Pin Up Rifles

Best bolt action? To me that means it fires every time, feeds every time, shoots small groups, and has a dull finish so as not to scare game.

That's a Winchester Model 70.

Engraving, custom stock work, fuss and feathers, and all that stuff is just fluff if I actually want to hunt with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Brice:
Trax,
Very nice photography. It really shows detail.
I also note that we're looking at a rifle probably in the $10,000 plus class, with Weaver rings and a Leupold scope. Obviously not chosen because they are inexpensive. I have two Leupold 1.5 x 5's, one on a 375, the other on a Lott. Ten years and no problems.

Hello Brice,
The H&W rifle shown uses custom H&W mounts with EDM cutted bases and Wire EDM cutted rings. They are not even simular to Weaver mounts, as you have to slip them on from behind. The little levers, when turned into the correct position will move into the half cuts and also clamp the rings to the bases. The picture from a different agle may help to see the bases. It is the upper rifle.

The Leupold scope was choosen because of there stability.

Robert

quote:

Originally posted by Robert:
The H&W rifle shown uses custom H&W mounts with EDM cutted bases and Wire EDM cutted rings. They are not even simular to Weaver mounts, as you have to slip them on from behind. The little levers, when turned into the correct position will move into the half cuts and also clamp the rings to the bases.

Robert
I would agree that that system is not "Weaver" in that it would not accept weaver rings, but to say that it is "mot even simular to Weaver" is a bit of a stretch. At most you could say that that is a modification or improvement of the Weaver design. That design shares all of its main features with the weaver style mount.

quote:

Originally posted by adrian4444:
I know it's highly subjective, but I was wondering whom do you personally think is the maker of the absolute best bolt action rifles money can buy?

I have asked myself that question several times.

I start with what is "best"? Best quality, prettiest, most accurate, best fit for me, best fit for purpose or what?

For me - "best" is - will it do what I need it to do reliably everytime and is it 1 MOA with factory ammo.

Expensive is not "best" in my definition.

I want my rifle to shoot 1 MOA and feed everytime.

When I decided that issue, I tried out Remington, Dakota, Ruger, Winchester (pre and post, push and crf), Rigby, Mauser, Colt Sauer, Heym and maybe a couple of others.

All of them meet my criteria except the Mauser (accuracy).

So, I ask myself - which rifle can you afford to lose in transit and not have a melt down over; which rifle do you not mind having one of the black guys carry on a long hike; which rifle if it gets dropped in the bush and scarred - do not worry about.

I cannot bring myself to carry a rifle costing more than $2000 to Africa due to the potential for loss of the gun to theft or confiscation or serious damage. I realize it does not happen often but I do not need the worry on a great trip.

Next, I asked myself - what do the PH's and semi-pro hunters take (guys that go every year or more often than that such as Aaron Neilson or Tim Herald or others) - well, I do not see them taking seriously expensive rifles on multiple hunts. I do not consider a T/C an expensive gun, so I guess Jim Shockey fits there as well. Boddington seems to use Ruger's most of the time due to endorsements but he uses others as well. I wonder what the high profile guys would use if they had to pick just one.

The PH's I have hunted with use whatever works. They have had Winchester, Remington, CZ and Ruger.

So, what is the "best" regardless of cost?

For me, a new Winchester Model 70 topped with Tally's and a Swaro or Leupold scope shooting factory ammo from Federal, Nosler or Hornaday.

When you are talking "best", it has nothing to do with price. You are either talking aesthetics - which is subjective - or performance and reliability.
In the latter catagory I would place my vote for absolute best for D'Arcy Echols.
D'Arcy is not slouch in aesthetics either but Lon Paul, Joe Smithson, Gene Simillion, Reto Bueller, Ralph Martini, Duane Wiebe, Larry Amrine and a number of other top end builders make fantastic, world class rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. FM:
Although many fine makers have been mentioned I am surprised that the Golmatic/Prechtl guns are not. They make the actions for most of the top flight European makers.
No, not for the most, for all.
:-)

That's exactly why Hartmann & Weiss stand out as being unique among the ''London Best Gun'' grade rifle-smiths. They are the only high-end company to make their own actions in-house, designed by them in the 1970s, and pretty much acknowledged as the best modern Mauser action that money can buy.

All the other high-end gun-makers (H&H, Purdey, Boss, Westley-Richards) buy their new actions from other tool-makers (usually Golmatic/Prechtl, occasionally GMA); they also use original Mauser actions, but not for the magnum calibres eg 505 Gibbs.

There is a big difference in being able to build a rifle based on one's in-house designed and manufactured Mauser M98 action (with huge cost implications for such a small market), and 'just' assembling components made by someone else.

The cross-slot system shown here is inferior to the standard Weaver cross-slot in more regards than one:

It has a rounded recess for the cross member on the bottom of the ring to fit into,
like the first Leupold QRW bases that have since been improved to a square cross-slot with a square recoil stop on the bottom of the ring.

This EDM cut system integral to the receiver has to depend more on the side members of the ring fitting squarely against the forward portion of the grooves on the side.
And they slide on from the rear?
Hoo boy!
Not the best!
Tiny recoil stop bearing area!

I would rather have my Mauser magnum double square bridge cut for the standard Weaver cross-slot!
Maybe the Smithson.
Even Talley bases integral would be better,
if only the square bridge stood tall and proud enough for that higher, skinnier base,
that has less "stop" than the Weaver.

Weaver with square cross-slot is good as it gets for an integral base.
Low and sleek and gentle on the caressing hand when scope and rings are removed.

Perfection of the rings that go on the Weaver cross-slot may be open to debate ...
How about a custom, machined not cast, with integral square recoil stop on the bottom of the ring, for a Weaver lever QD?
No spring tension on the top, just a perfectly fit split.
I prefer the horizontal split top.
Solid bottom half of ring, to mate to solid Weaver cross-slot.

RIP,
Both the radiused Cross slot and forward face of the jaws[of both scope rings] work together simultaneously[ie; share the load] in stopping the rings from moving forward under the first]most savage] recoil movement.
The radiused slot should be sufficient to prevent the rings from moving back under the[more sedate]secondary recoil movement.

How did you acertain that the mounts slide to the rear?,... its quite possible that one must to release the jaws[enough] and lift the scope up.

Do you have imperical evidence to suggest such a design has failed?

H&W are one of those companies that addresses weakness of design.
Thats why they produce the magnum mauser action with reinforced left lug, to avoid having bolt nose guide forks that would otherwise be too flimsy with the larger case head rounds. [British makers used to add [braze on] reinforcement to the ordinary M98 bolt head/left lug]

With such mindset, I can't imagine H&W would go about creating a mount system with high propensity for failure.

If your worried about the ability of a radius to contain forces on a set of scope rings, look at the Heym SR30 bolt head design.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan W:
I would have to say D'Arcy Echols. Below are two .505 Gibbs rifles on H&W 98M actions.











Bryan

Wow!

I have no idea how they fare in craftsmanship compared to the rifles shown but when I think if a perfect rifle, I cannot get the Westley Richards out of my mind. To me it has every aesthetic that makes me say hubba hubba....

http://www.westleyrichards.co....NS-Bolt-Action-Rifle

Trax,
It may work, but it could work better.
The Weaver square cross-slot is undoubtedly more secure.
It is just a matter of how good (and practical) the rings are that are used to attach to that Weaver base.
No thanks on the ball bearing bolt head locking you are using as a distraction.

Here are some more of Bryans 505.

You can take the top few rifle makers and argue ad infinitum who produces the best rifles. Between their actions, differences are more a matter of nuance and aesthetic preference than significant engineering design.

quote:

Originally posted by PD999:

All the others (Holland & Holland, Purdey, Westley-Richards) buy-in their new actions from European tool-makers (Prechtl, Johannsen), or else use original Mauser actions (whose steel quality may be suspect compared to modern steel).

Few people are aware that Holland & Holland has started making rifles on their own, made-in-house, magnum action. They are using these actions for the .375 H&H Magnum Centenary (1912-2012 centennial) rifles. They have been making their own barrels for a while.




_________________


Westley-Richards makes some nice ones and, like H&H, they have been at it for a long time.


_________________

Hartmann & Weiss GmbH does make some excellent rifles, in no small measure because of some expert gunsmiths who previously worked for H&H. Their rifles are sort of the "best of British with a subtle German flair".


_________________

But if I were going to purchase a German-made mauser I think I would opt for a new classic M98 Magnum from Mauser Jagdwaffen GmbH, a rifle with the MAUSER banner.


_________________

I don't think there is a factory maker in America that can hold a candle to those above. However, in the custom arena, Ralf Martini of Canada and a few custom gun makers in the USA put out some nice work. Each has his own style and you get what you pay for.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
But if I were going to purchase a German-made mauser I think I would opt for a new classic M98 Magnum from Mauser Jagdwaffen GmbH, a rifle with the MAUSER banner.

I walked into the original Cabelas location in Sidney, Nebraska in 2004 and purchased the rifle pictured above, chambered for 450 Dakota.
I talked them down to $5500 USD for my impulse purchase, sold as "new," in a cheap hard case with factory accuracy test target and an inventory card in German:
~0.75" 50-meter 3-shot group with 500-grain Woodleighs, with open express sights (No scope mounting provisions, probably machine rest?).
The test target was signed by "G. Prechtl" (SchieBmeister, Datum 5-9-2000), so it got my interest.

Johannsen rifles were on the rack there in .416 Rigby, with claw mounts and M70-style wing safety, instead of the standard Mauser flag, same Prechtl action,
for about $12,000 USD.

If I get my square bridges machined into Weaver square cross slots, I am going to get a stainless M70-style safety installed to replace the Mauser flag.
It will then be at least as good as a Johannsen, at about half the cost.

The barrel is a very slim 0.670" at 25" muzzle.
The magazine width is too skinny for the 450 Dakota, but it feeds flawlessy even with FN solids, 4-down in the box.
There is no secondary recoil lug on the barrel,
but the full glass bedding looks perfect,
and wood to metal fit is excellent.
Factory sights were dead-on with 500-grainers at 2450 fps, 50 yards, no adjustment needed.
Thank you Mr. G. Prechtl, the "SchieBmeister."
It is just not as shiney as a Johannsen.

All these exalted makers make imperfect rifles.
Ryan breeding uses a box width too skinny for the .505 Gibbs,
and so does everyone else, far as I can tell.

Sumbuddy who know prove me wrong?

Not crazy for the 450 Dakota cartridge but heck of a deal on a gun that looks wonderful. Prechtl was the action maker and supplied the barreled action or was it sold as Prechtl rifle?.

The barrel is too skinny to rebore to a larger caliber.

It is the SIG Arms Mauser Banner rifle they started making as a centennial in 1998.
Serial number is MM001"X." MagnumMauser<20.

Prechtl/Golmatic supplies actions to SIG, Johannsen, and more, as many noted above.
Mr. Prechtl must have had some manufacturing involvement in the SIG Arms rifles.
Sumbuddy who know specifics?

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:


All these exalted makers make imperfect rifles.
Ryan breeding uses a box width too skinny for the .505 Gibbs,
and so does everyone else, far as I can tell.

whats about DArcys attempt? ... http://forums.accuratereloadin...771081631#4771081631

Trax,
From looking at the pictures of the H&W Magnum Mauser 98 action with Echols bottom metal,
and from the quote below

"These .505/.416 assemblies are a drop box design allowing the THREE 505 Gibbs rounds in the magazine and FOUR 416 Rigby rounds in the same magazine. D'Arcy used his knowledge and the knowledge of many PH's to determine the appropriate magazine capacities."

it is obvious that the magazine box is too skinny for the .505 Gibbs,
just another make-do job like all the other masters have done.
Not perfect Mauser Cosine Law box geometry.
But that is O.K. if it works, we get by.

Could the MRC PH action with .800" bolt diameter possibly be big enough to handle a .505 Gibbs sized box?

Ideal:
.505 Gibbs rim diameter of .6401574" maximum: box width at rear = 1.1945529"



The 404 Jeffery-based cartridges are about the only perfect ones with a case bigger in diameter than the .375 H&H.
The rest are just make-do's mostly.
Rare to find a perfect box.



Review of ideals:

Some ideal box widths at the rear according to CIP maximums:

.375 H&H rim diameter of .5318" and belt diameter of .5339" maximum: box width at rear = 1.86603 x 0.5339" = 0.99627"
This is more than enough, since manufactured brass is always smaller than the CIP max.

404 Jeffery head diameter of .5429" maximum: box width at rear = 1.86603 x 0.5429" = 1.01307"

.416 Rigby rim diameter of .5902" maximum: box width at rear = 1.1013309"

500 Jeffery head diameter (rebated rim abomination, rim diameter 0.5751968") head diameter of .6188976" maximun:
box width at rear: 1.86603 x .6188976 = 1.1548814"

.505 Gibbs rim diameter of .6401574" maximum: box width at rear = 1.1945529"

Forget about adding slop unless using the "rubber band method" to measure.

Using the max spec brass diameter will build in enough slop since the manufactured brass diameters are smaller than max spec anyway.

...

The Mauser "ideal" box dimension was really only ideal for the rounds it was designed around (x57s). It met the military requirement for a 5 round capacity in a minimum depth stock. The Mauser formula simply allows for the maximum cartridge capacity in the minimum depth of magazine.

Mauser was able to apply the basic equation on the subsequent proprietary H&H rounds, but certainly never intended it to be the ideal for the Rigby and Gibbs. They would have had to manufacture a receiver with a much wider bottom footprint and then had to contend with fat cartridges with their centerlines much farther from the centerline of the action (which opens up a far greater can of worms as far as feeding goes). Matching the taper of the cases themselves is more important than width, assuming rail geometry and shape is appropriate.

When it comes to the Gibbs, wider is definitely not better.

Brian

The principals of Hartmann & Weiss have repeatedly been quoted as saying that the answer to the question posed is Paul Roberts.

quote:

Few people are aware that Holland & Holland has started making rifles on their own, made-in-house, magnum action. They are using these actions for the .375 H&H Magnum Centenary (1912-2012 centennial) rifles.

They are using original Oberndorf actions; I have seen one of the centennial rifles being made when I had a tour of their factory on Harrow Rd, London.

quote:

Hartmann & Weiss GmbH does make some excellent rifles, in no small measure because of some expert gunsmiths who previously worked for H&H.

None of their gunsmiths have trained for H&H. Only Otto Weiss trained in London, at Purdey's, in the 1960's:
http://books.google.com/books?...mann%20weiss&f=false

http://www.hartmannandweiss.com/en/history.php

quote:

But if I were going to purchase a German-made mauser I think I would opt for a new classic M98 Magnum from Mauser Jagdwaffen GmbH, a rifle with the MAUSER banner.

The Mauser rifles are actually made by Gottfried Prechtl/Golmatic Tools, then rebadged as Mauser:
http://www.prechtl-waffen.de/Prechtl/de/Unternehmen/


For completeness, I should add the following:

Westley Richards - build on new Prechtl actions, or original Oberndorf actions.

Purdey's - build on Reimer Johanssen new actions, or original Oberndorf actions.

Ralf Martini - regularly builds on new H&W actions; his previous business partner, Martin Hagn, was one of their previous 'trainees':
http://www.hagnriflesandactions.com/about.html


The above is based on shooting with various members of the H&H, WR and Purdey teams at the annual game fairs in the UK, and also on having visited the H&W workshop in Hamburg a number of times:
http://www.hartmannandweiss.com/en/workshop.php

quote:

Originally posted by mauser93:
The principals of Hartmann & Weiss have repeatedly been quoted as saying that the answer to the question posed is Paul Roberts.

I think you'll find that the answer to the question is actually Peter Nelson, who used to work with them:

http://books.google.com/books?...mann%20weiss&f=false


Paul Roberts would be the first to admit that his company assembles fine big game rifles (more than H&H, WR and Purdey combined), sometimes in the white for other gunmakers (eg William Evans), but no-where on the same level as H&W.

However, I wouldn't hesitate in having him assemble a DG rifle for my personal use, as he makes real 'practical' rifles for actual field use, not for storing in a museum.

http://www.jroberts-gunmakers.co.uk

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PD999:

None of their gunsmiths have trained for H&H. Only Otto Weiss trained in London, at Purdey's, in the 1960's:

not exactly, Peter Nelson, who worked for H&W in-house, also came from Purdey.


Ralf Martini - regularly builds on new H&W actions; his previous business partner, Martin Hagn, was one of their previous trainees:

Martin Hagn did do outsourced work for H&W as a professional smith, as for being one of their "trainees",.. I'm not so sure.


Paul Roberts would be the first to admit that his company assembles fine big game rifles (more than H&H, WR and Purdey combined), sometimes in the white for other gunmakers (eg William Evans), but no-where on the same level as H&W.

However, I wouldn't hesitate in having him assemble a DG rifle for my personal use, as he makes real 'practical' rifles for actual field use, not for storing in a museum. http://www.jroberts-gunmakers.co.uk

You mean like this J Rigby & Co rem700 .375hh...?

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
not exactly, Peter Nelson, who worked for H&W in-house, also came from Purdey.

The original quote was about H&H, not Purdey. But I take your point about the London influence.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Martin Hagn did do outsourced work for H&W as a professional smith, as for being one of their "trainees",.. I'm not so sure.

Apologies; Mr Hagn was a competent gunsmith prior to being trusted by H&W for their work. And I would love one of his falling-block rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
You mean like this J Rigby & Co rem700 .375hh...?

Paul is currently building a 30-06 for me, and we regularly meet at the West London Shooting School. He is very honest at what level his rifles are pitched at, with sensible prices to match. I have utmost respect for his rifles.

And like H&W, one can actually pop into his workshop in Vauxhall, London, meet his gunsmiths, and see progress on one's rifle. That's why he sells an amazing number of DG bolt-action rifles, more than all the other London gunsmiths put together.

quote:

Originally posted by PD999:
That's why he sells an amazing number of DG bolt-action rifles, more than all the other London gunsmiths put together.

The main reason for that is that he doesn't limit his company's output to just 'best quality' rifles.

quote:

The main reason for that is that he doesn't limit his company's output to just 'best quality' rifles.

Good point; my 30-06 is not a 'best gun'; but I'm still glad he has had a hand in building it!

I would be too! He does know what he's doing...

Not mentioned often, but check out www.hoferwaffen.com, Austrian shop, Peter Hofer proprietor. All manner of bolt guns, double rifles, single rifles, shotguns, you name it.
I don't know if they shoot worth a damn or not, but would imagine they would function and shoot just fine. Peter's web site a bit difficult to navigate through, but it's worth the effort to see such works of functional art. Would imagine only the "elite of the elite" own his firearms, but if you do, you would have to be in very select company. Perhaps the owner of this site has one or his associates??

This thread is interesting in the sense that there are folks who are commenting on "BEST" rifles without providing evidence that they have ever even used them. It would seem to me that "BEST" means in comparison to something else, which means objectively testing different rifles to determine which was the best!

I think the word "best" in the gun industry might have came (I admit this is just an opinion) from the fact that firms offered their rifles in different grades. Same rifle, but "more figure" in the wood, "more polish" on the metal, "more accessories" such as iron sights, etc. I know Browning was sort of famous for this with their different grades of Rifles and Shotguns, ending with the Midas, I believe, which had gold inlays. Also, If I remember correctly some of the American Shotgun companies of the 20th century did the same, as did the large factories with their custom shops, such as Remington and Winchester. (it has long been considered a marketing fact that when a consumer is offered different grades they will tend to purchase a medium to upper level grade where they would have been happy with a lower grade if only that "lower" grade had been offered)

The word BEST has long been used as a marketing word, just like "sale", and "love" and "quality" and on into the night. Purchase our clothes becasue they are the "BEST" value, or purchase our ovens because they bake the "best" bread, and again, on and on.

If a gunmaker says that his gun is a best quality gun, does that mean that he cannot do anything else to it to make it better? Maybe when he can truly answer yes to that question you will have a "best" quality gun.

quote:

Originally posted by PD999:
.......

Thank you for the clarification of some things. I was repeating what someone in the London trade had told me. I will mention, though, that it was a couple of gentlemen from H&H that told me they are now making their own action.

I'm with Indy here.

Maybe I'm boring. To me the Winchester M70 or the Ruger M77 do everything I need. three position safety, CRF, and generally shoot better than I can. People talk about the need to "smooth" actions on off the shelf rifles. I find these rifles, cycled smartly, reliably feed.

Most important, I have no redgrets as I add nicks to the stock in the field.

Sorry if I am to strong an advocate of the "regular guy" choices.

Sorry about typos above!