quartering said:
isn't an o/u a more modern design? sxs's had external hammers which i've never seen on an o/u. and they had double triggers which i've never seen on an o/u, either. did the hammerless design and the advent of the single trigger lend themselves to the design of the o/u? then you have to wonder how stock shapes and choke tubes figure in the evolution. and what influence pumps and semis had in its design. it would be great if anybody knows the time line relative to the development of the breach loading hammer sxs, hammerless sxs, o/u, pump, auto. thanks
good points - I htink you are right regarding external hammers and the 19th c shotgun evolved as a SxS (I think)
BUT the O/U is an old configuration also very early 20th c or late 19th c I think. They've been around a long time.
Yes, I've seen DTs on O/Us too. Some are retrofits. I think a few hundred dollars will retrofit a Beretta Silver Pigeon to DT.
I don't think pumps and semis had influence ont he early O/U design evolution. As I recall it was British.
The SxS may have evolved as far as it can - it might be sort of like the P-51 Mustang - about as good a reciprocating engine-powered fighter as can be made.
Prices may come down with the introduction of new machining techniques. At some point the concept of "interchangeable parts" might come true for SxS shotguns!
Beretta's line of Silver Pigeons and Onyx O/U are the largest selling O/Us in the world and they are rather good and (in my opinion) remarkably nice-handling for guns in that price range.
There is distinctly different "feel" to O/Us and SxSs. It's not just in the visuals.