What I am about to suggest may be interpreted by some as heresy, but it is just my opinion. After years of handling many G&H rifles at various shows and DSC, I have yet to find one stocked that really felt good to me. They always seem too full in the forearm and in general, about 10% thicker, overall than they need to be, to feel "alive". I am sure that they probably have made some slimmer models, maybe for the ladies, but out of the 100+ that I have handled, not one ever spoke to me. I have to admit an affinity for British rifles and shotguns, but it seems like even the Germans, with their tendency to overbuild, had a better handle on stock dimensions. Anyone else feel that way?

I can see why you might consider Griffin & Howe rifles to be "clubby", but I will continue to cherish my G&H Springfield, which has accounted for more white tails than I can remember, because it's a virtual twin of the one Hemingway took with him to Africa on that famous first safari.

Good looking rifle when it was built and looks good still.

The taste for slim vs "hand filling" is something like preference for skinny girls or voluptuous girls

Clubby is really a bad term, maybe too voluptuous is a more accurate term. The main objection that I have always had, is how it seems to have almost no taper through the fore-end. In the sporter weights , 257,270, 06, it just seems like the proportion of barrel diameter to forend thickness is a bit off. I was hoping that if Duane chimed in, he could educate me more on the reasons, if any, behind the G&H style. It is probably somewhat like a beavertail forend on a shotgun, it is more practical than a splinter, but aesthetically, the splinter compliments the lines of the gun more. Xausa, that is a very nice rifle, and I would prefer a Springfield action in a G&H, Classic American.

Well...i'ts only an opinion, but..I suspect most out fits tend to use one pattern on a duplicating machine.

I have seen well know stockmakers that have fallen into that trap. i.e. a 223 stock have the same dimensions as a 458 stock.

I hate to admit to what might be considered a desecration, but when I take it hunting now, the G&H mount wears a set of M1C rings, so that the scope is offset to the left, allowing me to shoot off the right shoulder, but aim with my left eye. A condition in my right eye prevents me from using it to aim with.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
I hate to admit to what might be considered a desecration, but when I take it hunting now, the G&H mount wears a set of M1C rings, so that the scope is offset to the left, allowing me to shoot off the right shoulder, but aim with my left eye. A condition in my right eye prevents me from using it to aim with.

I wouldn't call that a desecration at all. Without the M1C rings, you'd be the owner of a "safe queen." With the rings, you're a shooter! Better to adapt and shoot it than admire it in the gun cabinet.

quote:

Originally posted by Dulltool17:
I wouldn't call that a desecration at all. Without the M1C rings, you'd be the owner of a "safe queen." With the rings, you're a shooter! Better to adapt and shoot it than admire it in the gun cabinet.

On the contrary, I have several "right handed" rifles which I have learned to shoot off my left shoulder. I have some "safe queens", but this would not be one of them in any case.

I'm a fan of svelte. The Austrian/German style thin forend mit Schnabel. I can see the use for a thicker stock on some types of rifles (varmint, big bores) where the bbl thickness calls for it.

FWIW I own over a dozen G&H rifles and the stocks are all scaled to barrel. In some cases, varmint rifles, they carry a special extra wide stock meant for resting on a sandbag. I also own a G&H Savage 99 with a very svelte fore end. There is a distinct house style but still a custom gun.

xausa, I can relate to your 1st desire for the rifle that Papa took on the 33 safari. I likewise was enamoured by the 1903 Mannlicher for the same reason.Then after really using it I fell in love with it.The G+H is a classic rifle also.We used to see them for sale periodically in Gun Digest in their used guns but since they changed their format I think it's now a useless rag.My only purpose for that mag. was to find gun sales not read more gun articles by IMO lesser writers.

Actually, I had the rifle before I ever saw a photo of H's rifle. It was one of several G&H Springfields I acquired over the years, the rest now gone. My .400 Whelen is a Springfield (not G&H). I guess I just feel like Whelens and Springfields go together.

Ive seen a number of clubby rifles from G&H and other well known stock makers of days gone by...Its from the early 1930s into the 1940s and not uncommon at all back in the day before most of you were around..in later years stocks slimmed down a lot, thank goodness..

My guess is it has a lot to do with Crossman and Whelens influence. Both were very influential in pre-war stock styles. If you wanted them to send customers your way, you made stocks the way they said they should be made. Both were very critical of the splinters that passed for stocks on the mauser sporting rifles of the day.

John

Yes they were just the style of the time. If you read Jack O'Conners book "The Big Game Rifle" he explains it and the the more German influenced styles very well.

Yes the 300 WBY has proven itself time and time again world wide on elephant on down..Not my choice of an all around caliber, but it should be...