Sacha wrote:
On 26/6/05 21:58, in article
, "Jaques
d'Alltrades"
wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these
words:
On 26/6/05 17:11, in article
, "Jaques
d'Alltrades" wrote:

snip
the gun is optional, but if you wish to be
accepted in polite society, they should be a pair, and by a good
gunmaker.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/temp/game.html

I'm told even over and unders are acceptable nowadays, though I
find that hard to credit!

Much favoured, too. The original (flintlock) doubles were
over-and-under, side-by-side found favour because, IIRC, it was
cheaper to make.

Many of the Guns use 20-bore O-&-Us - even the posher ones.

I'll take your word for it - I'm certainly not up to date! Many
years ago (at least 20) when my ex-husband shot with matched
Purdeys,
over and unders were literally shudder-making to the cognoscenti
who
I remember as being very snooty about such guns. Now, my memory
fails me, but is there something about O&Us being more accurate, or
am I imagining that? I know they were popular for clay shooting.

I think there is a theoretical improvement in accuracy, though it's
hard to see exactly why. But interesting to see what Rusty said about
manufacturing cost: the late great Thurlow Craig told me that O-U
were much easier to make to an equivalent standard than
side-by-sides. I think the prejudice was just snobbery because O-Us
_were_ actually cheaper and perhaps don't look so nice. I don't mind
snobbery about self-loading automatics, though, which is about
sportsmanship, not money.

--
Mike.