/

Some mighty fine snob appeal. Only $12,000 and up for the standard rifle. Interesting. I have the magazine photo too, back cover. Kudos to Sports Afield for producing such a heavily African issue for April 2003. Picked mine up at WalMart. The magazine, not the rifle.

Here you go Alfie

/

Hi Alf,

Definitely agree, that rifle too epitomizes my idea of a classic bolt action hunting rifle for Africa.

As the man said, "small things make perfection but perfection ain't no small thing" � this has got to be close to perfect for me!!

Groetnis

NitroX
Is the picture reversed???

/

NE 450 No 2

Yes the picture probably is reversed.

By co-incidence before Alf mentioned it in this thread I played around with the photo - rotating ut, reversing it, shrinking it, fading it etc (I made a background of the WR double rifle for the NitroExpress.com forums - by turning it into a vignette and fading it). You guys are too much, spotting every little mistake!

So unfortunately this WR bolt action is not the ideal rifle for a lefty

Alf

Yes whenever I visit the WR site and look over their fine firearms I drool as well, so I have fitted my keyboard with a drool guard.

I dislike British magazine rifles, and feel that in terms of design, quality, accuracy, and function any number of top-flight American custom riflemakers will hammer the Brits into the ground.

Double rifles and shotguns another story, however........

AD

/

I got the magazine some weeks back, and was pleased this issue had African articals, at least as much as it does. Will they produce more such articals on a regular basis, does anyone know?
Concerning the WR rifle on the back, I don't quite favor the front sight, it appears backwards, but I've also seen them on Rigby rifles of old as well, so I imagine it's a matter of taste. In any case, a nice rifle. ~~~Suluuq

Re. front sight on backwards...
Are y'all refering to the front sight cover opening back toward the shooter?
If it opened the other way the recoil of the rifle might cause it to partially close, thus interfearing with the next shot. Also moving through the brush might tend to push it up also.

I find the looks of this rifle very pleasing.
I've never owned a true english style rifle, so I can't comment on anything but appearance. I've had a few Whitworth rifles, which are comparable in style, I suppose (?) and enjoyed using them.

I'm with Allen on this one. Besides, that scope is way too big and set too far back. I can't even look at the rest of the rifle for that eyesore.

Re front sight backwards: it is the ramp that is backwards, nothing about the hood/bead/blade. It just looks awful this way. It also would not work as well for most users for rapid shooting.

Most of us prefer for the ramp to slope up to the sight bead/blade on the shooter's viewing side, and be square/perpendicular on the side away from the shooter's eye, at the muzzle.

WR has the front sight bassackwards.

DaggaRon - Other than the front sight and the scoping, do you like the rifle?

P.S.- I need your input on the Bigbores Forum, please, on the "AR Think Tank" thread.

Actually, I think WR got it right on the front sight. Nice vertical square blade for the shooter to look at - just like a patridge target front sight on a revolver. Ramp front sights are serrated to try to break up the reflections and simulate a vertical face, but this just doesn't work as well as a true vertical faced sight blade. You may prefer how a ramped sight blade looks in the side view, but looking down the barrel it just doesn't work as well.

Most highly esteemed Hollywood Nickudu,
Sure, I like the rest of the rifle, but I do not like it $12,000+. It would probably not get used for fear of damage to it's delicate beauty, if I owned it.

To hunt with, I would much rather have one made from the po' man's Mauser 98, Winchester M-70, Ruger M-77, or CZ 550 action with a fiberglass/composite stock, a stainless barrel blackened with Tuffkote, and all the ribs and bands and lugs and sighting accouterment that I could load it up with.

The ramp is covered up by rear sight in use, but its higher visibility and light scatter in dim light helps guide one more quickly to getting it covered up for drawing the bead. It is not just aesthetics. I agree WR got the front sight bassackwards.

I doubt I can add much to your thread, but I will take a look. Thanks for all you add to the forums.

N/

Allen,
LIke Alf sez, not in a million years...

The English placed function over beauty believe it or not...Pointability has always beat the american classic stock which is very scope friendly but not iron sight friendly...These English guns were designed by the best hunters Africa had at the time, and most Hollands and WR rifles point like a 28 ga. shotgun with irons and with a scope IMO...

I could write volumes on the difference and make a non refutable case, but I won't as it would only land on deaf and unchangable ears, of brainwashed minds of the American shooter, who has been reading such things for too many years..

What I would do however and have many times is let anyone fiddle with, play with and/or shoot one of my rifles and then offer an honest opinnion...and that has not failed as yet,including display at SCI..

The 98 Mauser and a few of its children, and the English stock make the ultimate bolt action rifle IMO...

I agree with Ray and Alf. American Classic stocks are for those guys who like Fat women, plenty of meat to fill up your hands, and it is everywhere.

They are clubby and heavy feeling and don't point irons at all. Most American makers have the technical abiity to make a wonderful functioning and reliable rifle but they seem to lack the Soul to also make it a wonderful thing to handle and hold. For the John Deere Baseball hat hunter.

IMO, a Bolt rifle should be like a woman, light and with a feminie feel. Delicate to handle yet whipchord tough. The perfect physical fit.

A Double is the masculine version. Solid and substantial, muscular. Just picking it up should give you confidence. Blued Steel and Walnut.