Hey Guys,
I figured I'd show this rifle off a bit, and hope you enjoy some of the pictures.
You can view the whole series of photos HERE!!

Really cool. Duane must have had a full head of hair when he built that one. In one of Jim Carmichael's books he made note of Duane's checkering abilities...it's on full display here.

Nice rifle!

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
He suffered a fartal heart attack a age 59

That Mexican food can be lethal for sure.

Like an old friend...aye Duane? I especially appreciate the way the checkering seems to "bend" about the underside of the pistol grip.
Stokes: Thanks for the pictorial. CB

Very nice, I love the Rem 30-S. A super nice classic big bore can be made with them just by switching the barrel and a little feed work.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
Very nice, I love the Rem 30-S. A super nice classic big bore can be made with them just by switching the barrel and a little feed work.

I was going to ask about the popularity (or lack) of the 30-S.
I have a G&H built on what I think is a 30 but am not sure how to make a positive ID of the action.

Opinions vary, but I think the machining, fit and function on the Remington Model 30's is superior to the pre-64 Winchester Model 70's.

Huvius, left side of the receiver ring is marked 30-S, unless it is scrubbed off or covered with a scope base. G&H could be a customized Enfield, either way a super nice gun I suspect.



Right side:

Here are a few pictures of my G&H.

I note the 333 G&H Super Magnum engraved on the rifle. Could someone please enlighten me about that chambering? Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by dfcjr:
I note the 333 G&H Super Magnum engraved on the rifle. Could someone please enlighten me about that chambering? Thanks

This is the only rifle in this chambering that I, or anybody else I have asked, have ever seen.
It is 375H&H based, just like the 350G&H, with a .333" bullet.
Pretty much a 334OKH but .333".

Huvius,
I'd guess your G&H was built on an Enfield.
I think that is a stripper clip cut on the rear bridge, and the mark on the bolt stop certainly reminds me of something you'd expect on a war gun.

Nice that it didn't have pond, or if it did, they filled it in such a way that you can't tell it was there.

Huvius-
I know this is an old thread, but I came across an old American Rifleman article by Dick Simmons dated January 1952 titled "Those Interesting 33s" that might interest you. He mentioned the .333 Griffin & Howe Magnum cartridge in a couple of paragraphs and stated that Griffin & Howe made the first chambering reamers and put the barrels on Magnum Mauser actions. The article also included information on the .33 Newton. I can send you a photo-copy of the article if you're interested.

Tim W.

I don't need a copy of the article, but I would like to know the issue in which it appeared. I have them all. Thanks so much. The original poster should contact Bob Beach at Griffin and Howe and find out whether his rifle has any interesting provenance.

lowgun-

The article is in the American Rifleman, January 1952.

T.W.

Remington didn't use all of the Model 1917s to build Model 30s. When I was in the Remington Archives, I found cases containing Model 1917s, brand new, never been outside of the factory where they were built.

How long ago was that? Did they have ears around the peep sight and did you happen to notice if they had government proof marks (the flaming bomb)?

I don't know what features they had, but they were full military, not Model 30s. I was last in the archives in 1999, I believe.

My 1917 Remington Enfield was built on a new unused receiver. It had no duck pond, but had the ears on the back of the receiver.

Butch,

I didn't think the Remington M1917's had the duck pond (?). That Enfield of yours I just incredible. I drool every time I see it!

Reason I ask all this is I have a Remington M1917 I assume was sporterized in probably the 20's or 30's. It has a Pacific receiver and banded front sight. The action doesn't appear to have ever had the duck pond. There is no sign of any materiel being added to fill it.

I've been contemplating to either make it into a big bore, likely a .404 Jeff, or leave it alone and restore it to its former beauty.

P.S. Sorry for the thread hijack.

I'm sorry. I'm the one that jacked the thread.

The duck ponds were abandoned in later manufacturing as an unnecessary step, I believe. - dan

It warms my heart to see that others actually like that old hammer safety and don't replace it with the hailed mod. 70...On a DG rifle you will neve miss that old Enfield safety, its always there waiting for you to kick it off, its the epitome of a DG hunting rifle safety. If you ever use one, you will always leave it on the Enfield action IMO...

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
It warms my heart to see that others actually like that old hammer safety and don't replace it with the hailed mod. 70.

I agree, Ray. I also prefer the Buehler or FN commercial flag safeties on a Mauser. I never have liked the M70 style.

I have a John Oberlies 1917 30-06 target themed sporter with heavy wood and barrel. It begs to be barreled in some heavy caliber. It is a beautiful rifle, as are most later Oberlies rifles, but not as a 30-06.

To save others the trouble of googling it, the 'duck pond' is the hole under the rear sight retaining spring.

Well, I have a little story on this gun...


I was asked earlier if I could bring a couple guns down to the local Cabelas to see if they would purchase them. Included in this lot was a Zoli O/U Double, and that fancy looking Mauser in 30'06 & 22LR.

I figured if I was going to drive down there and talk with the mouth breathers, I'll bring a few extras with me as well. My experience with Cabelas is that they'll offer you next to nothing 90% of the time, but then come at you with so much money on one that it keeps you coming back for more abuse.

I threw this 375 on the pile and brought it down. They literally took 2 hours to appraise and prepare offers on five guns. I guess they were perplexed. It should also be noted, that this Cabelas is just down the road from Mr. Weibe, maybe they've heard of him before.

My offer came back. $430. They figured it was a $650 gun, and they'd pay me two thirds. After much deliberation, I have decided I'd hold onto it a while longer.

That was an insulting offer by know-nothing "gun experts". Consign it with someone reputable like Steve Barnett, Cook & Winston, Hallowell, etc. or list it yourself on GI.

I'm not actually ready to sell it yet.
I brought it because I was going down anyways, and figured it might be fun to see. If they came back with an over the top offer, I'd probably take it, but even a fair offer wouldn't have gotten it out of my hands.

All in all, their offers were terrible.

What did Wiebe use for bottom metal? Are you able to post any pictures of this detail out of the stock? Wondering if mag box is separate or integral? How does it feed? Ron

Lon Paul reshaped and finished a sporterized pawn shop bargain Enfield I found years ago and Danny Pederson rebored it to 9.3x62 and it has evolved into a pretty classy Alaskan working rifle. I like and retained the cock on closeing feature as well as the Enfield safety.

It has aquired the name "The Pig" due to the Steinbeck comment about not being able to make a race horse out of a pig - but you can make a very fast pig.





The stock was already shaped for the dog leg bolt handle and I think Lon did a remarkable job of blending in the longer and straighter bolt handle.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
My 1917 Remington Enfield was built on a new unused receiver. It had no duck pond, but had the ears on the back of the receiver.

But Butch, but that ain't no pig !!!

Thanks Phil, I'm kinda proud of it.

I've always wondered what specifically has to be changed to make that 1917 reset on the opening like the mauser.

Phil,

That Lon guy does some passable work. I'm helping a client get a couple of Lon's creation ready for Africa and they are nice in function and finish.

Mark

Mark, you are correct that Lon knows what he is doing. As I said, the Pig started out with what was probably a Fajen, or some other aftermarket, 1950ish factory stock with a high rollover cheek piece and flared pistol grip.
I had originally considered chambering it to 375 H&H but wasn't sure how the inexpensive American walnut would hold up in the long term. It is not up to the quality of an official LP rifle - but is still a mighty fast pig.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
I've always wondered what specifically has to be changed to make that 1917 reset on the opening like the mauser.

Redesigned cocking piece and bolt cam either recut or welded then recut depending on the cp design.
Don

This rifle, an Enfield actioned .416-.300 Winchester (predated the .416 Taylor), like all of my other Enfield sporters, has a Dayton-Traister cock-on-opening conversion unit, which requires no welding or otherwise altering the bolt, and yes, Ray, that is the original Enfield safety under the Hal Hartley stock.