My first SxS
- Thread starter Thad
- Start date
You called bulls**t, and you called wrong... that's the problem with going ballistic on a subject with which you aren't familiar - you stand the chance of looking like a goof.
Your definition of "going ballistic" is subject to your hyperbole. I was critical, but stated that I was tentative and prepared to be schooled at a time of his choosing. If you prefer everything to be gentler, softer then...
Dewe Dewe wittle boy. Oim sorry I huwt yow feewings. I promise i'll get you a cookie later.
Now if you'll let the adults talk for a moment. I asked for clarification, and gave example of my criticism for context so he could specifically address my concerns. Which he didn't, but Sharptail made a good effort to.
Thanks for the legitimate answer, but I am not wholly satisfied. If thicker barrels move the point of balance forward, would it not be a simple matter to change the barrel length and maintain centre point?
Fit and Finish points are all agreed, but when you compare a gun that retailed for $500 in 1920 you're talking about something that would retail for $5-7000 today. Are you comparing apples to apples? What about modern premium guns? Are they not comparable?
I assume you meant Moment of Inertia. Not momentum. Inertia is the property of matter that resits changes in acceleration. Momentun is not a product OF Inertia, rather it is what is left over of a force applied after having overcome Inertia. (Sorry JetHunter, I'll get you a cookie later)
Moment of Inertia is the term used to quantify the property of Inertia of a rotating object. A swinging shotgun would apply very well here. But again as I asked Sharptail, even with heavier barrels, you can still achieve the exact same moment of inertia by shortening heavier barrels.
It is my understanding (still prepared to be schooled) that most barrel length has nothing to do with accuracy or patterning, and everything to do with balance of the gun and increasing the Inertia to protect the shooter from recoil. So a shorter but thicker barreled shotgun could have the same moment of inertia, and centre point and recoil characteristics. I highly doubt that patterns would change by going from a 30' to a 28' barrel.
I still don't understand why modern makers can't achieve the same handling characteristics. Are we comparing yesteryears luxury items to today's tools? Do modern makers just not care to bother? No one has answered by question about Modern productions vs modern designs.
Is an AH Fox made today, not comparable to one made earlier handling wise?
Drvrage,
Certainly a fine gun made today has every opportunity to be optimized for its particular purpose, like any gun from the "golden age" of firearms. In fact, with the advances in metallurgy and CNC machining technology, it's theoretically possible to surpass the bar set by past masters. I doubt that anyone is suggesting otherwise.
However, despite these advances, no machine has ever come close to the work of the best makers. While we can still produce "best" guns, it still has to be done primarily by hand. Labour was relatively cheap around the turn of the century, not so anymore. A "best" gun, in the early 20th century, could easily cost 5 times what a field model sold for. These days, you're looking at a factor of at least 20 times for the same comparison.
More importantly, apart from the finish and embellishments such as engraving and inlays, the lower grade guns used to be pretty much the same gun as their high-end cousins. In the modern era, field guns are machine made and bear no resemblance to guns that are largely or completely hand-made. This is reflected in the price delta.
So, in answer to your question, without really having given it any thought, what many of us would be comparing are lower grade guns from the "golden age" against lower grade (some might call them "affordable") guns made today.
You are correct in your suspicions that the differences are incremental, not sea-change in scope. To some shooters, those differences are insignificant. The same people probably see no difference worth paying for between a $10 bottle of wine and a $500 bottle of wine. But, that doesn't mean that there's no difference.
Where the wine comparison breaks down is in that you can't find a "used" $500 bottle of wine that sells for $10. You can, however, find minty examples of graded SXS's that exemplify the makers' art. In this discussion, we are primarily comparing lower end vintage guns to lower end modern "replicas".
There are many reasons why the average shooter/hunter should stay away from classic pieces - 2 1/2" chambers, potentially compromised damascus barrels, fixed chokes and incompatibility with steel shot, to name but a few. For those of us who have developed an appreciation for and an understanding of these guns, they offer the satisfaction of being able to extract that incremental performance. There are many other benefits not related to performance.
This post has gone on long enough. But, this discussion is not over, if you still feel as you did originally. We could go on to address each of your statements individually. Barrel length alone, for example, has no direct impact on patterns. However, patterns are affected by barrel length if the entire powder charge is not burned by the time the shot stream exits the barrel. When the powder charge is still creating pressure behind the shot stream as it exits, the "blow-by" strips the outermost pellets from the cluster and flings them off as "fliers". A modern shot cup mitigates this effect to some extent, but the whole cup can be skewed by the blow-by with much the same result.
These are but a few examples to help you see that there is substance behind the generalizations that we put forward for lack of a better medium of communication.
Certainly a fine gun made today has every opportunity to be optimized for its particular purpose, like any gun from the "golden age" of firearms. In fact, with the advances in metallurgy and CNC machining technology, it's theoretically possible to surpass the bar set by past masters. I doubt that anyone is suggesting otherwise.
However, despite these advances, no machine has ever come close to the work of the best makers. While we can still produce "best" guns, it still has to be done primarily by hand. Labour was relatively cheap around the turn of the century, not so anymore. A "best" gun, in the early 20th century, could easily cost 5 times what a field model sold for. These days, you're looking at a factor of at least 20 times for the same comparison.
More importantly, apart from the finish and embellishments such as engraving and inlays, the lower grade guns used to be pretty much the same gun as their high-end cousins. In the modern era, field guns are machine made and bear no resemblance to guns that are largely or completely hand-made. This is reflected in the price delta.
So, in answer to your question, without really having given it any thought, what many of us would be comparing are lower grade guns from the "golden age" against lower grade (some might call them "affordable") guns made today.
You are correct in your suspicions that the differences are incremental, not sea-change in scope. To some shooters, those differences are insignificant. The same people probably see no difference worth paying for between a $10 bottle of wine and a $500 bottle of wine. But, that doesn't mean that there's no difference.
Where the wine comparison breaks down is in that you can't find a "used" $500 bottle of wine that sells for $10. You can, however, find minty examples of graded SXS's that exemplify the makers' art. In this discussion, we are primarily comparing lower end vintage guns to lower end modern "replicas".
There are many reasons why the average shooter/hunter should stay away from classic pieces - 2 1/2" chambers, potentially compromised damascus barrels, fixed chokes and incompatibility with steel shot, to name but a few. For those of us who have developed an appreciation for and an understanding of these guns, they offer the satisfaction of being able to extract that incremental performance. There are many other benefits not related to performance.
This post has gone on long enough. But, this discussion is not over, if you still feel as you did originally. We could go on to address each of your statements individually. Barrel length alone, for example, has no direct impact on patterns. However, patterns are affected by barrel length if the entire powder charge is not burned by the time the shot stream exits the barrel. When the powder charge is still creating pressure behind the shot stream as it exits, the "blow-by" strips the outermost pellets from the cluster and flings them off as "fliers". A modern shot cup mitigates this effect to some extent, but the whole cup can be skewed by the blow-by with much the same result.
These are but a few examples to help you see that there is substance behind the generalizations that we put forward for lack of a better medium of communication.
Don't self-elevate your relative importance - I don't care what you do or how you respond, I just thought it was funny. Seriously - are you joking or what?
To wit: You "called bulls**t", which quite simply means you called the OP a liar. Then you admit you don't know squat when you ask to "be schooled". That is "tentatively" goofy
.
Drvrage, thanks for your interest. I don't blame you for not being wholly satisfied, as I said, my answer was hasty and incomplete. Let me see if I can elaborate.
Firstly, I would like to say that in my opinion it only makes sense to compare guns with barrels of equal length. If you want to shorten a thick walled barrel to achieve the same balance point as a longer thin walled barrel, what happens when we compare it to a thin walled barrel of the same (shorter) length? Where do we stop? Apples to apples, so to speak.
However, if you want to compare two different lengths:
While it is true that you could shorten the barrel length of a thick walled set to achieve a similar balance point when compared to a thin walled set, the distribution of mass for the gun as a whole will not be the same. You will still have a greater percentage of the total mass distributed further from the centre of the gun, rather than being concentrated in the middle.
Think of a steeply sloped sine wave versus a gently sloped one. The area under the curve will be of greater length on the gently sloped one. This area represents the distribution of mass along the gun's length. The steeper the slope, the more the mass is concentrated between your hands. By changing the slope of the curve, you change the handling of the gun, even if the balance point remains the same. This is the reason why formula cars are mid engined - by keeping the majority of the total mass as close to the centre of the car as possible, it makes it easier to turn.
Fortunately it is possible to quantify the handling of a shotgun by using a formula. The formula is:
Result = 0.34*(weight in lbs) + 0.07*(inches from front trigger to balance point) + 0.12*(length of pull) - 0.06*(bore diameter in inches) + 0.04*(barrel length in inches) - 0.03(if it is a sidelock, else 0) + 0.04(if it is a single barrel gun else 0) - 4.05
All that is necessary to use the formula is an accurate scale, a tape measure and an improvised fulcrum to determine the balance point. One may use nominal bore diameters if the precise bore diameter is not known. Measure to the balance point from the aft-most point of the curve of the trigger.
You will find that if you input identical (realistic) numbers except for the barrel length, you will not get the same result. You will also find that in the real world it is virtually impossible to find two guns of identical bore, weight and balance point - I've measured many. Hence, my second paragraph.
To address your other concerns:
A Webley & Scott boxlock in 1920 did not cost $500, it was BPS 18, or about $100. That doesn't matter though. What matters is what you can buy today for your dollars. If you have $3,000 to spend today, you can buy a current mass production SxS or an older hand made one. The trade offs in such a decision have been pointed out.
Can modern guns match the quality of the ones of older manufacture? Purdey will tell you yes. I don't think so. In my opinion, the best quality of workmanship was between about 1890 to 1920. The economics of this period supported high quality hand workmanship and there was a large labour pool of qualified tradesmen. At the same time there was better quality steel available than there had been in the past. After WW I the economics of mass production started to dictate a gradual reduction in the amount of time spent producing a gun. That time amounts to the finesse required to get the gun exactly right, both in terms of balance and finish.
In any case, any modern gun having anywhere near the quality of fit and finish of a quality older gun is priced well out of the "mass market".
In the case of the Fox, the lowest grade available from CSMC today (CE grade) will cost you in excess of $20,000 CDN. Does it compare in quality, handling and finish with a Philadelphia Fox? Yes, generally, although the one example I have held did not have the wood - to - metal fit that I would have expected. However, you can buy a CE grade Philly Fox in restored or minty original condition for considerably less than $20K. I would also like to point out that unlike Henry I do not consider the Fox as having exemplary handling qualities. The aforementioned Webley & Scott boxlock is a livelier gun, IMHO.
If we look at newer, more affordable guns such as the Ruger Gold Label, Franchi Highlander or Fabarm Classic Lion we find very good guns - reliable, well regulated and generally well made. None of them have the feel and balance of the Webley, never mind a higher quality gun. The Ruger, with its thin walled barrels comes close, but is fairly horrible in the fit and finish department. These compromises are dictated by modern economics, and as a trade off you do get steel shot capabilities, replaceable choke tubes and perhaps chrome lined barrels. Not all is bad news, some things do improve. Unfortunately handling, fit and finish isn't one of them.
Sharptail
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
Shortening the barrels would correct the balance but result in a "whippier" swing.
Don't self-elevate your relative importance - I don't care what you do or how you respond, I just thought it was funny. Seriously - are you joking or what?
To wit: You "called bulls**t", which quite simply means you called the OP a liar. Then you admit you don't know squat when you ask to "be schooled". That is "tentatively" goofy
Fine. No Cookies for you.
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
guns built chopper lump style handle differently SOMETIMES than thpose built monobloc style.
i have more than a few good English, Italian, and Belgian guns, but my goto at this time is a cheap CZ SXS Bobwhite with 26" barrel.
It shoots where I point it, is light, handles well, and dosen't break- pretty much all I am looking for ....
Cat
i have more than a few good English, Italian, and Belgian guns, but my goto at this time is a cheap CZ SXS Bobwhite with 26" barrel.
It shoots where I point it, is light, handles well, and dosen't break- pretty much all I am looking for ....
Cat
I think one of the main reasons why the older guns were better was because they were hand made. By artisans that cared about their work.
On another level you might be able to relate to, compare Remington's 870 to the Model that came before it. The Model 31. The 31 was basically a hand made gun with no stamped parts unlike the 870. The stocks were hand checkered and fitted. If you compare the two guns sxs you will easily see which is the superior gun. Rack the action and the difference is obvious. Same thing goes for sxs's.
Totally correct on the 31. And hand-made side by sides. The sidelock Ugartechea I have has a checkered butt end. If you look very carefully, you will see that it has had several wooden plugs fitted almost invisibly into the holes bored into the butt in order to balance it. It's invisible, fine touches like that which make the difference.
Very true, Sharptail. It also is the moment of inertia. There is a guy in Conneticut that has devised a machine that measures this and allows a scientific comparison between shotguns. Shorthening, lenghtening, heavier or lighter barrels does not make for a livier gun nor a better handling gun. The weight must be centered near the pivot pins. The use of extend chokes creates a dumbell efect (ever drive a TR7? now that has a dumbell efect!!). Some modern guns used cnc machining to balance the frame in all axis, CVC comes to mind even if they no longer exist.
Different types of wood will also effect the balance and feel of the gun.
I was very succesfull with my AH Fox Sterlingworth with the Parker pins. It was just too short for me. So I have sold it in the US for a good profit. It is unfortunate or fortunate that Canadian pricing is so much lower for collectables and good shooters, SxS and others, compared to South of the border. My Claborough & Johnson (right spelling???, I did not check!) is better fitting and nearly as sucesfull. I have used it sucesfully on birds over my dogs.
The modern guns except for the bespoken, have none of the same success in shooting clays or birds. There is NO SKB, Ruger, Stoeger, CZ or any other modern commercially produced SxS that has ever finished near the top 30 at the Vintager World SxS Championship, Griffin & Howe Game Conservancy, Southern SxS Championship or the Orvis Cup Prelim, nevermind any of the side events at any major NSCA shoot! They are made for a budget minded shooter who shoots several hundred rounds, at the most per year. In the same frame, most British guns as well as some Belgians, need rebuilds as they too do not stand up to the thousand of rounds shot by target shooters. But, they do shoot so well!!!
Regards,
Henry
Different types of wood will also effect the balance and feel of the gun.
I was very succesfull with my AH Fox Sterlingworth with the Parker pins. It was just too short for me. So I have sold it in the US for a good profit. It is unfortunate or fortunate that Canadian pricing is so much lower for collectables and good shooters, SxS and others, compared to South of the border. My Claborough & Johnson (right spelling???, I did not check!) is better fitting and nearly as sucesfull. I have used it sucesfully on birds over my dogs.
The modern guns except for the bespoken, have none of the same success in shooting clays or birds. There is NO SKB, Ruger, Stoeger, CZ or any other modern commercially produced SxS that has ever finished near the top 30 at the Vintager World SxS Championship, Griffin & Howe Game Conservancy, Southern SxS Championship or the Orvis Cup Prelim, nevermind any of the side events at any major NSCA shoot! They are made for a budget minded shooter who shoots several hundred rounds, at the most per year. In the same frame, most British guns as well as some Belgians, need rebuilds as they too do not stand up to the thousand of rounds shot by target shooters. But, they do shoot so well!!!
Regards,
Henry
First off...great looking shotgun! I have been very interested in the CZs for some time now and will likely pick one up sometime in the future. I have two Franchi O/Us right now and absolutely love them, and will either buy the Franchi Highlander SxS, or a CZ when the budget allows.
Sencondly...Wow! A lot of great information in this thread! Keep it coming!
Sencondly...Wow! A lot of great information in this thread! Keep it coming!
beretta boy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Orillia, Ontario
Within the budget you mentioned ( +/- $ 2500) , you might take a look at the Smith & Wesson Elite Gold SxS. The few that I've seen and handled were very well finished and balanced. Finally they have come out with a 20 gauge, 28", double trigger, English (straight, no pistol grip) style stock with Grade 3 Turkish walnut. Not one of the pre-WWI American or British classics or a modern high-grade Italian or Spanish, but a pretty damned good upland double none-the less. For a bit more money, one of the custom CSM - RBL's might also interest you !
For double the money new, ( or still within your budget, used) hard to go wrong with a basic Arrieta, AyA or Grulla sidelock.
Do a little research in the US forums like ShotgunWorld or Doublegun, pick up a copy or two of DoubleGun Journal or Shooting Sportsman and go through the articles and ads. You'll soon get an idea of what's popular ... and prices in US $. Canadian "used" prices tend to be a little less.
Most of the better grade doubles, whether a "classic" from the past or one of the better European makes ... compared to most post WWII mass-manufactured doubles can be like comparing a Ferrari to a Mazda Miata.
or a NASCAR Sprint Cup car to your family Chevy sedan ... they're all "cars" but that's where the comparisons end.
Sharptail is doing his best to put it into words, but until you've handled and shot a few ( that fit ! ) ... and taken a good look at their mechanics and finish, you'll find it pretty hard to comprehend from just the written word.
