37 founding member of DRSS www.doublerifleshooterssociety.com
"If I die today, I have had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"

Post Extras