Thanks for the insights regarding recoil. Will have to give these rifles some serious consideration before my next trip to Africa.

A rifle's recoil can be calculated accurately, taking into consideration the rifle's weight, the bullet weight, the weight of the powder charge and the MV the bullet achieves. All of those variables the same, the recoil of two rifles will be identical.

Perceived recoil can be different though, even when all of the variable elements of recoil are the same, and so recoil is the same.

Stock design, weight distribution, rate of powder burn all effect perceived recoil...

But given two rifles shooting the same bullets to roughly the same velocity, the two primary factors which effect perceived recoil are weight and stock design. Stock design only goes so far.

Also, and this depends on the shooter, usually the straighter the stock the less the perceived recoil, but after a point a straight stock interferes with using express sights.

IMO, for a rifle that points and shoots as well as it should for close elephant hunting, the stock dimensions should be similar to the dimensions of the shotgun you shoot best, with the drop at comb, face and at heel adjusted for the height of the express sight's line of sight from the top of the barrel(s.) Or a Docter Optics or other red dot type sight if your eyes require one.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
A rifle's recoil can be calculated accurately, taking into consideration the rifle's weight, the bullet weight, the weight of the powder charge and the MV the bullet achieves. All of those variables the same, the recoil of two rifles will be identical.

Perceived recoil can be different though, even when all of the variable elements of recoil are the same, and so recoil is the same.

Stock design, weight distribution, rate of powder burn all effect perceived recoil...

But given two rifles shooting the same bullets to roughly the same velocity, the two primary factors which effect perceived recoil are weight and stock design. Stock design only goes so far.

Also, and this depends on the shooter, usually the straighter the stock the less the perceived recoil, but after a point a straight stock interferes with using express sights.

IMO, for a rifle that points and shoots as well as it should for close elephant hunting, the stock dimensions should be similar to the dimensions of the shotgun you shoot best, with the drop at comb, face and at heel adjusted for the height of the express sight's line of sight from the top of the barrel(s.) Or a Docter Optics or other red dot type sight if your eyes require one.

JPK

To the comment on stock design, true but then again, weight only goes so far as well before you have a behemoth unable to be carried all day and still used. Think of a properly designed stock as compared to a stock in the shape of a 2" dowel rod. The dowel rod is going to transfer that recoil in a most unpleasant way whereas the stock, properly designed and fitted to the shooter's body, will mitigate the recoil nicely. For this reason, within reason, I consider stock design to be more important that weight of the rifle.

Case in point being my VC 500NE RB. The rifle was built to my dimensions specifically and tips the scales at 10.25 lbs. By most accounts, light for a 500NE, however I don't find the recoil to be punishing in the least, simply because the rifle fits me properly. I previously owned a 500NE Merkel, the one Lionhunter now owns. That had quite a bit of drop at the heel, causing perceived recoil to be a fair bit more than this VC. The Merkel was about a half pound heavier as well IIRC. Mike could weight it and chime in I suppose.

I also owned and used on safari, a VC 577NE. The rife had a very straight stock but had a good sized butt shape, dispersing the recoil nicely. Unfortunately, the comb was a bit too high and I had issues getting down onto the sights properly, but with that nice and straight stock, combined with the wide butt pad, the recoil wasn't punishing at all. In fact, I removed the weights from the butt stock, dropping the weight from 14 to 12.5 pounds. This made the rifle a bit muzzle heavy but was still MUCH easier to carry all day. The one thing I noticed, and a few others here have stated the same as they encouraged me to take the weights out in the first place, is that I did NOT perceive a change in the recoil level at 12.5 lbs vs. 14 lbs. Confirmation in my case anyway, that stock design and fit are more important than simply lugging around more weight ... within reason of course. I doubt I want to hunt with a 6 pound 577NE, regardless of the stock fit!

A stock that fits is a given requirement for elephant hunting, imo, since if the rifle doesn't fit the shooter the shooter has to fit the rifle, and that takes TIME, the one thing that will be in shortest supply if you hunt elephants close, and especially if the s--t hits the fan. Recall that an can elephant cover 37'/sec.

That is why, imo, an elephant rifle should fit like a properly fitting shotgun, with allowance made for the height of the sights above top of the barrel(s.) Nothing points as instinctively as a good fitting shotgun, and if your rifle fits like your shotgun should you are looking down the sights when you mount the rifle.

Better a proper fitting rifle than one that takes recoil too much into consideration, imo. Some things can be done that don't effect fit that do mitigate recoil, and you point out one, the dimensions of the butt, and then, for some, an absorbing recoil pad will help. (the Pachmyer (sp?) shotgun pad with the hard insert at the heel to promote smooth, catch free mounting is a good example.) I prefer a leather covered Silver's pad for my doubles, but like a Pachmyer for my bolt rifles.

I suspect your 577 didn't change in perceived recoil because the weight stayed up front, and what was removed was removed from the butt. With the weight up front the barrels didn't come up too fast, and muzzles that want to come up add a lot to perceived recoil, and one reason straighter stock have less perceived recoil. However, a too heavy in the muzzle rifle handles like a club, and is slow to bring to bear.

Another stock feature that can add or mitigate recoil is the pitch of the butt. Too much toe - too little pitch - will make the muzzle want to rise, adding perceived recoil. Too much pitch and the butt wants to come up, which can also add perceived recoil, though not so abruptly.

And yet another stock feature that will effect perceived recoil, and that is stock length. Within reason, the longer a stock the less perceived recoil, and the longer a stock the less cast on (lefty) or off (righty) a rifle needs to fit the shooter, the less the cast the less the perceived recoil.

Interestingly, while there are entire books and hundreds and hundreds of articles on shotgun fit, the is an almost total absence of literature on rifle fit.

On rifle weight, I have found that 9.5-10.5 is a pretty comfortable weight for an old fat guy - that would be me! - to hump on tracks when the terrain is typical mixed hills, riverine areas, dry river beds, etc. A little more would be ok too. But in the foothills adjacent to, on or right at the (broken) top of the Zambezi Escarpment and that rifle weight starts to get old darn quick.

I was thinking that the avid elephant hunter needs two elephant rifles, one for all day every day in typical terrain, and a lighter one for those days or trips where he will be in a lot of steep terrain. Before I took a hiatus from elephant hunting because of work load and then marlin fishing, I had a second, lighter SxS rifle made up for my second "all 'rounder safari rifle (I always take two rifles) and for humping in the foothills or on the escarpment. It was an A&S Farmars sidelock SxS in 375H&H, and I had Joe Smithson scope mounts added, with 30mm rings so I could use either an S&B 1.1x4x24mm scope, or, if I needed as I got older, a Docter Optic 0x red dot type for plainsgame or elephants respectively. That rifle weighed 8 1/4lbs bare, as I would carry it for elephants. I was going to have it re regulated to shoot Woodleigh 350gr solids, to give it as much oomph as possible for the cartridge. It was a joy to carry, though I never did use it for elephants. I just sent it to Champlins to be sold.

My favorite PH told me to just carry my 375H&H bolt rifle bare, @ 8.5lbs, loaded with solids and that he would have a tracker carry my heavy rifle so I could switch before making an approach. I actually think that is a better idea all around since the beauty of a bolt rifle for the second rifle is that a tracker can carry it or it can ride in the truck with a full magazine but empty chamber, ready to go with four rounds with just a shuck of the bolt, where with a double rifle some one has got to have the ammo handy.

I think a light 458wm, like Oz Hunter advocates, would make a fine rough terrain elephant rifle, and with a good QD set up would make a fine plains game rifle with lighter, faster bullets, but, since I will be taking elephant hunting back up, I am going to avoid the hills, and if I need to hump more vertical terrain I will follow the PH's plan, carry my 375 bare, loaded with solids, and have a tracker carry my double.

On recoil, I think a lot of hunters kid themselves about how much they can handle and not have it effect their shooting. I know that at the Lott/500NE level in a rifle that fits me (like I think it should for the best possible immediate mount and shoot situations,) at a weight of about 11 or so lbs, I am at my maximum, I don't want more and I'm pretty sure any more will effect my field shooting, even if I am unaware of it. As it is, if I have lain off shooting any heavy recoiling rifles for awhile it takes me a month or more to work into my elephant rifle before I can work up loads for it, where I might shoot 20 or 25 rounds in an afternoon with full concentration on the target. I don't think I'm recoil shy, and I know some guys who can comfortably handle more, but not many.

If I wasn't as comfortable and as pleased with my elephant rifle as I am, I would love to move to a 500NE for eles, but I don't see doing it at this point.

JPK

I always enjoy these conversations, especially the plot of turf that individuals stake out.

Anyone who has fully read the Terminal Bullet Performance would be aware that Michael (Michael458) hunted for many years as a member of the collective 'believing that long barreled rifles heavier in weight as the caliber diameter increases' until he determined for himself that these long rifles were a pain in the ..s when the need arose to make one' sway through thick flora and fauna. Along with this determination was perception that the rifle was carried >99% of the time and actually fired <1% of the time so was there really a need to tote such a heavy rifle for that one or two shots.

The above rationalization led to his testing of a short barreled light for weight rifle in an appropriate BB caliber usable for buffalo, elephant, and the like DG. For him, and for those individuals who have tried his compact potent B&M chambered rifles, it works very well...

At age 61, as a 40 lbs overweight and out-of-shape physically individual I fired Michael's rifles to decide for myself the validity of his concept. I'm sold on his concept.

I challenge others to be as open minded...

One significant advantage of the double rifle is the short length, but with longer barrels to enable the 450NE class cartridges the full benefits of all of the velocity they can deliver within the pressure boundaries they can handle. A double rifle is missing about 4-5" compared to a bolt rifle.

I am fully aware of the "recoil last a moment but gravity is forever" conundrum. I have a distinct distaste for the sharp recoil of light rifles and rifles producing high velocities, which to me also share the sharp recoil characteristics. I don't mind 10 1/2lbs of rifle when humping on elephant tracks, except in the mountains and foot hills and on the edge of Escarpment.

So, to me, for me, a rifle of a specific cartridge needs to have a minimum weight, and also a maximum weight. For the 450NE/458wm or Lott loaded at about 2150fps with 550's that range is 10-11lbs. At least if I want to shoot it a lot prior to or between elephant hunts so that it becomes and remains second nature.

JPK

JPK,

Fortunately our individual tastes is what keeps the overall firearms industry healthy!

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
JPK,

Fortunately our individual tastes is what keeps the overall firearms industry healthy!

Jim You have it all wrong--

there is only one right way to do anything with a gun and I am right (whoever I am)





just teasing and thinking about O'Conner and Keith for example----LOL

Good one Sean!

Yep Keith and O'Conner plus a whole flock of other guys..

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
Good one Sean!

Yep Keith and O'Conner plus a whole flock of other guys..

Funny you should mention these guys on this thread. I've just been re-reading a Keith article from 1982 on "Big Game Bullets" (Guns and Ammo):

quote:

Keith 1982:
I sent a hunting party to Charlie Snook at Elk Summit in the sixties. Each had a .270 rifle and 150-grain bulleted ammo. Two of them shot three elk each and the other two each shot two elk, they wounded and lost them all. [that's ten wounded elk--TZ.] Charlie was as mad as a wet hen when they wanted to book again for the next year. He told them he would only book them if they came to me and took my recommendations for an elk rifle. They did so and I told them to get Model 70 Winchester rifles in .375 H&H and use 300-grain bullets. Then sight the rifles 150 yards for that heavy-timbered elk country. They booked again and after the hunt they each came in with a fifth of scotch for me and claimed they got four elk with one shot!

Leslie Simson, who hunted Africa for years and filled many museum groups of African game, used a .577 double for lion and all the big stuff, and for plains game he recommended a rifle of .35 caliber throwing a 275-grain bullet at 2500 feet per second (fps) and if any change is required, then add bullet weight rather than velocity. After a lifetime of hunting from the Arctic to Africa, I concur with his findings 100 percent.

I stopped booking anyone for elk unless they used a rifle throwing at least a 250-grain bullet and not less than .33 caliber in the rifle, as I was getting pretty tired of trailing wounded elk. Summing up our present big-game bullets, the 250-.338 and 300-grain [.375"--TZ.] Nosler Partition jacket always gave good results even though the point-half would blow off at close range. . . The Sierra Boattails in both 250 grains .338 and 300-grain .375 were by all odds the most accurate game bullets I have ever fired but at the time did not expand much on broadside shots at antelope. They also blew up on bones of heavier game. The 275 old heavy jacket Speer was, for many years, my standby in the various .338 caliber rifles."

So what did my wife do?
She owns a 270 Win, so she has her O'Connor approval bonafides. And she's gone and bought a 375 Ruger, just to make sure that any hartebeest, impala or eland will respect her.

I respect her.

Keith's advice is still good advice, though modern bullets allow one to drop the bullet weight by 10-20% while still maintaining the same penetration because bullets conserve close to 100% of their original weight. The point is that good penetration with a wide bullet is the way to put animals down quickly.

quote:

So what did my wife do? She owns a 270 Win, so she has her O'Connor approval bonafides. And she's gone and bought a 375 Ruger, just to make sure that any hartebeest, impala or eland will respect her.
I respect her.

Elmer would approve of Mrs. Tanz' rifle procurement decision...

quote:

Keith's advice is still good advice, though modern bullets allow one to drop the bullet weight by 10-20% while still maintaining the same penetration because bullets conserve close to 100% of their original weight. The point is that good penetration with a wide bullet is the way to put animals down quickly.

All very true. Today's hunter and shooter enjoy a greater variety of extremely accurate bullets to select from.

Elmer writing what Leslie Simson said--

"throwing a 275-grain bullet at 2500 feet per second (fps) and if any change is required, then add bullet weight rather than velocity. "'

So for ele, rhino, etc.... just go to 585 with 750-850 gr, same 2500 fps,

Maybe get real serious about adding weight and horsepower. Ed

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I doubt I want to hunt with a 6 pound 577NE, regardless of the stock fit!

quote:

Originally posted by PD999:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I doubt I want to hunt with a 6 pound 577NE, regardless of the stock fit!

What about an 11.5lbs .577?

That seems more like it!

for those of us who don't know and wish we did, can someone comment on this:

I read someplace that in classic British arms, the safari rifle stock was purposely designed so that during recoil the stock would move up and away from the shooter's face.

first, is this accurate?
second, could someone comment on how such a design would look and could such a design be somewhat accomodating for both iron sights and scopes, with the understanding that a stock could not be perfectly designed for the use of both?

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:

quote:

Originally posted by PD999:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I doubt I want to hunt with a 6 pound 577NE, regardless of the stock fit!

What about an 11.5lbs .577?

Yea, that would work. Actually, I think a properly fitted, 11 pound 577NE would be just about right. I didn't find my 577NE to be uncontrollable at all in the 12.5 pound configuration.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
for those of us who don't know and wish we did, can someone comment on this:

I read someplace that in classic British arms, the safari rifle stock was purposely designed so that during recoil the stock would move up and away from the shooter's face.

first, is this accurate?
second, could someone comment on how such a design would look and could such a design be somewhat accomodating for both iron sights and scopes, with the understanding that a stock could not be perfectly designed for the use of both?

I believe the reference is to the traditional English rifle's (and shotgun's) rather narrower comb, which can ideally slide up along the face rather than come up into the cheekbone under recoil.

Traditional English stocks have dimensions for the use of express sights, with more drop at comb and heel than an American Classic style stock, which is straighter with dimensions more suitable for scopes.

Here is a link to a photo of a Westley Richards bolt rifle on profile, showing the stock with dimensions for the express sights, though it also has a later added scope in G&H mounts.
http://wrusedguns.com/guns/rifles/78

An English rear express sight will be almost an inch lower than the center line of a low mounted scope.

Here are links to new H&H bolt rifles, in one you can see the height of the rear express sight, in the other how much taller the centerline of the scope is:
http://www.hollandandholland.c...&l=new_york&v=new&c=

http://www.hollandandholland.c...&l=new_york&v=new&c=

One way to split the difference - and recall that of the two, the open sights are the more important, since if the stock is to straight with insufficient drop at comb the open sights cannot be used, is to use a taller express sight arrangement than was typically used on English express rifles, and which the H&H 465RME in the link above displays.

Here is a link to a page on this thread showing Oz Hunter's 458wm, which has a taller rear express sight, which allows for a somewhat straighter stock, though not so straight as one with dimensions intended for scope use. Oz Hunters rifle also displays dimensions intended for the use of the express sights on his rifle, like it should, but If you compare the WR rifle or the H&H 465RME I think you can see that Oz Hunter's rifle has a straighter stock. The photo is in the last post on the page: http://forums.accuratereloadin...043/m/8871080891/p/1

I find the stock on my Dakota 375H&H to be about perfect for me for dual use. The stock is not too straight for use with the express sights, in fact the rifle comes up with the sights in line, which it should. For use with a scope I find the relatively thicker comb, with cheek piece, provides sufficient support that my head isn't "floating" when I use the scope, and I suppose the cheek piece helps prevent the comb from coming up into my cheek under recoil. I find the rifle very comfortable to shoot.

[Interestingly, on Tuesday I was shooting my son's Dakota 9.3x62 which is right handed. I am left handed. I was shooting off of a bench, sighting in with the express sights and scope so he could finish sighting it in on Sunday before a boar hunt in Texas. Without the cheek piece and because using the express sights I had to go over the comb a bit to get the sights to line up, perceived recoil was a little uncomfortable, with the rifle coming up into my cheek bone.]

If you have a stock made, you can have it fit to you perfectly, shoot, remove some wood, shoot, remove wood, until it is perfect. But start with more wood, since removing wood is easy and cheap, but adding it is a bitch!

I would be happy to take the drop at comb and heel dimension off of my rifle and my son's if you wish. (And that might provide guidance, but every shooter is different.)

JPK

An excellent response with photos. Yes, as I am LH please share with me those dimensions.

Thanks,

Jeff

Will do. I hope to get to it tomorrow.

JPK

Again thanks. FWIW the Dakota fits me exceedingly well in its factory guise and I much prefer the 3+1 setup over the drop box version.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Again thanks. FWIW the Dakota fits me exceedingly well in its factory guise and I much prefer the 3+1 setup over the drop box version.

Maybe go shopping for a second hand, well loved Dakota (in 458wm?)

I would trade quite a bit including a custom M70 in 375 H&H with Wiebe bottom metal for a dakota action in LH 375 with a 3+1.

Why don't you like the 4+1. My 375H&H is that way with the dropped magazine, and I think it's perfect. Plus, when in Africa I can give it to a tracker with 4 in the mag and an empty chamber while carrying my double rifle, or put it in the rack on the truck with 4 in the mag and an empty chamber. To me, 4 is ok, but 3? Hmm...

My son's 9.3x62 ought to be a 4+1 - no drop mage - but the magazine is tight up front, and might be better just using it as a 3+1. I haven't played with it enough yet, nor has he, to know for sure.

JPK

A quick look at second hand LH Dakota 375H&H's.

I think 4+1 but not sure:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/954...ON_375_H_H_RIFLE.htm

Also looks like a drop mag:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/957...Safari_Left_hand.htm

I thought you were looking for more than the 375H%H for an elephant rifle?

JPK

in handling them the 3+1 feels better in the hand. just a matter of preference. that's why i got rid of my lh cz 550. too big for my tastes.

i will say this is the nicest handling 375 I have ever had the privilege of holding and it is 4+1:

http://www.cabelas.com/product...ne-Rifle/1291043.uts

At that price range, I'd also look at McMillans.

http://mcmillanusa.com/images/...age-on-zebraskin.jpg

http://mcmillanusa.com/images/...-wood-fiberstock.jpg

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
in handling them the 3+1 feels better in the hand. just a matter of preference. that's why i got rid of my lh cz 550. too big for my tastes.

i will say this is the nicest handling 375 I have ever had the privilege of holding and it is 4+1:

http://www.cabelas.com/product...ne-Rifle/1291043.uts

Probably because it embodies the English Express Rifle. Unfortunately, that makes it less of an all 'rounder. That rifle would take some work to put a scope on it in a workable configuration.

All of the Heym Express bolt rifles hold 4 down, even the 416 Rigby, and they do not have a drop box magazine. The stocks are made slim and trim like an original British bolt rifle between the wars.

Also each magazine is cartridge specific, as to WIDTH and length, which is why a drop box is not necessary.

As to scopes the action is "cut" to take the Talley rings, no base mount is required.

You can use either the Talley rings with the QD levers, or if you prefer use the Talley rings with the allen head attachments.

Both will go on and off and maintain zero.
This also makes it easy to have more than one scope sighted in and ready to go for your rifle.

They are beautiful rifles. If I was in the market today for a medium or large bore bolt rifle I would absolutely be looking at the Hyem.

Dakota isn't what it once was, and that seems very obvious when you handle a pre acquisition rifle and a current rifle. And the middle ground quality wise, a pre bankruptcy post/acquisition rifle.

You all do make left handed rifles, right?

JPK

I know they make left handed double rifles as I handled a 450/400 at the SCI show. I am not sure about the bolt guns.

Sorry, Heym does not make a left handed bolt rifle, but they do make a left handed doubles.

With a left handed SCOPED double in 9,3x74R, or 375 Flanged, or 450/400 you can do ANYTHING WITH IT, that you could do with a scoped bolt rifle in the same calibre...

Of course, that is one of the advantages of being left handed, you have a valid reason NOT to be Bolt Rifle Trash...

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
To me, 4 is ok, but 3? Hmm...

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
To me, 4 is ok, but 3? Hmm...
JPK

5 is even better

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
An excellent response with photos. Yes, as I am LH please share with me those dimensions.

Thanks,

Jeff

I took some photos to show you how I was measuring for my bolt 375H&H. I also took a couple of photos showing measurements of my double rifle.

After comparing stocks I was surprised at how, despite very differently shaped stocks both come up well for me. I would want more rifle, but I wouldn't hesitate to use my 375H&H on an elephant, it comes up perfectly, and so does my double rifle, with which I have killed eighteen elephants. There is a tad more drop at the heel on the double that I would prefer, and it leads me to shoot on the low side on frontal brain shots, but that results in a much higher proportion of my elephants ending up in the sphinx position because the bullet hits the lower brain!

Anyway the stock on the Dakota is dead straight, with 3/16" of drop and comb and heel as measured from the bottom of the bore.













This photo sucks, but give you the idea of how low the bottom of the V is below the top of the sight.


This one gives the view of how tall the rear express sight is compared to the top of the Talley bases on the action.


Here are photos of my DR, for drop at heel and comb I held the cleaning rod against the top of the quarter rib.:











My African battery:


My righty son's first DG rifle, in 9.3x62 and my 375H&H. He is 14 and I think we are going to go next year for father and son elephants, and a buff for him. IIRC, his rifle weighs 8lbs and mine weighs 8 1/4lbs.


Hope the dimensions help,

JPK

JPK,
The height of comb and heal on your Dakota is similar to the Winchester Safari with its level stock. Good for the use with a scope.

Very informative! Thank you. There is a RH Dakota in 375 with the 3+1 in my local Cabela's and it shoulders rather nicely although I suspect in part it's because the cheekpiece is on the other side. At any rate, the stocks feel very good in my hand.

I've been pondering how in the world my 375H&H feels great with the express sights and my double rifle feels equally great.

It dawns on my that much of the difference in drop at comb is made up by the height of the 375H&H's sight above the bore compared to the DR. There is almost 1/2" difference.

The 375H&H would have .375" + .1875" if drop was measure from the center of the bore. that = .5623" Add the 1/2" for the taller sight and you are at 1.0623" of "drop."

When I get a chance, later this evening I hope, I will go measure the height of the DR's rib from the centerline of the bore to get comparable numbers, and then try to determine the eight of the DR and the 375's sights over the centerline of the bore.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Very informative! Thank you. There is a RH Dakota in 375 with the 3+1 in my local Cabela's and it shoulders rather nicely although I suspect in part it's because the cheekpiece is on the other side. At any rate, the stocks feel very good in my hand.

I was playing with my son's Dakota after taking photos. His is a bit shorter in LOP than mine, but it shouldered very well, for the express sights and for the scope. About as well as mine with the express sights.

Oz Hunter, I noticed with my rifle, and my son's too, that when I mounted the rifle to use the express sights, the rifle fit very well, but the butt was definitely mounted taller than when I shoulder my DR. This happened without thought.

Do you know how much drop your lovely 458wm has from comb to heel?

JPK