Chic, I think he is talking about the new M84. I`ve got one in 260 Rem and feel it`s a good little rifle for the money, others have dammed it.

http://www.kimberamerica.com/84m.php

quote:

When talking off the shelf rifles, what's the concensus on Kimbers and other higher end off the shelf rifles? I came very close to buying a Kimber in 7-08 recently, it was a very attractive wood stocked rifle but I know little of them. Instead I purchased a pre-64 in .270 that I plan to clean up a bit and use as is but that Kimber really looked nice. There are a lot of semi custom builders out there that don't seem to get a lot of chatter here. It's either the big four or five and then customs.

Dempsey,

Having had many rifles for a long time I was all set with "Featherweights" for non magnum hunting rifles. These weigh about 7.75 lbs scoped with 22" barrels in the 99f's and pre 64 M70's.

So I started buying Kimbers a few years ago to get into the lightweights and now I have four of them. In general I find Kimber to make the finest American made factory rifle today.

The first ones that I bought were two 84M Classics in 260 and 7mm-08. These are good guns and lighter than the M70 Featheweight by a noticable amount.

After I got those Classics the Kimber Montana's came out about the time that I finally got used to the plastic stock look and I have two of those now.

Here is a post for you to read by a shooter who likes Remingtons too. http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?C...arch=true#Post554161

I don't have any particular problem with what anyone wants to buy or hunt with, although I would probably fell pretty bad about some of the nice wood I've seen getting chopped up or broken when I know how much work went into it. Can't one just get a second plastic stock for harsh conditions and use the wood in less harsh conditions or for "eye candy"?

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
I don't have any particular problem with what anyone wants to buy or hunt with, although I would probably fell pretty bad about some of the nice wood I've seen getting chopped up or broken when I know how much work went into it. Can't one just get a second plastic stock for harsh conditions and use the wood in less harsh conditions or for "eye candy"?

Wink,

That is far to practical and logical to ever be accepted!

Somehow I find, "the paint missing in a few places..." and a "custom" rifle to be totally incongruous, but I guess that's my problem. I can't imagine spending much time looking at a beat-up plastic stocked rifle with the paint chipping. Not very much to see, is there?

I do no bolt rifles because my background is building muzzleloaders. Do you remember the ones with flintlocks, long graceful barrels, carved stocks and engraved patchboxes. Those guns that the early American settlers would occasionally take down from over the mantle, when it wasn't raining, and shoot a deer or a turkey if it was hanging around in the yard.
They used their in-line, enclosed breach, stainless steel, scoped, sabot shooting, plastic-camo-stocked muzzleloaders for real hunting. No sense risking that fancy curly maple stock, only an idiot would do that.

When I got back into centerfire work, which I had done in gs school, there was tons of guys doing bolt rifles and I was intrigued with single shots and double shotguns. At least 1/3 of my work is sidelock sxs, custom, one-off, no plastic stocks. I do an occasional lever rifle, but their making them with plastic an stainless now too.

"Can't you just get a second plastic stock?"
Who's going to switch stocks for you? Going to send it back to the maker? If you're afraid of taking it out in the woods hunting, you had better not get near it with a screwdriver!!!!

So I guess the concensus is you guys don't want me to hunt with my "eye candy-safe queen" walnut stocks anymore? Hell, Dempsey doesn't even want to shoot them, afraid to take them out of the shop. I guess I'll have to cancel that trip to Africa, rip up my antelope tag and just stay home and fondle my walnut stocks with white gloves on. Darn!
SDH

I'd like to chime in with a few points.

First of all thanks to SDH for the pictures, they are great inspiration to me.

There is always a place for such beautiful rifles. I don't have any that nice but do own a couple decent stick of wood that shoot. I like to have them on sunny days when I can enjoy the beauty and warmth of the wood. They are however to dear to me to bring them out in some of the wet, thorny, muddy and rough places I tend to hunt. This is what synthetic stocks and 2 gun cases are for, why just bring 1 gun?

I don't like the guy who said it but the line "Quantity is a quality all it's own", can make a certain kind of sense in gun owning. I consider myself to be in an experimental phase of gun owning. I want to own and play with as many different calibers action types etc as I can. I get a lot of enjoyment out of trying different guns. I can play with a bunch of different stuff for the price of one high-end custom. It's a stage that I'm sure I'll grow out of one of these days but I'm not there yet and don't think it's so bad where I'm at.

I think that there are shooters that hunt and hunters that shoot. If you are a hunter that shoots you are probably more likely to choose the most efficient tool and stick with it. A shooter who hunts probably wants to try as many different rifles as he can because sometimes he's a little more interested in how the gun hunts than the hunt itself.

I probably could afford a lot more good hunts if I didn't spend as much as I do on different rifles, but right now I enjoy more rifles and less hunting. I think that AD might be the other way. I'm not in any way saying that one is better or worse than the other it's just where different people are at.

I probably can't taste much difference between a $150 bottle of wine and a $15 bottle of wine. Guns are the same way. I think that the Art of a high-end custom is lost on a lot of people and would be wasted on them as much as expensive wine is wasted on me. I guess the point is to spend for what you yourself can appreciate and enjoy. As far as guns go though we can all enjoy one that is accurate and always works!.................DJ

I believe I've said somewhere here that I would have no problem hunting ANY rifle other than one of significant historical value.

Not all hunting situations and conditions are the same either so saying I hunt with my rifles can mean a lot of things none of which has to mean they see some hard hunting.

I'm not a gunsmith but here is my 2 cents worth. If I bought a $3000, or $5000, or $10,000 custom rifle, It would never mean as much to me as a rifle I worked up a step at a time.

*The joy of finding a great action or barreled action in a used gun rack and getting a great deal.

*The winter long search for just the right walnut or maple stock blank.

*Deciding on the stock shape

*Shipping it off to have it shaped

*Sanding and finishing it yourself!

*What rings should you get?

*The perfect scope choice?

*Finding the ammo thru mail order since no one in town stocks the caliber.

*Test firing your find for the first time.

*Deciding if you need a new trigger

*Ordering the dies and bullets

*Working up the first load

and finally:

*Hunting with it the first time.

Yes, for me, this is the way I enjoy doing it. Rifles are not just something to bring to the range and shoot. They aren't just a hunting tool. They are my link to many fine memories and I don't think I would cut out all the good (and some not so good ) memories of building it up myself, just to buy a custom rifle.

(With a qualified Gunsmith's help)

The enjoyment comes not just from getting there, but from how you get there.

SHD, "not much to look at"?

Very politely -- and with much restraint -- I must say I............ beg to differ with you.

There's more to great rifles than cosmetics and traditional construction features. Just one heck of a lot more, and I guess you just don't see it.

I'll put it this way, if you have a synthetic-stocked rifle that's worked perfectly for years and that you've used to take everything from pronghorn to sheep, mule deer to elk and moose, plus scores and scores of African plainsgame animals, including three of the Big Five, plus grizzly, etc., you've got a rifle or set of rifles that's worth looking at -- rifles of honor that deserve much respect, make no mistake about it -- more than some pristine collector's item that gets taken out of the safe and fondled in front of the fireplace on cold, rainy nights but is never hunted with, that's for darned sure.

I've talked about this rifle before, but one of my friends has a full-house custom 1909 Mauser in 338 Win. Mag. that is one of the most beautiful traditional custom rifles you could ever imagine. It was expertly stocked and finished in the finest manner by one of the finest stockmakers on the planet. No qualms there. The metalwork is also very nice looking, seemingly full-feature, and beautifully rust-blued. The rest of the rifle, functionally, is a catastrophy though, mostly because the Big Name metalsmith (who is not a hunter or rifleman) didn't bother to install a proper magazine box and follower, keeping and merely opening up the original 1909 box and follower, so the rifle doesn't feed properly at all. And for whatever reason or set of reasons, the rifle doesn't shoot well -- not even close to right. So it sits in the safe and has for years. This rifle cost $12,000 to have built, all told.....

This same friend has a custom 338 Win. Mag. that is, by comparison, a very ugly rifle. The McMillan stock is just a copy of the pre-64 Model 70 Monte Carlo factory stock, and the pre-64 Model 70 action (from an original 264 Win. Mag.) the rifle is based on has just a minimal amount of metalwork done to it, and except for blueprinting, pillar-bedding, a perfectly installed Hart barrel and custom, made-from-scratch scope bases, this rifle looks as plain, unadored, and uninspiring as a plucked chicken. But it just so happens that this rifle shoots like a varmint rifle, feeds perfectly, never changes zero, and never has given the slightest problem for the ten years or so of its existence. So next year, when my friend and I head to Zimbabwe, the ugly 338 Win. Mag. is going along to shoot the works, while the pretty, disfunctional 338 sits in the safe. And for all of that the ugly 338 cost about one-forth the price of the pretty one!

And yet, if I put up photos of both rifle right here on this forum (I won't, so that the guilty may remain anonymous), the pretty, disfunctional 338 would be drooled over and applauded all around, while the ugly 338 would scarcely raise a positve comment. Yet in the real world, the value of the two rifles is vastly different.

Some paradox, huh?

AD

quote:

Originally posted by allen day:
And yet, if I put up photos of both rifle right here on this forum (I won't, so that the guilty may remain anonymous), the pretty, disfunctional 338 would be drooled over and applauded all around, while the ugly 338 would scarcely raise a positve comment. Yet in the real world, the value of the two rifles is vastly different.

Some paradox, huh?

It is.

However, your comparison examples are always a plastic-stocked gun that has gathered several heads of game.....verses a beautiful but disfunctional wood-stocked custom.

Wood and rust blue are not synonomous with disfunction. I get the impression that is your experience however, Allen. Fine, if it is........but that experience is not universal.

I have a definite preference for wood......stocks that are shaped, finished, and checkered by someone's hands. That preference is not a trade-off for less functionality or reliability. Nor does it have to be.

Rifles are more than a tool to me.......although I insist they function correctly as the tool they were designed for. I like to examine close inletting, subtle lines and curves of a grip, fine checkering, etc. Frequently while on stand hunting.....often while back at the cabin around the gun rack. I could learn to appreciate a plastic stock, but it would never touch my soul.

Can't imagine rolling a plastic stock around and remarking..."Wow.....absolutly perfect checkering!"......or..."Great inletting around that barrel, perfect 1/16" gap!"

Doesn't quite do it for me......

GV

it always amazes me that guys will say they are afraid to take their $10,000 rifles out in the woods, yet they drive their $40,000 Suburbans out there is some pretty rough stuff to get to where they are hunting.

Allen

that same .338 1909 Mauser could have been made by a very fine metalsmith who does hunt and who would have made the thing feed and function like a hot knife through butter. You have heard the story a million times about Jim Carmeichal's Miller 1909 in .338. Miller of course hunts. And Carmeichal has put that rifle through the ringer and he claims it still holds it zero after all of these years. And it is on very beautiful wood.

quote:

that same .338 1909 Mauser could have been made by a very fine metalsmith who does hunt and who would have made the thing feed and function like a hot knife through butter. You have heard the story a million times about Jim Carmeichal's Miller 1909 in .338. Miller of course hunts. And Carmeichal has put that rifle through the ringer and he claims it still holds it zero after all of these years. And it is on very beautiful wood.

I think Allen is very aware on both counts.

Chuck

Grandview, listen, I'm not making this stuff up, and I can easily arrange a visit with the owner of these rifles if anyone is out this way and would care to visit. I don't have anything to hide, and I site these examples to make one point: Rifles should be evaluated by the way they perform first and foremost, not by the way they look. Now if they look great and perform great, that's fantastic.

Personally, I don't care what someone else wishes to hunt with. I believe in the custom rifle industry as a whole, and I believe in fine walnut-stocked classic hunting rifles. Just as long as they are built from the inside out and function and shoot just as well as they look, that's what counts. I've had fine custom rifles built for 25 years, and I've owned several that looked great and shot and functioned great, particularly a couple of Burgess/Milliron rifles, and a pair from David Miller and Curt Crum. I'm also very familiar with several Biesens that get hunted with extensively, and work great in every way.

What irks me is the bum rap that synthetic-stocked rifles take -- mostly for cosmetic reasons, which is lame -- especially when so many of them perform superbly, and on average the synthetic-stocked custom rifles I've owned have performed better than the wood-stocked rifles have by a considerable margin. No put-down intended, just a pure and simple fact.

22WRF, I know Jim Carmichel very well. We're good friends, have hunted together in Mexico and New Mexico, I've visited him at his home twice, looked over his whole collection, and we've shot side-by-side together on gear-test projects for 'Outdoor Life' in 2002 and 2004. I've spent considerable time looking over his custom rifles, including his famous David Miller 338 Win. Mag. Jim's Miller rifle is an example of a custom rifle that's built 100% right all the way, and it's built from the inside out. Dave spent something like four-weeks working on the action rebuilding it, the receiver's been rehardened properly, there's a perfectly-dimensioned five-shot, built-from-scratch magazine box -- the works. You could write a whole magazine article on the work that was put into that rifle and still not do it justice. It's a plain, simple, elegant rifle, and Jim's used it on some 200 big game animals, including brown bear, lion, elk, Cape buff, goats, etc., etc...

AD

Allen,

There are lots of beautiful, accurate and functional wood stocked rifles. And there are lots of ugly, dysfunctional, and inaccurate plastic stocked rifles. So does that mean plastic stocks are bad?

If you like a plastic stock, that is great. In an Echols rifle, that will save you about $10K. But they sure aren't much to look at (the plastic ones).

Of course I understand your frustration with a rifle that was expensive and does not work properly. But there makers out there who build a very nice looking rifle that is also functional and accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:

quote:

that same .338 1909 Mauser could have been made by a very fine metalsmith who does hunt and who would have made the thing feed and function like a hot knife through butter. You have heard the story a million times about Jim Carmeichal's Miller 1909 in .338. Miller of course hunts. And Carmeichal has put that rifle through the ringer and he claims it still holds it zero after all of these years. And it is on very beautiful wood.

I think Allen is very aware on both counts.

Chuck

Which is why I wrote " you have heard the story a million times".

I am very aware that Allen Knows Mr. Carmeichal from the Outdoor Life Articles and from Allen mentioning hunting with him on a couple of occasions.

I was just trying to point out to everyone else that wood stocked 1909s don't have to be junk, and Mr. Carmiechal's rifle proves it.

Hey! THANKS TO ALL YOU GUYS FOR JUMPING IN DEFENDING WALNUT STOCKS AND SOPHISTICATED CRAFTSMANSHIP! Not that they should need it.

Allen, I have been needling you and I apologize. I used to get irate, now at least, I Try to do it with humor. Seriously, if I had all the trouble you have with custom rifles I'd give up on them. But I haven't, I guess because I could do all those things you mention to make them function and shoot accurately.

Just maybe, if your friend with the .338 had spent just a bit more time and $ getting that walnut stocked rifle to work, he would have all those great memories about a rifle he could spend hours enjoying for it beauty and successes.

I see more "safe queens" than you might imagine and don't like them any more than you do. I know you have more fancy stocked rifles than you let on, and truly hope you hunt with the one you recently received. Does it shoot well? Function properly? I sure hope so.
SDH

Why jump in when we can sit in the stands and watch the Wood vs Plastic Ultimate Cage Fight? I think we're in about the 97th round and we're still waiting for someone to land a knockout blow. Eye-gouging is a sure crowd pleaser...you kids get after it.

Since we build both types of rifles (wood and glass) I am feeling a need to jump into the foray.

I feel that a custom rifle is one that is built to the customer's specifications, period.Some customers do have better taste than others but I feel that whatever the customer desires should be his, as long as it is safe.

Some gunmakers are able to leverage their experience to influence the customers choice. I would put David Miller and D'Arcy Echols into this class. They have put in the field and shop time to develop what they think a rifle should be, and lets face it the proof is in the pudding. The only disparaging remarks I have ever read about the products of either of these two, is that the guns the make are too expensive.

Some gunmakers, those devoid of any real talent, cater only to the accuracy.Not the benchrest crowd( some fine machinists in this bunch) but the "I dropped him at 800 yards" group. These guys are trying to sell hunting skill in the form of a rifle.

Any gunmaker, that has nothing to sell but accuracy or trys to sell nothing but accuracy does not deserve your money.

Any rifle billed as custom should offer superior function.Period. Accuracy is only one part of the function puzzle.

wood vs. composite? Both have shortcomings and strengths.ie. We always float barrels in glass stocks because we have found guns bedded this way to be more predictable. No stockmaker worth his salt would free float a custom wood stock. In wooden stocks this is regarded as poor craftsmanship.

Custom rifle buyers run the gamut. Some want to impress their buddies, some want to lighten their load. Some customers want to have a rifle they never have to think about on a $30,000 hunt, some veiw guns as minor art works and think about them every free minute.

At the end of the day we prefer to build guns we know will go hunting. I feel this is the highest compliment our rifles can receive.

So if your rifle begs you to take it hunting, it's maker succeeded.If it stays at home, get a new gun and or gunmaker.

The bottom line is simply this; any high end glass stocked rifle has but one motivation for existing. That is to hunt. It is built from the ground up for hard hunting use. It isn't a "show piece", an ego trip, an art show, or founded on some petty desire nostalgic memory lane fuzzy. I don't care if the wood stocked, finely engraved rifle gets hunted. The builder of such rifles will come in second when it comes to field time. Bottom line.

Funny thing is though, the glass stocked "Mona Lisa" simplicity is the thing that fetches it the higher price at resale. But, they never come up for sale. The owner is to busy worrying about hunting them instead of selling it to plunk a down payment on the next beauty queen with an extra swoop here and a little more scroll work there.

Chuck

There ya go, Chuck. That's the eye-gouging we came here to see!

quote:

There ya go, Chuck. That's the eye-gouging we came here to see!

Maybe time for a little head butting and groin kneeing.

Jeff

LOL!!!

I surely love beautiful wood stocked rifles though I don't care a fig for engraving or inlays. To me, the form should do the speaking but then I'm a bit of a minimalist at heart. I truly love Forest B's battery of beauties and would do any serious hunt in dry hot climes with them. Here in the wild and wooly northern Rockies I'll always take stainless stocked in African Walnut (fiberglass).

This is starting to sound like some new form of “gun control†thought up by the Brady gang! From now on all “pretty rifles†can never leave the house...and all “ugly rifles“ have to be kept in either Alaska or Africa away from civilization.

Mr. Greg Hein, that was a very objective, honest, and well-written post. There are indeed a lot of low-talent "riflesmiths" who are only capable of building guns that produce small clusters of holes on a piece of paper. That's really all they have to sell. Balance, stock architecture, and a host of other important aspects of rifle function are lost on them. Their clients don't know the difference, either -- but they do understand tight groups!

Miller and Echols rifles do get singled out for high cost, but this is a relative thing. Both shops put in a lot of range-time, plus they factor-in replacment barrels if the first one don't shoot properly, and Dave's got to pay Curt a salary, D'Arcy's got a full and part-time help to pay, etc. They're still not getting rich!

But price some contemporary British magazine rifles (which I love to pick on) that are priced much higher and aren't anywhere near as good, and such high-end American bolt-rifles start to look like a bargain, and a much better hunting investment as well.

It's funny how high-end bolt-guns get so widely criticized over the issue of price, yet I've seen guys blow big money on limited-application double rifles that are ready to come off the face, as well as stack-barrel and side-by-side shotguns of all descriptions. No one utters a peep about high price on that stuff!

As a client, I would prefer that the riflemaker charge a higher price from the outset, but put more time into the rifle, including break-in, range time, and function tests -- whatever it takes to make sure the rifle works, shoots, and stays working after I take delivery. This approach has proven to be much more satisfatory and cost-effective for me, and has allowed me to honestly give credit where it is due to great riflemakers who have put into my hands rifles that get the job done perfectly, better than any factory rifle ever has. For me, that's what CUSTOM is all about.

If an expensive (but not AS expensive!) custom rifle that hasn't been tested, doesn't work, and can't be made to work comes your way and you decide to sell it, you'll take a loss on it, and such losses are best avoided to begin with.

AD

Rick, that's RIGHT!!

One thing I've found out about 'glass-stocked rifles: Up on the mountian, there's nobody to impress with fancy stuff, and in Africa the professional hunters smile over well-hit animals that go down on the spot -- not proper engraving patterns or rifles that are throwbacks to riflemaking as it was in jolly ol' London, circa 1935.

But, if such things please the client-hunter, I guess that's what counts the most..........

AD

I agree completely and think that this is an objective and realistic appraisal from a guy who actually has done what he talks about. I LOVE fine, traditional riflemaking and spent most of a summer's wages on a Al Beisen 270 in '68 when I was 22, but, for serious use, a contemporary synthetic stocked rifle is superior by far.

In less than two weeks, I am leaving for the area of the East Kootenays where Allen's friend the late Bob Fontana had his main camp and will be backpacking up the Abruzzi with a friend. At 59, every ounce counts and I will be packing a synthetic stocked .338 Win. due to the light weight, changeable weather and the Grizzly I ran into up there about 2.5 months ago.

This all reminds me of the old, crude but very true saying, "candy is dandy....but likker is quicker....

Cost is not necessarly a factor in a good custom rifle..most of that cost is in paying for the makers name, and it will sometimes be a perfect rifle, but no guarentee...I have seen a lot of $10,000 pretty junk...

Picking the smith is the best way to get a good rifle..but you first have to know what a good rifle is..

Personally I think paying $10,000 grand for a bolt action rifle is well not for me, when you can get the same quality for half that if you know your way around the gunmakers guild and check out a few up an coming young artisians.....

I have been observing these threads from a far. It is with a little trepidation that I now choose to enter. Hunting, shooting and firearms mean different things to different people. We all have different need due to the different demands we place on our equipment. Hunting with a gun that was built around your specs provides a different level of satisfaction to the hunt. I hunted for many years with factory rifles. Some provided adequate service and others simply did not. And some could not be made to perform adequately no matter how much aftermarket tweaking short of going custom. For a while I considered owning a large group of guns chambered specifically for the game I wanted to hunt. After owning several problem guns I came to the conclusion that for my needs and my desires I would be better off with fewer quality firearms rather than several so-so guns. This is where semi-custom and custom gun posses much of their value and perceived value to their owners or at least to me. Last year my father and I went on an Antelope Hunt in New Mexico. Not a very strenuous hunt for the hunters but the bumping and bouncing and the dust was apparently too much for my father’s Remington 700. I brought along a wood stocked Custom Mauser 98. When my father first saw the rifle he said he would be afraid to scratch something like that. Long story short, by the end of the hunt this rifle accounted for two nice antelope following one fairly short and relatively long stalk. The Remington worked fine for casual deer hunting from tree stands. It failed miserably after only a couple hours on this hunt firing either upon closing the bolt or upon “taking the safety offâ€. This rifle is several years old and the failures were repeatable. This was a once in a lifetime hunt for my father. Had I not been along things may have ended differently for him. The cost of a custom gun is not much compared to a ruined hunt. Why do I choose to hunt with Fancy wood stocked customs? Because I enjoy a wood stocked rifle more than a synthetic. Because I saved up long and hard to do so, sometimes selling a few guns along the way. Because it adds another level of enjoyment for me. But mostly because safety, reliability, and memories are more important. And because I know that my son’s will also cherish these guns when I pass them along to them.

I think this is somewhat relevant to this topic...maybe not, but I’ll offer it anyway.

For a short time after getting out of the service I worked for a guy in Utah teaching primative outdoor survival skills. Making fires with a bow drill, making weapons and traps, etc. One of our instructors was a master flint knapper and had actually made some flint and obsidian arrow heads for museum displays to replace some originals that had been broken.

I once asked him about their effectiveness for hunting and his answer was pretty simple. This was the best thing available at the time to the primative people who used them. Had they had steel available they would have used it in a heart beat.

It would be interesting to see how many “custom†rifle makers of the past would have used fiberglass stocks, had they been available to them, for the rifles they built for hunters.

Rick, I conceded your point as far as regarding rifles as simple tools. Not everyone views their rifle as a simple tool. I have owned synthetic rifles. They just felt cold. The balance was not quite right either. Now I will admit these were simply factory stocks and not an aftermarket variety. Can wood stocks be made to hold zero. Yes. Are they as strong as synthetic? No. For me it is a matter of preference and feel. Wood simply feels warmer and is my personnal preference. Does that make it right for everyone? No, but it does not make it wrong either. I also own a 200 year old SXS Double Barrel Flintlock Fowler (smoothbore). Somehow it was never informed it was supposed to have rusted and rotten away by now. And I assure you it is quite effective at filling the stew pot with rabbit and squirrel.

That knife's not big enough to skin a squirrel.

500 grains ... maybee not but it looks good in the picture

Rick, I would like to further add that your speculation on whta some of the past masters would have used is simply that. Speculation. It makes for interesting campfire talk and beyond that really is not relative. I would expect that then just as now you would find a mix of both being used.

I’m sorry...but when and where did I say that rifles were “simple tools?†You obviously missed the point I was attempting to make.

I’m assuming that you are referring to my last post where I was only trying to make the point that builders will normally use the best materials that are AVAILABLE to them whether it is a “simple†arrow head or a more complex firearm.

quote:

Originally posted by 54JNoll:
500 grains ... maybee not but it looks good in the picture

Rick, I would like to further add that your speculation on whta some of the past masters would have used is simply that. Speculation. It makes for interesting campfire talk and beyond that really is not relative. I would expect that then just as now you would find a mix of both being used.

Have you always had this reading comprehension problem?

Nowhere did I say that any maker would have used anything in particular. I posed the question...period!

I totally agree with you that you would probably have had a mixture of both types being used...and whatever type was chosen would not make that rifle any more or less custom than the other.

You ain’t my wife or one of my children so I would appreciate it if you stopped misquoting me and assigning your meanings to my words.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
It would be interesting to see how many “custom†rifle makers of the past would have used fiberglass stocks, had they been available to them, for the rifles they built for hunters.

I think that premise is one of the areas of contention that typically spawns these longish threads.

In the early days of custom gunmaking, the approach was basically the same as it is now........create a gun to the customer's desires, and deliver quality,function, and style that wasn't available commercially. However, the materials were likely about the same as commercial offerings had. Wood and blued steel. Early metalsmiths created parts and styles that became standards....if not cottage industries. Early stockers created styles and levels of workmanship that became standards.

Technology advancement has evolved materials and machines that make much of the labor-intensive custom work a bit easier......although the investment in those machines is a significant overhead.

A plastic stocked rifle can certainly be a "custom".....although that argument still rages. However, I personally question whether it's "art". But some people aren't interested in "art". That's fine also. Firearms have long been a medium for artistic expression.....almost since their invention. But it ain't everybody's cup of tea.

Would latter day custom smiths have used modern materials and machines if they were available? Certainly some of them would have. And certainly some of them would continue their work in wood and blued steel.......much as the custom industry is today. And likely that latter-day market would have defined the same environment that exists in this thread. Certain people aren't interested in the "artistic" expression in their rifles. They see no real value in it, and definitely won't pay for it.

I don't either for the most part, because I try to do the work myself. But I know what I'm trying to achieve.....and I know the standard that those custom gunmakers do achieve. And that's what I want. And that's what I'm willing to work for.....or to pay for, if it's something I can't do.

GV

Good on ya 54jnoll!
Nice buck, cool rifle, good story!
SDH

Man, those 700's are a fright, aren't they?

quote:

Originally posted by GrandView:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
It would be interesting to see how many “custom†rifle makers of the past would have used fiberglass stocks, had they been available to them, for the rifles they built for hunters.

I think that premise is one of the areas of contention that typically spawns these longish threads.

In the early days of custom gunmaking, the approach was basically the same as it is now........create a gun to the customer's desires, and deliver quality,function, and style that wasn't available commercially. However, the materials were likely about the same as commercial offerings had. Wood and blued steel. Early metalsmiths created parts and styles that became standards....if not cottage industries. Early stockers created styles and levels of workmanship that became standards.

Technology advancement has evolved materials and machines that make much of the labor-intensive custom work a bit easier......although the investment in those machines is a significant overhead.

A plastic stocked rifle can certainly be a "custom".....although that argument still rages. However, I personally question whether it's "art". But some people aren't interested in "art". That's fine also. Firearms have long been a medium for artistic expression.....almost since their invention. But it ain't everybody's cup of tea.

Would latter day custom smiths have used modern materials and machines if they were available? Certainly some of them would have. And certainly some of them would continue their work in wood and blued steel.......much as the custom industry is today. And likely that latter-day market would have defined the same environment that exists in this thread. Certain people aren't interested in the "artistic" expression in their rifles. They see no real value in it, and definitely won't pay for it.

I don't either for the most part, because I try to do the work myself. But I know what I'm trying to achieve.....and I know the standard that those custom gunmakers do achieve. And that's what I want. And that's what I'm willing to work for.....or to pay for, if it's something I can't do.

GV

Excellent post and very much to the point of what I have obviously failed to convey effectively in my posts.

I believe, as I had stated earlier, that each person has their own personal definition of what they consider to be “custom“...and it seems that a good number of people interchange “classic†and “custom†as though they were the same thing...which to me they are not.

I own wooden stocked, blued rifles and I also own a few synthetic stocked rifles with non-blued finishes. All are “custom made†(my definition) since none of them were purchased from a factory, but were built from an non-barreled action to my particular specifications. I did a few of them myself and the others were built by either McMillan, Robar, or GA Precision.

The only “factory“ rifle I own is a Springfield M1A...and I replaced the synthetic stock on that and installed a walnut stock and handguard myself, so I guess that one is “custom†also.

Rick, I do not have a reading comprehension problem. Perhaps we simply have a failure to communicate. Interpersonnal cummunication is defined as person 1 talking, person 2 listening and interpreting and then person 2 responding or providing feedback to person 1. The inportant thing to understand in all of this is the interpretation part. Yes I made the leap about some viewing guns as simply tools. I will take the high ground here and appologize for that assumption since you state that was not your meaning. It is however, you that brought up the issue of ancient man using flint only because they did not have steel and how would the masters of old may have used sythetics had they been invented earlier. No I did not miss the point as you wrote it. The point being that the only reason past custom makers used wood was because that is all they had. We we now have many more choices and some still prefer wood. No you did not name any names but you did imply that the potential exists for one or more of the past masters to have maybee chosen something else. All I said is that I expected that we would have had a mix of materials being used then as we do now. I think it is this understanding wherein we can both agree.

Interpretation varies according to the previous experiences and prejudices brought into any conversation by both parties. As such various meanings will always be assigned any vocal or written phrase by differing parties unless the originator very very very clearly articulated their possition.

I am sorry for your communication problems with your wife. If you like I could say a prayer for you.

54JNoll,

I appreciate the offer but I’m single!

I beg to differ with your depiction, and with your theory on communication.

You quite clearly stated that I had said that rifles were “simple tools“...which can be found nowhere in anything I have posted here.

You have also falsely inferred that I was making the assumption that all rifle builders of old only used wood because nothing else was available to them. Again, I said no such thing. In fact, I made no statement about that topic at all, I merely posed a theoretical question for others to ponder and answer anyway they saw fit. If you chose to read that as a statement, rather than a question...then I stick to my belief that you do not comprehend the written word very well.

I normally find it helpful when I am confused over another persons words to ask for clarification as to what they meant to say...BEFORE I start telling them what they meant to say based on my own assumptions.