Jack Haugh was considered to be one of the best custom gun makers ever. Those who know his rifles generally agree he could do it all at the highest level--stock making, metal work, engraving, everything. One of his custom bolt actions will be in the October 30 Cowan's auction. It's a 9.3X64 on a Mauser 98 action. It's got a Kahles scope and is in a Huey oak and leather case. For the online catalog Google "Cowan's Auctions," then click on "Upcoming Auctions," "10/30 Historic Firearms...," "View Lots" and go to Lot Number 407 on page 14. The photos are excellent.

Nice rifle , As is all of Jack's work .

Here's a link....

https://www.cowanauctions.com/...ser-98-rifle-3269846

Nice rifle but I don't understand the leaf sights set at 50 100 and 150 yards.

I suppose one could say that irons are good up to 150 yards and that's about it?? I think they are better than that, but most folks would not use them by choice beyond 150 yards and probably 100..That's my guess anyway..

Out to 150 one leaf would be just fine.

A leaf sighted just high at 100 well take care of anything from close to 150 easy.

I'd bet not a hand full of shooters on the planet actually use those leaves nowadays.

They LOOK cool!,...and probably was what the client wanted.

quote:

They LOOK cool!,...and probably was what the client wanted.

Your probably right the cool factor is a must on a custom.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Nice rifle but I don't understand the leaf sights set at 50 100 and 150 yards.

I am thinking your comment is based on the usefulness, or not, of standup leaves set at such short distances as opposed to just comment on multi stand ups in general. The typical British 'safari' sight with four stand ups had them set in 100yd intervals out to 500yds which may have had some practical use in some circumstances.

As some have posted, it's the cool factor rather than any practical use just as fancy wood, oak and leather gun case, engraved rings, floor plate, et al, have no practical use either for hunting whereas a strong plastic stocked plain blued rifle with original Weaver steel band rings and a foam filled plastic gun guard case would do the job and probably do it better
Funnily enough the latter is what I hunt with today and to be honest, all the money in the world wouldn't change that.

But that is a nice custom '98 to look at.

What's your point?

eagle27, I have to agree with you as to the utility of oak and leather cases and engraving. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with getting a little fancy for fancy's sake. Just look at what some people are doing to dress up their iPhone.

However, A properly done traditional rust blue/black will out perform any "plain blue". For example, I took a 1927 H&H manufactured rifle to Alaska where it remained wet for over a week, in rain and in and out of the tent. The British black did not rust one iota, not even under the scope mounts. Any rifle I have ever used with the sort of blue you get in a consumer grade rifle would never have stood up to that abuse. There are many gunmakers in the US and other place who use the old, labor intensive, rust bluing methods . They don't just do it for "cool factor". Yes, it does cost more. Some may not want to pay the price but you do get what you pay for.

Regarding wood, you are partly correct. Plastic and epoxies (different plastics) are inexpensive, light, and resist the elements better than wood. A few are stronger than a good equally sized, walnut stock but, contrary to what we are led to believe, many are not. Sometimes, depending on the rifle and caliber, a synthetic stock is too light and has to be both weighted and reinforced. I shoot rifles with synthetic stocks and rifles with wood stocks. One thing I keep in mind while in the woods is rattle and the extra noise that comes from synthetic stocks when I carry them through branches and thickets. A big advantage to wood is that it can be made to customer's specific measurements and can be cut to length and fitted with all sorts of butt plates and pads. What would happen if you tried to bend a synthetic stock to fit? Cut or drill into a synthetic stock and...... The biggest advantage to mass produced synthetic stocks is that they are inexpensive. However, the best custom synthetic stocks are far from inexpensive. Another thing worth mentioning is longevity. A wood stock will last centuries. Plastics, all plastics, eventually break down. It may take many decades but even the most expensive plastic stock will not be in usable shape a century from now. That shouldn't matter to any of us unless we might be interested in acquiring a nice old rifle built 75 or 100 years ago or unless we want to pass something on to our children and grandchildren. So, regarding stock material, it is not all a matter of aesthetics. There are real, tangible advantages and disadvantages to both plastics and wood.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
What's your point?

Just agreeing the cool factor is valid, not everything on a gun has to be there to enhance the actual hunting value although like p dog shooter I do wonder why such short sighting distances on the standup leaves. Almost think they were made for a rimfire or small short range centrefire cartridge. Could still have the cool factor but also more practical I guess if they were 200, 300 and 400 ranged standups.

I think we miss something when we wonder why any custom gun has this or that feature. These are "Custom guns". The maker made what the customer wanted and didn't take a poll to see what everybody else thought of it.

I know very few really rich gunmakers. If a customer wanted... whatever... and was willing to pay for it, that's what he got.

I'm proud to say that Jack was a good friend and easily one of the most talented gunmakers ever. How many stockmakers do you know who are good engravers?

(Jack also had a hollow leg when drinking my single malt.)

There ain't never gonna be another.

quote:

Originally posted by Dick Wright:
I think we miss something when we wonder why any custom gun has this or that feature. These are "Custom guns". The maker made what the customer wanted and didn't take a poll to see what everybody else thought of it.

I know very few really rich gunmakers. If a customer wanted... whatever... and was willing to pay for it, that's what he got.

I'm proud to say that Jack was a good friend and easily one of the most talented gunmakers ever. How many stockmakers do you know who are good engravers?

(Jack also had a hollow leg when drinking my single malt.)

There ain't never gonna be another.

I don't think we miss anything, but obviously we all have enquiring minds and opinions which on a forum, especially this one, we are entitled to give freely. Everyone so far on this discussion, including myself, have expressed appreciation of a nice looking and well made custom rifle, the only query has been why the unusual short range sighting leaves on the rear sight. Jack presumably made them to suit the customer but what was the customer thinking of for a cartridge such as the 9.3x64. Seems a strange choice but there must have been a good reason, you would not normally choose such ranges for a rear sight. Possibly the owner used a sub caliber insert or shot cast bullets, we'll never know?

From the looks of the rifle, I don't believe the owner ever shot it. I think I would enjoy being the new owner and taking it for a walk... maybe break it in good and proper.

Ive owned three Jack Haugh rifels, worn one of them plumb out hunting with it before I finally broke down and sold it for a lot of money..He was the ultimate gun maker IMO..

I would not hunt with a rifle that didn't have iron sight..too many times Ive resorted to irons when a scope failed for several reasons, and the irons saved the day, but I grew up on iron sights in wide open rim rock country where shots could be long..If one thinks they are worthless then don't use them, or perhaps learn to shoot with them..

I agree one standing sighted in 3"s high at 100 yards would work just fine, but I had an English rifle that had 5 leafs, and damned if they didn't shoot to POI with each leaf..That was fun to play with, and if I just had a range finder, but no such devise was to be had back then, and I didn't really know what I had in that rifle so I sold it! oh well! I assumed they were all sighted in like that and some are, but nobody ever shoots them to find out..

I think many are missing out by not using irons, practicing shooting, snap shooting, and figuring them out..I thinks most don't really care as their priorities take presidence, and that's fine..I never had to make that dicisions, I grew up horseback almost every day and carried a iron sighted 22 or 25-35 on my horse and one or the other in my pickup most of the time..and being more inclined as a shooter than my ranching family I got into scopes and more rifles than the rest..but I never gave up on the iron sight question. I just like hunting deer for instance with iron sights, elk in the black timber, buffalo in the vugas..it my thing. Won't argue with anyone which is best, to me it depends soley on the circumstances..

Ive won many a dollar bet off hand at 100 yards me shooting irons and so and so with a scope of one kind or another, and as the scope power goes up the less chance he has of beating me at the target..I can usually beat myself with irons off hand at a 100. scopes are wigglely and one tends to grab at the sight picture as magnification can play tricks on off hand shooting...

quote:

..If one thinks they are worthless then don't use them, or perhaps learn to shoot with them..

Or perhaps one has bad eye sight that makes them worthless.

Ray you obviously have been blessed with great eyes. Like my Dad close to 20/10 he could see things others could not.

It is not a matter of not knowing how to use them for a lot of shooters but not being able to because of poor eye sight.

I use them. They work very well in fact. Out to 200 metres is no big deal.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
I'd bet not a hand full of shooters on the planet actually use those leaves nowadays.

Yup. As a kid all I ever shot was with iron sights. Now everything is blurry at 20 yds with a bow...………….

Kudos to those who can.....

quote:

Originally posted by Carlsen Highway:
I use them. They work very well in fact. Out to 200 metres is no big deal.

Genes and occupation have a lot to do with eyesight..Most gunsmiths use glasses ..and have bad backs

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):

quote:

Originally posted by Carlsen Highway:
I use them. They work very well in fact. Out to 200 metres is no big deal.

Genes and occupation have a lot to do with eyesight..Most gunsmiths use glasses ..and have bad backs

Well I qualify with the bad back and eyes.

Granted, eyesight is required to shoot irons, I thought that was understood. I still shoot them and I like doing it, My eyesight is fading but it has not hurt my shooting with irons so far.. I also like the way a rifle carries with irons as a scope adds nothing to balance IMO...

Also it depends on the size of the target, A buffalo at even 300 or so yards is in trouble with good iron sights and shooter, but a ground squirrel at 50 might be all but impossible to some. I know at some point my eyesight will take its toll, and its changing as we speak, but I will always enjoy hunting with irons as long as I can..I may have to get to be a better creeper upper!!! but hey, lots of changes start happening at my age, like another birthday every year, that's the killer!