SxS vs. O/U cost of manufacture

[ArmedBear]

Okay, a lot of threads have asked why a SxS is so expensive. It's been done to death. So please understand that this is a specific and different question.

I've done a little work on boxlock O/U and SxS shotguns. They're quite similar inside. Furthermore, some companies build utterly similar guns in each configuration. For example, a Ruger Gold Label is built in the same place, by the same people, using the same materials and techniques, and similar designs, as the Red Label.

Nevertheless, a Gold Label costs about twice what a Red Label does, and from what I've read, Ruger did not intend that to be the case. They planned on keeping the prices relatively close. They failed, however, by their own admission, because they underestimated the hand work required for the SxS.

So, here's my question: why, specifically, is it more time-consuming and difficult to regulate two barrels next to each other than two barrels stacked?

Does anyone know?

 

[TAB]

Both barrels are always exposed. O/Us the bottom barrel goes inside the reciever. Which means its alot easier to machine.

 

[earlthegoat2]

there is also the case of more precise barrel alignment with the SxS. They are designed to converge on a point a predetermined distance away and this is literally done by trial and error (to put it as easily as possible). OUs are also aligned but the process is immensely easier.

 

[45auto]

I don't know, but if you look at the "lower-end" of the SXS, they are about the same price as the O/U.

For example, Remington's line of cheap double barrels are the same, SXS or O/U. S&W has the same price on their double barreled guns. Huglu, the same I believe. You can still buy those Stoeger Coach guns for about $400.

That would suggest to me anyway, that there isn't much of a difference in manufacturing cost between the styles, comparing "equal" quality.

Now, whether a company believes they can sell a SXS for more, is another question IMO. Or, whether "they" can produce a SXS as efficently as an O/U may be in question. But, some "seem" to be able!

 

[ArmedBear]

OUs are also aligned but the process is immensely easier.

That's what I'm asking about.

I understand that it is immensely harder to do the SxS; about $1500 of the price of a Ruger or Beretta SxS must come from the difference in barrel manufacture, given the price difference between a SxS and an O/U of similar grade from the same.

How and why is it immensely easier?

TAB's answer doesn't explain it, to me, since when I take off the foreend of my O/U's, the machining and finish of the barrels at the chamber end are quite nice, and everything is quite symmetrical.

An O/U also has to converge at a point at a predetermined distance, doesn't it?

 

[ArmedBear]

That would suggest to me anyway, that there isn't much of a difference in manufacturing cost between the styles, comparing "equal" quality.

I've seen how well that some of the cheap guns are regulated. Let's just say that I'm not sure they're relevant to the question.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

How and why is it immensely easier?

Good question. I don't know but my *guess* is this:

To regulate them left and right, where gravity is not working against the load - it's simply a matter of precisely where they are pointed left or right relative to one another - is more difficult because gravity cannot "undo" any small errors which may be made, like an O/U, mistakes, in this way:

If, say, you align an O/U perfectly parallel (left to right-wise), which I think it's easier to see why aligning them perfectly parallel is an easier undertaking than a tiny miniscule yet very specific cross angle, then both barrels shoot perfectly in line with one another left to right. But then the obvious next question is, why isn't it JUST as hard to regulate the O/U barrels up and down-wise, as it is regulating the SxS barrels left and right wise? It's not though because gravity is pulling on both shotloads from both barrels in a downward direction, so even if the bottom barrel is pointed slightly up so that they merge at point X from the shooter, if you are a little off in that calcuation or alignment, the top barrel load is still being pulled down toward the bottom barrel load in an arc, and so instead of after crossing, where the keep getting farther and farther away from one another after crossing, as they would in a SxS, they still stay fairly close to one another because they are taking similar almost parralel arcs or parabolas - up then down - bah, I know what I'm trying to say, but don't know how to really explain it in the time I have right now..... frustrating... lemme think on how best to articulate my theory and I'll post again later. But it has to do with gravity sort of "correcting" small manufacturing errors to a certain extent.

 

[45auto]

But then the obvious next question is, why isn't it JUST as hard to regulate the O/U barrels up and down-wise, as it is regulating the SxS barrels left and right wise?

Just take the SXS barrels off the frame, hold them and rotate them 180 degrees up and you O/U barrels regulated at the same "spot/POI" as the barrels side by side.

So, I don't see the difference.

But, I could be wrong.

 

[ArmedBear]

even if the bottom barrel is pointed slightly up so that they merge at point X from the shooter, if you are a little off in that calcuation or alignment, the top barrel load is still being pulled down toward the bottom barrel load in an arc

I understand and agree -- and it appears to me that at least one of my O/U's is built this way on purpose, for the reason you specify.

The fact remains, though, that the barrels have to be aligned at a precise angle. If it's done on purpose, then it would seem to me that aligning the barrels at a precise angle WRT each other should be a similar process whether the barrels are stacked or side by side.

But clearly it's not.

And it's a fact that Ruger originally priced their Gold Label just above the Red Label, with the intent of selling a mainstream American SxS. With no competition and a good price, this would have been a serious coup for Ruger. They thought they could pull it off, using the same production techniques as they did for the Red Label.

They ran into some serious production snags, and had to redesign the gun, and raise the price by a lot. This trashed their whole marketing plan for the gun. I don't think they did this because they wanted it to turn out that way. A gun that was a slam-dunk for under 2 grand is, at best, an also-ran for more than 3.

 

[ArmedBear]

Just take the SXS barrels off the frame, hold them and rotate them 180 degrees up and you O/U barrels regulated at the same "spot/POI" as the barrels side by side.

Hmmm...

Maybe I should try shooting each gun gangsta style and see where the POI is...

 

[45auto]

Maybe I should try shooting each gun gangsta style and see where the POI is...

Ha, it worked for Glock.

 

[earlthegoat2]

If you have done a lot of shooting with doubles of any kind whether they are expensive or cheap or shotguns or rifles then you will know what Im talking about when I say that SxSs recoil differently than OUs. SxSs recoil upwards and left or right depending on what hand you shoot and other factors such as stock design and simply put how the gun is fitted to you. The OU will recoil more straight back and into the shooter in a much more linear path.

The recoil path of the gun is important in how the barrels are regulated. It is not just a matter of aligning both barrels parallel to eachother. Careful adjustments have to be made one shot at a time (literally) To regulate the barrels the gunsmith shoots the gun at a target with both barrels and notes the differences in point of impact. Then he will unsolder or whatever the attachment method of the barrels is and adjust them very finely and repeat the process until it is acceptable.

Since the SxS recoils up and in all directions the regulation process takes much greater time. The angles are more tricky and more shots need to be fired and adjustments made.

 

[ArmedBear]

Since the SxS recoils up and in all directions the regulation process takes much greater time. The angles are more tricky and more shots need to be fired and adjustments made.

Ah, now that's starting to make a lot more sense!

The upper barrel of an O/U does recoil up and back about like a SxS, in my experience, but it's straight in line with the stock. So there's no twisting and torquing.

Now my SxS doesn't twist on recoil enough to be a real nuisance or anything. I can shoot followup shots without noticing any major lateral displacement of the gun from the first shot. So we're talking about a relatively subtle, but important, phenomenon, right?

 

[Dave McCracken]

Right.

Brister pretty much settles it. He mentions two double rifles chambered for, IIRC, 458 Win Mag. With this hard kicking round, the O/U was much more controllable. Both were made by the same maker and weighed the same.

 

[huntsman]

So, here's my question: why, specifically, is it more time-consuming and difficult to regulate two barrels next to each other than two barrels stacked?

Mono-blocking makes an o/u easier and cheaper.

 

[earlthegoat2]

they monoblock SxSs as well