The message
from "Mike Lyle" contains these words:

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.

They are now, with breech-loading, but when double-barrelled guns were
first made there were two main types: the one-lock with turn-round
barrels, and the fixed barrels with two locks. The former was cheaper to
produce than a twin-lock gun but could suffer from wear and working
loose because of the repeated hammering it got from the shots. The other
had twin locks and the barrels were fixed.

There were some really fine guns made to both patterns, but the best O&U
ones I've seen were the fixed barrel types.

Side-by-sides only really started quite well into the flintlock period.

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.

The Captain of at least one of the local syndicates uses an
over-and-under - indeed, I've never seen him with a side-by-side...

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/