[rockstar.esq]

So the other day I had an idea. What if a double rifle were built as an over under configuration with the barrels mounted as perfectly parallel as possible. Now if there was a scope specifically made with two crosshairs allowing for the individual hold points for each barrel. It would seem to me that much of the cost of a double rifles "regulating" could be done away with. Additionally the general utility would increase significantly in that the shooter wouldn't be forced to use iron sights. I am specifically envisioning a 30-06 chambering for use on deer/elk. Perhaps finished in some weather resistant finish (not engraved nor lavishly adorned with walnut) I would think that such a system could be made to proliferate into a similar arrangement as the Thompson Center line in that there could be a simple change from caliber to caliber. What do you guys think?

[JohnKSa]

Here are the problems I see.

Remembering which retical goes with which barrel.
Having to use a scope on a double rifle.
Non-traditional.
Over/Under actions have some strength disadvantages compared to side-by-sides, IIRC.

Probably the kicker is the non-traditional aspect. I don't know about other folks, but my main yen for a double is based heavily on the IDEA of having something like the legendary hunters of Africa. Not so much on the practicality or other functional aspects of the firearm.

[Balog]

It's not that hard to regulate the barrels if you use the jackscrew idea like the Russian doubles. They're made by Baikal, aren't they? In any case, they are inexpensive, and there is no reason an American company couldn't do the same and produce inexpensive doubles.

[rockstar.esq]

I kind of figured that some guy's would have the traditional thing in mind. As for the reticle confusion. The top reticle is the top barrel and the bottom is for the bottom. If the gun was set up to fire top then bottom, this would allow for a very natural progression. The jack screw idea works however I'm thinking higher precision than that. Why not even make the barrel's free floated? I know this isn't a typical arrangement, however I really think there is great potential given that the rifle would weigh less than repeaters, and it could be made plenty strong. Let me be very clear that I'm not thinking of some ancient shotgun design from Anson & Deely, this would be a thouroghly modern gun.

[Vern Humphrey]

The top reticle is the top barrel and the bottom is for the bottom.

As long as the top barrel shoots higher than the bottom barrel -- if not, then the bottom reticle will be for the top barrel.

[Eightball]

And, how expensive would you assume it is to produce a scope with 2 crosshairs? I would assume that the way the lens is ground and other such things (zeroing out each crosshair, fer example) would have to change, and cost the buyer more. The "advancements" would probably be far more expensive than a near-top-of-the-line model anyhow--at least, that's my take on it.

[rockstar.esq]

And, how expensive would you assume it is to produce a scope with 2 crosshairs?
Mil dot scopes have been with us for some time now. I'd expect similar cost.
Frankly, I feel like I'm the only one who thinks that new rifles are entirely too expensive. I truly don't see why with everything being made with CNC and MIM the final cost for a rifle is still very high.

[Vern Humphrey]

And, how expensive would you assume it is to produce a scope with 2 crosshairs?

Mil dot scopes have been with us for some time now. I'd expect similar cost.


The problem is not to produce a scope with 2 crosshairs. The problem is to produce a scope with 2 INDEPENDENTLY ADJUSTABLE crosshairs.

The whole idea behind the 2 crosshairs idea is that we can't make the two barrels shoot where we want them to shoot. That means we can't tell how far apart the two barrels will shoot when we make the scope. So we have to have independently adjustable crosshairs.

That is going to be really expensive.

[JohnKSa]

Shepherd Enterprises has a scope that might be made to work for this application in that it has two independently adjustable aiming reticles. They run $600 without shipping.

[cracked butt]

If the rifle is properly made, the muzzles of th 2 barrels are only going to be about an inch from eachother, and the bullets are going to hit likewise hit only and inch or so away from eachother downrange. There wouldn't be enough difference in POI that you should really be concerned about for hunting applications. From owners of Krieghoff double rifles and drillings that I've conversed with, this seems to be the case. One added advantage of having two barrels mounted together is that the arrangement is much stiffer than a single barrel or two single barrels mounted seperately which makes the well made and properly regulated rifles very accurate.

Here's a neat little double rifle/shotgun drilling for example. http://www.krieghoff.com/pages/3.6/pages/3.6.html

I hope to own a double 12 guage/ 30-06 drilling some day, but I don't have the $10K+ to pony up for one right now.

[TrapperReady]

Ooh. If we're talking drillings, I'll take twin 16ga barrels over a .270. :)

[Vern Humphrey]

If the rifle is properly made, the muzzles of th 2 barrels are only going to be about an inch from eachother, and the bullets are going to hit likewise hit only and inch or so away from eachother downrange.

The old English gunsmiths who made and regulated double rifles might argue with that. They spent many hours "regulating" their rifles.

In fact, if the barrels had points of impact only an inch apart, you wouldn't need a double reticle scope. Just make point of aim midway between the two groups.

The problem isn't just how close to each other the muzzles are, it's also angle of launch. Take a look at a .357 magnum revolver -- notice how much higher the front sight is than the rear sight. That's because the revolver recoils, and the angle of the barrel when the bullet leaves the muzzle is dramatically different from the angle when you drop the hammer.

The same thing is true of double rifles, whether side by side, or over and under. No one has ever managed to mass produce a rifle with two barrels that shoots regulates right out of the box. Sometimes they can diverge widely -- a foot or more at 50 yards.

[gbran]

Yeah, I'd like a drilling also. Something of quality without the huge cost. A couple of 16's over .270 sounds good.

[MechAg94]

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I am not understanding the purpose of this rifle. Is it supposed to be legal somewhere when a semi-auto or bolt action is not?

[TrapperReady]

Here's my thoughts on the orginal idea. In order for a rifle to be usable and marketable, it should offer something better than the other options available. There are probably numerous examples that disprove this theory, but let me babble a little further.

An honest-to-God double rifle will generally give you a very strong action capable of firing large caliber bullets out of a gun which is light enough and compact enough to handle in heavy cover. It gives you two shots and is quick to reload, in no small part due to the fact that the action doesn't have to open very far in order to eject the spent cases and allow you to insert fresh cartridges. It also offers a certain amount of redundancy, since the arrival of Mr. Murphy during a charge by a wounded buff would be quite unwelcome. At the distances you operate a double rifle, a scope is typically not only unnecessary, but contraindicated.

The proposal for an O/U arrangement with a funky scope would negate several of the advantages of the "traditional" double rifle, and probably not be quite as useful as a bolt-action gun or even a single-shot like the Ruger Model 1.

The concept is interesting, but I think that the more effective way to address the issue in a cost-effective fashion is to have some manner of adjustable wedges between the barrels to allow the user to fine-tune the POI.

BTW, I recall reading an article a few years ago about a guy who used an old SxS shotgun and dressed it up as a deer rifle. He played around reloading some round-ball slugs and got decent accuracy out to 75 or 100 yards, then threw a low-power scope on the thing and proceeded to get some venison.

[rockstar.esq]

The proposal for an O/U arrangement with a funky scope would negate several of the advantages of the "traditional" double rifle, and probably not be quite as useful as a bolt-action gun or even a single-shot like the Ruger Model 1.

I was intending this to be more of a deer/elk rifle and not the dangerous game and criplingly extravagant traditional double rifle.

Having Ruger No 1 accuracy with two shots would make it more useful to many.

My point was to consider that two barrel guns are stupidly expensive due to the obsessive manner in which they are made. The "Tradition" is why you can't find a reasonable price on this type of gun. "Tradition" also tells us that only a bolt action can shoot. Despite the tons of vension taken annually by "inaccurate" lever guns. I see Thompson Center as a prime example of how practicality can sometimes offest the nonsense that we regularly accept based on what we are used to.

As for the scope, there is of course the Sheperd scope which utilizes a "two part" reticle. I know that $600 is a lot, however those scopes generally have huge objectives and they are calibrated for specific calibers and their associated trajectories. I for one don't see the incredible difficulty in making a fixed power scope with two reticles. Just for arguments sake, what if the scope was more along the lines of a red dot arrangement. Plenty of room, ease of use. Cheaper than high magnification stuff.

I see many of you are focused on the regulating. Once again, I fail to fully appreciate why it is that these parts can't be CNC machined and fitted into a modern boss. Maybe I'm just missing something, but these horror stories of regulating seem to revolve entirely around systems where the barrels are attached to one another. I envisioned a free floating system where one barrel wouldn't have any leverage over the other.

[Vern Humphrey]

As for the scope, there is of course the Sheperd scope which utilizes a "two part" reticle. I know that $600 is a lot, however those scopes generally have huge objectives and they are calibrated for specific calibers and their associated trajectories. I for one don't see the incredible difficulty in making a fixed power scope with two reticles. Just for arguments sake, what if the scope was more along the lines of a red dot arrangement. Plenty of room, ease of use. Cheaper than high magnification stuff.


The question is, how many people will buy an over-and-under double rifle for deer hunting. Baikal makes one, and people are not beating down the doors to buy them.

Now, of those who DO buy one, how many want it scoped? Is that enough potential buyers to justify the cost of designing and tooling up for production?

I see many of you are focused on the regulating. Once again, I fail to fully appreciate why it is that these parts can't be CNC machined and fitted into a modern boss. Maybe I'm just missing something, but these horror stories of regulating seem to revolve entirely around systems where the barrels are attached to one another. I envisioned a free floating system where one barrel wouldn't have any leverage over the other.

Ruger makes both over-and-under (the Red Label) and side-by-side (Gold Label) shotguns. If it were easy to regulate a double rifle, you'd think they'd be making them. I suggest a side-by-side at a reasonable price would sell very well, perhaps as well as the Number 1.

[Jim K]

Ruger does not make an O/U double rifle for one reason. The only potential buyer would be rockstar.esq and he is going to make his own. ;)

Jim

[LHB1]

Rockstar.esq,
I think you have had your amp turned up too high again.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB

[Vern Humphrey]

Ruger does not make an O/U double rifle for one reason.

The one reason is they can't make a profit. And the reason they can't make a profit is that the cost of manufacturing would exceed what most potential customers would be willing to pay.

If Ruger made a traditional side-by-side double in, say .458 Lott, for $2000, I'd expect them to sell very well.

[Buzztail]

If Ruger made a traditional side-by-side double in, say .458 Lott, for $2000, I'd expect them to sell very well.

I'd be first in line. I had ~8x that in a used 470 NE Dbl many moons ago.....

[Vern Humphrey]

I'd be first in line. I had ~8x that in a used 470 NE Dbl many moons ago.....

You'd have to arm-rassle me for first place.

[TaxPhd]

Would you guys really want one in .458 Lott, considering what would have to be done to get it to reliably extract? Make it for a proper rimmed N.E. cartridge and then you'd have something.




Scott

[Vern Humphrey]

Would you guys really want one in .458 Lott, considering what would have to be done to get it to reliably extract? Make it for a proper rimmed N.E. cartridge and then you'd have something.


The .458 Lott, like all belted cartridges, is a rimmed cartridge. It just has a very thick rim, with an extraction groove cut into it. If you simply regard it as a rimmed cartridge, with a bit more countersink for the rim, you can extract and eject it just like a rimmed round.

[TaxPhd]

I understand what you're saying Vern, and it makes sense. But wasn't the .375 H&H Flanged developed to eliminate the extraction problems associated with using the regular .375 H&H in a double rifle?




Scott

[Vern Humphrey]

I understand what you're saying Vern, and it makes sense. But wasn't the .375 H&H Flanged developed to eliminate the extraction problems associated with using the regular .375 H&H in a double rifle?

Yes, but they were using existing designs, with limited extractor throw. The extractor cam has to be changed -- but in a new design, for example, a double rifle based on the Ruger Gold Label, that's easy to do.

[TaxPhd]

OK. Got it.

But, I still wouldn't want one in a Lott. Why? Because it is a lot cooler to say something like "450 NE 3 1/4" " ;)




Scott

[Vern Humphrey]

{quote]But, I still wouldn't want one in a Lott. Why? Because it is a lot cooler to say something like "450 NE 3 1/4" " [/quote]

I can't argue that. :p

Kind of like haveing a Randall knife at Fort Bragg -- it automatically marked you as one of the elite.

I like the Lott because it's a bit friendlier to reload than the .458 Mag, you can shoot .458 mag ammo in it (which is what you're most likely to find for sale wherever you're hunting) and if push comes to shove, you can make cases from .375 H&H cases.

[Correia]

I don't think this would sell enough guns to justify the cost of creating it. I just don't see it.

The majority of people who would want a double rifle want tradition and beauty.

A scoped over-under has no tradition. So what does it have to sell itself on the market?

It isn't going to be cheap. Just from a manufacturing perspective you are looking at just under twice as much work as you would for making a single shot. So being very generous figure that your rifle itself will cost $300. (very generous if it is being built in America). In actuality once you do two barrels and two seperate trigger packs (6 machined parts vs. 3, and the added manf. complexity) I would be amazed if you could do it for less than that.

Then your proprietary optic is going to cost a few hundred more. I know a little bit about optic manufacturing. Your optic is special, and is going to be manufactured in small lots. Unless it is a cheap piece of crap that will go out in short order, figure at absolute minimum $300 for the optic. And once again, I'm being real nice, because in reality for a company to tool up and do something like that would cost you a whole lot more.

So now your base cost on the weapon is $600. Retail is going to be $800+ (and I don't think that is close to realistic) What market is it going to capture? It is now too expensive to just be a plinking toy, except for a very limited market.

The traditionalists who want an African style big game rifle won't buy it. The average deer hunter went down to Walmart and bought a base Remington with a Weaver scope for under $400, and he's happy because it has two more shots.

The only thing it has going for it is that it is different? But is being different enough to sell guns? Sometimes, but I don't see a lot of dealers stocking Matebas if you know what I mean.

[rockstar.esq]

The only thing it has going for it is that it is different? But is being different enough to sell guns? Sometimes, but I don't see a lot of dealers stocking Matebas if you know what I mean.

Point taken and well made. Traditions need to start somewhere. It used to be that a double barrel shotgun was more common than repeaters. I'd bet that the average mans' o/u was initially cheaper than the first repeaters. Now the situation is completely reversed! I know that 2 barrels on a rifle evoke images of African conquest for lots of guys. What I don't completly get is why a Thompson Center rifle can rise to such a station in popularity by stepping backwards in terms of traditional thinking. They made ingenuity the main selling point of their rifle. A guy can have an arsenal of calibers at his command without paying for individual rifles. When I suggest applying the same concept to two barrels, suddenly no one can see the point. As for the Bakail line, I don't think those were ever given a chance. I never found a Bakail two barrel gun that didn't have one shotgun barrel and one rifled! Either way you guys made some good points and I thank you for writing in.

[Correia]

Oh, and I will never fault anybody for thinking outside the box. I've just learned the hard way however that just because you have a great idea, doesn't neccesarily mean that the money will appear to make it work. Anytime you have an idea, you have to poke at it mercilessly. I've got parts and prototype bits laying all over my basement. I've yet to make any money on a gun design, but I've spent quite a bit. :) (someday damnit!)

[TimboKhan]

Sometimes, but I don't see a lot of dealers stocking Matebas if you know what I mean.

Your double rifle idea is valid one, and of course you and I have discussed many times our displeasure at why guns are still so darn expensive despite technology making them easier to build, and more consistent to boot. However, you don't see a lot of dealers stocking things like Matebas because A: They are ugly, B: They don't represent any particular advantage over a Revo or an Auto, C: Though Mateba fans might disagree with me, at this point they are being made just because they can be, and the price reflects that. Not really answering your double rifle question, but I like to talk about Matebas.


Timbo

[Buzztail]

why guns are still so darn expensive despite technology making them easier to build, and more consistent to boot.

I want my next double to be built like my last one: by hand with love and respect for the craft. That is straight from me, a (former) CNC machinist :neener:

[TimboKhan]

Buzztail,

There is a place for hand-crafted things, and I can appreciate them as much as anyone. For me a hand-crafted gun is a once-in-a-lifetime thing, and in the mean time, I would rather have my guns consistent and not overpriced.

[M67]

I have shot a few O/U double rifles that come close to this discription. They are not that uncommon in Europe. Baikal has been mentioned, there are several others, most of which have probably never been imported to the US because a) that type of weapon has never been popular there and b) most of them cost more than Americans seem to be willing to pay for a gun.

Most, maybe all of the guns I have seen of this type, are built on a shotgun action, strengthened if necessary. The guns can usually be delivered with a number of barrel sets for the same action, shotgun/shotgun, shotgun/rifle combo or rifle/rifle. Combo guns are popular for some types of hunting, for example if you have a deer permit and a small game permit and you want to look for both on the same trip. Double rifles are not nearly as common, but they are available. I will make some guesses why:

They can be made, rather cheaply (relatively speaking), since the barrels are made for a gun that already is made by the manufacturer in question. If the manufacturer can offer their customers a wider choice without making major investments in production equipment, why not?

In some countries the laws may make it easier to own one of these, since one action will probably count as one gun regardless of the number of barrel sets you have. A double may also be easier to own than a magazine rifle or semi. There may even be hunting regulations making a single shot or double legal where your magazine rifle is not. This is a broad generalization on my part, I don't really know that much about gun laws in other countries, and those laws vary a lot from country to country.

For some types of hunting, these rifles may actually be very suitable regardless of the considerations above. A double is increadibly fast. Yes, you can fire the two shots very rapidly. But more importantly it is built on a shotgun action and stock, it will come to the shoulder and move with your body the way a shotgun does, if you are shooting moving targets. I believe these rifles are particularly popular for wild boar hunting (we don't have those in my country). You have the option of a rifle on the same stock as your shotgun, a gun you are familiar with and maybe practice clay shooting with. It's not uncommon here to have your shotgun stock - even on inexpensive guns - fitted to you by a gunsmith. A double rifle like that can be a very, very fast handling gun. Even if it isn't a traditional side by side. :)

As for the technical side, all those I have seen have had some sort of tension screw at the muzzles for regulating, which is done by the owner. I can not see how this can be done better in a practical way. First you have ammunition. Different loads are going to shoot to different points of impact and cause different barrel vibrations. Is it possible to make two barrels exactly identical to the point where their vibration harmonics are identical - even with different ammunition? Then there is recoil. With an O/U the recoil line is different for the two barrels, the bottom barrel recoils more directly into the shoulder while the top barrel will tend to rise more because the recoil hits you higher in the shoulder. That will influence the regulating as well, and differently for different shooters.

A guy can have an arsenal of calibers at his command without paying for individual rifles. When I suggest applying the same concept to two barrels, suddenly no one can see the point. Rockstar, as I said, I think some Europeans have seen your point. The problem is to make something that is better or cheaper than what is already available. The Baikal is less than a thousand dollars. A Krieghoff O/U is several thousand but very, very nice quality. In between you have Beretta, Antonio Zoli, CZ, I think the old Valmet/Tikka design is still made by some Italian company, I think there are at least a couple of other Italian guns I don't remember the name of, and a couple of German ones, possibly Heym and Blaser.

Take Correia's advice. Poke mercilessly at your idea. But I suggest some research into European guns to see what is already out there but not necessarily available over the counter in the US.

To end a long, rambling post, I would like to disagree with those who say that guns are expensive. They have probably never been cheaper in the history of guns, compared to the salary of your average working stiff. But like everything else, you get what you pay for. Quality costs money. I think one difference between American and European gun owners is that Americans believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. :p

Seriously, Europeans seem to be more likely to buy a $3000 rifle that will shoot small groups out of the box, while Americans buy $600 rifles and spend thousands on aftermarket bells and whistles in more or less successful attempts at making it shoot small groups.

[Jim K]

It seems to me that a lot of folks who ask "why don't they make" are going about things backwards. Every gun person (including yours truly) can think of guns we would like to see made, or maybe remade.

But the key words are "market research". And the research has to not only ask "would you like", but also "would you pay for." As a good example, back in the 1970's Interarms gave some thought to producing a new Luger. Everyone questioned said, with no hesitation, that the idea was a great one. So Interarms teamed up with Mauser and the two companies spent a bundle obtaining machinery (from Switzerland) and starting production of a post-war Luger pistol. The pistols are very well made, as good or better than the originals. They are beautiful guns, and sales were dismal.

Why? First, they had no history, and second, they were more expensive than the originals were (at that time).

So the lesson is that just because people say they want something doesn't mean they will plunk down dollars if you offer it to them. And to make production worth while, a lot of folks have to want the item enough to part with bucks for it.

Now I have this great idea for a 4 ounce Scandium eight shot revolver in .600 Nitro express. I know folks will love it; my only question is do you think I should put Hogue grips on it, or just the standard grips?

Jim

[TimboKhan]

Why? First, they had no history, and second, they were more expensive than the originals were (at that time

Jim, interestingly enough, I posted a thread a week or two ago in which I was asking what people thought/wanted the next gun "fad" to be, and just guesstimating, I would say at least 75-80% of the people expressed interest in a new Luger. I don't necessarily buy all the way into the "history' part of your argument, though. Glocks didn't have a history, had tons of bad press (remember the outcry that you could slip them through metal detectors?), and were then, and to some degree are now, still derided as being plastic pieces of crap. Aside from the material that they were made of, they also represented something fairly new to the public, and of course Glocks sell like hotcakes now. What I do very much agree with you on is cost. Had Glocks cost $1500.00, like some of the high-end 1911's do now (unnecessarily, I think), I firmly believe that Glocks would have sunk like the Titanic. In regards to the double rifle, Clint Smith just wrote an article for Guns in which he did a hunting review of a 30-06 double (I think. I know that it was Clint Smith, but it may not have been Guns Magazine). Clint basically said that the rifle rocked, which is not an unexpected conclusion in a gun rag, but it was also a very expensive rifle. The problem lies in cost, and I think one of the main points that Rockstar.Esq is trying to say is that there is no reason that a double rifle could not be made affordably. Of course, whether people would actually buy it is a whole different story.