BY MICHAEL PETROV

Major Townsend Whelen was instrumental in the development of a line of cartridges that were based on the 30 Government Model 1906 cartridge case. In this article I will try to trace the history and development of the Whelen-named cartridges until 1923. Much has been written about the Whelen-named cartridges as well as the many different adaptations of them in the last 80 years. I wish to return to the original source material as much as possible for the history on these cartridges. original source material as much as possible for the history on these cartridges. Much of the contemporary published material, especially on the .400, differs from what my research has turned up.

In the early 1920's Whelen tested some of the big bore British bolt guns and although he was impressed with the power of these rifles he was unhappy with their accuracy. He believed a rifle could be built in America with a more powerful cartridge than what was on the market following the First World War. At the same time he wanted to use the 1903 Springfield and the standard length Mauser action without going to the expense of using the larger and more expensive Magnum length actions. His first experimental work on these was before either of the two big gun companies had introduced a bolt action in .30-06 caliber (Remington M-30 1921 & Winchester M-54 1923). From 1923 to1925 Griffin & Howe only offered their proprietary Whelen cartridges as their largest caliber rifles and not any of the English cartridges such as the .375 H&H. A .375 H&H bolt action rifle From Holland & Holland would have set a sportsman back $400 In 1922.

.38 WHELEN: (.375 Whelen)

The first reference I can find that discusses the idea of necking up the .30-06 case is in a letter from Townsend Whelen to the gunmaker Fred Adolph of New York dated August 23, 1919. Whelen is trying to get a barrel for the .38 Whelen cartridge that he and Adolph 0. Niedner are working on. The .38 Whelen is the .30-06 necked-up to use the Winchester 275-grain .38-72 W.C.F. bullet re-formed with a spire point. In the January 1923 American Rifleman, Whelen is sending people to Niedner at Dowagiac, Michigan because Niedner is now making the .38 Whelen. By April 1st of 1923 Whelen announces that Winchester is stopping the production of the 275-grain .38-72 WCF bullets and suggests that no more .38 Whelens be made. I am not sure if any of these rifles survived the last eighty years but it’s not because I have not looked for them. This cartridge was reintroduced in the 1950's and named the .375 Whelen. I have often wondered what the outcome of the .35 & .400 Whelen would have been if there had been a supply of good .375" bullets back in 1923.

.400 WHELEN:

The first notice I find of the .400 Whelen is in "Arms And The Man" on June15, 1922 where Whelen tells about his work on this cartridge. The .400 Whelen is the 30-06 cylindrical case necked down to take the .405 Winchester 300gr. .411" diameter round nose bullet. Four test rifles were being made up, two on the 1903 Springfield and two on the Mauser action. Whelen estimates the velocity of the 300-gr. bullets at 2350-2600 fps. These test rifles, as well as the loading tools, were made by James V. Howe then of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The barrels for these were made and installed by A.O. Niedner in Dowagiac, Michigan. By November 15th, 1922 Whelen was offering a circular by mail with information on the 400. Anyone know where one of these circulars is to be found?

I can not think of another cartridge with as bad a reputation as the .400 Whelen. From Cartridges of the World 6th Edition "The .400 Whelen was not a very successful development because when the 30-06 case neck is expanded to this size it leaves only a very slight shoulder and this gives rise to serious headspace problems." I have also read several reports of the firing pin driving the case forward over the shoulder.

I am not going to list all the negative things I have read about the .400 or there would be room for little else. As I began to collect information there were two distinct schools of thought on the .400; One was by people who used the .400 and thought it was a fine cartridge; The other was by those who did not, telling you how bad it was. The first praise I read for the .400 was by, (and it should be no surprise to the readers), Elmer Keith. A quote from Big Game Rifles by Elmer Keith, Samworth 1935. "I have used this rifle over a period of eleven years and have a lot of respect for it." "Much criticism has been passed on this rifle and cartridge, some claiming that the front shoulder of the ease was sufficient to hold its headspace against the blow of the firing pin. Such is not the case, and that forward shoulder is ample in correctly chambered rifles and used with correctly necked cases."

The biggest challenge I faced in learning about the .400 was to find and record chamber dimensions of the older original rifles. Although it was not a popular cartridge there have been several .400's made over the last 78 years. Most of the problems with this cartridge I have been able to trace to one factor. The. 30-06, .25 Whelen (.25-06), .35 Whelen and .38 Whelen all have a shoulder diameter of .441. "The ORIGINAL .400 Whelen shoulder is .458". When and how this information got lost to modern riflemen and writers I have no idea. Many 400's that were made in later years for which I have measurements have the .441" shoulder; this is also true of many resizing dies.

I have wanted a .400 Whelen rifle for some time and my search for an early. 400 Whelen has not been easy. The rifles I found either had been modified or the price was well out of my reach. Which brings up a good point. If these things are no good why are they so expensive? Sorry. Back to the story.

By the time I had resigned myself to the fact that I might never find what I was looking for, a chain of events began that you only dream about as a collector. Not only was I able to acquire what I believe to be the second .400 Whelen Made by Griffin & Howe in their first year (1923), it showed up unfired with a box of G&H cartridges. These early G&H’s had blued bolts and there was not so much as a brass rub mark on the bolt face. The icing on the cake was when friends Mark Benenson and Russell Gilmore of The Rifled Arms Historical Association sent me Townsend Whelen’s case-forming and loading tools for his .400 to use and take measurements from. These early loading dies are sometimes mistakenly referred to as "Pound Dies." Nothing could be further from the truth. They are not meant to be hit with anything, but instead are to be used in an arbor press. The way Whelen made the cases for the .400 was to neck down cylindrical brass, and I was going to do it the same way. Today there are several sources of cylindrical brass.

With gun and loading tools at hand, but impatient while waiting for brass, I made a die for my lathe to hold annealed .35 Whelen brass. Using a tool that looked like a boring bar with a rounded side I ironed some cases out straight. Using feeler gauges with Whelen’s die I found that when the case was .006" from bottoming out I could not force the bolt home on an empty case. At .005" I could get the bolt closed with resistance. No way is a firing pin going to drive this case forward.

I then trimmed the cases to a length of 2.470". When you are using cylindrical brass they are full size out of the die and fire forming is not needed. I dumped in some IMR-3031 topped with a 300gr. DKT round nose bullet. I also loaded a few with the last of my supply of Barnes originals (the ones they no longer make), that shot so well in my .400 Niedner. As luck would have it the Barnes Originals worked much better than the DKT’s but in all fairness to DKT I have yet to try their spitzer bullets. A local store did have some of the Barnes X-Bullets .411" diameter in 300gr. so I gave them a try only to shoot a 5' group at 50 yards with them. If I had spent some time doing research on the X-bullets I would have known that they work best when seated .050" off the lands. New loads and hack to the range with the X’s; Results are close to MOA.

The loaner dies of Colonel Whelen’s were perfect for the rifle and everything worked great. Dreading the day that I would have to return the dies. I put out the word that I was looking for a set of .400 Whelen dies. A set was located and when I received them I resized a case only to find the dies had reduced the shoulder diameter back to .437". After sending a Cerrosafe cast of the Whelen’s dies and two fired cases to RCBS I received a set of dies made perfectly for this rifle. If you have a .400 ANYTHING I suggest that a chamber cast is in order and that .30-06 brass with the .441"shoulder never be used to fire form brass. In one case a person I was corresponding with was having all the problems that I have ever read about with his .400. It turned out he has the original .458" shoulder chambered rifle but his set of dies was for the 06 shoulder.

(Update 10-2000; I just got off the phone with the owner of an early G&H .400 Whelen who is having this exact problem. A quick check of a resized case showed the dies put it back to 06 size.)

How did all this get so mixed up over the passing of time? Did no one ever take the time to measure an early .400 Whelen? One bit of information I have looked for in the early articles written by Whelen was his telling about the larger .458" diameter shoulder. So far I have not found it. Whelen did suggest that only G&H, Hoffman, or Niedner make the .400 Whelen so maybe this was their trade secret. I have cataloged pre-1940 sporters in caliber .400 Whelen made by Griffin & Howe, Fred Adolph, Niedner, Hoffman Arms Co. and Krieghoff of Suhl, Germany. Because of all the bad press many of these rifles have been rebarreled or modified in some way. An early engraved G&H I know of was re-chambered to a belted magnum case so it would have the belt to headspace on.

With the proper chamber and loading dies to match, my rifle has performed flawlessly and is a tribute to Townsend Whelen, James V. Howe and the gunmakers of Griffin & Howe.

.458" shoulder diameter
-.437" neck diameter
_______________________
.021" diameter difference
divide by 2
= .0105" shoulder-neck radius difference
= only about 10 or 11 thou per side for a shoulder.

Is that about right?

Just FYI: Here's the source link for the article that Mike posted.

-Bob F.


The .400 Whelen

BY MICHAEL PETROV
http://www.z-hat.com/smashing_the_headspace_myth.htm
Excerpted from Precision Shooting, Magazine, Feb. 2001

O.K. then (.458"-.435")/2 = .0115"

11.5 thou per side.

By golly that makes the .458/.375 Ruger look plumb smart!

I'm always curious why people feel the 400W done correctly doesn't have enough shoulder to headspace on. But then they have no trouble what so ever with a belted case with .02 total. I have a blown out 280 case with .458 shoulder in a 416 with a .439 neck (.019net). It headspaces without a problem.

My favorite cartridge, bar none.

I went with the 40 degree shoulder, only because there was no reason not to.

I just did a one rifle safari with it in Tanzania.

Garrett

I have an '03 action that is ready for a .400 Whelen barrel on it!
Thanks for the great info. I'm thinking this would be a fantastic Safari rifle or Bear medicine. I'd like to hear more of peoples experience with this cartridge and use of the 300, 350 and 400 grain bullets on game.
On the edge of my seat..............

Anyone have cartridge drawings for this? I'm curious about the neck/shoulder location and the shoulder angle.

Very Good article. Thanks for posting it.

Mike - I am a "Whelen fan". Great article and information! Thanks for the post. Regards, Mags

It's unfortunate that Whelen was not far-sighted enough to use the 9.3x64 case instead of the 06 case. Would have avoided all kind of pitfalls & probably made the excellent 9.3x64 case popular on this side of the pond YEARS earlier! it would fit the same actions & be ballistically superior also.

Didn't the 9.3X64 Brenneke cartridge come out in 1937?

I'm a big fan of the case, and made up a wildcat (that I use quite a bit) in .375
(damn Ruger for making a cartridge better than my wildcat!!!!)

Whelen worked on his 400 in the early 1920's.

Garrett

quote:

But then they have no trouble what so ever with a belted case with .02 total.

The belt is a totally different situation to a shoulder on the case.

A simple test will demonstrate for you. Cut some shim from a soft drink can and put it between the bolt face and the case head and close the bolt. Even with a case like a 270 with a big shoulder you will be able to keep adding shim because you will be able to push the shoulder back just by closing the bolt. Hard to close the bolt but you will be able to do it.

Now try the same on a belted case and the bolt will feel like it hit a brick wall if closing the bolt means compressing or swaging the belt.

Of if you have a couple of spare shell holders then grind then back so as to allow you to screw a resizing die further into the press. You will quickly discover the difference between a belt and a shoulder.

Another simple test is to load a 30/06 etc with just a primer and fire and then reprime and fire and keep doing this. This will create a situation where the headspace gets bigger with each shot because the primer blast drives the case forward but there is no pressure from a load to fireform the case. Hence, using vey reduced loads (squib loads) in rimless cases increases the headspace of the case. Now try the same with either a belted or rimmed case.

Mike

quote:

Didn't the 9.3X64 Brenneke cartridge come out in 1937?

Around 1910 it was.

The .411 Hawk has no headspace problem, and we are talking wildcats anyway, the .411 Hawk seems to be a better choice because it has more powder capacity but still uses a 30-06 action.

Dan,

As I recall, I think you have one is that correct? on an 1895 re-make? did Fred do the work? Didn't you take it to Alaska?

I had a couple of 400 Whelens some years ago and I never found it to be a problem. You just don't need very much shoulder on a case IMO.

Mike, I have never had one.

great info thanks to HockeyPuck



http://www.aement.com/articles/400WheelenRevisit.htm

The .400 Whelen, Update

Having recently come into possession of some older American Rifleman magazines, we found a diamond amongst the "chad". Specifically, we speak of Volume 71, Number 7 that was issued on September 1, 1923. On page 198 of Volume 71, or as we would call it today page 6 of this magazine, there was an article by Townsend Whelen entitled "American Heavy Caliber Rifles for Large Game". In this article, Whelen bemoans the fact that all of the larger calibers are British made and were quite expensive. His feeling was that an American custom gun maker could easily duplicate, if not surpass, the quality and accuracy of the British doubles. The limiting factor was to keep the price low.

At this time in US history there was a substantial tariff on imported arms and other commodities, so the price of a double or big bolt-action receiver was prohibitive. Whelen wanted a caliber that would fit a .30-'06 bolt face, could be chambered safely in Springfields, Enfields and Mausers, rimless (naturally), highly accurate, easily reloadable with available components and low cost. Quite an order to start with.

As mentioned in the article "Smashing the Headspace Myth" that appears on Fred Zeglin's web page (www.z-hat.com), writer Michael Petrov discusses many of the aspects that are covered in the 1923 article, but his reference is even older, appearing in "Arms and the Man" in 1922. Mr. Petrov's article was published in its entirety in the February, 2001 issue of "Precision Shooting" magazine.

One of the major complaints about the .400 Whelen is the small shoulder on which to headspace. This has been talked about for so many years that it has been taken as fact, when it was just a matter of poor reloading tools and having the correct dimensions to start with. Mr. Petrov states that the .400 Whelen was not originally made from the .30-'06 Springfield case necked up to handle the 0.411-inch (10.4-mm) diameter bullet, but was necked down from .30-'06 cylindrical brass before any body tapering. Mr. Petrov's article shows an early drawing of the .400 Whelen chamber and very clearly shows the shoulder diameter as being 0.458-inches (11.63-mm). Mr. Petrov states adamantly that this dimension (0.458-inches [11.63-mm]) is the true dimension of the original .400 Whelen. We beg to differ.

Whelen does indeed state that the .400 Whelen was made from cylinder brass. Mr. Whelen states, "In the process of manufacture this case is practically completed as a straight case like the .405 Winchester… it is easy to neck it down to any caliber below about .41." In that aspect, we agree with Mr. Petrov. Our problem comes in with the diameter of the shoulder. Mr. Petrov shows the shoulder diameter of the chamber to be 0.458-inches (11.63-mm), not the shoulder diameter of the cartridge itself. Our 1923 reference shows the complete specifications of the .400 Whelen and shows the shoulder diameter as being 0.455-inches (11.56-mm). We realize that 0.003-inches (0.076-mm) isn't much, but if you manage to fit a cartridge with a shoulder that is exactly the diameter of the chamber into a rifle and have the courage to fire it, you're going to be introduced quickly to the definition of exceeding maximum chamber pressure. This is a minor point and Mr. Petrov's excellent article points out that today's reloaders use a shoulder diameter of 0.411-inches (10.44-mm). This is because they are using .30-'06 Springfield brass and necking up, which leaves the reloader with the shoulder diameter of the .30-'06 instead of the shoulder diameter of the .400 Whelen.

Whelen worked with James V. Howe on working up the initial loads for the .400 Whelen and, using a 300-grain bullet, he recorded velocities ranging from 2,087 fps (636 m/s) at 29,450 psi (2,030 BAR) to 2,455 fps (748 m/s) at 60,700 psi (4,185 BAR), which he noted was not recommended. The powders and charge weights are inconsequential as none of the powers used are available today. For accuracy, Whelen stated then that all of the .400 Whelen rifles tested at that time came in with groups under six inches at 200-yards (183-meters). He also stated that most came in at four to five inches at 200-yards. His best 100-yard (91-meters) group was 1.62-inches (41-mm) at 100-yards.

In summation, Whelen hit his goals dead on. His rifle easily handles the largest North American game and all but the largest and most dangerous of the African game. Mr. Whelen expressed his opinion that the .400 Whelen had excessive power for the North American game animals and mentioned that he routinely fired as many as 50 rounds a day without any padding. As for the recoil, Whelen was a little droll, "It is decidedly not a boy's rifle."

http://www.aement.com/articles/400WhelenNew.htm

.400 Whelen

With hundreds of cartridges to choose from in the Simmons collection, the decision is always difficult to make. However, there has been a surge of interest in the Whelen cartridges and the wildcats of Rocky Gibbs. (Please see the Charles Benke 6.5mm Gibbs article in Benke’s Corner.) Discussions of the .400 Whelen always seem to wind up on its small shoulder and the headspacing problems it causes.

Looking through Handbook for Shooters and Reloader Vol. 1 by P.O. Ackley, we find that he covered the .35 Whelen, the .375 Whelen and even the .375 Whelen Improved, but neither volume discussed the .400 Whelen. Barnes in Cartridges of the World states that Col. Towsend Whelen developed this cartridge in the early 1920’s. The AEM library of American Rifleman magazines only goes back to 1931 in complete years and only sporadically to as early as 1926, so when in doubt, go to the source.

Col. Whelen was a prolific writer for many outdoor and shooting related magazines and covered decades of experience with his articles. He also authored several excellent books, one of which was The Hunting Rifle, published in 1940. In this book, Whelen does not dwell on his cartridges and only mentions them seemingly in passing. He covered the .35 Whelen to a small degree, but mentions the .400 Whelen only as the predecessor of the .35 Whelen.

We have read many posts on the various “chat†rooms concerning the pros and cons of the .400 Whelen headspacing problems. Whelen himself discusses this point in The Hunting Rifle (p. 271). He states clearly that the work on the .400 Whelen was a joint effort between himself and James V. Howe resulting in the development of the .400 in 1922. He describes how the cylinder .30-06 brass was formed into the .400 Whelen cartridge case. Please note that Whelen used the .30-06 case before it had been necked at all. He and Howe then necked it down to .400 and used bullets in the 300 to 350-grain range.

Whelen states that the Howe-made dies necked the cylinder cases down very nicely and an effective shoulder was formed. In this incarnation the .400 was a very efficient round. When mass production was attempted, it was found that the case “could not be formed with sufficient exactitude in quantity production, and positive and accurate headspacing could not be assuredâ€. He termed the .400 Whelen a failure. Please note that he did not say the design was a failure. He said that the mass production methods available at that time were not exact enough to make a shoulder as good as could be done manually in the hands of an experienced reloader. With the recent introduction of cylinder brass by Z-Hat Custom and the increasing interest in this caliber, we may be seeing the old cartridge rise from the dead cartridge pit.

In Wildcat Cartridges, (1947), Richard Simmons expresses the same headspacing concerns, but states that the .400 Whelen is a more powerful cartridge than the .405 Winchester and was the best big-game rifle in America until the introduction of the .375 H&H Magnum. He goes on to discuss its effectiveness on African game while on safari. Trajectory was +4.2-inches over 200 yards using a 350-grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2,250 fps. Not quite the magic number of 2,400 fps so coveted by African hunters, but respectable.

Probably, the mass production headspacing problem was the major contributor to its early trip into obscurity, but the fact that it was too big for North American game and too small for African game didn’t help much either. A rifle custom made in this caliber and hand loaded by an experienced reloader from cylinder brass would be an impressive addition to any gun locker.

quote:

A simple test will demonstrate for you. Cut some shim from a soft drink can and put it between the bolt face and the case head and close the bolt. Even with a case like a 270 with a big shoulder you will be able to keep adding shim because you will be able to push the shoulder back just by closing the bolt. Hard to close the bolt but you will be able to do it.

Maybe you can with a 17 deg shoulder I've never tried it mine is 40deg. The issue I always heard was the firing pin would move the case forward. Far different force than forcing the bolt forward with your hand. Again my only first hand is my 416 case.

I worked with Fred's 411 Hawk for nearly two years. When making new brass, I just shorted the sizing operation by ~.005" to make certain that I would head space the first time. That thing would damn near give you a bone bruise from the bolt, getting the round into the chamber. If you were a little too much short there was no way in hell it would go in at all. I don't think Fred used the whole 40 but whatever it was was more than enough that no way would it not head space perfectly every time. After the first forming, just don't set the shoulders back with the die. I bet I fired 1000+ test rounds in it and not once did it falter.

As I've said before, I've built a few wildcats with shoulders of .010 or less/ Never and I repeat never has this caused the slightest issue. Those that claim there is have certainly never built a gun or done the experiment. The .400 whelen and .411 hawk are neat ideas and I have my own version with a shorter neck for slightly more powder capacity called the .400RLG which works just fine.-Rob

Garret, can you start another thread with some pics of yours and pics of the cartridge please? I hope its on an 03.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by D Humbarger:

quote:

Didn't the 9.3X64 Brenneke cartridge come out in 1937?

Around 1910 it was.

While COTW mentiones 1910, it is not specified for this cartridge, but for most of the ones he made.
The 9,3x64 was introduced in 1927 for Brenneke's Mauser M98-based "Universal-Repetier-Büchse für alles Wild der Erde", or all round hunting rifle in engelish.

The 10,75x68 was introduced 1n 1908, and would have been even better, but I doubt there was a single case of either for Whelen disposal at the time.

The original .400 Whelen is a gem, and a shame for all America that is was ruined and forgotten.

the 400 whelen will be resurected as the 458 ruger

Red,

If someone can host the pictures for this forum, I will send a few of the rifle.

It's a Mauser 98 (copy).

Garrett

Email me the pics

Mike,

I'll try to get them to you later this afternoon.

And, thanks.

Garrett

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Dan,

As I recall, I think you have one is that correct? on an 1895 re-make? did Fred do the work? Didn't you take it to Alaska?

I've got one Mike, built on the 1895 Miroku Winchester. Fred did the work. I do carry it in bear country though have not fired a shot in anger (or terror) with it yet.

Have not had any problems with the headspace issue thus far.

Posting for Garrett...looks pretty sweet.

Since people will ask, Russ Wilson did the stock in a true Rigby copy. Look at the drop that he put on the comb...I'd never hefted a rifle with that configuration before.
The iron sights come up to my eye like a shotgun does...I was very pleasantly surprised.

The action is a Charles Daley that was resurfaced, the barrel is a Douglas from IT&D Custom, and the bolt knob is from Gerome Glimm (added on by Skip Baldwin). Randy Selby cut the chamber and mated the barrel to the reciever.
Our own Scrollcutter did the engraving, and it makes me want to own more of his work.

It cost me about $3,000 to build it, over a period of 18 months (not counting the scope of course!...that was a gift).

It is the only rifle that I own that shoots Barnes original X bullets to sub minute-of-angle. I suspect that is because the barrel grove diameter is .4103 (and the X bullets mic out at .411).

And, those X bullets in this diameter mushroom out to about 60 caliber on exiting.

This was the rifle I was hunting lion with, but didn't want to take the one legal male I had a shot at (he had virtually no mane, but he was something to watch up close....I gained a new respect for that species, and not just because they are powerful...they are a smart, social-group-animal).

Garrett

Nice rifle N.G.

WHat kind of velocity are you getting with 400 bullets? Do you have any idea what pressure they are running at?

I like stocks with a good deal of drop in lighter calibers. How does the recoil feel with the big gun combined with that much drop? Is the recoil about like a .375, .416, or...?

I have 2 matched blanks and 1 1903 action. I am going to make a matched pair of Springfields in .30-06 and .400 Whelen in the G&H style one of these days. But it is still likely 2 years out. Will get another 1903 action this year and order the barrels next year.

BTW-I have a 7x57 that is scarily accurate with original X bullets. But they fouled the bore like there is no tomorrow!!!

Marc,

Thanks...the recoil isn't much at all.
More like a 35 Whelen than a 338 Win Mag.

I am getting 2350 fps with AA2230 powder, and I am 2 full grains off maximum. I am getting such good accuracy here that I am sticking with it for the time being. And it so good on game at those velocities that I don't need to switch for now.

You will really enjoy this caliber.

Garrett

quote:

N. Garrett

That is a sweet looking rifle. You guys are going to make me pull my reamer back out and build a 411 version for me as a brother to my 416. My buddy loves it so much I doubt I ever get it back anyway.

Garrett,
Does the Douglas barrel jack up pressures with 0.411" projectiles (Woodleigh, Hornady) or 0.412" projectiles Woodleigh 300gr)? I've found a Douglas barrel locally but was more inclined to go a 0.411" from a local manufacturer.
Cheers...
Con

N.Garrett,
That is a very nice rifle. Congratulations.

Con,

The Douglas barrel groove diameter doesn't seem to have much (if any) effect on pressures.
I hit the wall at the same place everyone else does (that, everyone one else who has published data in the last 20 years)

I have some Northforks that shoot perfectly through it too, but I haven't yet had a chance to test them on game (I will on my next hunt).

Garrett

Thanks Garrett,
Info is much appreciated. What contour was used for your barrel?
Cheers...
Con

N. Garrett,
It doesn't take a neurosurgeon to appreciate that sighting arrangement on your rifle. I like it.

Is that Swarovski integral rail adjustable in any way to fit the spacing of the QRW-style bases, or must the bases be fitted to the spacing on the scope rail?

I'll be on the lookout for such a setup to try on a square bridge cut with integral cross slots.

The QRW is about as good as it gets for allowing clearance for that cocking-piece peep, and minimum clutter of the rifle when the scope is removed.

Good show.

I would love to add that type of rear peep sight to my project. Any leads on where I could get one???

Con,

I believe the barrel contour is a number 3, but I don't have it written down.

Rip,
Thanks....the bases are old Weaver Grand Slams, that were made of steel. Weaver no longer makes them out of steel for the Mark X, only aluminium. Warne does make the same mounts in steel though.

The scope itself can move about 2 inches or so closer to my eye, or about an inch of so further away (as you currently see it mounted on the rifle).
There are hex head screws holding what would otherwise be rings to the rail on the scope. When they are loose, you can slide them into what ever position you like.
The only thing I don't like about them (and otherwise it's a good system) is that the knobs that lock down the "rings" to the Weaver-style bases have to be almost completely removed to attach/detach the scope. It would be easy to lose the other small pieces that come loose when you do so. Some sort of lever would (instead of the knob) would be better.

Ramrod,
Tom Delucci made that rear cocking-piece sight.
I believe Wisners will be making them in the future.
I ordered one of Rusty Marlin's Rigby style rear peeps for my 500 Jeffery. It looks pretty nice too.

Garrett