This has always interested me for a bunch of reasons. Now of course some makers hunt, and some don't. Some have done it extensively all over the world. But I find it interesting none the less.

With apologies to D'Arcy I am posting this link to his blog. I enjoyed reading it. I'm interested in what others prefer as well so feel free to add what you prefer or know.

http://echolsrifles.blogspot.c...01/given-choice.html

Very clean looking rifle.

The one thing I prefer on rifles are 1" scopes. 30mm scopes always seem to overpower the rifle, especially wood stocked ones.

I have always thought (with the exception of benchrest rifles) all rifles should have iron sights to be complete. This is irrelevant of caliber or purpose.

Most likely he is so busy turning out rifles for others, he would borrow a rifle from a friend, because he does not have time to build one for himself.

Jim

I agree with most of what he said.
But I do not like that ugly assed German scope.
It looks like something from Frankenstein's lab.

I personally prefer European or English styling on bolt rifles, more like those made by Martini, Wiebe, etc. but to each his own.

This thread illustrates why one person will gravitate to one gun maker and another person will gravitate to some one else. The good news is that there are gun makers that do practice their craft with a focus on different styles. I tend to prefer the look and feel of the English bolt guns which Duane's style more epitomizes. One thing not mentioned in the article was a cheek piece preference. I would prefer a rifle without a cheek piece. Whether you pick Duane, D'Arcy or some of the others, the one thing you can be sure of is that you will end up with a fine, heirloom quality piece.

I can't imagine a dangerous game rifle without iron sights, especially when hunting elephant (the proper way). That's a good way to get stepped on.

I can't help but think of the barefoot children of the proverbial cobbler... unfinished guns, rusty, unsportertized surplus military rifles, etc...

The good news is that, within reason,
either of these guys will build it the way YOU want it.

Here are a couple of Echols Classics in 505 Gibbs. They have swept back bolt handles and apparently haven't wrapped any knuckles yet. It also looks like D'Arcy uses aluminum for more than just pillars!

Yep, with a properly designed stock the swept back bolt handle will not hit a finger. The top rifle is my .505 Gibbs, after several hundred rounds I have not had a single incident.

Bryan

No real answer as different hunting techniques require different rifle types.

But I am in line with Echols.

I don't free hand and use a rest/sticks so the longer/less tapered (North American hunter) type stock works best for me.

I only use iron sights on .22 LR and lever (brush guns) and as backups on DGRs. No open sights on open range cartridges.

The 90% between the ears prefers the pillars/accurizing stuff.

Abstain on the bolt- never been an issue for me.

Bluing is very much environment dependent. Alaska tends to fuck up all bluing. Cerakote, has held up pretty good. Other conditions- rust vs caustic abstain (blonde v brunette)

Actually, Alaska only mucks up bluing done poorly or not taken care of. Same with wood stocks. My daughter, a friend of mine, and I spent two weeks hunting on the coast in South-Central Alaska with guns that Duane Wiebe built. The weather was a bit sporty, and we were literally feet from the ocean, with salt spray most days. Coated the metal with paste wax before the hunt, and wiped the guns down at the end of each day. No rust and no detectable shift in point of impact. Maybe a tad more care required than with plastic and stainless, but the daily care took less than five minutes. My experience hunting for 10 days in the Brooks Range is similar. My point is, get what appeals to you, and just understand how to care for it.