Just curious what most folks think of this designation. In my minds-eye, the .275 Rigby is simply a 'slang term" for a hunting/sporting cartridge version of the 7mm Mauser military round.

Question:
What about you? What best describes your thoughts on the .275 Rigby "title".

Choices:
I agree. Basically a military round with a pointed (spitzer) bullet instead of the round-nosed military ball.
It is a Rigby designed round that should only be used in their rifles.
I think the only proper place for this designation is on an original Rigby.
There is no such thing as a .275 Rigby.
I don't care for this designation. It's just a 7X57 to me.
I just like it for the cool factor.

 

My rifle is from 1898. I really like it.

quote:

Basically a military round with a pointed (spitzer) bullet instead of the round-nosed military ball.

the .275 bore commercial loadings of the period( which from Rigby,were just over-labelled Kynoch 7mm mauser ammunition)
were more than just a 140 HV pointed SP, they also offered 175gn,,those two (as with DWM 173gn),
could all be fired interchangeably in the Rigby #1,#2 and #3 - .275 bore catalogue rifles.

Effectively, one could have the one Rigby rifle regulated/sighted for both 140-HV and 175gn ...or 173gn DWM.

By all means people can now build their wish of a rifle with '.275 Rigby' on the barrel and on the brass,
but keep it mind its not authentic to the orig. pre-war Rigby rifles and period ammunition.

I have never seen an orig. Rigby advert pushing something known as the '.275 Rigby' cartridge-
Ive only ever seen their orig. adverts offering: -Rigby rifles in .275 bore-

Yeah. Not authentic for sure. They sure did their part to popularize the sporting round. So, for that reason, I had it put on the barrel of one of my 7X57's.

The opening statements miss the point ! Totally !

If you own and shoot a original "British Mauser" in 7mm and I specifically put British in parentheses, you are shooting a 275 whether it went by the name Rigby , Bland or as Thomas Bland also named it 275 Cervorum which is the Latin for the plural of Stag i.e. = Cervus.

Some British makers simply stamped their barrels as 275 without any proprietary postfixes added.
I have shown a George Gibbs that I have designated as such

Mauser did exactly the opposite , they put metric designations to what is seen as British calibers

for instance mauser built 303's for Rigby complete with it's own action and mag box and those few ( less than 100) that did not go to England to be proofed were marked as 7.7mm caliber as in 7.7 x56R

So whilst the Rifles were in fact all Mausers originally built by Mauser as 7mm x 57's once they found their way into the British trade and refinished and reproofed they became 275's

So my 275 George Gibbs albeit being a model 95 Mauser 7x57 it became a 275 through the process of acceptance under British proof law.

The same applies to my two Rigby rifles.

My 303 Mauser remained a 7.7mm and not a 303 because it never made it to a british Proof house, other examples of the very same rifle are 303's because they are British proofed

Mauser 7.7mm x 56 R ( see Speed) rare because less than 100 were kept back by Mauser and were not shipped to Rigby

Thanks guys. Very interesting angles there. CB

I guess Hornady 'legitimized' the .275 Rigby when they headstamped their factory ammo 275 Rigby



http://www.ammo-one.com/275Rigby.html

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Basically a military round with a pointed (spitzer) bullet instead of the round-nosed military ball.

the .275 bore commercial loadings of the period( which from Rigby,were just over-labelled Kynoch 7mm mauser ammunition)
were more than just a 140 HV pointed SP, they also offered 175gn,,those two (as with DWM 173gn),
could all be fired interchangeably in the Rigby #1,#2 and #3 - .275 bore catalogue rifles.

Effectively, one could have the one Rigby rifle regulated/sighted for both 140-HV and 175gn ...or 173gn DWM.

By all means people can now build their wish of a rifle with '.275 Rigby' on the barrel and on the brass,
but keep it mind its not authentic to the orig. pre-war Rigby rifles and period ammunition.

I have never seen an orig. Rigby advert pushing something known as the '.275 Rigby' cartridge-
Ive only ever seen their orig. adverts offering: -Rigby rifles in .275 bore-

Interesting and good to know.

Here's a take from the UK.

Did you know that at one time, here in Britain, some makers engraved 30-06 chambered rifles as ".300" and NOT ".30-06"?

In fact Kynoch sporting 30-06 was labelled on the packets as ".300 US GOVT over a much smaller sized pring and in brackets .30-06.

Or .300 USA or somesuch from what I recall. But certainly NOT as .30-06 as the primary cartridge designation.

I am glad I am an American through and through and don't have to really pay any great allegiance to all this BS. I like American styled rifles with honest sized forearms and call them by whatever caliber they are chambered for. Doubles are for shotguns and not rifles in the 20th century and If I want to try primative hunting I will use a bow (which I ,on occaison ,have). I get so terrifically bored of reading on these forums over and over and over and over and over about the superiority of English gunsmithing over all other. It is and always has been that England actually has only a few real gunsmiths because most are single skill people. I would guess that just maybe the big houses like H&H or Purdy may actually have a couple on their staff but most are not really full gunsmiths but only perform a single function and in many cases their actual title is such as an actioner for example. Just my singular opinion and as such Is quite probably without value here.

I don't much care for this whole debate. Personally it just boils down to this one thing for me: I have an old Rigby rifle which says ".275" on it, and I dream about hunting kudu in Africa with it someday. To do that, I must have brass that says the same number, or I'll get into trouble.

Zim, we might disagree on double rifles, but a big "G'day!" from another bowhunter!

It is and always has been that England actually has only a few real gunsmiths because most are single skill people. I would guess that just maybe the big houses like H&H or Purdy may actually have a couple on their staff but most are not really full gunsmiths but only perform a single function and in many cases their actual title is such as an actioner for example.

Nothing could be further from the truth !
The history of British gunmaking is one of well earned honour and extreme skill at trade. The Houses as correctly eluded to either built reputation on their own some going back generations passed from father to son or they used the services of gun finishers, The latter deserving credit in their own right.

Collectively they were innovators and designers holding patents still in use today and sadly that most today take for granted.

Now whist one may not like the English Style, perhaps prefer another, it still does not detract from the fact that what it represents is likely of the finest guns of our time. ( it is then no surprise that they command and fetch the prices that they do after all this time)

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
I am glad I am an American through and through and don't have to really pay any great allegiance to all this BS.
I like American styled rifles with honest sized forearms and call them by whatever caliber they are chambered for.
Doubles are for shotguns and not rifles in the 20th century and If I want to try primative hunting I will use a bow (which I ,on occaison ,have).
I get so terrifically bored of reading on these forums over and over and over and over and over about the superiority of English gunsmithing over all other.
It is and always has been that England actually has only a few real gunsmiths because most are single skill people. I would guess that just maybe
the big houses like H&H or Purdy may actually have a couple on their staff but most are not really full gunsmiths but only perform a single function and in many
cases their actual title is such as an actioner for example...

Theres a bit more that goes into a premium SxS than an American built bolt rifle.

Purdey,H&H,HartmannWeiss, manufacture their sidelocks in-house.(H&W also build new mauser actions and the Hagn FB in-house)
Most American custom smiths don't manufacture their actions or barrels, but rely much on donor actions and outsourced barrels.
Now as good as their finished US product is,.. can they be really be considered as true rifle manufacturers?

People like Otto Weiss once from Purdey and Peter Nelson(actioner & foreman from Purdey)
After leaving Purdey,were with their gained knowledge then able to stay in the top flight game
and continue building the same best H&H and Purdey design sidelocks of highly respected & desired British design & fame.
_
People like American Searcy on the other hand, began building his SxS on the borrowed donor Ruger Red label.

So I would not be so foolish to rashly discount the value,skills, and knowledge of people with certain titles like 'actioner'
than have worked in the British trade and have amassed much more skill & knowledge than their work title reveals.

Heres a rundown of a British gun trade person & that you would most likely just consider a limited skill
no name rat wheel 'employee' hidden in a British gun trade workshop somewhere:


Heres a brief history of my career.As you will read I’ve done work for some very well known Gunmakers,either as an employee or an outworker.
One of the highlights has been working for the last ten years with Peter Nelson,building what are considered by many to be the finest firearms
made in the world today.

I started work in the British Gun Trade during 1979 fresh from school,starting as an apprentice with Holland and Holland working in both the machine shop
and the barrel shop and gaining experience in gun machining, rifle making and also shotgun barrel making.

A while after finishing my apprenticeship I went on to work for what is now Frederick Beesley. It was here that he met an ex Boss and Co actioner named
David Cox, and it was with David that I learnt to action guns to the high standard expected in the London Gun Trade.

We worked together for about 4 years before I moved on to work in the workshop of I.M.Crudgington in Bath, who owned the George Gibbs name.
It was here that I got my first taste of Farquharson falling block rifles. At this time I got to see and handle many of these rifles and
even managed to produce a few. This time gave me a real enthusiasm for what is probably the finest falling block rifle ever made.

As usual with things not going to plan,I went back to the London Trade,this time working for James Purdey and Sons for a couple of years until I set up a
workshop at home in Wiltshire working as an outworker for Watson bros, E.J.Churchill and Peter Nelson.

I was eventually approached by John Dickson of Edinburgh to help them to start producing new guns again as they hadn’t built any for a number of years.
This meant the move to Scotland.
After a couple of years with Dicksons I set up a workshop at home again continuing to work for E.J.Churchill and Peter Nelson and also Holland and Holland.
I am currently working for Hartman & Weiss, Peter Nelson, and some machine work for W.W.Greener.

Since living and working in the same area of Scotland as John Farquharson,I have decided to do something about my passion for these rifles and concentrate
more on building guns and rifles under the name of this legend. George Gibbs type Farquharson rifles can be made to order from .22 to .700 along with traditional
round body Scottish side by side shotguns,Boss type O/U sidelock shotguns, Side by side sidelock double rifles and Boss type O/U sidelock double rifles with bissel rising bolt.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Here's a take from the UK.

Did you know that at one time, here in Britain, some makers engraved 30-06 chambered rifles as ".300" and NOT ".30-06"?

In fact Kynoch sporting 30-06 was labelled on the packets as ".300 US GOVT over a much smaller sized pring and in brackets .30-06.

Or .300 USA or somesuch from what I recall. But certainly NOT as .30-06 as the primary cartridge designation.

That's pretty interesting. I don't have plans to ever build a 30-06 bolt gun but if I ever do it'd be pretty cool to engrave the barrel ".300 US Gov't"

Its your rifle, you can do whatever suits you with it, Lord I hope that never changes..

Nostalgics like such things, and those that are not nostalgics should be shunned like the plague,they have no soul, they have no heart.

Sure they can Ray,
and if they so wish;
they can also find some 'Rigby nostalgia' in the California Rouge River Merkel shotgun frame Rigby doubles..

What exactly does ' in house' actually mean. I always thought it just meant everything was produced by that company. That does not mean one person actually built everypart of the item. I actually don't know any gunsmith that actually produces everything personally although I knew a man who made muzzle loaders that actually did except for one thing - he did not make the steel - but he made from scratch every single other part for the rifle. I have a friend - in the USA that actually does make actions completely but he doesn't make the steel either. Even Mauser didn't make the steel I believe they used Krupp. But then neither does Ford or GM make every single part for one of their vehicles. But what does this prove - absolutely nothing- All I'm saying is the English seem to have adopted an assembly line technique for building rifles probably an outgrowth from building doubles where one person built actions one fitted them one struck barrels and so on. They,too, use parts they didn't make but were passed to them by others in the chain. I'm merely saying a goodly part of American Gunsmiths do it all,they barrel,chamber stock blue and mount sights single handed. As far as patents and designs I have seen very few new designs come out of England most of the prestige of the biggies like H&H and Purdy are of execution of very old designs. As I have said in the past I am prejudiced to American guns as I was trained in an American Gunsmith school and brought up on Winchesters. I still prefer the Model 70 to all other actions and my Ruger No 1's are the equivalent of anything built anywhere and superior to most and American lever actions are second to none in the world. The Bibles of my gunbooks are those of early American gunsmiths by Michael Petrov.

[QUOTE Originally posted by zimbabwe:
... All I'm saying is the English seem to have adopted an assembly line technique for building rifles probably an outgrowth
from building doubles where one person built actions one fitted them one struck barrels and so on. They,too, use parts they
didn't make but were passed to them by others in the chain.

I simply mentioned in-house efforts by British trained shops to indicate the range of skills some these British trade
taught people have,...which in your ignorance you attempted to be-little.

Weiss & Nelson were just two given examples, there are several others who trained in British shops and now have their own
respected business in the trade.


I'm merely saying a goodly part of American Gunsmiths do it all,they barrel,chamber stock blue and mount sights single handed.

Likely cause they don't have enough orders and/or capital to invest to open a workshop employing a variety of skilled
people like H&H or Purdey.

AND don't be fooled into believing American smiths don't also get custom parts or processes of the build work done by other smiths,
or service providers.

IF American smiths had to make all their own actions,barrels,fittings,Bmetal, QD mounts, etc,etc for a customers rifle order,
you think the 'one man workshop' smith could get a rifle out in reasonable time?
SO instead due to their limited asset of time as one man show, they will outsource components & processes that the British or Euros
can quite capably do or make in-house.

Does US based Mr.Searcy do all the work himself on his SxS rifles?
barrels by Pacnor,... stocking process by?

ASSHOLES like Stuart Satterlee in Dakota, tells various customers things will be done in 6 months,
yet several yrs later theres nothing to show for ones money from the FRAUD.
He has not been able to finish building me an action that was already half made at time of order in 2009...
Now he just arrogantly refuses to communicate with this customer he has failed an order on -AND owes thousands of dollars to.


As far as patents and designs I have seen very few new designs come out of England most of the prestige of the biggies
like H&H and Purdy are of execution of very old designs.

Is there any requirement from them to design something new?
Do you want someone to re-revolutionise the H&H sidelock or M98 design?...
Searcy in the US has no problems making a living from copying the old & still respected British designs.
Where would he be without them????

Why are so many of the American custom gun action makers of the desired M70/and M98 such failures?

Satterlee FRAUD ....lots of talk, but next to nothing to show for it.
W.F.Hein FRAUD....same-same gave lots of talk, but next to nothing to show for it.
Taconics mausers,.... out of business yrs ago,(Satterlee working for them likely assisted that process)
David Noreen.....P64 M70 design, out of business long ago,(product was very low-rated by machinist Ted Blackburn).
WILLIAMS,.... promised for yrs to design and build an M70 clone fir the market, never actually got it off the ground.

The Euros & British are producing new M98 actions from various makers who are trusted and established.
egs: Prechtl,Ritterbusch,Hartmann-Weiss,FZH,..supply actions for their own in-house builds as well as just the separate actions.
Some the British established shops also produce their own in-house M98.

Where is the American high grade custom action manufacturer that is doing the same for your much loved P64-M70....??

This is not a 'us vs them" debate and should never be .

Claiming somehow that the British were lacking in any way is simply false.

One need only look into the rich history of British gun design to realize the depth of talent they possessed. They dominated for many years certain segments of gun design and still do.

Ruger's model 1 sadly is not "American" it was by Bill Ruger's own admission an attempt to revive old African nostalgia in the form of the Farquharson.

The most famous photograph of this genre of rifle arguably that of Selous sitting on a campaign chair with a Kori Bustard and propped up behind him on a wheeled wagon a Woodward Patent Holland and Holland single shot rifle.

This rifle was not a Gibbs -Farquharson patent it only looks like one

( It largely replaced the Farquharson in many ways but outwardly looked like one as do the Ruger)

As to the Model 70 being "American" , well in name only this is basically a Mauser.

The springfield bolt gun action used by so many famous American custom gunmakers ( as per Petrov's book) was a Mauser derivative and It was also subject to a court contested patent infringement by the Spingfield Armoury that ended up with the US Government paying restitution to Mauser in the order of some 3 million dollars.

Alf - I have great respect for your knowledge of firearms and read almost everything you post here but I have looked closely at all 3 of my No 1's and can find no place that says they are foreign made. As to my Model 70's same thing. Are they copies or representations of some other guns,certainly quite possible. Did Mauser invent the turning bolt repeating rifle ,I think not but I may be wrong. Did Farquharson invent the falling block rifle again,I think not and again if he did what difference does it make to my belief that English manufacture a certain way? Never once have I said the English are not great craftsmen of skill or that they have never had original ideas but that they actually have very few total gunsmiths for lack of a better term and choose to make a gun piecemeal. Who is to say this is a better method or not but I do have an opinion which is my own. As too American gunsmiths not being prosperous and forming large companies such as H&H (which I personally find grossely overated) which I believe derives it's major revenues from the ornamentation it puts on firearms from the firearms themselves. There were some American companies of the past that did build some rather large organizations such as Griffen & Howe and Newton arms who actually had inventions plus built rifles of advance technology. I just continue to be tired of the constant pratter of the absolutely superior nature of English firearms and the Mauser 98 action and since I am rather old I shall not at this age probably change my mind. We shall just continue to disagree. I do find great knowledge in your history of firearms and enjoy your responses on the forums.

Zimbabwe:

You are missing the point.

I am not inferring that Ruger's no 1 or Winchester's model 70 or perhaps Ruger's model 77 are British or German made !

What they are though are permeations of someone else's designs.

Paul Mauser did not invent the turn bolt, what he did though and it has likely been one of the greatest and most copied designs of our time, was to move the bolting lugs from the back of the bolt to the front of the bolt. And these two lugs in turn engage a collar in the front ring of action to cause bolting of the action in the front of the action and not the rear. His patents can be found In Korn's original book on Mauser Patents.

As to the British falling block, this genre of firearm deserves attention in it's own right and it would be a sad day if Ruger will stop making them because they (Ruger) managed to keep the legend alive in mass production modern form.

But we are digressing from the topic at hand and that has to do with this anomaly called the 275 Rigby or if you wish the 7x57.

It is ironic that it took this cartridge and its rifle in the form of the Mauser M93 to move the US Military to come up with the Mauser copied Springfield and the 30-06.

If it were not for the engagement of US forces with Spanish forces armed with these Mausers the transition for the US may have taken much longer. Though the battle of San Juan hill was a US victory the US forces lost 3 times more men than the Spanish in this engagement and all seen to be because of Mauser's excellent design.

The US dropped the 30-40 Krag (a Norwegian design) because of this engagement as well as the Gatling gun in favour of a French designed machine gun in the form for the Hotchkiss Benet Mercie light machine gun. Ironic here that Hotchkiss was in fact an american industrialist and he opened a arms factory in France where Benet and Mercie designed this gun. The US chambered it as a 30-06, the British in 303.

Alf - thank you for the reply but sadly you have totally missed the entire premise of my shall we call it diatribe. I'm afraid I am not so adept at presenting anything in writing especially on this forum.Your historical expertise is not under question it is without a doubt correct in every detail but history of who designed what has absolutely nothing to do with what I was endeavoring to express. I shall admit defeat at trying to make anyone understand and let it go at that. I shall endeavor to not present anything like this in the future. I still reserve the right to hold my own opinion though I shall try and keep it to myself in the future. As I get older I get more set in my ways and my opinions take on the penumbra of fact in my mind.

Im not here to do battle, or anything else but simply to share space with fellow gun nuts.

The interesting thing for me is that you have English guns that in spite of their designation as "best quality" were actually poorly made when compared to a modern guild built US customs !

There is nothing special in terms for workmanship in a old H&H rifle, or a Jeffery!

But here the rub, the minute the person who commissioned the new custom walks out the door the gun loses it's intrinsic value ! It worth only to that person who commissioned the build.
No guy is going to buy that gun for more money the guy who commissioned it, simply because for the same money he can commission his own !

The opposite applies to the old British and German guns, they have gone up in value, some hugely so !

Why? Is it the name, is the Marque value of a genre of rifle ? is it because it's a Genuine old Rigby ( for example) or perhaps the fact that there are a finite number of examples around.

At what point in a rifles life does it go from a simply a " put any name to it" to a Fuck it I just picked up a "put your name to it" !

The name itself becomes important ! Hugely so !

Alf - not to belabor a point but again you totally misunderstand my premise. You are now speaking about collectors who place obscene values on things and not about intrinsic value of an item. I am not a collector of anything in particular and could really care little if an item is the only one left of anything ,guns in particular. But those that choose to collect are free to do that and I will not interfere in any way. As the saying goes 'different strokes for different folks'. I'm sorry I'm so poor at expressing myself in prose I should have paid far more attention in school.

Zimbabawe: No its not you thats at fault, More so my problem , I too have set ideas of how things are supposed to go down !

IMO, the English bolt action Mauser rifles and a precious few Austrian/German guns such as the Brno mod. 21,22 are the finest rifles ever built, I also am not a fan of the American Classic design as it is not condusive to the use of iron sights, without ugly modification, and most have a pound or two of excess wood. The English most of all were stockmakers IMO and they had ions of suggestions/input from some of the greatest of hunters in the world, and arrived at the ultimate hunting rifle. Some American gunsmiths have copied the English stocks and are extremely good at it, such as Jack Haugh, David Wesbrook, Jack Belk, and a handful of others. Ruger has come very close with their version of a English classic gun with the Ruger 77 African model, and at a price that most anyone can afford..

Bottom line, different strokes for different folks.

Like Alf, I am sot in my ways, and after years of hunting and stocking rifles for myself and a few others have formed some opinnions that are unlikely to change.

All that said, I do respect those gun builders that have a different style, such as monte carlos, broad forends, thick butt stocks, as long as the workmanship is good, they are just not my style.

Mr. Atkinson -It's really funny that I have both of Michael Petrov's books right here and I would say (I did not count them) the majority had receiver sights and not scopes and if memory serves the original Model 70 only had front holes for scope mounts and I don't remember my Model 54's having been tapped. My Model 99 Savages were tapped for tang sights but then they were lever guns so don't apply as rifles and they were ,I think, American design. I have seen very few muzzle loader rifles with scopes, did see one but it happened to be a civil war one and it was English. So American stockmakers knew a little something about iron sights as when I was young very few if any rifles came from the factory with anything but iron sights. And when I was in gunsmith school they certainly taught us the difference in drop which is basically all you are talking about. I can well remember when straight and reverse combs came about and it wasn't in the early years. I actually don't remember seeing any of the rifles you have stocked but you have made many comments about your 25-35 Model 94 which I'll bet a dollar to a donut has iron sights. I don't know what your Savage 99 in 300 has for sights and a stock but I do know what they came with usually. I don't know exactly what ugly modifications would have to be done for iron sight use. You are correct that some prestigious American Gunsmiths make good copies of English style stocks. I know one , David Miller, who does not emulate the English and he builds a pretty good gun. As I have said before it just gets weary hearing the same old canard of the superiority of English firearms and Gunsmiths. And I too am unlikely to ever change that opinion.

275 Rigby or 7X57 or 7MM Mauser at the end of the day they are all one in the same and I like them. The nostalgia factor of having a rifle stamped 275 Rigby is an entertaining idea. I can see the looks of hunters faces when asked "what caliber you shooting Rich?" "Why it's a 275 Rigby".

I saw a custom Mauser on one of the sites for sale, a nice gun marked 275 Rigby. I bet most people looking at it won't know what it is.

You have to look back to the time it came out. The Brits and the Germans were head banging, some thing called WWI. The cartridge simply could not have a German name. Ditto for what is the 12.? X 72. 500 Jefferys?

I like the cool factor myself. Now that Hornady is head stamping brass 275 Rigby I think that might be something to end the year building.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
You have to look back to the time it came out.
The Brits and the Germans were head banging, some thing called WWI.
The cartridge simply could not have a German name.

Rigbys '.275 bore' release came out well before WW1.
[ALFs early transition mausers in .275 can atest to that fact.]
Rigbys collaboration with Mauser, resulted in the the first Rigby mauser being sold in 1897.

The 7x57 was much liked in the UK, but Rigby and other British based makers
chose the .275 designation simply as a helpful marketing ploy.
The British crowd could more easily relate to the inches" measure more than the Euro metric.

Jim Corbett owned two .275 bore rifles.(a Rigby and a Westley-Richards)

Whatever. Bottom line is that it is a German designed caliber and 7x57mm Mauser is the name. At least to me it will always be so.... I really enjoyed all the input, I learn lots on AR! Thanks

thank you trax, I stand corrected.

I think the Brits were busy killing Boers and stealing South Africa then.

Just on a point of order.

The designation of 275 was hardly a marketing ploy.

It was a matter of law.

Under British proof laws all calibers had to be proofed and properly named and as Britain operated under Imperial rules of measurement calibers were designated under imperial units and not metric.

Furthermore bore was designated as the diameter of the barrel as cut before cutting of the grooves ie land to land measurement.

In order to accommodate for various cartridges of european descent with the same bore diameter the english would then name them by bore designation and a post fix.

Example:

Under the first 1000 rifles and barrelled actions sent to Rigby by Mauser there were 8x57's and 7x57's.

The British designated the various 8mm's as
.311 bore German Mauser or 315 Mannlicher etc

The plethora of 6.5's went by the designation of 256 caliber but then because of the various formats as
256 Männlicher Schönauer or 256 Dutch männlicher etc

They did this because they sold these Mannlicher rifles under their own name.

For a little known fact:
When mentioning the 300 H&H every book and script reverts to the victory of Ben Comfort at Wimbledon using a 300 H&H.

Equally important is John Rigby's accomplishment at Wimbledon in 1897 when he won the competition at age 68 shooting a 256 Mannlicher.

what is anomalous to this was that Both Eley and Kynoch designated caliber by their European metric names and this included HS marks on the cases.

ICI in 1955 However listed caliber both by Euro and imperial designation.

Back to the Rigby 275.

The first Transition action, Barreled action in cal 7 m/m was shipped to Rigby on March 17 1898
The next shipment was for 50 barrelled actions on October 19 1898.

The Boer war only started a year later when war was declared by the ZAR on 11 October 1899, the First battle taking place the next day on October 12 1899 at a place called Kraaipan between Vryburg and Mafeking.

The Boers did use 7mm Mausers but not in the form of the transition actioned rifles sent to Rigby a year before but in the form of the older M93 and M95 rifle , some M95 Sporting rifles "Plezier Mausers" were sold as private purchase items to Boers

Another interesting bit of information that has come to light is that it was thought that Rigby finished the rifles in England by adding Typical British appointments.

These were actually fitted by Mauser and the only things added by Rigby was title inscription and then British Proofs by the British Proof authority.

This was first made available by Rigby in 1904
The 275 Rigby in take down:







Though the designation of 275 No 1 and 2 first appeared in 1924 in catalog form one of mine wears this on the bottom metal



My Boer War Plezier mauser in 7x57
This is a Mauser M95





As opposed to the M93

ALF,

regarding the British proof houses in London & Birmingham,

IT is my understanding that the idea of proofing[as requirement by LAW], was not a Gov. desire,
but rather,..instigated by the gun-trade itself which requested the gov. make it an 'act or parliament'
that firearms be proofed.(i.e; tested & certified for quality)
Hence the Birmingham facility was created in 1813 by such an act of parliament.

The Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1868, made it an offence to sell, offer for sale,
transfer, export or pawn an unproofed firearm.

The London P/H existed long before from about 1637 granted under Royal charter.
This also happened because prominent gunmakers met and agreed that there should
be a central authority to “prove” that a gun being sold in England was in fact,
a gun worthy of purchase, because it had been tested beforehand.

The history of gun proof ( aka "testing" )
goes back to the 15th century and started in St Etienne in France. I believe to oldest of the proof houses was the one in St Etiene

It is correct to state that it was started by gunmakers guilds and not as a matter of state law, that only came later at the behest of the guilds. GB in 1672, Belgium in 1872, Germany in 1892

The standards differed from country to country so with time standards were amended so as to gain unity with countries where guns were exported to.

Belonging to a guild was a big deal, so were honours and achievement at the art of gun building.

Gunmaking was seen as a honourable profession, yes it qualifies in a sense as a true profession as it had the trappings of a profession complete with what is classified as a profession today as opposed to simply a trade or vocation.

In terms of honours gunmakers sought recognition through various avenues such as grand gun shows ( not to be confused with the flea market concept of a modern american gun show)
These shows were held where guns and there makers won awards. Endorsement by famous explorers and adventurers was a further avenue that was utilized.

The ultimate honour bestowed was arguably Royal Warrant / in GB only two gunmakers have that honour and that is H&H and James Purdey.