Any Appetite for a New <$10K Double?

[Turner12971]

I’d be interested in a 416 REM

 

[pc3]

It needs to be rimmed for mine, and one of the original double rounds, like owning an MK5 it needs to be in a weatherby cal.

To that end 9.3x74r is a great round and practical, just purchased one my self. As is .375 flanged.

I also wish Chapius would do a .500 NE, there guns get pretty good reviews and cheaper than Heym.

 

[Grandpa Moose]

How about something for the thick woods/timber deer & bear hunters; 30/30 win, 35 Remington, the new 360 Buckhammer, 444 Marlin, maybe even a 348 Winchester to step up the power level. The 500 Smith & Wesson mag would be great also

Would love a double in 348 especially if pressure could be raised. Am finishing a bolt 348 on a Siamese action and look forward to working up higher pressure loads. Would be a great mid range rifle

 

[Hagler.450Ex]

I'd take a $10,000 .577 or .600 tonight. Literally tonight. Before sleep. But since that is dream world, I'm gonna say .450-400 or .375 Flanged, as there are already some nice 9.3x74's to be found in that range if one looks and has patience.

 

[Shootist43]

Tom, has there been any movement on this project / inquiry of yours? What does /did "Management" think of the idea?

 

[vh2q]

Factors to take into consideration:

1. fat cartridges require wide firing pin spacing and a large breech which means a heavy action and heavy barrels so a heavy rifle. The 450-400, albeit a good DG cartridge, is from the cordite era and like all Brit cartridges of that era is unnecessarily fat with all of the mentioned consequences.
2. to achieve low cost, the action has to be a common 20ga action (eg Merkel) that is sold in quantity. This action cannot handle ctgs in the 375 H&H class and up. It can handle up to a 9.3x74R in terms of backthrust, which is a function of base diameter and pressure. Weight is a function of fp spacing which takes a jump when you step up from a 9.3. That is why 9.3x74R doubles cost about half what 375H&H and up cost.
3. there are only two DG cartridges that fill the gap between the 300gr 375 and the 450 gr 416, namely the rimless 404 Jeff and the rimmed equivalent 450-400 at 400gr. There is no good 350gr offering at all.
4. the 9.3x74R is super marginal for dg and not legal in many countries. It's overkill for PG. It's really a compromise ctg.
5. Chapuis used to sell the UGEX rifle in cals from 284 groove up to 366 groove for about $6K but then they quit. Their Series 3 successor is too dainty for a DG cartridge. Their Brousse series for heavy calibers is (frankly) ugly.
6. The OP needs to define whether this new rifle is a true African DG rifle (ie a tiny market even at a lower price) for short range work in thick stuff, an Alaskan/Canadian rifle (a slightly bigger market that can require a longer shot but in harsh conditions which calls for synthetic or laminated stocks) or a PG/North American rifle for woods use with open sights, or with a scope (horrors) that can anchor elk-class game out to about 200. These are very different animals. The 303 would fit into the last category, nicely. The 45-70 is in the middle category but the cartridge is fat which means the rifle will be heavy, and the trajectory is poor so not a great choice. I don't think Chapuis wants to make a less expensive line of large action African DG rifles, Heym has already done that with their PH model. Their problem is the Series III has become very expensive and is too light and "flashy" for real hunting conditions. Their other problem is French Gray actions with Euro game scenes .. no real hunter wants a bright action with roe deer on it.
7. Regulation is the achilles heel of double rifles. The rifle has to be regulated for a SPECIFIC brand/load/bullet. Many DRs were regulated with ammo (eg Kynoch) that is NLA. So realistically, you have to be a handloader to invest that kind of $$ in a rifle. Then you can be relatively assured of ammo that works. But even then, powders and bullets come and go. The mfg have tried to circumvent this with adjustable regulation but only Valmet offered a system that works reasonably well in their (discontinued) 412 and 512 with separate adjustments for horizontal and vertical alignment. But then you can't have fixed ribs, and that turns a lot of people off.


As an aside, why does nobody put a ghost ring sight on their double? This can be fashioned as part of the toplever screw. There is a reason battle rifles use ghost rings or big apertures ("battle sights"). Most DG hunters are over the hill and they cannot see express sights. So they use scopes which are bulky, vulnerable to damage, and defeat the intent of a DR.

 

[DaBill]

So if we are thinking about calibers not to take away from Chapuis other lines and we are thinking outside the box. How about a 416 REM MAG or a 458 win mag. Non traditional rimmed calibers but both very popular in Africa and wont compete with their other calibers. Easy to find ammo anywhere loads of bullet choices and much cheaper to feed.

 

[Ray B]

The expensive part of building a double rifle is to accommodate all of the forces involved in pushing bullets down two different barrels and having them land at approximately the same spot. I'm wondering with all the development in "artificial intelligence" being applied to all sorts of computer programing and industrial manufacturing: could it be possible that a program could be developed that would include all of the variables and then have a CNC driven machine build and assemble the double rifle. If so, it might be possible to build some (the prototype would be expensive, but additional ones would become inexpensive.

 

[SRvet]

The expensive part of building a double rifle is to accommodate all of the forces involved in pushing bullets down two different barrels and having them land at approximately the same spot. I'm wondering with all the development in "artificial intelligence" being applied to all sorts of computer programing and industrial manufacturing: could it be possible that a program could be developed that would include all of the variables and then have a CNC driven machine build and assemble the double rifle. If so, it might be possible to build some (the prototype would be expensive, but additional ones would become inexpensive.

There is a saying in the British military that “no plan survives first contact with the enemy”. I wonder if the same is true with test firing a double rifle?

 

[grand veneur]

I don't believe there is much room for optimization as so much has already been tried with precision rifles, and yet inconsistent factors that significantly affect shooting accuracy still remain. This refers above all to barrel vibrations and gas escape from the muzzle. In a double rifle with two adjacent barrels, no matter how tightly they are fixed together, one influences the other when swinging and also when stretching. All of this is very counterproductive to achieving a high accuracy.

Anyone using a double rifle must be aware that he are using a weapon that reflects 19th-century technology. Several inches of shot grouping were standard at that time. Anyone who is very concerned about the accuracy of his rifle should think carefully about whether he want to buy a double rifle, especially one that is not too expensive.

 

[Alistair]

The expensive part of building a double rifle is to accommodate all of the forces involved in pushing bullets down two different barrels and having them land at approximately the same spot. I'm wondering with all the development in "artificial intelligence" being applied to all sorts of computer programing and industrial manufacturing: could it be possible that a program could be developed that would include all of the variables and then have a CNC driven machine build and assemble the double rifle. If so, it might be possible to build some (the prototype would be expensive, but additional ones would become inexpensive.

It's a good idea in theory. In practice though? Not so much.

As an example. Let's say you buy an AR platform. You shot it lots, and you wear out the barrel. You buy the exact same barrel, from the exact same manufacturer. You screw it into the exact same receiver.

It'll shoot to the same point of aim, right? No need to re-zero. All the same parts.

We all know that doesn't happen.

Why? Manufacturing tolerances.

It's the same issue with the CNC made pre-regulated double rifle idea.

You could do it in theory. Design a blueprint that's engineered precisely to guarantee regulation.

But then... you've gotta manufacture all those parts to an infinitely tight tolerance, far more than what is otherwise needed. If you don't, it won't be regulated.

That then leads to massively increased manufacturing costs, high reject rates, much much tighter tolerances on materials and assembly, a whole suite of additional manufacturing metrics that suddenly go from not an issue, to critically important.

That then gets you to a point where 'just pay a guy to regulate the thing' is far more cost effective.