I recently picked up this super little small ring Mauser 7x57 at an auction but have no idea who could have built it.
Overall, it is very well done and I hope some of the styling cues may help identify whom the smith could be.

One of the first things that caught my eye is the convex edge of the cheek piece. Seems like a lot of effort to get that right.



Then, the little swath behind the grip cap - nice touch which I have seen before but just can't recall on who's work.





Nicely done butt.





The shaping around the bolt release is nice as well.





The work around the port is good but maybe the least special on the rifle.





In the metal, the bolt has been nicely shaped and checkered.





The front sight is distinctive - sort of a modified Holland & Holland theme with that little radius at the rear.





Overall inletting is quite nice too.
Not much to criticize anywhere!





Regardless of whether I discover the maker, I am super happy with the $1500 hammer price on this lovely rifle! Can't wait to get her running.

This is a George Beitzinger but I know he didn't originate that detail behind the grip. This is a 243 LR Mauser

Huvius you should go out and buy a lottery ticket after buying that rifle.

Wasn't it Tom Shelhamer who originated the piece behind the grip. I think he called it a chin strap.

Pull the action look for maker mark on the bottom of the barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Pull the action look for maker mark on the bottom of the barrel.

Nothing on the barrel but does have a Blackburn trigger.

The whole rifle looks well done.

Have you pulled the grip cap and looked under there? Have one that I couldn’t find a maker on until I pulled that off. That’s where I struck gold when I found it was built by Joe Balickie.

Don't know the builder but the stock blank looks like a Bishop. I bought a lot of them in the 80s.

Here are a few of the inletting.








I don't know what the little brass tubes are for unless they have something to do with affixing the forend tip with a jig.
They don't go through the wood or have anything to do with a sling swivel.
They don't look to be capable of putting any pressure on the barrel.

The little tang extension is interesting.

That is a Jantz safety that he sold, not one of his kits.
See the good even checkering, he had a fixture he used to mill each groove with a form cutter.

He sold those finished safeties, and his kits in the 70's and early 80's

J Wisner

Chic Worthing?

quote:

Originally posted by NormanConquest:
Don't know the builder but the stock blank looks like a Bishop. I bought a lot of them in the 80s.

Just curious, with all that custom work done what distinguishes the blank as possibly Bishop?

This stock was built with professional skills from
a blank. Not a Bishop or any other semi inlet.

I would say Tom Shelhamer. It matches every other example of Shelhamer's work I have seen.

The chin strap might say Shelhamer, but the rest not so much. Pretty sure Shelhamer had hung up his chisels by the time Blackburn triggers became available, but I could be wrong. Of course the trigger could have been changed out at some time.

Not Shelhamer. Grip to open, checkering not his, cheekpiece like no other shelhamer I have seen, does not have the brass thing on the bottom of the forend, and while he did incorporate the chin strap quite frequently, his was different than the one on this rifle.

If I had to go out on a limb, and it is a long and very flimsy limb, I'd say it looks like something Clayton Nelson might have done. He never built 2 rifles the same, but several of the features of this rifle I have seen on other Clayton rifles.

John

quote:

f I had to go out on a limb, and it is a long and very flimsy limb, I'd say it looks like something Clayton Nelson might have done. He never built 2 rifles the same, but several of the features of this rifle I have seen on other Clayton rifles.

Pretty good guess. The cheek piece is similar to the size and proportion Clayton likes. I made a template of it a few years back.

All you can get is guess and by gosh, until someone says Hey I built that one! Its a darn nice rifle..all the pros stamp their rifles and many of the part time guys and hobbyists do not, and many of them are skilled..

+1 Ray, my thoughts as well. Some very skilled people out there building rifles without the fanfare.

The radius on the back of the shroud is distinctive as well.

A direct email with photos to several well-known builders including at least 4 or 5 ACGG members at the same time may help out a lot. They know each others work.

Why anyone who makes as fine a stock as that one does not sign it is beyond me.

Whoever did it sure knew what he was doing.

Some skilled amateur stockmakers probably think it's a bit presumptuous to have a maker's stamp made to identify their work. However, it makes it hard for subsequent owners. Some makers' work can be identified from across the room, most can't be.

An older thread but it was worth another look. I would have liked to see some pics of the entire rifle.

I bought a very nice custom 300 H&H with very similar features built by a gunsmith named William Simmen from Pennsylvania. Checkering is a H&H pattern, with a convex curve on the radius of the cheek piece. Several custom rifles came out of this estate auction and were attributed to Mr. Simmen. I think his stock work was exceptional.

I will post some pictures of the Simmen rifle if someone will tell me the procedure.
The 300H&H is built on a Dumoulin action with Blackburn drop box magazine, Shilen marked barrel, open sights and Zeiss Conquest in Kimber rings. Nice bit of kit.

More of the 7X57:

The copnvex cheekpiece is not all THAT unusual...Alvin Linens books of the 1940's show such a treatment.

The holes a the fore end tip locks the dowel in place. Like wearing a belt and suspenders and likely recommended in the days of hide glues

Oerall, fine example

A very interesting rifle and appreciate the full length pics. Very nice...

Those Tally rings are out of place on such a fine rifle as that, but that is an easy fix.

quote:

Originally posted by gasgunner:
Not Shelhamer. Grip to open, checkering not his, cheekpiece like no other shelhamer I have seen, does not have the brass thing on the bottom of the forend, and while he did incorporate the chin strap quite frequently, his was different than the one on this rifle.

If I had to go out on a limb, and it is a long and very flimsy limb, I'd say it looks like something Clayton Nelson might have done. He never built 2 rifles the same, but several of the features of this rifle I have seen on other Clayton rifles.

John

I will second Clayton Nelson

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Hughes:

quote:

Originally posted by gasgunner:
Not Shelhamer. Grip to open, checkering not his, cheekpiece like no other shelhamer I have seen, does not have the brass thing on the bottom of the forend, and while he did incorporate the chin strap quite frequently, his was different than the one on this rifle.

If I had to go out on a limb, and it is a long and very flimsy limb, I'd say it looks like something Clayton Nelson might have done. He never built 2 rifles the same, but several of the features of this rifle I have seen on other Clayton rifles.

John

I will second Clayton Nelson

Or Pete Grisel

PIcture #4 shows a panel or patch on the left side under the bolt release and in front of the trigger, and nothing on the bolt side?? that should ring a bell with someone...I don't see it on the ohther side.

Not a patch Ray, slab sawn wood.

Hmmmmmm I ASSUMED IT WAS QUARTER SAWN WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION DUE TO WORKMANSHIP ETC.., SLAB SAWN VOIDS ITS VALUE TO ME.

What is the difference between slab sawn and quarter sawn??

Thanks all.

There are many builders of fine rifles out there who never marked their work. That doesn't mean that the work is lacking in any way, it just means that it was about the work and not their place in history.