...by Terry Wieland. I just finished reading it cover to cover, and I find one overt error - not one word about Searcy rifles. I have no stake in that company, never even seen one in the flesh, but I can do math, and I figure more people are likely to end up with one of his rifles, than a $100K plus Holland and Holland Royal or one of the once great but now obscure builders who are still making a gun or 2 a year. Any ideas on why a 2007 book wouldn't include an active and apparently popular 2007 builder?

thanks,

paul

Yeah, I think I know, but I'll pass.
--------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Terry Wieland does have personal agendas, eh?

He made another mistake in his superficial treatise:

On page 251, on solid bullets, after comments about Jack Carter's Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer, Terry wrote:

"Another company worked along similar lines but with magnified results. GS (for Gerhard Schmidt) of South Africa makes solids of pure copper in a variety of different calibers."

Mostly correct.

Gerard Schultz of GS Custom did get MAGNIFIED RESULTS with his great solids. And GSC does make a greater variety of calibers and weights than any other rifle bullet maker that I know of. Even a new trio of bullets in .395 caliber.

I'll bet Gerard thinks the book was written by "Tory Wheelburger" aka Terry Wieland.

He made a few omissions. For one, in the bolt section he writes that Sauer has only made rifles up to 9,3 mm calibre (they have long made .375's and .458's and more recently .416 Rem and .458 lott).There are a few others too...

He also gives very little space to the CZ ZKK/550 (brief mention) but way more to other actions like the Ed Brown and Schutlz and Larsen (which yes, may have had a larger place in immediate post WW2 big bore history). Considering how many CZ actioned DGR rilfes are around both as factory and custom, this strikes me as odd.

overall though its a great read and I learnt a lot!

perhaps he could not talk Butch out of a "freebie"; or perhaps he is ignorant of the rifles. After all, Butch is not a popular, household name, like the others he wrote up. Maybe if his idol Craig Boddington had one he might have heard of Butch. It seems like every other page has some hero worship reference to the great Bwana Boddington.

Rich
DRSS
Even I know of the Searcy name and I live in Idaho

I ended up with two copies. Haven't cracked either one in the 2 or so months of having them.. Maybe I don't want to do so either! Patronizing doesn't pass my test of a good read.

Where is it written that anyone has to or needs to mention anything? It's his friggin' book!

Maybe not perfect, but a very enjoyable book.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Where is it written that anyone has to or needs to mention anything? It's his friggin' book!

You're wearing your feelings on your shirt again.

I does speak of his credibility on the subject, does it not?

I rarely read books for what's NOT in them. I once disagreed with William Faulkner on what he wrote in one of his books and he quite properly informed me he wrote the book for himself not me.

I enjoyed it and found it very well written and informative.

I too was disappointed with his lack of CZ 550 coverage, but that is a quibble with what otherwise was a very entertaining book. It was useful for me because I enjoyed Elmer Keith's older works where he covered double rifles extensively as the best "woods" rifles, Weiland's coverage of the doubles alone (which was the majority of the book) was worth it, even if he did leave out Searcy.

I got a copy of "Dangerous Game Rifles" for Xmas, but haven't gotten around to reading it. Now I'm really looking forward to it!

Will wrote...
Where is it written that anyone has to or needs to mention anything? It's his friggin' book!

I disagree. If you wrote a book called "American Sportscars" and then included discussion of the Avanti and DeLorean, but left out the Corvette, that would be inappropriate in my opinion. More buyers of the book are likely to be interested in the Corvette than the others. More buyers of this book are likely to be interested in a Searcy than a William Evans. It is not his friggin book, once I shell out forty bucks it is my friggin book, and I intended to learn something from it. I consider it a serious omission.

There is no guarantee that a person knows what he is talking about just because he wrote a book (or an article) or a lot of them.

what 500 Grains said. I would expect that our esteemed colleague Dan could do a better book on the subject, based on his extensive DG hunting experience and the tools of the trade.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I enjoyed it and found it very well written and informative.

I'm with Mike here. I thought it was a really good book, especially the Double Rifles chapter. Check out the stuff in Appendix Two with respect to reduced loads with Accurate 5744. If you are looking for for some practice loads, Accurate 5744 really works! I used that formula to work up some reduced loads for my .500 Jeffery.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Franklin:
Will wrote...
Where is it written that anyone has to or needs to mention anything? It's his friggin' book!

I disagree. If you wrote a book called "American Sportscars" and then included discussion of the Avanti and DeLorean, but left out the Corvette, that would be inappropriate in my opinion. More buyers of the book are likely to be interested in the Corvette than the others. More buyers of this book are likely to be interested in a Searcy than a William Evans. It is not his friggin book, once I shell out forty bucks it is my friggin book, and I intended to learn something from it. I consider it a serious omission.

I wonder how many English makers he didn't discuss.

Personally, I would rather read about Wm Evans than Searcy, but we each have sour own interests. Maybe Searcy is a hot item now, but over the history of double rifles I don't see it as anymore important than other brand, except for being cheaper.

Not including any info on Searcy may have been an oversight or not but Searcy could hardly be on the same level of significance as H&H, even if they are both available at this point in time.

If Searcy is around 200 years from now as has H&H at this point, then you have a gripe!

The problem with most gun books is that the book stays the same but the guns change, except for maybe H&H!

In the age of the interent what is not to know about any of them?

Will,

I think you are splitting hairs here. Perhaps the more appropriate term would be relevance; which in the real world is Searcy Double Rifles, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! Hollands. Anyone talking about the ninety-nine-percent of us who are not oil money sheiks or Bill Gates going to Africa DG hunting is likely not heading to London a year to eighteen months in advance to be fitted for a pair of H&H best grades. Skipping Searcy's product is about as foolish as skipping Cape Buffalo in a treatise on dangerous game hunting in favor of eland; which are nearly the same size and weight. He appears disingenuous or churlish at best, fatuous at worst. Defense of, in this case, an indefensible error of omission is beneath a man of your experience. It is the DR equivalent, IMHO, of writing a book about "Great Bolt Action Rifles of the Twentieth Century" and omitting the old model seventy. For gosh sakes, H&H made their reputation by putting their name on double rifles someone else made for them! They were a high-priced Wal-Mart of the gun world.

We know one thing, you can go to Butch's shop and watch DR's being built. We don't even know for sure what continent H&H is having theirs made in, or who is making them. Heck, they may even be having them made in China for gosh'sakes!

I'm glad I bought my copy at Amazon for about half-price...forty bucks is waaaaay too much for this book, although I did enjoy it for the load data.

Rich
DRSS
Searcy Fan

It is very common to inclued stuff or not inclued stuff in written materals depending if the writer did or did not get paid to put it in.

Not to say that happen here. But I have seen it many times in shooting mags ect. That certain arms are in others left out only to find ads for the in guns and none for the left out ones.

I find my self reading less and less gun writers because they run over the same BS. all the time.

I found works by Gregor Woods and S.R. Truesdell more informative.
The Rifle Story by John Walter, now that is 'Hard Core'.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Not including any info on Searcy may have been an oversight or not but Searcy could hardly be on the same level of significance as H&H, even if they are both available at this point in time.

I did not realize that his book was limited to rifles built 200 years ago.

The most common double rifles going on safari today from the U.S. are built by Searcy, Merkel, Heym, Chapuis and Krieghoff. Omitting them only diminishes the value of the book.

/

His coverage of guns used by wealthy amateur hunters is pretty good. He covers them by dividing the EU into it's member states.
Most danger arises when the hunter is afraid of his gun. You know, they grab that stock like drowning victim does a branch and close their eyes when they pull the trigger.
The most dangerous can be defeated by made in MA 'Combat Magnum' or Frenchie MR-73 loaded with 38+P Semi Wad Cutter HP.

Great book and very good info, I really enjoyed it.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

In a review of so called African DG cartridges, referred to as "classic" I beleive, our friend Dan put together in African hunter a collection of cartridges, some with recoil so massive, managibility so poor that I believe most to be of no practical use whatsoever in the field.

A well placed first shot with one of these may have the ability to take out an ill tempered buffalo in an A1 Abrams tank, but sadly what follows would be lost as the shooter through the haze of snot and tears would not be able to find the rifle as it spins from his hands, taking out the poor PH and trackers behind

Perfect lead-in for another .395 message.

The .395 is the thinking man's all-purpose DGR/PGR.

Shooting one does not addle his brain. He can still think, and move non-parkinsonianly, after a lifetime of success with a .395.

Stay tuned for the rimmed .395 cartridge, chambered in a Butch Searcy double, regulated parallel to infinity ... and spot on at 50 meters.

I read it a while back. I found it quite good as it discusses the requirments of a functional rifle over accuracy and various cartridges suitable for DG.

I too noticed the ommision of Searcy. It had me wondering as he did discuss Merkle, Heym (I think) and Kreighoff (in which he discusses the cocking issue).

I thought it a bit odd that if he was writing about low-mid level doubles, he wouldn't at least mention Searcy in passing.

Over all it's a good reference, IMHO.

-Steve