Check out the scope mounts.

There are rumors that the person who paid $32K for this mint original 416 Rigby had it drilled for scope bases:

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
There are rumors that the person who paid $32K for this mint original 416 Rigby had it drilled for scope bases:

What state? I will write to the U.S. Attorney for that state and ask him to convene a grand jury to criminally charge the rifle's owner and gunsmith for mutilation of a culturally significant work.

there are people who are alive today simply because it is against the law to kill them....

Rich
DRSS

Well, i'd somehow have a scope on it, what would have been the right way? on the rigby that is. a sidemount or have integral bases made?

Red

first gun looks like a 50s vintage FN many were D&T-hopefully those wonderful bases can be removed&thrown away in the restoration.

For 32k your paying for a lot more than a functional bolt action. I think I'd have to respect its historical value and make due with the peep and express sights.

What a shame. I'm sure it's the Luddite in me, but I'm always amazed at the folks who think any rifle is completely worthless without a scope, and should be 'updated.' I grew up with only scoped guns myself but learned that our elders did indeed know a thing or two about guns and hunting.

Irons are sturdier, vastly more reliable, faster, easier on up-close-and-personnal shots and just as good out to 200yds or so, where 98% of hunting takes place anyway.

I think folks who insist super long range (you define it) shots are necessary speak volumes about their skill without realizing it. Before anyone gets up in arms about hunting 'out west', I lived there and also north of the tree line for years. Prairedogs, pronghorns, sheep, sure, game suitable for a 416 Rigby, you're joking.

I've always thought that one of the main reasons new DR owners rave with the enthusiasm of the recently converted is (2nd shot and reliability aside) that many folks have never used a properly fitted made for them rifle (DR or bolt) that shoots where you think. Put another way, every time you mount the gun the sights are already aligned and stay that way as you twist/turn/bend. A scope, single focal plane not withstanding, is slower and has more potential points of failure, in my opinion.

They quit making 90 year old Rigbys 90 years ago, and nothing in heaven or earth will let us go back and make another. Let's leave the ones we have alone, use'em the way they were intended, and maybe learn something about why they chose to make it that way, rather than change them to suit fashion. My 2 cents.

Rant off.

Bob
(For the record, 4 of my 12 are scoped)

quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:
Well, i'd somehow have a scope on it, what would have been the right way?

Buy a CZ. No need to screw up a pristine vintage gun.

The bases look well done and don't detract from the lines of the gun. The Beuhler safety is a little out of place a nice winchester style would look better. It's amazing that people become so upset with people modifying THEIR property as they see fit.

I thought from reading the heading that it was going to be a article about giving a big bore to ScottS
What a horrible thing to do to such a rifle. That's like having a walnut-stocked P-90, just a eyesore.

If someone has so much class as to mount a Weaver scope on a vintage Rigby or Holland & Holland double rifle, or have a Rembrandt repainted, then that is their business. Not mine.

quote:

Originally posted by The Metalsmith:
That's like having a walnut-stocked P-90, just a eyesore.

Couldn't hurt the looks of a P-90.

Keith

I guess I didn't catch the cost. First I wouldn't pay that much for a bolt rifle, it wasn't built for the buyer, therefore as nice as the stock is won't fit him as well as a custom made to him stock would.

If I were getting a nice custom I would want a scope on it, while some may be able to shoot great with a set of open sights I accept that I shoot better with a scope. and in low light situations a scope is superior.

Remember, while Rigby's were nice guns, and the name is huge, they are not any better than what is being produced today.

I thought the stock on the first gun was much uglier than the mounts. weren't drop boxes like that done on some original 425WR?

Red

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
There are rumors that the person who paid $32K for this mint original 416 Rigby had it drilled for scope bases:

Defines "Bubba". Six fingered yellowhammer. He should be castrated and all his kids sterilized.
--------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I good scope just makes a much more useful rifle.

What the trouble.

quote:

400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
There are rumors that the person who paid $32K for this mint original 416 Rigby had it drilled for scope bases:

Defines "Bubba". Six fingered yellowhammer. He should be castrated and all his kids sterilized.

and the gunsmith too

Unaltered custom rifles are treated the same as any other firearm that are collected. A rifle that is still like it left the gunmaker will be more valuable than a modified one. The value rapidly lowers when the work done is not contemporary to the rifle. The mounting of modern scopes on prewar classic rifles is an all too common occurrence. It’s not that a couple of hole were drilled and tapped but the bolts are bent, ground down and in many cases the stock is inletted for the new bolt profile.

We all look at and value these differently, as the man said it’s your property you can do what it as you wish. It pains me to see this but it’s a fact of life. I try to discourage this when possible and in some cases help folks with information who are trying to restore them.

One person pays a gunsmith to mount a scope and modify the rifle for it and the next owner pays a gunsmith to put it back the way it was.

The pictured rifle, a Dubiel marked rifle, which is very hard to find had all of the above things done to it. Because of the difficulty in locating a Dubiel the owner felt that the work to restore was worth it.




Let me try to put this a different way. Lets say you have a 1930 Bob Owen Springfield that’s valued at $5000. You spent $500 for a new scope and mounting, the bolt bent and the stock inletted for it. You now have a $2500 rifle.

quote:

Modern wing safety, Modern Timney adjustable trigger, Talley 30MM detachable rings with Double shouldered Talley scope bases, They are detachable with an allen wrench, Barrel recoil lug with a screw tiedown in the forend, Birmingham nitro proved at 18.5 tons per square inch, Extended deep magazine box that is so typical on many Westley 425 bolt guns, The magazine holds four cartridges down and one in the spout, Sporter stock with a 13 3/4" L.O.P. over a [/b] 1" Decelerator pad, 9 lbs. 4 oz. The rifle is a modern post-1954 gun with a modern FN Mauser action and was used with modern ammo; hence the bore remains excellent with sharp rifling. The former owner has successfully used the rifle in Africa and reports 1" accuracy on the shooting bench.

and to think it's probably a recovery vs a butchery... but buthered none the less.

well, that has to be leavened with the statement that is IS a 425 WR ... which makes this more or less a collection of parts to me

jeffe

/

More than a few of the Brits, including WR used the Buehler safety on their rifles from the fifties on.

the firearm equivalent of taking a 1922 Rolls-Royce and "tubbing" it and stuffing a blown Chrysler Hemi between the front rails! Again, I agree with Dan, buy a CZ and rework it to suit.

Rich
DRSS

Its the OWNERS choice. If thats how they want to spend their money so be it.

quote:

KSTEPHENS: Its the OWNERS choice. If thats how they want to spend their money so be it.

Just goes to show lots of money doesn't always imply good judgement and can't buy class or good taste.

I agree with Rich, if the buyer chooses to drill a rare pristine 1920's Rigby, it is the equivalent of hotrodding a vintage Rolls or Dusenburg, or repainting the Cystine Chapel.

If the buyer cannot use iron sights due to vision problems, but still wants to use a vintage rifle for nostalgia, how else would he be able to use the rifle?

George

I can't see so well myself anymore. When I shoot my rare/collectible rifles that don't have scope mount systems, I do the best I can. When I get serious about hunting, I use one with a scope.

If I purchase the painting below, but it's hard for me to see because my eyesight is not so good, it is morally proper for me to highlight it with glow in the dark paint?



I think we have an ethical duty to preserve culturally significant works for future generations.

quote:

morally proper?

that leaves alot of wiggle room.

it is like the paintings you see of the Mona Lisa with a smirk, or winking, or a mustache...you might smile at it once, but you aren't going to buy a life size lithograph and put it on your living room wall. The work done is the equivalent of one of those velvet paintings of the dogs playing poker you see for sale in the K-mart parking lots on weekends. A textbook case of money and no taste!

Rich
DRSS

I mean this in all sincerity. I don't under stand the outrage of so many over WHAT. The gun in question is supposed to be something special, but no one says what it's supposed to be. The action is a plain vanilla FN commercial action of the 50's. I bought my first one in 1952 to build a 220 swift on. This one has been changed in 4 ways I can see. The safety has been replaced with a Buehler as the original had the safety on the LEFT side ,you can see the retaining slot. I did the same with the first one I bought as I didn't like the safety on the left side and the Buehler required no machine cuts be made to install. Scope bases have been installed but as far as memory serves me all these actions came drilled and tapped for top mounts. The trigger has been replaced which I also did with the first one I bought as the factory triggers were nothing to brag about. The magazine has been extended and appears to utilize the original floorplate. The stock is really nothing to brag about either in shape or wood quality. I personally don't like this stock style myself and find the dropped magazine an unsightly projection that is offensive to style. I personally would have never bought the rifle no matter WHAT it is but if I had been able to purchase for a decent price and it was a caliber I wanted I would have no compunctions to buying it and restocking it and replacing the bottom metal with original. What puzzles me is the absolute adulation of anything British made on this forum. And the fact that if they did it that way it MUST be perfect and so you must USE it as built. I personally cannot subscribe to these attitudes myself. It's a puzzle to me.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
If I purchase the painting below, but it's hard for me to see because my eyesight is not so good, it is morally proper for me to highlight it with glow in the dark paint?

'Morally proper' is a subjective term. I'd just illuminate it using artificial means. This may be exactly what the owner of that rifle is doing for his sight picture (by mounting a scope on it).

A gun is just a tool; its primary purpose to be fired at something. This rifle was not a 'best grade' exhibition piece; it was a hunting rifle.

George

The rifle looks like a yeoman grade to me, further the shallow drop on the stock looks like it's of an amount to accomodate a scope.
The extented box doesn't appear to swing down as WRs' best grade rifles do.
I just don't see what the fuss is about.
But then this would not be the first time I've misunderstood things.

Zimbabwe summed it up beautifully. The fact that it came drilled and tapped means exactly that, it was made to accomodate a scope. If it had weaver bases, I guess I could see a bit of criticism. On lower grade rifles like this, the Brits reworked the military trigger, and having owned a few, they were adequate, but nothing to brag about, who sees the trigger anyway? As to the safety, I have seen Buehlers on several WR and one H&H that the high grade dealers swore were factory. One thing about it, there is NOTHING on this gun that cannot be easily changed out to put it back to original condition if the owner so desired, its not hacked up or ground down. This rifle looks like a game dept. type rifle with a minimum of frills and was probably bought cheap when ammo for it dried up. All this outrage seems to me to be "Much ado about nothing"

My "fuss" is about the second rifle, the 416 Rigby. I think Alf is right about the first rifle (the 425 Westley), likely a 50's vintage that probably came with the scope bases.

But the second rifle should never have been drilled, if rumor is indeed fact. It is one of only a few legendary early Ribgy 416s made on a #20 Oberndorf, very very rare in that condition, maybe one-of-a-kind. For someone to dish out $32K and then drill it is beyond my comprehension, like buying the Mona Lisa then touching it up to one's own liking. Still MHO.

the dubiel no 509 is a rare, intact, and kind of minty piece...

the 425 shown OBVIOUSLY has had dents lifted, recheckered, and refinished....

it's a working rifle, and I don't hold it in huge regard unless it was owned by a fanous hunter....


in this case, it's story is worth more than it's condition... to me.


it's not a cistine chappel, more like a rockwell signed print

jeffe

If some one has had the Rigby drilled and tapped then I too think it would be a shame, but that is an if, let us not get carried away.

Just like any antique you should never re-finish or modify a collectible piece. It is permitted to restore it only when absolutely necessary. Anything else detracts from the value.

I can't believe I wasted this much time reading this.

this just goes to prove there are some people with more money than brains.

quote:

The rifle is a modern post-1954 gun with a modern FN Mauser action and was used with modern ammo;

The only thing of value on this gun is the stampings from WR. Besides that, it is the same action as found on any Husquarna 640, and a lousy piece of wood. To pay more than 2K is somewhat silly - more than that is just for the stamping.

There is no reason not to put a scope on a gun like that, and I would rather have Talleys than than the hohum H&H sidepatent.

The pictured Rigby at 32K is quite another story!