Regarding the Model 21,
- The dovetailed lump barrel construction adds ZERO strength materially to the barrel assembly because more often than not the actual fit of the dovetails is quite sloppy. The soft solder joint and two small-diameter crosspins do most (if not all) of the work of holding the barrels together. Take a look at the photos and video below and tell me again about the strength and precision of the dovetail joint.
- The rib and forend lug joints fail with amazing regularity. In 25 years, I've stripped and relaid as many 21s as Smiths. Trust me that's a lot. Here's what happens when the forend lug joint fails.
- I don't think that any well-designed gun should have ANY parts that are held in place by staking alone.
- I personally don't consider the 21 to be a "classic" double, it came on the scene very late, is completely coil-spring driven and is made of much more modern materials than the other American doubles (these are good things). It's really a modern-ish double that is a mashup of Ithaca NID cocking mechanism, Ithaca Flues underbolt and, lastly, just like the Flues, there is no mechanism by which the head of the stock is drawn tightly (in an axial manner) against the frame.
I'm familiar with the legend of the destruction tests of the 21 against the other doubles and all I can say about that is, it's absurd and lacking in any documentary evidence. In fact, depending upon who is telling the tale, the 21 was either tested against all of the other American doubles, or it was tested against the best of England, or it was tested against both, or it was simply tested by itself. The catalog photo of a 21 resting on a pile of fired proof shells proves nothing beyond the marketing department's firm grasp of their job. But, but, advertising was "honest" back then you say? A company wasn't allowed to make untrue claims, you say? Well, here is an ad from the model 21's time period. It's about as true as the supposed "torture test".
Even if it did happen (which is highly debatable), it's comparing apples to oranges, and no one shoots proof loads regularly. The 21 is a gun, made of modern (for its time) materials, designed to shoot modern ammo and the "test" (if it ever really even happened as they say, or, at all) proved nothing except that all of the guns purportedly tested were indeed stronger than they needed to be, for the ammunition and use for which they were designed. But Americans seem to be obsessed with "strength", whether real or imagined, so I'm sure that that also helped to build the model 21 legend. The name on the barrel doesn't hurt either, in that regard. In fact, were it not for that name, the gun would be seen for what it actually is: just another mass-produced, boxlock side-by-side with some questionable design features (and when ordered with it, THE most aesthetically challenged leather covered pad to ever issue from any factory).
If you like 21s, that's great, they're a serviceable gun, but to compare them to classic-era (or English) doubles, is an unfair, uninformed comparison. To tout it as some sort of indestructible super-gun, handed down from Mount Olympus by Zeus himself, is to substitute feeling for facts.
Just as with my Smith posting, I did not mention aesthetics (aside from the terrible factory leather pad) or handling. These areas are entirely subjective and I am certainly no one to tell another what they should (or should not) like.