Cal 300H&H finished recently for the Moscow show. Engraved by Lee Griffiths. Leather pad, ebony tip, Recknagel flip over ivory bead front sight and a rather tasty stick of Turkish. Points and carrys as well as it looks. The hinge pin screw has rotated a bit, they are a male- female set up and simply needs to be un-done, realigned and re-tightened to rectify.


S07.1 by soroka07, on Flickr

Classic lines of a high grade English stalking rifle. 26" rust blued barrel, H&H flip over Ivory bead front sight.


S07.6 by soroka07, on Flickr

Beautifully sculptured trigger guard and under lever.


S07.9 by soroka07, on Flickr

S07.10 by soroka07, on Flickr

Quarter rib and standing rear sight seamlessly fitted to the barrel, mounted on integral lug machined on to barrel for additional support.


S07.11 by soroka07, on Flickr

S07.7 by soroka07, on Flickr

A beautiful piece of Turkish burl capped with a leather pad


S07.12 by soroka07, on Flickr

Gapless fit between trigger plate and receiver, all hand fitted.



S07.5 by soroka07, on Flickr

Note the seamless fit between the triggerguard and underlever, a thou or two seperate the two concave and convexed sufaces.



S07.2 by soroka07, on Flickr

The other side of the beautiful piece of Turkish...

That is a beautiful rifle. Love the stick of wood used to stock it.

Simply stunning.

Terry

Beautiful work. Congratulations.

Simply exqusite.

Getting tired of saying damn nice on these rifles...but damn thats nice!!!

That is absolutely beautiful !
Forgive me for being curious but could you tell us what the weight is as pictured ?
Again, that is awesome and Thanks for sharing.

quote:

Originally posted by D Humbarger:
Simply exqusite.

That says it all.

Thanks again for the kind words of appreciation. The rifles are coming together very well. The rifle weighs around 8.25lbs as seen in the pics.

The orders steadily arrive from different corners of the globe. It has been a very good year for our small company despite the constant cries of Crisis, Crisis, Crisis.....

Cheers

Glenn

Simply Exquisite!

Or as we Hillbillies say here in the soggy north west. . . . . . That's one fine lookin shootin iron.

Damn, that thing is right. Wouldn't change a thing. Congrats on perfectly capturing the finest essense of the old English masters.

It is hard to add to the former comments, but, very, very nice.

Jim

Phenomenal.

stunning beautiful..

Magnificent!

This is the result when the best of Mother Nature is touched by true artists.
Thanks for showing the beaut to us.

Zeke

wait, there are those amongst us who would rather see that with synthetic stocks!
that somehow a custom gun is just as custom with a cookie cutter synthetic stock.

beautiful rifle with a damn fine stick o lumber put to it. i love me some burl turkish! Got to be the prettiest stock wood in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Gun toter:
wait, there are those amongst us who would rather see that with synthetic stocks!
that somehow a custom gun is just as custom with a cookie cutter synthetic stock.

You'd be surprised how many walnut stocked customs [including Purdeys] are "cookie cut" profiled and inletted on machines.
It would not at all surprise met if the build of that Soroka rifle employed the same technique.

So they would not be a custom gun to the same degree as the gun which had its stock carved from the block all with hand tools,..correct?

quote:

So they would not be a custom gun to the same degree as the gun which had its stock carved from the block all with hand tools,..correct?

Hmmm, I think that the concept of custom and handmade are not necessarily linked. Just because it wasn't hand made doesn't mean it isn't custom. Look at the American choppers, many one off parts are CNC machine made, does that not make them custom?
Just because a stock was carved completely by hand doesn't mean that the end result will be more beautiful or as well executed does it? No, there is a VERY good chance it will not be exactly what was in mind. What about if the stock is hand carved and it looks like a dogs breakfast. Is it "custom"?

I guess one of the main reasons why Rolls Royce or Aston Martin dont hand beat each panel on their cars by hand anymore, out of sheets of steel, is because repeatability is not as consistent. And consistency in quality is the name of the game.

When the vast majority of customers, say DON'T change a thing on the stock why would you want to cut each one from the flitch by hand in this day and age? There comes a point when one has refined the design to reach an almost perfect shape and what better than to replicate that? Many want perfect replication of the perfect shape. I know I do.

Sure if someone wants something different to the standard shape we can accommodate, without issue. Many don't know what they want or what will work for them.

BTW the stock on this rifle was roughed out on a machine and then hand shaped and in-letted, thru bolt hole drilled, escutcheon fitted, for probably three days in total before final sanding started.

So bearing all the above in mind what are you trying convey? That to be more custom it has to be hand made? Or that even the most expensive makers in the world use pantograpghs? Or that you would rather have something that wasn't quite what you wanted, but was cut from the flitch by hand (making it "really custom"), rather than taking possession of something that was exactly what you wanted, but that used a machine for roughing out the stock or making the action parts? I know what I would rather have, after commissioning my "dream rifle" (20 years ago)only to have it delivered with the grip being much smaller than what I expected. Always irked me, until I sold it.

Where do we begin in our quest for a handmade "custom"rifle. Is a band saw allowed? Is a milling machine allowed? What about electricity for lighting? Where do you stop? Maybe some expect hand made tools only to be used, that were hand forged in wood forge, as were the nails that hold the bench together as was the vice that holds rifle parts. Was the saw used to cut down the walnut tree a hand made, hand saw? The only light is to be natural or maybe some sort of fire. I think that one either has to take a fairly basic and consistent approach to this question and would say, electricity or no electricity used in the manufacture. After allowing electricity into the manufacturing processs I think there is a significant amount of intellectual self indulgence ocurring, if one allows say a milling machine for roughing the inletting but not a pantograph for same.

Each to his own I guess. But in the meantime find the COMMERCIAL stockmaker in the USA that REGULARLY makes his stocks without a pantograph. I don't know of one.

I like good work no matter how it started out. I also greatly appreciate the product of the human hand and mind in both metal and wood.

Looks to me that Mr Soroka has produced an exquisitely fine rifle no matter what.

NC machined metal components seem to be generally deemed very acceptable in custom guns and rifles - I rarely see makers pissed on from a great height for using such technology, unlike so many stockmakers who use a duplicator.

If a bespoke maker started NC machining his stocks, I can well imagine the uproar. Seems like double standards to me.

quote:

NC machined metal components seem to be generally deemed very acceptable in custom guns and rifles - I rarely see makers pissed on from a great height for using such technology, unlike so many stockmakers who use a duplicator.

If a bespoke maker started NC machining his stocks, I can well imagine the uproar. Seems like double standards to me.

Extremely well put. Not only are CNC machined components acceptable they are the preferred item simply because the end product is superior. So why on earth is there any Who Ha about something as primitive as a duplictor being used to rough out a stock? Both CNC'd metal parts and pantographed stocks require a ton of hand work to finish them off.

Either the whole rifle is made without electricity or it is made with it. And if electricity is allowed then why only for metal and not wood, (in the minds of some??)

I think this perception is generally held by those that dont have any clue whatsoever goes into making a rifle from billets of steel and flitches of wood.....

Glenn /Soroka,

I have no issue with pantograph or CNC technology being used for "cookie cutting" components in the custom gun industry.
Just like I have no issue with trusted/talented apprentices working on a custom gun.
You'll will remember I was called a liar and trouble maker [by some impetuous fool] for bringing to light the fact that Ralf Martini & Martin Hagn employed apprentices in their rifle builds. Persons ignorant of such facts,got upset with such truths.


[QUOT]Originally posted by soroka:

Hmmm, I think that the concept of custom and handmade are not necessarily linked. Just because it wasn't hand made doesn't mean it isn't custom.

You get no argument from me.

Just because a stock was carved completely by hand doesn't mean that the end result will be more beautiful or as well executed does it?

Your correct, it does not necessarily mean it will be equal,better or more beautiful

What about if the stock is hand carved and it looks like a dogs breakfast. Is it "custom"?

If its made to the owners liking well strictly speaking, yes it is "custom".

When the vast majority of customers, say DON'T change a thing on the stock why would you want to cut each one from the flitch by hand in this day and age? There comes a point when one has refined the design to reach an almost perfect shape and what better than to replicate that? Many want perfect replication of the perfect shape. I know I do.

BTW the stock on this rifle was roughed out on a machine and then hand shaped and in-letted, thru bolt hole drilled, escutcheon fitted, for probably three days in total before final sanding started.

I agree, so we "cookie cut" [machine or mould], to consistently replicate such and to intelligently reduce hand labor/time/expense

DArcy Echols has done just that with his Legend design stock.[The Syn version being moulded-hand laminated & CNC inletted by McMillan].
But some people think his Syn stocked version rifles are less of a true custom than his pantograph shaped wood stocked rifles.

From this I gather some people view rifles that employ more "cookie cutting" techniques and less individual hand labor,[than some other creations], ... as being "less custom".

So bearing all the above in mind what are you trying convey? That to be more custom it has to be hand made? Or that even the most expensive makers in the world use pantographs?

In my view, DArcy Echols syn stocked Rifles are no less custom that your walnut stocked Soroka, and rifles built using cnc inletted and/or pantograph shaped stocks are no less custom than one shaped & inletted completely by hand.

Echols wood stocks are mostly copied from a sample on a duplicator, and with his syn. stock, DArcy has its geometry & checkering copied from his sample stock to the mould at McMillans, which they use to mould-duplicate several units.
The checkering on his Syn Legend stock is moulded in and comes out very good. http://www.sitemason.com/files...em%20G153918%20b.JPG
Checkering, like stock shaping & inletting, does not have to be all individually hand-cut for it to be considered a true custom rifle,...correct?

Your both employing efficient methods to consistently replicate a desired/established design. If one can consistently create a successful winning design with less fuss and bother, good luck to you!

I remember when all Pro-grade camera lenses were manual, now days,most are full of advanced auto function technology, that reduces the work load of the photographer and makes his job much easier, but still fantastic if not better results. Does it make him less of a photographer? or the photographs any less appreciated?

quote:

Originally posted by Juglansregia:
...NC machined metal components seem to be generally deemed very acceptable in custom guns and rifles - I rarely see makers pissed on from a great height for using such technology, unlike so many stockmakers who use a duplicator.

If a bespoke maker started NC machining his stocks, I can well imagine the uproar. Seems like double standards to me.

As with Glenn/Soroka, I agree with you completely.

quote:

Not only are CNC machined components acceptable they are the preferred item simply because the end product is superior.

Superior?
In what way?
If you mean that the end result was accomplished faster than a hand made action, maybe so, but if you are implying that a CNC machined action or component is inherently better somehow I disagree.
In fact, I would suggest dismantling an original Gibbs Farquharson or Fraser or an Alex Henry and seeing firsthand just how high a level of precision, fit and finish is possible without the aid of any CNC machinery. Perfect fit is just that. No matter how the first 99% of metal removal was done, it is the hand fitting and finishing that yeilds a high quality end product so IMO, neither is truly "better" than the other.
Now, that said, I prefer the classics in some part because they were largely hand made. The skill and artistry in the original rifles is truly marvellous.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Not only are CNC machined components acceptable they are the preferred item simply because the end product is superior.

Superior?
In what way?
If you mean that the end result was accomplished faster than a hand made action, maybe so, but if you are implying that a CNC machined action or component is inherently better somehow I disagree.
In fact, I would suggest dismantling an original Gibbs Farquharson or Fraser or an Alex Henry and seeing firsthand just how high a level of precision, fit and finish is possible without the aid of any CNC machinery. Perfect fit is just that. No matter how the first 99% of metal removal was done, it is the hand fitting and finishing that yeilds a high quality end product so IMO, neither is truly "better" than the other.
Now, that said, I prefer the classics in some part because they were largely hand made. The skill and artistry in the original rifles is truly marvellous.

Well all the Farquharsons that I have been shown must have been made on a Monday morning or Friday afternoon because I have yet to be impressed by any one of them - PD, Gibbs, Jefferys, H&H, Alex Henrys. They have, without exception have been as loose as a boot and just felt sloopy. I bought one years ago (sure it was a PD, but still a Farky ) for a significant sum (for what it was) and later sold it to Don Allen because it was not what I wanted in terms of quality, usability and size. I am sure there are some really well made and preserved examples out there tho'.

Huvius, I don't believe you have seen one of my actions yet, there is no comparison between the "golden oldies" and what we are making. I'll just give you one example that is if not impossible to be be done by hand, it would take a master so long as to be completely impractical for it to be done. Additionally none of the old Best Guns have this feature. The outside of my trigger guard is convex in cross section, it is radiused. The inside of the underlever that meets this convexed surface is concaved to match, within a thou or so. No light whatsoever can be seen thru these two components when closed. Every old clunker that I have seen has a gap/s of varying size from rather large to small. And the original's surfaces are flat in cross section, not compound concaved surfaces. It is not my skill that enables this to be made, of course, but that of the CNC engineers who designed the machines, software, and programmers, etc to enable it to be done. I just saw an opportunity to make 2 parts fit together in a way not previously done on an underlever falling block, by being aware of the advantages of what CNC could achieve. The fit however is superior, there's no two ways about it. For those that wear the rose coloured glasses that "Old English is Best" however, may be less agreeable on grounds less than rational.

So each to his own as to what comprises "perfect". There is only so much that can be done by hand and internal compound curves isn't one of them, realistically.

I would really like to know from someone who KNOWS exactly what equipment was used back in 1880 onwards in gunmaking factories in England. Given that the steam engine was being used in industrial applications by the early 1700's one can only guess that by 1870 they would have been in wide spread use. The barrels were drilled and turned, it would seem. If they had drills that were capable of drilling holes then it seems probable they had milling machines as well. In fact I just looked at Wikipedia - "Milling machines", see exerpts copied below for some info on the advent. Given that George Gibbs had tendered for a military contract to supply X thousand falling block rifles and that they made thousands and thousands of shotguns etc over the years, then one can presume they were not hand filled from bar stock as some have had me believe. So, if they used milling machines and then hand finished them then I can't really get too emotionally choked up about how they were made myself. They didn't have electricity, so they had to use steam to power their machines, big deal. Its still machinery that was used, albeit machinery that wouldn't hold as tight tolerances as later machines could. All of this would explain to me why every old Farky I have seen has been in a different galaxy to what can be made on a CNC today.

Sorry guys I am just not into the misty eyed bullshit about how old rifles were filed out of lumps of low grade steel by hand. They undoubtedly were made with more primitive equipment and in working conditions that would today no doubt result in the employers being locked up for many years for unsafe and unhygenic conditions. So what? I did study the Industrial Revolution in England at school and from what I remember it was a time when most that worked in factories were treated like animals, by todays standards. Over worked and underpaid in less than salubrious conditions. If knowing that your old rifle was made under these circumstances turns your crank then fine, but I think it is reasonably important to have a at least a basic understanding as to the probability of manufacture to clearly see the whats and whys of how they were put together. And after clearly ascertaining the probable methodology used, then allowing onces self the indulgence of romanticism of the Golden Age of gunmaking, if appropriate.


From Wikipedia - Milling mchines.
He quotes Battison as concluding that "There is no evidence that Whitney developed or used a true milling machine." Baida says, "The so-called Whitney machine of 1818 seems actually to have been made after Whitney's death in 1825." Baida cites Battison's suggestion that the first true milling machine was made not by Whitney, but by Robert Johnson of Middletown.[9]

The late teens of the 19th century were a pivotal time in the history of machine tools, as the period of 1814 to 1818 is also the period during which several contemporary pioneers (Fox, Murray, and Roberts) were developing the planer, and as with the milling machine, the work being done in various shops was undocumented for various reasons (partially because of proprietary secrecy, and also simply because no one was taking down records for posterity).

James Nasmyth built a milling machine very advanced for its time between 1829 and 1831.[10] It was tooled to mill the six sides of a hex nut that was mounted in a six-way indexing fixture.

A milling machine built and used in the shop of Gay & Silver (aka Gay, Silver, & Co) in the 1830s was influential because it employed a better method of vertical positioning than earlier machines. For example, Whitney's machine (the one that Roe considered the very first) and others did not make provision for vertical travel of the knee. Evidently, the workflow assumption behind this was that the machine would be set up with shims, vise, etc. for a certain part design, and successive parts did not require vertical adjustment (or at most would need only shimming). This indicates that early thinking about milling machines was as production machines, not toolroom machines.

In these early years, milling was often viewed as only a roughing operation to be followed by finishing with a hand file. The idea of reducing hand filing was more important than replacing it.

[edit] 1840s-1860
A typical Lincoln miller. The configuration was established in the 1850s. (This example was built by Pratt & Whitney, probably 1870s or 1880s.)
Some of the key men in milling machine development during this era included Frederick W. Howe, Francis A. Pratt, Elisha K. Root, and others. (These same men during the same era were also busy developing the state of the art in turret lathes. Howe's experience at Gay & Silver in the 1840s acquainted him with early versions of both machine tools. His machine tool designs were later built at Robbins & Lawrence, the Providence Tool Company, and Brown & Sharpe.) The most successful milling machine design to emerge during this era was the Lincoln miller, which rather than being a specific make and model of machine tool is truly a family of tools built by various companies on a common configuration over several decades. It took its name from the first company to put one on the market, George S. Lincoln & Company (formerly the Phoenix Iron Works), whose first one was built in 1855 for the Colt armory.[11]

During this era there was a continued blind spot in milling machine design, as various designers failed to develop a truly simple and effective means of providing slide travel in all three of the archetypal milling axes (X, Y, and Z—or as they were known in the past, longitudinal, traverse, and vertical). Vertical positioning ideas were either absent or underdeveloped. The Lincoln miller's spindle could be raised and lowered, but the original idea behind its positioning was to be set up in position and then run, as opposed to being moved frequently while running. Like a turret lathe, it was a repetitive-production machine, with each skilled setup followed by extensive fairly low skill operation.

[edit] 1860s
Brown & Sharpe's groundbreaking universal milling machine, 1861.
In 1861, Frederick W. Howe, while working for the Providence Tool Company, asked Joseph R. Brown of Brown & Sharpe for a solution to the problem of milling spirals, such as the flutes of twist drills. These were usually filed by hand at the time.[12] (Helical planing existed but was by no means common.) Brown designed a "universal milling machine" that, starting from its first sale in March 1862, was wildly successful. It solved the problem of 3-axis travel (i.e., the axes that we now call XYZ) much more elegantly than had been done in the past, and it allowed for the milling of spirals using an indexing head fed in coordination with the table feed. The term "universal" was applied to it because it was ready for any kind of work, including toolroom work, and was not as limited in application as previous designs. (Howe had designed a "universal miller" in 1852, but Brown's of 1861 is the one considered a groundbreaking success.)[12]

Brown also developed and patented (1864) the design of formed milling cutters in which successive sharpenings of the teeth do not disturb the geometry of the form.[4]

The advances of the 1860s opened the floodgates and ushered in modern milling practice.

[edit] 1870s to World War I

A typical universal milling machine of the early 20th century. Suitable for toolroom, jobbing, or production use.
In these decades, Brown & Sharpe and the Cincinnati Milling Machine Company dominated the milling machine field. However, hundreds of other firms also built milling machines at the time, and many were significant in various ways. Besides a wide variety of specialized production machines, the archetypal multipurpose milling machine of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a heavy knee-and-column horizontal-spindle design with power table feeds, indexing head, and a stout overarm to support the arbor. The evolution of machine design was driven not only by inventive spirit but also by the constant evolution of milling cutters that saw milestone after milestone from 1860 through World War I.[13][14]

quote:

I'll just give you one example that is if not impossible to be be done by hand...none of the old Best Guns have this feature. The outside of my trigger guard is convex in cross section, it is radiused. The inside of the underlever that meets this convexed surface is concaved to match, within a thou or so. No light whatsoever can be seen thru these two components when closed.

No light gets through because you cannot see around a corner. Unless you have smoked the lever to see where it touches the trigger guard or slipped feelers in there while closing it, there is no way of knowing what the internal gap is. Even then, it could be looser midline than at the edges and would never be apparent because it cannot be seen when the action is closed.
Making an underlever fit to the guard such as yours was certainly possible in those days, they just didn't do it that way.
It is much more difficult to make flat mating surfaces which allow no light through (if that is the criteria for fit). Especially when fit by hand. Holland Woodwards are some of the best fit in the lever / trigger guard mating surfaces in this regard.

True, there were many types of machines in use when the Farqs were in production but the Gibbs actions were most likely jig filed. This was also the era when mechanized shapers and broaches of all types were in use for all kinds of metal working.

Sorry to hear that all of the old falling blocks that you have looked at were so loose and sloppy. That is certainly not always the case and looks to have tainted your opinion of them although there are good reasons to have a bit of built in slack in a firearm that will see use in varying conditions far away from any possibility of repair.

maybe a picture day is in order Huvius.....say a Gibbs, a Frasier, a Westley and a Dickson?

100% with Soroka on this one....

JC

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
]
No light gets through because you cannot see around a corner. Unless you have smoked the lever to see where it touches the trigger guard or slipped feelers in there while closing it, there is no way of knowing what the internal gap is. Even then, it could be looser midline than at the edges and would never be apparent because it cannot be seen when the action is closed.
Making an underlever fit to the guard such as yours was certainly possible in those days, they just didn't do it that way.
It is much more difficult to make flat mating surfaces which allow no light through (if that is the criteria for fit). Especially when fit by hand. Holland Woodwards are some of the best fit in the lever / trigger guard mating surfaces in this regard.

True, there were many types of machines in use when the Farqs were in production but the Gibbs actions were most likely jig filed. This was also the era when mechanized shapers and broaches of all types were in use for all kinds of metal working.

Sorry to hear that all of the old falling blocks that you have looked at were so loose and sloppy. That is certainly not always the case and looks to have tainted your opinion of them although there are good reasons to have a bit of built in slack in a firearm that will see use in varying conditions far away from any possibility of repair.

No, The Old makers just didn't shape the trigger guards and underlevers that way because it would be an on going nightmare. If the triggerguard was a constant radius then sure it wouldn't be too bad to shape, but a compound curve?? Come on. They just decided at H&H and Gibbs " Oh well we won't bother convexing and concaving the trigger guards and under-levers, they'll look better with light passing between the 2 components". I can assure you none of my buyers would cut me such slack for those gaps. But then I dont have the advantage of my customers wearing very thick rose coloured glasses. So I have to make it obviously better to counter this fact.

And whilst a picture wont show how sloppy or loose an action is it will show gaps. Note on the H&H Woodward, the noticeable increase and decrease in the gap between the trigger guard and the under lever, (top pic). Have a look at the Best grade miniature Gibbs below. Note the green background plainly visible between the trigger guard and under-lever. Now I am not suggesting that these rifles aren't works of art, but they aren't perfect. I couldn't let either of these examples leave the workshop with gaps such as these.
Unless I could sell each rifle with some of those British rose coloured glasses...

I too am sorry that the Old makers didnt make any or should I say "many" rifles that weren't loose and sloppy as it would have saved me 4 years of my life plus $350,000. I wouldnt have had to make what I have made. But as far as I was concerned it needed to be done. Additionally I wanted to shoot a modern magnum cartridge at full pressures, something that those that know much more about these matters than I would't recommend in turn of the century rifles.


Holland-Woodward-mid-left by soroka07, on Flickr

hh-17h-mid-close-left-wo by soroka07, on Flickr

quote:

Checkering, like stock shaping & inletting, does not have to be all individually hand-cut for it to be considered a true custom rifle,...correct?

It does for me. Machine or laser cut checkering doesn't have a place on a custom rifle IMO.

Soroka beauty in all its function is in the eye of the beholder and I am beholden to your master piece. Please continue to grace our pages with pictures of such.
Each era produced fine craftsmen who excelled at their trade, by possesing natural talent and acquired skill, by utilizing the best materials,tools of their period and the ability to produce their wares to be competitive and indulge the afflicted such as I and I appreciate all of them. How the product is built is only important to the gunsmith as long as the final product has a soul and demands admiration you have accomplished your mission.

quote:

Each era produced fine craftsmen who excelled at their trade, by possesing natural talent and acquired skill, by utilizing the best materials,tools of their period and the ability to produce their wares to be competitive and indulge the afflicted such as I and I appreciate all of them.

quote:

Originally posted by soroka:
No, The Old makers just didn't shape the trigger guards and underlevers that way because it would be an on going nightmare. If the triggerguard was a constant radius then sure it wouldn't be too bad to shape, but a compound curve?? Come on. They just decided at H&H and Gibbs " Oh well we won't bother convexing and concaving the trigger guards and under-levers, they'll look better with light passing between the 2 components". I can assure you none of my buyers would cut me such slack for those gaps. But then I dont have the advantage of my customers wearing very thick rose coloured glasses. So I have to make it obviously better to counter this fact.

And whilst a picture wont show how sloppy or loose an action is it will show gaps. Note on the H&H Woodward, the noticeable increase and decrease in the gap between the trigger guard and the under lever, (top pic). Have a look at the Best grade miniature Gibbs below. Note the green background plainly visible between the trigger guard and under-lever. Now I am not suggesting that these rifles aren't works of art, but they aren't perfect. I couldn't let either of these examples leave the workshop with gaps such as these.

Glenn/Soroka,

your attention to more precision detail in metalwork [with the assistance of technology] is also intelligently employed in stocking.[ie; not just to copy some orig. work/design, but to improve upon it... ]

"As George[Hoenig] points out, even the finest stock maker produces at least minor gaps here and there, and by removing the locks and actions of the finest Engish shotguns one can see such minor gaps on most of them. Even these minor gaps are avoided by Hoenig's precision pantograph because it reproduces precisely a pattern created from the gun's original stock--by filling all internal stock inletting surfaces which contact the metalwork, with Micro-Bed compound which then hardens around the metalwork in a gapless mirror impression. The sensitive stylus of Hoenig's pantograph follows these perfectly accurate contours with a precision simply beyond the capabilities of the best hand in letter,...."

I also appreciate the precise-neat modern methods of applying numbers & lettering on rifles, instead of the old stamped or hand engraved method.

It was CNC "cookie cut" technology which allowed Wichester to bring back its version of an CRF-M70 at a competitive price.
And I've never seen a Classic M70 CRf anywhere near as rough as some of the "more handcrafted" Pre64 examples I've seen....

Beautiful rifle!!

Glenn that is simply gorgeous.

Metal fit is impecible, as is the timberwork. That lever is stunning.

Cheers, Chris

quote:

No, The Old makers just didn't shape the trigger guards and underlevers that way because it would be an on going nightmare. If the triggerguard was a constant radius then sure it wouldn't be too bad to shape, but a compound curve?? Come on. They just decided at H&H and Gibbs " Oh well we won't bother convexing and concaving the trigger guards and under-levers, they'll look better with light passing between the 2 components".

Yeah, I'm sure that is what they thought...OOPS! Some jokester at Gibbs must have decided that they would sneak one out that did have the guard and lever convex and concave to mate together. You know those crazy old timey gunmakers...
That metalwork is just too difficult but wait, does that trigger guard unscrew? Yes it does...
Does the trigger guard and block detach by simply removing the lever pivot screw? Why, yes it does.
Does the action flare out at the back where the head of the stock meets the action? Yep.


And their wood to metal fit just isn't as good as you can get with that new fangled modern CNC equipment...CLEARLY inferior!


Not just poking fun here. Also pointing out that ANY claim to be "superior" in design, finish or execution to makers such as Gibbs, H&H, or Alex Henry is a battle you simply cannot win. Different? Yes. Superior? Not really. Some modern gunmakers may eventually attain the rarified acclaim that these giants hold, but that is very doubtful and if they do it would be after decades of gunmaking excellence and performance in the field.

Well said, Huvius. The Saroka looks to be a very fine rifle indeed, and I would enjoy having one, but it is the subtleties that set Holland & Holland, Gibbs, London Rigby, and their peers apart from the rest. There is no substitute for hand fitting and finishing by the best-of-the-best in the trade. Those subtleties require special skills, take time, and come at a cost. The Jaguar is a fine car but it is not a Ford and neither is it a Rolls Royce. They are different and each is priced accordingly.

The idea of a London best at a yeoman's price is a good one but if it could be done it would be done and the makers of Britain's best would offer their wares for half the price they do.

Regarding strength, I do not doubt that the Saroka is stronger than the actions made 100 years ago. The same is true of shotguns today compared to 100 years ago. 100 years ago the guns were designed and built to be strong enough for the cartridges they were meant to shoot, just as guns today are made strong enough for the cartridges they are meant to shoot. Is it meaningful to compare the strength of a 100 year old rifle designed to shoot 45,000psi cartridges to a modern Soroka designed to shoot 65,000psi cartridges? That's like comparing the strength of a Soroka to the strength of a rifle designed and built 100 years from now to shoot 90,000psi cartridges and remarking on how poorly the Soroka was designed because it is too weak for the futuristic cartridge. If one wants to do that sort of comparison then one would be better off comparing the mighty Soroka to a weak 150 year old black powder rifle with a damascus barrel. What is the point in that?

For example, should I denounce the strength of this 100 year old Rigby designed to shoot .450 3-1/4", a 44,000psi cartridge, because it is too weak to shoot the .458 Lott, a 62,000psi cartridge?



The trigger bow latch on the lever of the 1903 Rigby above was a little loose but it was easily tightened up. Will you show me a 100 year old Saroka to prove it won't get a little loose?

So now, I am curious. How strong is the Soroka? Is it stronger than the Ruger No. 1? Is it stronger than the Hagn? Do we need to take five Hagns, five Rugers, and five Sorokas and subject them to destructive testing to find out? Of course not. What would be the point so long as each is amply strong for the intended purpose.

I expect the Saroka rifle is a wonderful product, brilliantly designed, finely crafted, and well worth the price. But trying to proselytize it as equal to, or better than, a London best is ineffectual and, as you can see, it has distracted us. The Soroka can stand on its own merits for what it is and I think that is how it would best be represented.

All these rifles are beautiful examples of the gunmakers art, both modern and vintage. Great news is you don't have to choose one or the other, whatever floats your boat. I prefer the vintage guns but the Soroka is very nice and I've thought about ordering one, the ability to order something of this quality made to order in 2011 is attractive.

Glenn,

I applaud the work you have done, will one of your rifles be at the DSC show?

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Not just poking fun here. Also pointing out that ANY claim to be "superior" in design, finish or execution to makers such as Gibbs, H&H, or Alex Henry is a battle you simply cannot win. Different? Yes. Superior? Not really. Some modern gunmakers may eventually attain the rarified acclaim that these giants hold, but that is very doubtful and if they do it would be after decades of gunmaking excellence and performance in the field.

Huvius, congratulations on finding an excellent best grade Gibbs. It certainly doesn't have the decent sized gap that the miniature has, does it? Or the rather generous gap on the Rigby posted by Grenadier below it. (Nothing too suble about that gap Grenadier, but not uncommon all the same). Any chance of posting some picture with the lever open so we can see how convex the trigger guard is and how concave the under lever is.

In terms of my comments re superior end product is based on 2 main points as follows

1. Good CNC is far more CONSISTENT in quality than machined on primitive steam driven shapers, mills etc and then hand finished. Because you have found a beautiful example, made to a better standard than many others does it make all old Farquharsons superior or better than modern manufacture such as mine? I can guarantee you that you wont see such gaps on my rifles after delivery.

2. You also know as well as I that ALL old Farquharsons have a propensity to break firing pins, or jam or mis-fire, due to the angle of the firing pin. Remember your post on NitroExpress forum - http://forums.nitroexpress.com...=0&page=2#Post182147 , where you advertise new manufacture firing pins for sale? I have dry fired my rifles 1000's of times until I just got sick of doing it, without a failure. So I don't think I am being unrealistic in saying that having an in line striker (that is probably 4 times faster than the old hammer design ), and the ability to dry fire without fear of failure is a superior design. It would have been far easier to simply copy the original design but why would one? It has mechanical issues. Period. However, I obviously think the Gibbs is aesthetically sublime.

We all are happy to acknowledge that SOME of the Old English rifles are beautifully made but it is not something that only they could produce. There are many on the planet that unquestionably have the ability to build virtually perfect rifles and shotguns and some aren't English. There are Italian, German, Austrian, Belgian, American mkers capable of Best Grade, to name a few. However, they all either have to have well to do clientelle or they will end up working for a song.
There are quite a few NEW makers that after a couple of decades have climbed to the top of the ladder, Hartmann and Weiss, Miller Rifle Co both sell bolt and single shot rifles for more money than H&H for example.

Huvius the only thing that gets up my nose a little is the hypocracy of the "blinkered ones" that will permit an Old English firm like Rigby to produce a rifle (like the one posted by Grenadier with the huge gap between trigger guard and underlever) and still sing the praises re "hand made" Old World quality but would rubbish someone such as myself in a nano second if I replicated the same. I don't loose any sleep over it, but I will happily bring it to attention when discussed in a public forum such as this. A gap is a gap and a broken firing pin is just that, irrespective of the name adorning the receiver.

However, like almost all admirers of fine rifles I appreciate good workmanship when I see it.

quote:

Originally posted by 470Evans:
All these rifles are beautiful examples of the gunmakers art, both modern and vintage. Great news is you don't have to choose one or the other, whatever floats your boat. I prefer the vintage guns but the Soroka is very nice and I've thought about ordering one, the ability to order something of this quality made to order in 2011 is attractive.

Glenn,

I applaud the work you have done, will one of your rifles be at the DSC show?

Hi 470,
Thanks and I agree fully with your sentiments re boats and floating thereof. Yes I will have some rifles on display at DSC and Vegas, probably 3 or 4. I think I will have a 270 win, the 300 H&H above, the 375H&H and one other to be determined.

Regards

Glenn
wwww.sorokarifle.com

Glenn-

My hat is off to you for taking the risk and building your dream. The rifle is stunning.

KW