I agree mrlexma, there is a hell of a lot of sex appeals in gunstocks. It sounds kinda perverted, but they are a source of beauty to people who love beautiful guns and wonderful workmanship they can display. I guess it is like blondes, redheads and brunettes, they can be different but each still look great. Take a look at the famouns Rigby of Henry Shelby...to my eye is beautiful, but certainly is not to fancy.

Put it this way, have you ever seen a woman that gets a pair of "store boughts" that were just to big? She may have great hair, wonderful smile, but you just can't take your eyes of those .... To me, that is out of balance.

It's not so much what number one is but what number two is.

I'm still trying to learn this stuff but what I see tells me #1 has better grain flow through the wrist, a stronger stock for a .375 H&H.

#2, while spectacularly grained, just doesn't look as strong. And I have to agree with the guys that say #2 will detract from the great metal work seen on big bores. It would make a nice 2 piece stock.

If it ain't got exceptional wood, who cares about the metal work? Got a loupe?

Assuming #2 has good grain flow thru the wrist, which is kind of hard to tell in the pic, I'd choose it, for sure, but there aren't any flies on #1.

As far as the guy who "toned down" that stock's figure "because it interfered with the metal work", he should have spent the money on a psychiatrist. But I'll be the first to agree that it is his stock and if he wants to desecrate a nice piece of wood, that is his perogative.

So you think staining a stock desecrates it? That's interesting. The finest gunmakers have been doing it for hundreds of years.

IMO, the wood and metal should compliment each other, not distract. Look at the old classics. You won't find any goudy wood on them, and some even have stain.


Terry

Poor grain flow in the wrist? Bah, not a problem worth mentioning for a stockmaker. I always, repeat always, bore a long hole down through the wrist from the rear guard screw hole down into the main body of the butt, then Acraglas a long steel rod into the hole. Total length at least 6" and sometimes up to 8", depending. Yes, you COULD break it afterward, but IMO you'd tear up the rest of the rifle first. Also on steel buttplates I always Acraglas another hidden steel rod underneath the toe of the buttplate, running back about 3" at an angle into the wood, for toe support if dropped. These hidden steel rods are good cheap insurance and have worked well for me for many years now.

As for the beauty of the wood detracting from the reat of the rifle, well...maybe for the first 5 minutes or so. However IMO anyone who would use such an apparently rare & expensive stick would also ensure that the workmanship on the rest of the rifle would have so many OTHER fine features that only many, many repeated inspections would reveal them all.

That's one of my goals as a gunmaker, to ensure that my products are so well-detailed that even folks long familiar with the rifles can sometimes still find features & improvements they overlooked before. If the wood detracts & distracts attention from the rest of the rifle, then IMO the rest of the rifle must not be very interesting or appealing. JMOFWIW.
Regards, Joe

Thanks for the opinions.

Interesting to note that those most ardently in favor of the opposite of my gut feeling generally have taste in rifles that run contrary to mine. Could that be telling me something?

As for the grain flow through the wrist, keep in mind that mineral streaking does not equal grain flow does not equal mineral streaking. Blank #2 has just about perfect flow through the wrist. I'd not hesitate to use it on anything that I'd fire from my shoulder. It isn't a deciding factor. Trust me, I'd not drop the kind of coin that #2 demanded on a blank with suspect layout.

quote:

So you think staining a stock desecrates it? That's interesting. The finest gunmakers have been doing it for hundreds of years.

Staining to bring out the figure/grain in certain pieces of wood can be useful. Staining to hide the figure, when that figure is very attractive, is descration IMO.

Just because George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc wore a powdered wig doesn't mean that I think it is the fashion for today, nor does long use make them a timeless product. I feel the same way about the dreaded red stain that the British used on rifles. If you want red on a gunstock, why not just use paint? Again, it's your rifle and if you're happy with it, I'm thrilled, I just KNOW, not think, it looked a helluva lot more attractive TO ME, and I'm sure many others, before you rouged it up.

Blank #2 certainly makes an elaborate statement and would make anyone proud to own it, but #1 isn't without it's own statement. It does have color contrast and enough figure to make it stand out with a barrelled action that hasn't been engraved or overlaid with gold. #1 also has a good grain direction in the wrist area. So, I think I'd chose it for a 375 H&H that is going to be used and will make you more comfortable using it. In addition, #2 might scare the game away

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

So you think staining a stock desecrates it? That's interesting. The finest gunmakers have been doing it for hundreds of years.

IMO, the wood and metal should compliment each other, not distract. Look at the old classics. You won't find any goudy wood on them, and some even have stain.

Staining to bring out the figure/grain in certain pieces of wood can be useful. Staining to hide the figure, when that figure is very attractive, is descration IMO.

Just because George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc wore a powdered wig doesn't mean that I think it is the fashion for today, nor does long use make them a timeless product. I feel the same way about the dreaded red stain that the British used on rifles. If you want red on a gunstock, why not just use paint? Again, it's your rifle and if you're happy with it, I'm thrilled, I just KNOW, not think, it looked a helluva lot more attractive TO ME, and I'm sure many others, before you rouged it up.

It didn't hide anything it toned it down a little. Paint it? You're an idiot.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by CAS II:
Thanks for the opinions.

Interesting to note that those most ardently in favor of the opposite of my gut feeling generally have taste in rifles that run contrary to mine. Could that be telling me something?

Probably so. These threads are fun but you and only you need to be satisfied with the end result. Follow your gut feeling and your stockmakers advice.

Terry

Number one for me.

It is tastefully understated compared to the second one, yet has detail to the figuring that bears closer inspection very well.

A scratch on number one is also less likely to occasion an attack of Tourette's, which in the hunting field is never a good thing.

I also prefer dark wood to light, a previous poster’s comment about the need to fit a light switch to his, whilst perhaps better reserved for those god-awful pink laminate 10/22 monstrosities, is not too far from the mark.

Regards,

GH

Ps. Try looking at the online catalogues of auction houses like Bonhams, Christies etc to see what sort of finished stock you prefer in the finished article and then ask your stock man to tell you what to look for in the blank.

CASII,

Take yout time - no rush.....I'll just get Duane to move my project in front of your's, while you decide.

On a serious note, I can't wait to see more of your rifle. I ordered a similar octagon to round barrel from Ralf in 270 Winchester, after seeing ForrestB's .270Win that Ralf and Duane did.......Good Stuff!

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

So you think staining a stock desecrates it? That's interesting. The finest gunmakers have been doing it for hundreds of years.

IMO, the wood and metal should compliment each other, not distract. Look at the old classics. You won't find any goudy wood on them, and some even have stain.

Staining to bring out the figure/grain in certain pieces of wood can be useful. Staining to hide the figure, when that figure is very attractive, is descration IMO.

Just because George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc wore a powdered wig doesn't mean that I think it is the fashion for today, nor does long use make them a timeless product. I feel the same way about the dreaded red stain that the British used on rifles. If you want red on a gunstock, why not just use paint? Again, it's your rifle and if you're happy with it, I'm thrilled, I just KNOW, not think, it looked a helluva lot more attractive TO ME, and I'm sure many others, before you rouged it up.

It didn't hide anything it toned it down a little. Paint it? You're an idiot.

Terry

Some people would ascribe idiocy to those who are unable to recognize sarcasm. Not me, of course! (sarcasm)

Sarcasm /ramblings of a fool. It's such a thin line in your case. You should probably avoid it all together. For sarcasm to work you must say something clever first. That hasn't happened yet on this thread.

#2 sure is pretty, but for a classic .375 H&H, less is more in my eyes.
Trust what shroCat & Tc1, says, you can tire of fancy wood over time....Nice to view & appreciate, but not always desirable to own....but each to his own.
A truelly beautiful woman cant hide behind plain & simple rags even if she tried. Raquel Welch. ...less is more, would you not agree?

Posted by Duane Wiebe

quote:

Would you ever regret using blank # 2? Ever regret dating a pretty girl?

Listen to your gunmaker.

quote:

Originally posted by loud-n-boomer:
Posted by Duane Wiebe

quote:

Would you ever regret using blank # 2? Ever regret dating a pretty girl?

Listen to your gunmaker.

If I've learned anything about Duane, it is that he does not make a habit of doling out bad advice.

I'm not sure what to make of Duanes advice. Pretty girls are nice but have you seen the movie fatal attraction? I bet a few of us have had our own fatal attraction girl friend at some time in our life.

Fatal attraction girl friends, too much figure, desecration, good taste, bad taste, sarcasm and Pam Anderson's "store boughts" or not - I still vote for No. 2!

I'd like to make an obvervation re JD Steele's use of the rod thru the badly laid out grain flow.

I'm not saying a rod will hurt, but in my eperience, the bolt gun will almost always break where the metal quits...sometime right at the rear guard screw sometimes just a little aft of the rear guard screw

Personally, if I thought a blank required a reinforcing rod, I would advise the customer to find another piece of wood

This is just my rule of thumb...No broken stocks so far!

if both of those blanks were mine, my questions would be about actions and barrels.....i already got wood!!!!

Use #1, your wife said that #2 would make you look fat.

Duane, I think that is very good advice on the reinforcing rod.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
I'd like to make an obvervation re JD Steele's use of the rod thru the badly laid out grain flow.

I'm not saying a rod will hurt, but in my eperience, the bolt gun will almost always break where the metal quits...sometime right at the rear guard screw sometimes just a little aft of the rear guard screw

Personally, if I thought a blank required a reinforcing rod, I would advise the customer to find another piece of wood

This is just my rule of thumb...No broken stocks so far!

Duane brings up a good subject, the use of the rod will strengthen the wrist to the point where the (comparatively) weakest place may well end up being the tang screw area, simply because the rod area is now so much stronger. Again, not a big problem IMO if the proper precautions are taken by the stockmaker.

I first used this fix on my Jaeger 1903 Springfield 30-06 that had a crack propagating through the wrist; that was back in 1969 and the rifle is still shooting regularly. However I also used the pillar bedding method along with it, with the rear pillar tied into the wrist rod when Acraglasing. The glassed-in rear pillar adds greatly to the strength and integrity of the forward wrist area and while it certainly won't entirely prevent a fracture, IMO it's simply good insurance against all but a catastrophic sideways-bending accident. Of course the pillar bedding also ensures that the guard screws will remain timed to the proper position over the course of the rifle's life.

Pillar bedding both the front and rear screws has long proven to be A Good Thing, as Paul Mauser first showed us in 1898 and Seely Masker repeated to us in the 1960s. I always tie the rear pillar to the wrist rod with the glass and have so far had good luck with the entire system. I also use a similar system when stocking most double shotguns, especially a sidelock like a Smith but also any other non-drawbolt double or combination gun. The stock is much stronger and the screws stay timed and tight.

JMOFWIW. As the Madam said to the Bishop, "you pays your money and you takes your choice!" That's why we call 'em custom.
Regards, Joe

If you decide not to use this one.



Let me know, and I'll buy it from you.

#1 is classic and would make a fine 375, #2 is....WOW... send that beauty, I mean, I mean, slutty eye popper to me and I'll deal with her. You shouldn't be burdened with the tramp.

Personally I love outstanding wood and don't think you can "over do it" with natural wood. After all it was made by the greatest artist ever. That is unless you were to use boring or poorly done metal work but it does not look that way. In my opinion, #2 does belong on a gun where the metal work and engraving stand out as well. It may not take too much, engraved screws or cross bolts, maybe something on the rib. It's great metal work.

My dad's test of a gun that is visually well balanced is to set it up where you can step away from it. Close your eyes for a time and then open them and quickly think if your eye is drawn directly to one thing or do you see the whole gun. If you see one thing, then it is out of place. In the case of #2 that would most likely mean tricking out the rest of the gun a bit with some fine engraving and artistic metal work (which you already have).


Duane will do either one justice. It is really great to see that you have chosen a top gun maker to make your gun. The only way you could go wrong with either piece is to use a stockmaker who doesn't know what they are doing. That would be a shame.


#1 and 2 are very fine pieces and belong on top quality guns. Either way you won't go wrong. I'm sure the other one is going to find a good home on a fine custom for you as well, so you shouldn't have any regrets.

quote:

Personally I love outstanding wood and don't think you can "over do it" with natural wood.

100% CORRECT!

quote:

Originally posted by dempsey:
My choice would be number one, not even close for my tastes. Number two would make a nice two piece IMO for a high grade shot gun. It's way too busy for a rifle. But we all have our own personal preferences and in the end please yourself.

My opinion too, but I know I differ from others on here. #1 is what I prefer. #2 just looks too much like some of the open grained Claro I was cutting last year.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:

Personally, if I thought a blank required a reinforcing rod, I would advise the customer to find another piece of wood

That's the simplest best advice on buying wood I've seen in a while......................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by 333_OKH:

quote:

Originally posted by dempsey:
My choice would be number one, not even close for my tastes. Number two would make a nice two piece IMO for a high grade shot gun. It's way too busy for a rifle. But we all have our own personal preferences and in the end please yourself.

My opinion too, but I know I differ from others on here. #1 is what I prefer. #2 just looks too much like some of the open grained Claro I was cutting last year.

I've never seen Claro that color before. The color is what I really like about that blank. The only draw back I see to it is I personally like the figure straight though the forearm and then "bloom" behind the grip. I don't think once it's cut into a stock anybody would mistake it for Claro. I would probably pick it before #1. The first one just has too much going on with it for my tastes.

Terry

I don't mind fancy wood. What I don't like about number two is that it's figure is totally random. There is no "flow" for a lack of a better term.

If you go to the Guild Show there will be Very Few if any stocks like #2 on the type of rifle being built here. Take that rifle down to a classic sporter in 7x57 for example and it would be right at home esp with some light engraving!!!

The #1 stock looks perfect for the rifle in question IMHO.

#2 is what I would use.