Purhasesd this rifle by a local gunsmith in a small gun store for less than the action cost. It looks like hell but actually holds well & is a sub 1" rifle.

FN Mauser M400 Supreme action & bottom metal. Douglas barrel, Fajen stock blank.

Although Bee-hive hairdos and bell bottoms are long dead there is nothing wrong with that rifle. It is simply a matter of tastes.

because many are examples of the makers being too cute by half. being cute strictly for the sake of being cute is almost always a path to disaster. the rifles that follow the rules of art look good regardless of age. many from over 100 years ago are still appreciated, as are the 50's and 60's customs that follow the rules of art.

BTW-a lot of the "ooh's and aah's!" heard about current customs being posted on this and every other gun website are going to be laughed at in 40 years. the ones that follow the rules of art will still be liked, and the ones that break the rules just to be cute will cause side-splitting laughter, extreme nausea, or both

Nothing wrong with the metal parts! But the woodwork? Ugh!

First there is that AWFUL "leaf" type patterning. It looks harrible when done by anyone else but a German stockmaker in the early 1900s IMHO! This 1960s American pastiche of it is AWFUL.

Second the wood comes up too far on to the receiver. In my mind the stock should be level with (or just a fraction above) the bottom of the bolt release. But no higher. Form should follow function. If it doesn't it is pointless.

Third, and some British rifles have this too, what's with that AWFUL "horse's hoof" style cap on the bottom of the pistol grip? It just looks ridiculous!

Fourth. Get rid of that stupid white line spacer and that mock forend tip. Just plain silly!

Other than that the rifle is fine. And the stock? Just a few little bits here and there with a woodworking file and I think that it would look good.

To my mind that is why John Browning's pistol, rifle and shot gun designs still look "right" as they are wholly functional.

Don't like:

white line spacers
skip-line checkering
angled forend tip


Like or will tolerate:

brush-hook grip cap (I don't like the looks but it's VERY ergonomic!)
Monte Carlo comb (see above)
action
chambering

Regards, Joe

I never knew the 60's styling was sooo awful until I started hanging out on the internet. I actually like going to the gunstore and finding a classic from back then. White lines or not, I think that they have a neat look all their own. I even like inlaid diamonds.

somewhere long ago i read an old gunsmiths reply to a youngsters question of what kind of rifle he thought he should build. the old guy said something like - learn to build classic ones, by the time your client will be able to afford a custom built rifle, he will be old enough for his tastes to become classic

I've found some great buys in rifles like that over the last few years. In this case, there's a great looking stock under there. Cut off the tip and cap. Get rid of the butt plate. Glue on some ebony and screw on some blued steel. Rasp off the comb and trim down the stock till the checkering and carving are gone. It's a lot of work but not much money except for new checkering. I've done it several times, and you can end up with a really nice rifle for less than the cost of an action and a good stick of wood. It makes a great first project for someone who doesn't want to jump right in to inletting, and is also a good way to get a hands on feel for the effect of shape changes in stocking.

Years ago I found an Enfield that had been re-done in the 60's style with rollover cheekpiece, teardrop pistol grip, whiteline spacers and light colored wood finish, but there appeared to be enough wood to allow a good stockmaker room to remodel it. So I sent it off and he turned it into this

It was the time of Roy Weatherby, Harry Lawson, Frank Pachmyer and others....Hollywood, glitz, big money, and loud styling. Times have changed to the older, more traditional styles, but like Phil and Art above have mentioned, the components and craftsmanship may be there...just need a bit of "styling down" to convert it to a mondern and traditional work of gun-art.

The only thing I dont like about that rifle is the cutsie shaping just above the trigger. Otherwise it was well done, for '60's stuff.

I enjoy looking @ those kind of rifles, but havent found one intriging enough for me to lay cash down for.

I would keep it just as it is. The spacers are minimal and the 60's "gaudiness" is overcome by a nice piece of wood. Unlike Rub-line I dont like inlaid diamonds at all, way too gaudie.. But full disclosure, the nostalgia nut in me actualy likes the skip line checkering..

Kind of like some of the old millsurp rifles, you have a piece of history, enjoy it for what it is..

What it it chambered for?

243 win. If I keep it I'll rebarrel it to 25'06,270 or 30'06.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Years ago I found an Enfield that had been re-done in the 60's style with rollover cheekpiece, teardrop pistol grip, whiteline spacers and light colored wood finish, but there appeared to be enough wood to allow a good stockmaker room to remodel it. So I sent it off and he turned it into this

Like you, I search for these outdated rifles. There is little demand so generally exceptional actions go totally unnoticed. Makes for some great bargains.

Nice overhaul by the way.

The '60s stock style was a fad, mainly promoted by Roy Weatherby.

Kind of like the big Caddys from the early to mid-'60s with fins on the rear quarter panels.

Somehow, though, an early '60s Cadillac Coupe de Ville is a classic, but a rifle like yours from the same era is the embodiment of bad taste.

Go figure.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
The '60s stock style was a fad, mainly promoted by Roy Weatherby.

Really did Roy start that or did he do a take off on something that was already trendy at the time?

Harry Lawson ran those style cues as high up as anyone....eeeech! And yet a friend I have buys just about every reasonably-priced Lawson rifle I find for him. I'd quit hunting if those were the only rifles available out there! About as attractive as Rosie O'Donnell in a G-String.

Well, I began this "road to riches" in 1966. Right in the middle of rollovers, question mark gips , multi colored spacers and flower de lillies checkering.

While puking my way through many an early job...I had three kids and a mortgage to deal with. You want a blue suit?..shit..I'll turn on the blue lights!

And...that's just the way what it was!

Duane, the real question is - what would it take to have you make one today?

Jeez...this thread is really getting in up to its neck in muddy water.

Which is more tasteless?...giving the public what it wants, well executed? Or telling it what it should want when the "Teller" isn't the one footing the bills or using and living with the product?

The artist can make his OWN rifle anyway he wants. He even gets to do it using the money the customer provides as pay and profit. But is he really in a position to substitute his tastes for the customer's, the guy (or gal) who makes it ALL possible?

He might like to be, but as the old saying goes, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Personally, I still like the well done examples of EVERY style of rifle fashion.

To me what separates true beauty from individual taste is rifle performance in the field. If they handle well, shoot well, are safe, and help me get my game, who am I to say, "Well, what a POS...look at that white-line spacer!"

They are tools! I don't criticize a lathe tool because the clearance angle isn't exactly 7 degrees, or any other degree. What I want to know is, "Is the sucker sharp? Is it sturdy? How well does it cut? Do chips break off short and fall away clear?" If yes on all counts, I'll probably like using it.

Well, I hope in 2060 they're all laughing at all the "McSwirly" McMillans you see on the internet these day's.

This generation is guilty of bad taste too and just doesn't know it yet!

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
The '60s stock style was a fad, mainly promoted by Roy Weatherby.

Really did Roy start that or did he do a take off on something that was already trendy at the time?

I don't know if Roy started the style, but he was in on it from the beginning and played a huge role in promoting and making it popular.

Weatherby rifles, with their geometric stock inlays, Monte Carlo combs, large forward-sloping cheek pieces, flared grip caps, skip line checkering and reverse angled fore end tips, were used by all the Hollywood types (including Roy Rogers and John Wayne), and many of the "celebrity" hunters of the day.

But I agree that Harry Lawson went even farther down the road with the "California" stock style than Roy Weatherby ever did.

One might say that Lawson "perfected" that style, if that's not a contradiction in terms!

My favorite all time stocker was Dale Goens. I fell in love with the first classical stock of his I saw while in college in 1968.

Years later, I happened to pick up an older gun digest from the late 50's, I believe, and almost dropped it when I saw a stock he had done earlier that made Lawson's appear Victorian. As stated, people who work for money do what they are paid for. They still do it with a lot more skill than the rest.

Styles come and go in people's choise as do guns, cars, clothes, and women. Anthony Guyman was one of the most modern stockmaker in the '50-'60. I have made some of his styles, but don't have pic's of the time.

As Duane mentioned he had to feed the family and you make what the customer thought he wanted. Some seem to think all people like classic styles. Stockmakers don't start at the top of the classic line, but grow into that style as we get older.

I have snap shots of guns when I started over 50 yrs ago. Being retired I have time to look over the past and can post these stocks for all to see. I would hope others would show how they progressed over the yrs.
Weatherby style mauser which I used to kill my largest whitetail in '64

Les

Around the late '60 I have made several styles




Here comes the '70's


Now the classic of the late '80's

Along with the California style of the 60's and today's conservative clasics we can also throw in a truck load of pimped out AR's.

Canuck is right that so long as it is well done it should stand the test of time; whether it's a Turkish matchlock, Italian wheel-lock, German arquebus, English fowler, American longrifle, English Best, Roy weatherby or Harry Lawson's finest or the next offering from the guild.

The world is so full of a number of things
I'm sure we should all be as happy as Kings

Just an added thought....

The reason for custom guns is to make the owners happy. If the 'smith and the stocker accomplish that, then combined with top quality workmanship, I think they've done what they're are in business for: Producing Top Quality Guns.

(It doesn't matter if no one else likes it now or in the future. If the owner is made happy and the makers have the opportunity to display their skills, that's what counts. It really isn't anyone else's business anyway.

Case & Point



it ain't pretty and I've been told that they probably wouldn't let it in the door at the guild show, but I love it.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Case & Point



it ain't pretty and I've been told that they probably wouldn't let it in the door at the guild show, but I love it.

Point well made! Somehow, I find both your rifle and that bear skull pretty impressive. What is the rifle? And where/when did you get that bear?

The 60's were a great time. As you can tell from these rifles most gunsmiths and even Roy were high most of the time!

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Although Bee-hive hairdos and bell bottoms are long dead there is nothing wrong with that rifle. It is simply a matter of tastes.

Exactly. It is just fashion and I'll bet it still kills the same today as it did then.

I totally agree with AC about what custom guns are all about what the client wants.

but that is not what the original point of this thread is about. these are two seperate issues

i believe someone paying for a custom gun should get just what they want. someone, somewhere, will build any gun, regardless of how rediculous it is.

but a gun that is rediculous today will be laughed at in 40 years and the person who orders it should not be worried about people laughing to his face even today. again, guns that follow the rules of art will always look good in any decade. as i have said many times on this site-go back and look at all of the pictures mr. petrov has shared with us. many of those old rifles still look great today. others, not so much. I doubt if the makers of the the good looking rifles knew anything about the rules of art, but they had a natural eye for it. they had no idea that they were following the rules, but they were. it is everywhere around us, both in nature and in man-made items.

if you make a rifle that viloates these rules just for the sake of being cute, you will own a laughing stock. but if that is what you want then that is what you should get. these are two completely different topics that have gotten twisted up into one thread and have nothing to do with the original post. the original post asked why we laugh at rifles as shown at the top of the thread. we laugh because soemoen built a rifle that violated the rules of art just for the sake of being cute.

and i go back to what i said in my original post-a lot of the "oooohs!" and "aaaaahs!" shown her eon ar and every other gun board will be excellent fodder for a hardy laugh in a few years. hell, people are laughing at them today, or at least just shaking their head.

skunk out

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:

I totally agree with AC about what custom guns are all about what the client wants.

but that is not what the original point of this thread is about. these are two seperate issues

i believe someone paying for a custom gun should get just what they want. someone, somewhere, will build any gun, regardless of how rediculous it is.

but a gun that is rediculous today will be laughed at in 40 years and the person who orders it should not be worried about people laughing to his face even today. again, guns that follow the rules of art will always look good in any decade. as i have said many times on this site-go back and look at all of the pictures mr. petrov has shared with us. many of those old rifles still look great today. others, not so much. I doubt if the makers of the the good looking rifles knew anything about the rules of art, but they had a natural eye for it. they had no idea that they were following the rules, but they were. it is everywhere around us, both in nature and in man-made items.

if you make a rifle that viloates these rules just for the sake of being cute, you will own a laughing stock. but if that is what you want then that is what you should get. these are two completely different topics that have gotten twisted up into one thread and have nothing to do with the original post. the original post asked why we laugh at rifles as shown at the top of the thread. we laugh because soemoen built a rifle that violated the rules of art just for the sake of being cute.

and i go back to what i said in my original post-a lot of the "oooohs!" and "aaaaahs!" shown her eon ar and every other gun board will be excellent fodder for a hardy laugh in a few years. hell, people are laughing at them today, or at least just shaking their head.

skunk out

Okay, for the moment I'll buy part of that argument.

The fact is, what some of us apparently now consider ridiculous and assume was done just to be cute was not done to be cute at all.

The '50s and the very early '60s were when the great bulk of common men in the U.S. really began to use cartridges more powerful than the .30-30, 30-40 Krag, and .30-06 for DEER hunting. (And deer hunting was what the vast majority first bought or otherwise acquired their "big game" rifles for.)

Much as Joe Regular bought into the hunting magazine tales of increased performance and magic, certain, kills at 400 yards and beyond, written by our elite "sportsmen" he DIDN'T deeply consider the increased recoil until he started to experience it.

It was in response to that recoil that the forward tilted and rollover combs arose among custom and semi-custom makers (Weatherby, for example). Flared pistol grips, like the earlier Wundhamer "swells", were there mainly to help the shooter shoulder the rifle properly and hang onto the gun during recoil.

Post WWII was also the first period of both peace and a good economy after the Great Depression. The depression didn't really end until the full employment brought on by the war. (As late as 1936 my dad was getting $0.25 per DAY at the only job he could find out here in the desert. We were all amazed during the war when one of my uncles, working as a welder in the shipyards at Long Beach, Calif, was hired at $40 per WEEK. One could eat on 75 cents per day, as bread was $.07 per loaf sliced, $.05 per loaf unsliced, but they didn't eat well unless they raised chickens, had a garden, planted fruit trees, that sort of thing, at home.

I know. I ate an awfully lot of squirrels, possums, racoons, rabbits (including wormy Jacks), doves, and robins. Eventually, we could raise our own hog, dates, oranges, apricots, chickens, turkeys, pigeons, and had a cow, all in what is now downtown Phoenix, but it was a tough row to hoe.

Anyway, with money in their pockets after 20 years without any, folks wanted a little decoration on their guns after so long of being not even able to afford more shells than what they could trade for to get to hunt badly needed protein for the table. Often they didn't have a LOT of money yet though, so they had to convert bone ugly military rifles, fresh from the abuse of the battlefields, into something at least a bit nicer.


They also wanted others to know they were now a person of substance, rather than a jobless, homeless, drifter like so many of us were during the dust bowl aftermath. So they wanted their rifles (and everything else) set aside from run of the mine factory rifles in appearances. Hence carving, contrasting forend tips, white-line spacers, etc.

Those guns are not things to view with ridicule. They are things that tell of the resilience and the pride of survivors. People who built the things that won the war, and survived fighting in it. They also survived the arrogant stealing from the people by major corporations which we are now suffering from again as a result of all the International Free Trade bullshit which has destroyed our industrial base.

As such they are American icons, both the guns and the people.

What I think is ridiculous is people who are so ignorant of our past and our spirit that they can't understand how life developed, and how certain styles of goods came into being, in our wonderful land.

Those who don't KNOW AND APPRECIATE the past AND ITS ARTIFACTS will not have much of a future.

My view. YMMV.

I was hoping that some of the ones which know the rules of the art of guns would post some of their pictures. I posted some of my early days making stocks. I took snap shots with my 35 mm camera for my own use and to create a scrap book. Some early stocks were not my best, but I admit that I made them with the pictures. Working as a general gunsmith you only have time for 2 or 3 stocks a year.

Now with the PC's and the internet you have a source of material which can help anyone learn the art of stockmaking.
Show me the written rules and when they were written. So let us see your work!!! Be proud of your work and don't hide behind an unknown name to cover internet posts.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
What I think is ridiculous is people who are so ignorant of our past and our spirit that they can't understand how life developed, and how certain styles of goods came into being, in our wonderful land.

Those who don't KNOW AND APPRECIATE the past AND ITS ARTIFACTS will not have much of a future.

"Ignorance" is kind of a bad word for what may be a simple lack of opportunities to learn. We can only know and appreciate the past when an elder takes the time to share. I have never heard that perspective explained as you have above, and I now view things differently as a result. Thanks AC, for taking the time to give us the old-timers view from one who has obviously been there...

Doesn't mean I like that style any more now, just that I understand!

I wish someone would write down these 'rules of art' and an explanation or interpretation of them for me. I am a reasonably well educated person with a BS from a good University. I own half a dozen or so oil paintings by Hugh Cabot who is a fairly well known artist (since deceased) who I knew personally ( he loved to shoot shotguns). I also own quite a few nice prints by various well known artists. I like Monet and can appreciate somewhat Rembrandt but Picasso is a joke of great expense and if Andy Warhol is an eminent artist then so be it. So what is 'art'? I really want to know and just exactly WHO sets the standards. In photography they have certain 'composition' rules but many of the finest photographs I have seen violate these rules. I took a course from Ansel Adams once and he couldn't explain what made a good photograph other than he knew what it was before he took it. Such was his famous 'Moonrise' picture. Is it 'art'? Someone once said art is in the eyes of the beholder and that probably comes close to fact. It's like one of the eminent supreme court justices said about smut 'I know it when I see it'. Most people on here seem to think some rifles are what?, more attractive,why? better made,why?. Where do we draw the lines-- it can't be expense as I have heard VERY expensive firearms dinigrated on here. So it has to be the name I suppose and that somehow comes about by magic. I really wish someone could explain it to me.

There are no rules when it comes to art...

There are some 'rules' of stock design that satisfy the eye but they can be applied to most any style. I think Tom has a very nice semi-custom rifle that follows the rules quite well, he will enjoy for a long time.

Actually, Weatherby's stocks were somewhat modest compared to some. And his stocks were indeed designed for practicle shooting, the high Monte Carlo helped position the eye and it's forward slope greatly reduced cheek slap in recoil. The tight curl pistol grip with a Wunderhammy swell did, and still does, help the shooter hold onto a stout recoiling rig. The flat bottom, nearly flat sided forearm certainly helps reduce rifle cant and helps the stock sit more securely on most improvised rests in the field; that trapizoid shaped forend would have looked silly with a round tip on a square cut.

It was never my taste but why well done basket weave checkering and floer-de-lies patterns with ribbons are supposed to be 'funny looking' today eludes me; they certainly took a lot of skill to accomplish.

The "cute" stock shape above the trigger of Tom's new rifle wasn't done for looks, it was an uncommon but hopeful effort to add a tiny bit of accuracy enhancing rigidity to the stock at it's thinnest, most flexible place and the extra thickness could not be carried further back or it would have interferred with the bolt handle. The teardrop grip cap was designed to be functional with that tightly curled pistol grip, a round cap would have really looked silly in application. The appeal of contrasting stock spacers is a personal thing but you should note that Tom's spacers are not cheap white plastic, they are a soft brown wood that really looks nice in person.

All this meaning it helps to know what the hell we're talking about before we denegrate something.

Tom; That is one nicely figured piece of wood, don't mind the stock style either. If the style really bothered me a good rasping would soon fix that. However to each his own, styles and tastes change over time. Don't forget the Winslow, anyone got a pic. of one to post. --- John303.

I'm just an amateur here, have carved a few stocks. etc. Thanks to you all, esp. Alberta Canuck, for your informative posts. I will tell you one thing I've learned: A well designed rifle is a lot more than the sum of its parts. That is what separates the artisan from the amateur. My hat's off to all of the comeptent rifle builders out there. It ain't as easy as it looks.

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
What I think is ridiculous is people who are so ignorant of our past and our spirit that they can't understand how life developed, and how certain styles of goods came into being, in our wonderful land.

Those who don't KNOW AND APPRECIATE the past AND ITS ARTIFACTS will not have much of a future.

"Ignorance" is kind of a bad word for what may be a simple lack of opportunities to learn. We can only know and appreciate the past when an elder takes the time to share. I have never heard that perspective explained as you have above, and I now view things differently as a result. Thanks AC, for taking the time to give us the old-timers view from one who has obviously been there...

Doesn't mean I like that style any more now, just that I understand!

Ignorance is the correct word. It doesn't mean stupid!! It means uneducated about...unexposed to, unaware of... It does not mean "too dumb to be able to learn".

But ignorance is an individual responsibility. Those who do not take the trouble to research and learn on their own have no one to blame for being ignorant, other than themselves.

That is one of the weaknesses of the internet. Rather than doing their own research and thinking things through from causes to effects, many today think someone else should be doing all the work and just giving them the answers.

It is the bad-mouthing things they haven't taken the trouble to learn about which is dumb.

Anyway, none of that is aimed at you personally. It is a shoe that is only worn by those it fits.

Have a nice day and take care....