Want.
*sigh* What is it with me and firearms who are designed for things I never do, include functionalities I do not need (I guess crazy-arsed German laws are to blame for the double-barrel, single-shot arrangement), use calibers I have never heard of, are priced where I could never dream of affording (or rationalizing) them, and are rather uniquely designed? Unfortunately, I think that last bit is both a positive and a negative point for me, and possibly more the former…
related posts:
self-fulfilling prophets | update to my last | the hands go ’round and ’round |
I gotta say been seeing a LOT of this gun, and not only does it look like a lousy design, but even if it was a good design, It’s still not something I get.
It still doesn’t drastically improve on the Double-rifle/Shotgun design, and while it does shorten them slightly it does it at the expense of massive over-complication.
And all for $5000.
Thanks but no-thanks. a Nice Mauser or Weatherby action would be vastly superior, as would a double rifle/shotgun.
Oh, do not get me wrong – I have no intention of ever purchasing one of those things, but the engineer in me is ceaselessly fascinated by new-and-different designs, even if they are a little odd.
As for this one, depending on the laws in an area, I can definitely see the draw of being able to do an immediate follow-up shot without having semi-automatic firearms available to you or having to operate a bolt. And double-rifles are not exactly cheap or easy to come by these days either (sadly – those things are nice too, for different reasons).
And the design is interesting, if nothing else… they successfully packed as much of the barrel as they really possibly could into as much of the body, yielding about as compact a form factor as we are likely ever to see, especially given that there is no slide or bolt to go backwards – gotta give them credit, at least for that.
The cost is flat-out ludicrous though. No doubt about that.
Define “Successfully” they took a double-rifle design and essentially eliminated all useful aspects of a double rifle, just to make it shorter.
I’d call that a failure.
So perhaps the engineer in me is taking things too literally, but so far as I see it, the utility of a double-rifle is either (a) to mount two different calibers capable of being fired in short sequence with one another, or (b) to be capable of firing two successive shots without having to operate a bolt and without the firearm being a semi-automatic design. Not being a hunter, but vaguely understanding the concept, I completely see how being able to do a follow-up shot immediately can be quite useful, if not absolutely mandatory… but, not being a hunter, I do not see much of a point for any double rifle beyond that.
Seems to me this rifle meets the latter requirement. Where does it fail?
I am also not a hunter, but being a gun nut who sees the modern repeating rifle, it left me really wondering why modern hunters would choose to buy one of those expensive things (Very time consuming and expensive to get both barrels to shoot with the sights)
Outside of large dangerous game the Double Rifle does not practically exist (I know people who buy them for non-practical reasons…in this avenue the above rifle fits perfectly). They want a double rifle because it is strong and powerful, and the box-lock action allows for a very short receiver even for the uber-long African cartridges you feed it, so the gun is shorter and more balanced than a semi-auto or bolt-action of the same chambering.
The action is VERY simple, and therefore much more impervious to compleat failure:
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/590721.html
Thomas points out an ideal dangerous game rifle should also have two triggers so even if there is a component failure you still have a working rifle. Semi-autos will always jam. You can reduce this failure rate down into the statistical noise, but it will always exist.
So all that being said you’re taking a gun who’s main reason for relevance is simplicity, and making it overly complicated.
Also that 2nd trigger to open the action looks like a VERY easy failure point.
So as a collector’s piece, and a work of engineering, and as a range gun I guess you could see some use for it (I personally see none), but as a hunting arm for trips when SOMETHING is going to be killed, be it hunter or quarry, it’s a VERY bad design and you’d be better off with just about ANY other repeating design, and that’s all without factoring the price.
That is its main reason for relevance… for us. As I guessed in my original post, and did not bother looking up until now, this firearm appears to be a natural outgrowth of idiotic German laws:
Now, I do not speak German, so I am trusting the webpage to get the general translation correct, but in light of the above information, the firearm seems to satisfy the desire of hunters to have a secondary shot available without having to operate a bolt or rely on a semi-automatic option, especially given that the semi-automatic options in Germany are no more capable, and more prone to failure (as you mentioned).
In this particular case, it may be meant for nothing more complicated or dangerous than generic hunting, especially given that those are probably not the only laws/rules regulating these tools.
And I am quite willing to wager that this particular design is even shorter and more balanced than a “standard” double-rifle, given that it has completely done away with the stock, and the ‘action’ (or what passes for an action in this case) will be firmly planted against your shoulder.
In any case, I have already agreed with you, in my original post, no less, that this firearm would serve no rational purpose for me… but neither does the open-top revolver I purchased a few months back. However, thankfully, we are not limited by such requirements (apart from the restrictions placed by our pocket books and/or families), and this rifle seems like it might also be something interesting to fool around with a little… assuming I could find one at a very small fraction of its original price.