O/U versus Side by side

[Hornedfrogbbq]

1. I do not own a double rifle...yet.
2. I have shot shotguns extensively and shoot an O/U much better than a traditional Side-by-side.
3. Please tell me the difference in doubles that are stacked or S/S. Is regulation easier with one or the other? Accuracy difference?
4. Other than tradition of the Side-by-side, which i respect and frankly covet, is one version better than the other for reasons i can't think of?

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Neither is inherently better than the other, since it’s very much a matter of personal preference.

If the Germans won the first world war and didn’t lose their African colonies, then over & under double rifles would have been more popular today than side by side double rifles.

After the first world war, double rifles became almost standardized as the way the British conceptualized them- Side by Sides. Before the first world war, over & under double rifles were widely used in the African colonies belonging to Germany.

The second world war was the final nail on the coffin for the popularity of the over & under double rifle (outside Continental Europe where they always remained popular).

During the first part of the 20th century, affluent American people (the kinds who could afford hunting excursions to Africa) loved taking inspiration from the British in terms of clothing, fine dining & weaponry. The British side by side just captured their imagination as the “Proper” configuration for a double rifle (James Purdey & Sons were instrumental in this regard, since they started doing trunk shows in the United States shortly after the first world war and many wealthy American sportsmen such as Don Hopkins became their lifelong customers). Combine this with a touch & go sort of relationship with Germany (the side effects of 2 world wars), German technology didn’t really appeal to Americans for many years.

Australia (being a former British colony) also obviously observed a preference for side by side double rifles instead of over & under.

Interestingly, before the second world war… British gunmakers were also toying with the concept of over & under double rifles. Westley Richards was producing the “Ovundo” in calibers as large as .476 Nitro Express. Boss & Co. (the inventor of the British over & under double rifle) was producing their wares in calibers as large as .500 Nitro Express.

Over & under double rifles (and also combination guns) are extremely popular in Continental Europe for hunting roe deer over dogs or driven boar (usually in calibers such as 7x65mmR, 8x57mmJRS & 9.3x74mmR).

 

[Hornedfrogbbq]

Neither is inherently better than the other, since it’s very much a matter of personal preference.

If the Germans won the first world war and didn’t lose their African colonies, then over & under double rifles would have been more popular today than side by side double rifles.

After the first world war, double rifles became almost standardized as the way the British conceptualized them- Side by Sides. Before the first world war, over & under double rifles were widely used in the African colonies belonging to Germany.

The second world war was the final nail on the coffin for the popularity of the over & under double rifle (outside Continental Europe where they always remained popular).

During the first part of the 20th century, affluent American people (the kinds who could afford hunting excursions to Africa) loved taking inspiration from the British in terms of clothing, fine dining & weaponry. The British side by side just captured their imagination as the “Proper” configuration for a double rifle (James Purdey & Sons were instrumental in this regard, since they started doing trunk shows in the United States shortly after the first world war and many wealthy American sportsmen such as Don Hopkins became their lifelong customers). Combine this with a touch & go sort of relationship with Germany (the side effects of 2 world wars), German technology didn’t really appeal to Americans for many years.

Australia (being a former British colony) also obviously observed a preference for side by side double rifles instead of over & under.

Interestingly, before the second world war… British gunmakers were also toying with the concept of over & under double rifles. Westley Richards was producing the “Ovundo” in calibers as large as .476 Nitro Express. Boss & Co. (the inventor of the British over & under double rifle) was producing their wares in calibers as large as .500 Nitro Express.

Over & under double rifles (and also combination guns) are extremely popular in Continental Europe for hunting roe deer over dogs or driven boar (usually in calibers such as 7x65mmR, 8x57mmJRS & 9.3x74mmR).

I own a Sauer drilling and 2 Sodia combo guns, (one with the 7x57) and love them. The drilling is a side by side double 12 bore so it shoots more like a SxS. I have shoot a VC in .470 NE and that was a ball and I actually didn't stink. It just seems like a sight picture over a single barrel is something i am more used to.

 

[Red Leg]

@Hunter-Habib has that absolutely correct. Moreover, I think the impact of that German victory on the budding safari industry as a whole would have been far greater than just rifle choices. Allied defeat in WWI, which was a very real possibility well into 1918, would have meant that Germany retained both German East (Tanzania) and German Southwest (Namibia) Africa. In the same way it lost these two colonies as a result of the war, Great Britain would almost certainly have lost its East African colonies (Kenya and Uganda) to Germany. German influence rather than British would have dominated South Africa. We should also assume the Germans would have also dominated French and Belgian holdings in East and North Africa had they demanded them.

The safari industry really took off in the interwar years. As noted above, that industry was dominated by the British while much German development of rifles and loadings for Africa largely came to a halt. Hence, the rise of all things British, including their concepts of dangerous game loads and rifles. Had our alternative universe occurred, those inter-war American hunters would have been created by a PH named Albrecht rather than Philip. His stopping rifle would almost certainly have been an OU in a new heavy rimmed metric caliber. Safari would now be thought of as very much through the eyes of German culture and norms.

It is likely that would have remained the case throughout the century, because much of the rise of Hitler and the Nazi movement which led to WWII can be attributed directly to the defeat in WWI and the resulting Treaty of Versailles. I rather suspect that might well have been better alternative history than the one we actually experienced. Though, if we hunted Africa, we all would have been studying some German because it would likely be the alternative to English as a universal language - particularly in Africa.

Regardless of history, I think we can confidently predict that the heavy bore SxS would have been a quaint oddity of English gun development while the forum here debated the relative merits of their Merfert and Jaeger OU doubles.

I love SxS shotguns, and my most used double rifle is a Blaser S2 (fortunately without many of the annoying attributes of a traditional design). But an OU really is a superior design. It is inherently easier to regulate and to scope; it is just as fast to reload as a SxS (yes, I know the myth, but you can prove it to yourself with a SxS and OU shotgun); and smaller calibers work just as well as stoppers meaning they would have been a popular option for all game far more than a SxS double is today.

The fact that our alternative world didn't happen changes nothing about the actual merits of various designs - merely what is considered "traditional."

 

[EarlsSon]

Neither is inherently better than the other, since it’s very much a matter of personal preference.

If the Germans won the first world war and didn’t lose their African colonies, then over & under double rifles would have been more popular today than side by side double rifles.

After the first world war, double rifles became almost standardized as the way the British conceptualized them- Side by Sides. Before the first world war, over & under double rifles were widely used in the African colonies belonging to Germany.

The second world war was the final nail on the coffin for the popularity of the over & under double rifle (outside Continental Europe where they always remained popular).

During the first part of the 20th century, affluent American people (the kinds who could afford hunting excursions to Africa) loved taking inspiration from the British in terms of clothing, fine dining & weaponry. The British side by side just captured their imagination as the “Proper” configuration for a double rifle (James Purdey & Sons were instrumental in this regard, since they started doing trunk shows in the United States shortly after the first world war and many wealthy American sportsmen such as Don Hopkins became their lifelong customers). Combine this with a touch & go sort of relationship with Germany (the side effects of 2 world wars), German technology didn’t really appeal to Americans for many years.

Australia (being a former British colony) also obviously observed a preference for side by side double rifles instead of over & under.

Interestingly, before the second world war… British gunmakers were also toying with the concept of over & under double rifles. Westley Richards was producing the “Ovundo” in calibers as large as .476 Nitro Express. Boss & Co. (the inventor of the British over & under double rifle) was producing their wares in calibers as large as .500 Nitro Express.

Over & under double rifles (and also combination guns) are extremely popular in Continental Europe for hunting roe deer over dogs or driven boar (usually in calibers such as 7x65mmR, 8x57mmJRS & 9.3x74mmR).

I thoroughly enjoyed your opinion for this post.

 

[DmacD]

I am a novice when it comes to double rifles. I have only owned shotguns in side by side configuration, and I shot them poorly. I do much better with an over under. I had always wanted a double rifle, but they are hard to find in my neck of the woods. I stumbled across a Valmet 412S, chambered in .308/.308 ( also with a set of 20ga/20ga barrels) which has been a lot of fun for me. Regulation has been very easy for me with this rifle.
The photo below is a target at 100m, four shots. The top two holes are from the top barrel, the bottom two, the bottom barrel. This took me about a box of ammo to figure out, and I barely know what I am doing. I understand that a side by side rifle, in a heavy calibre, needs a craftsman with considerable skill and experience to regulate. I guess it all depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, and how large your budget is.
I don't need to rely on this rifle to keep me alive in the face of dangerous game. I do venture into the deer woods here at home with it though, which is where my budget allows.

 

[trperk1]

This is really an apples and oranges comparison, they are both firearms but used completely differently. One is pointed at moving game and shot with the barrel moving, the other is aimed at mostly stationary game. O/U shotguns are favored as they swing better on flying game.

 

[AZDAVE]

I have owned and shot both a lot. The O/U is easier to regulate and the barrels are on the same horizontal plane. and the sights are on top of the barrels. So the regulation is almost all on the vertical plane. When fired the upper and lower barrels with try to pull away from the opposite barrel., this requires the builder to-adjust the barrels to get good regulation in 2 dimensions.

On the SxS you have the sights between the two barrels, and when fired the barrels pull away from each other and the recoil impulse pulls the right barrel up and right and left up and left. This requires the builder to work on proper regulation in 3 dimensions.

So the other factors that effect both is the round shot. IE is it a faster powder, what is the shape of the bullet and its bearing surface, time the bullets are in the barrels. all affect where the barrels are in the recoil impulse, rise in the barrels.

Lastly are the differences in how the rifle is held when regulating, (fore end on a rest, fore end on the hand with hand on the rest)


both are good systems, Neither one is better than the other when properly regulated.

You just have to figure out which system works best for you.

 

[Red Leg]

This is really an apples and oranges comparison, they are both firearms but used completely differently. One is pointed at moving game and shot with the barrel moving, the other is aimed at mostly stationary game. O/U shotguns are favored as they swing better on flying game.

Uh no? I think most British gunners would disagree with you as would many Americans. I shoot both well, and prefer a SxS for all actual hunting. Though, I have often shot in the nineties, usually high nineties, on clays courses with my SxS's. I also don't poke at game, both sets of barrels move. Virtually all my box bird shooting is with SxS's. Those barrels are really moving.

 

[trperk1]

Uh no? I think most British gunners would disagree with you as would many Americans. I shoot both well, and prefer a SxS for all actual hunting. Though, I have often shot in the nineties, usually high nineties, on clays courses with my SxS's. I also don't poke at game, both sets of barrels move. Virtually all my box bird shooting is with SxS's. Those barrels are really moving.

I was referring to the difference in shotgun shooting and rifle shooting. Not comparing a S/S shotgun to O/U shotgun

 

[Ontario Hunter]

O/U provides a single barrel "less cluttered" sight plane. For moving targets this should not be an issue because the shooter's eyes should be on the target not the gun. Should be anyway. But unless one has a LOT of practice shooting moving targets, a cluttered sight plane can make a difference. When shooting at standing targets, two-barrel sighting clutter is not a potential issue as shooter is aiming with iron sights.

SxS shotguns do not hold well for me. That tiny forearm means I'm gripping the barrel ... sorta. With O/U I have the fore end well in hand. For me the weight and balance point of the gun determines how well it will swing on target, more than the number of barrels in sight picture.

The only reason SxS double rifles are more popular than O/U is purely asthetic. Most who own them want to play act Ernest Hemingway or Stewart Granger. Same reason some prefer double rifle over bolt action. And to me that is a poor reason. I'm me not a 1940s movie star.

 

[skydiver386]

While I don't disagree with the history of African hunting and it's effects on firearms development that others have posted above, there are mechanical design factors that also influenced things.

Both SXS and O/U design's use a standing breech, and a hinged barrel that is held in its closed position during firing by some form of locking bolt.

When the cartridge is fired, it pushes back against the breech face and forces the barrel forward around this hinge point. In this picture of the Browning Citori O/U, you can see how much farther the top barrel is from the hinge point and locking bolt (circled in yellow) than the bottom barrel.

The closer the barrel centerline is the the centerline of the hinge, the less the torque force applied to the locking bolt, but the farther the barrel center is from the centerline of the hinge the more torque force is applied to the locking bolt. This is why most O/U shooters will only load and fire the bottom barrel when shooting singles Trap, and will only load the top barrel along with the bottom barrel when shooting doubles. It saves wear and tear on the locking bolt and locking bolt recess.

Just as a reminder, shotguns typically use less than half the pressure of most rifle rounds, and place a much lower overall force against the breech face.

The SXS, having it's barrels set very low and close to the hinge centerline places less stress on the locking system than an O/U.

However, the SXS, having it's barrels offset to the left and right of the hinge centerline presents a completely different set of problems. When the right barrel is fired, it's torque forces push the breech end of the barrel to the right, and the muzzle to the left. When the left barrel is fired, it's torque forces push the breech end to the left, and the muzzle to the right.

This is why most older SXS shotguns that have thousands of rounds through them will be very loose and can be twisted and rattled because the hinge pin, locking bolt and it's recess have become worn.

Most makers of quality Double rifles use 2 underlug type locking bolts, and an additional top locking bolt like a dolls head or a Rigby rising bite.

Making a strong double rifle that will stay tight for thousands of rounds is no easy task. This article gives a good description of some of the locking systems.

Double Gun Bolting Systems | RifleMagazine

Home of Rifle Magazine. Subscribe, order back issues, and buy Sporting Goods at great prices.

www.riflemagazine.com

Because of the torque forces involved, and the difficulty of loading an O/U bottom barrel under stress vs a SXS, I think the Side by Side makes more sense for the intended purpose.

 

[steve white]

I am a novice when it comes to double rifles. I have only owned shotguns in side by side configuration, and I shot them poorly. I do much better with an over under. I had always wanted a double rifle, but they are hard to find in my neck of the woods. I stumbled across a Valmet 412S, chambered in .308/.308 ( also with a set of 20ga/20ga barrels) which has been a lot of fun for me. Regulation has been very easy for me with this rifle.
The photo below is a target at 100m, four shots. The top two holes are from the top barrel, the bottom two, the bottom barrel. This took me about a box of ammo to figure out, and I barely know what I am doing. I understand that a side by side rifle, in a heavy calibre, needs a craftsman with considerable skill and experience to regulate. I guess it all depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, and how large your budget is.
I don't need to rely on this rifle to keep me alive in the face of dangerous game. I do venture into the deer woods here at home with it though, which is where my budget allows.

View attachment 697567View attachment 697565

Each barrel is shooting well of its own accord. Isn't it possible to regulate/converge the two groups with the adjustment on the end of the barrels?

 

[steve white]

Uh no? I think most British gunners would disagree with you as would many Americans. I shoot both well, and prefer a SxS for all actual hunting. Though, I have often shot in the nineties, usually high nineties, on clays courses with my SxS's. I also don't poke at game, both sets of barrels move. Virtually all my box bird shooting is with SxS's. Those barrels are really moving.

I agree and would add, in regards to your live pigeon shooting, what one competitor said--that it is a game of elevation, and the side by side excels at that.
Brister also observed that the side by side seemed to get picked up by the eye when the background was ground vegetation, and not the sky. That certainly mirrors my experience.
The side by side is far from obsolete.

 

[steve white]

O/U provides a single barrel "less cluttered" sight plane. For moving targets this should not be an issue because the shooter's eyes should be on the target not the gun. Should be anyway. But unless one has a LOT of practice shooting moving targets, a cluttered sight plane can make a difference. When shooting at standing targets, two-barrel sighting clutter is not a potential issue as shooter is aiming with iron sights.

SxS shotguns do not hold well for me. That tiny forearm means I'm gripping the barrel ... sorta. With O/U I have the fore end well in hand. For me the weight and balance point of the gun determines how well it will swing on target, more than the number of barrels in sight picture.

The only reason SxS double rifles are more popular than O/U is purely asthetic. Most who own them want to play act Ernest Hemingway or Stewart Granger. Same reason some prefer double rifle over bolt action. And to me that is a poor reason. I'm me not a 1940s movie star.

I do not think side by sides are just for posing. They are certainly my successful go-to for game. And a single barrel profile from the top does not mean that the side profile is single! On an over under, the side profile is two stacked barrels--tall enough to cause my off eye to pick it up and cause a cross fire--it happens to me, so I had to get rid of a nice Beretta O/U! An auto has a single barrel, and I shoot those at times.
The sight picture of a SXS is also influenced by the sight rib or lack thereof. Swamped ribs on a SXS seem to make the bead "float." A raised, even ventilated rib floats other's boats. Not all cut and dried. Even the squared off back of the action on your A-5 makes a difference in sight picture. We all have our preferences, and vive le difference.
BTW, just wait until we start arguing over dished vs. flat ribs and whether they should be tapered like the Churchill....it could all make the head hurt, lol.

 

[roklok]

I have been shooting side by side shotguns for about 35 years, and prefer them to O/U. To ME, the twin barrels are actually easier to shoot on fast birds in tight cover. Others have different experiences and opinions.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I do not think side by sides are just for posing. They are certainly my successful go-to for game. And a single barrel profile from the top does not mean that the side profile is single! On an over under, the side profile is two stacked barrels--tall enough to cause my off eye to pick it up and cause a cross fire--it happens to me, so I had to get rid of a nice Beretta O/U! An auto has a single barrel, and I shoot those at times.
The sight picture of a SXS is also influenced by the sight rib or lack thereof. Swamped ribs on a SXS seem to make the bead "float." A raised, even ventilated rib floats other's boats. Not all cut and dried. Even the squared off back of the action on your A-5 makes a difference in sight picture. We all have our preferences, and vive le difference.
BTW, just wait until we start arguing over dished vs. flat ribs and whether they should be tapered like the Churchill....it could all make the head hurt, lol.

Due to damaged retina in my left eye, it must be closed when I get on the target with my shotgun. So I'm not seeing the side of the barrel(s), only the top. I do use both eyes to acquire the target, mostly for depth perception. One should not be looking at the barrel when shooting at moving targets. Eye(s) should stay on the target.

 

[Red Leg]

While I don't disagree with the history of African hunting and it's effects on firearms development that others have posted above, there are mechanical design factors that also influenced things.

Both SXS and O/U design's use a standing breech, and a hinged barrel that is held in its closed position during firing by some form of locking bolt.
View attachment 697611
When the cartridge is fired, it pushes back against the breech face and forces the barrel forward around this hinge point. In this picture of the Browning Citori O/U, you can see how much farther the top barrel is from the hinge point and locking bolt (circled in yellow) than the bottom barrel.

The closer the barrel centerline is the the centerline of the hinge, the less the torque force applied to the locking bolt, but the farther the barrel center is from the centerline of the hinge the more torque force is applied to the locking bolt. This is why most O/U shooters will only load and fire the bottom barrel when shooting singles Trap, and will only load the top barrel along with the bottom barrel when shooting doubles. It saves wear and tear on the locking bolt and locking bolt recess.

Just as a reminder, shotguns typically use less than half the pressure of most rifle rounds, and place a much lower overall force against the breech face.

The SXS, having it's barrels set very low and close to the hinge centerline places less stress on the locking system than an O/U.

However, the SXS, having it's barrels offset to the left and right of the hinge centerline presents a completely different set of problems. When the right barrel is fired, it's torque forces push the breech end of the barrel to the right, and the muzzle to the left. When the left barrel is fired, it's torque forces push the breech end to the left, and the muzzle to the right.

This is why most older SXS shotguns that have thousands of rounds through them will be very loose and can be twisted and rattled because the hinge pin, locking bolt and it's recess have become worn.

Most makers of quality Double rifles use 2 underlug type locking bolts, and an additional top locking bolt like a dolls head or a Rigby rising bite.

Making a strong double rifle that will stay tight for thousands of rounds is no easy task. This article gives a good description of some of the locking systems.

Double Gun Bolting Systems | RifleMagazine

Home of Rifle Magazine. Subscribe, order back issues, and buy Sporting Goods at great prices.

www.riflemagazine.com

Because of the torque forces involved, and the difficulty of loading an O/U bottom barrel under stress vs a SXS, I think the Side by Side makes more sense for the intended purpose.

I am familiar with both the article and the author. We do not always agree. I will simply note that I am confident that I have seen dozens of off face SxS guns and rifles for every loose OU and I have seen, handled and owned many.

 

[DmacD]

Each barrel is shooting well of its own accord. Isn't it possible to regulate/converge the two groups with the adjustment on the end of the barrels?

Yes, it could and should be possible to converge them so that they all hit "in the red"' so to speak. I started out with about 17" of vertical gap between the two barrels, and about 8" of gap on the horizontal. Once I got to what you see on the target photo, I put it to bed.
Additionally, this was at 100m. I am guessing that in order to change your point of convergence at different distances, say 50m or 200m, would entail more adjustment for each set distance.

 

[skydiver386]

I am familiar with both the article and the author. We do not always agree. I will simply note that I am confident that I have seen dozens of off face SxS guns and rifles for every loose OU and I have seen, handled and owned many.

I agree, and I believe it to be caused by the side to side torque that I described.

If we had large numbers of high pressure O/U guns, say .375 H&H on up, we would see as many problems with those, but it would take place in different areas of the locking system and receiver.

It is difficult to compare the overall longevity of SXS vs O/U rifles because so many o/s are built on a shotgun action and not a true from the ground up rifle action.

The Germanic multi barrel guns, which I'm sure you are familiar with are another thing altogether. The receiver and locking system is usually much heavier than a typical shotgun. Two reasons so many of these remain tight after over 100 years of use is the initial quality, and because many rounds were fired through the smaller caliber barrels. Come to think of it, they also had the most powerful caliber closest to the cl of the hinge pin. This would make the most sense from a design perspective. The men that built those old combination guns knew exactly what they were doing.