I think a number of these comments miss the obvious. Are modern custom rifles better than they once were? Yes, technology and experience ensures they will, all else being equal. Would this mean that a modern, high-end custom Mauser, would actually be better than something like an old Rigby Mauser? Yes, almost certainly I'd have though. But that misses the point. Many modern customs Mausers aren't much better than Rigby knock-offs, and the ones that aren't knock-offs (IMO) just tend to look sort of odd and poorly proportioned in any event. It was British firms like Rigby that set the standard and pattern for what a good, high quality Mauser sporting rifle should be. And because they got it so right, people still build essentially the same pattern rifles to this very day. That is why a Rigby remains special whereas some other builder, arguably producing a higher quality product, isn't.

And then there's the comparison between custom rifles and good quality factory jobs. Yes, the factory rifle will do anything the custom rifle will do and sometimes more. But again, that misses the point. The custom rifle is built to your specifications and taste. You get to decide how the rifle will be fitted-out and finished not some bean counter in the upstairs office of the factory. And guess what, if that fit and finish is done to a high quality its probably going to cost you an arm and a leg.

quote:

Many modern customs Mausers aren't much better than Rigby knock-offs, and the ones that aren't knock-offs (IMO) just tend to look sort of odd and poorly proportioned in any event. It was British firms like Rigby that set the standard and pattern for what a good, high quality Mauser sporting rifle should be. And because they got it so right, people still build essentially the same pattern rifles to this very day. That is why a Rigby remains special whereas some other builder, arguably producing a higher quality product, isn't.

I admire orig. pre-war Rigby rifles, but I don't consider other more recent bespoke brands like Hartmann & Weiss,
as being any less special.

H&W founder did his time at Purdey [as did his master gunmaker, Peter Nelson] and around 1980,
H&W began producing true examples of Magnum mausers actions, like those ordered by Rigby, very early 1900s.
H&W have also engineered improvements to the orig. British designs they have copied[ie; H&H side lock]

Paul Roberts of Rigby, used a Spanish double gun maker[Arrizabalaga] and marked the rifles with both names.
The barrels themselves came manufactured from Austria.

>>>I have long wondered who ACTUALLY designed an English rifle <<<

I think the British tended to draw attention away from the basic designs since they did not DESIGN or manufacture the basic bolt guns except in the case of Lee Enfields.

You see that their attention was in stocking and the various dodads that embellished the basic rifle.

So it was always about fit of the stock to the owner, engraving , finish and sights.

SR4759, I think you sell the English short.

One of the differences between the British and the Germans, for example, at the beginning of the 20th Century was that the former had an empire while the latter didn't, or at least, not one to speak of. Some years later the National Socialists would attempt to remedy this situation, in Eastern Europe, but that's another story. Anyway, so in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries the Germans developed rifles for stalking European game (deer, pigs and chamois etc) while the British (who shot deer and pigs as well of course) also developed rifles to deal with the game being encountered in their colonies - creatures like tiger, lion, Elephant, Rhino etc. It is largely for this reason that the rifles that evolved during this period,for the hunting of dangerous and African plains game, were predominantly British in design. These rifles were typically doubles at first, but as the 20th C dawned, the new bolt action repeaters came into vogue. The most reliable and versatile of these, both then and now, is of course the Mauser 98, and that is the action that was typically used in the best of the British rifles. Mauser actions have remained the obvious choice for sportsman and have been copied extensively since - the Springfield 03 being one example and the Winchester "controlled feed" being another. Copied but never bettered I should add.

quote:

Originally posted by lonewulf:
SR4759, I think you sell the English short.

One of the differences between the British and the Germans, for example, at the beginning of the 20th Century was that the former had an empire while the latter didn't, or at least, not one to speak of.

It must not be forgotten that the Germans did have places like Tanganyika, German South west Africa, Rwanda, Cameroon,Part of New Guinea est up until the early teens of the 1900s thus providing plenty of reasons to manufacture suitable big game rifles for their Empire.

Yes Oz, the Germans did have some overseas territories but relative to the British they had very little. And of course, they were late to the party in the first instance and then lost it all after the First World War.

Wow !

I have learned a lot about high end watches. I buy a Timex Expedition and wear it until it's so beat up that it's hard to read (still works fine) < 50 bucks every 5 years.

As for Fords and prancing Horses, the former kicked the latter's ass at a minor little 24 hour race several times and could win it again anytime FOMOCO wanted to.

Then we have guns. The only ones really worth all the fancy wood, engraving, gold inlays and so on are the best of fine graceful small gauge side by sides. All the rest are tools and IF they work all the time every time they are all they need to be.

While I doubt few of you younger folks or few of us old farts (excluding me) have ever seen a Remington 721 F Grade (Premier) Engraved rifle. While a real piece of art, it was gilding the lily and would shoot no better nor kill anything deader than an A model. In truth it was a bit of a "painted lady" rifle.

Buy whatever you want .... just make sure it always works.

quote:

Originally posted by lone stranger:
As for Fords and prancing Horses, the former kicked the latter's ass at a minor little 24 hour race several times and could win it again anytime FOMOCO wanted to.

The question is how much of Ford was directly responsible for winning LeMans.

Ford collaborated with British Lola using their Mk6GT, as basis for the GT40.
Lola was already widely respected, w/many years of experience building world-class race cars,
-added bonus was that Lola was already running a Ford-powered car at Le Mans[1963’s Mk 6].
Ford also hired ex-Aston Martin team manager John Dwyer, to help develop the GT40.

The cars failed to finish at the Nurburgring 1000 in 1964.[under Dwyer] suspension failure lap 15
[drivers Hill & McClaren.]
and failed to finish at LeMans 1965 .[under Shelby] due to overheating problems.

The original GT40 and MK1, was prepared at the specially established, Ford Advanced Vehicles in the UK.
Abbey Panels constructed the advanced monocoque chassis.

Some winning GT40s had the unique British designed Gurney-Westlake cylinder heads.

66-67 wins were managed under Shelby.
68-69 wins were managed under John Dwyer.

Of the four straight years of wins at LeMans for Ford,
only in 67' did they have all American drivers.
All other winning gt40 drivers of 66,68,69'... were internationally sourced.
A famous one being NZ driver, Bruce McClaren,[race-car designer, driver,engineer]
Who started Bruce McClaren Motor Racing in 1963.
The superb 'McClaren F1' goes for millions $$$ more than any gt40.

All that Ford came to be at LeMans, cannot not be soley attributed to Ford,
just like all that Rigby came to be, cannot be soley attributed to Rigby.
[savy marketing saw Rigby re-badge the 7x57 to '.275 Rigby']

You can buy a 'Best Quality' english double or magazine rifle from the trade, in the UK for 30-50% what goes out a recognised shop front. The only difference is that it won't have a 'name' on the barrel.

If re-sale is of concern to you then you have to weigh up the extra cost of the initial purchase and who did the work. If bragging rights are important then cost won't matter. If you want a rifle that works then the name won't mean diddly. Of course big dick syndrome will play a large factor for some.

I agree with zim. There are far more fine craftsmen that can make a reliable rifle for a lot less outlay than exist in the shop front gun trade of the UK..

I think a number of people on high disposable incomes would prefer to go with a more costly big name,
simply bcause there is less chance of being dudded.

Remember the small fish riflemiths that at one time or another had a stall at SCI, but no longer do,
or even exist for that matter.
And the smiths that have forged bad reputations for themselves have the sense not to turn up at SCI.

The established & respected names in bespoke rifles are still there at SCI, year in - year out.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
H&H Royal double vs an AR-15

Depends on who is looking at me like I owe them money.

Well, my 115 year old Rigby .275 just killed another bull buffalo on the weekend.