Posted by John Kuhn Bleimaier on March 31, 2007, 8:57 am
In the context of the discussion of Damascus barrels there have been several negative comments about cheap Belgian guns. I wonder if this criticism is really justified? Is it possible that the myth of the Belgian "klunker" is as false as the myth of the exploding Damascus barrel? Certainly the same US manufacturers were the financial beneficiaries of both "myths." I have seen a fair number of Belgian doubles with Damascus barrels and with fluid steel. They all seemed to me to be of fine quality. Many of the Belgian guns sold in the US during the late 19th century were inexpensive and these guns are unadorned and plain, but not of inferior quality. Unfortunately some sharp dealing retailers put misleading names on some of these guns, like " J. Purdie." That kind of marketing always makes a product's quality suspect. However, in this case perhaps not justifyably so.
Certainly in the rest of the world, Belgian guns have always enjoyed the highest reputation for quality. That was the case in the 19th century and continues today. Don't forget that the London gunmakers, as well as US manufacturers got most of their Damascus blanks form Liege.
In my gun cabinet my LC Smiths share places of honor with my Dumoulin.