Is Wieland the writer being sued for not returning the double rifle?
Dink
Never heard that one...Don't know if there's any truth to that at all, but such things won't make a writer very popular with gunmakers.
I've never met Wieland so I have no opinion of the guy. While I love what he writes about, I don't necessarily love his writing. Seems to lack passion.
A friend of mine who REALLY knows fine and vintage guns tried to tell Wieland something about a rare patent feature on an exquisite gun made by a relatively unknown maker, and Wieland had absolutely NO interest. For someone who is supposedly passionate about fine guns, that really surprised me. When I'm in this guy's presence, I'm all ears, and I've learned that it's the obscure stuff like what he was trying to teach Wieland that's the really good stuff. Holland Royal actions with Scott spindles, Purdy under bolts, and southgate ejectors...these features are everywhere. Yeah, they're great, but a bit boring now (don't get me wrong, I'll take one). But it's really cool to see some truely ingenious ways other makers came up with to get around all the "standard" patents, yet still worked very well.
We all know that the "best" isn't always what's out there or the one that sells the most. Wonderful that the H&H Royal is, there are some gun designs that were market failures that many would consider to be better guns, or some design features that were superior to all the standby features we see now.
