In the file for this rifle I have two fifty yard groups, the first set with the sights like I found them three shots about .4�. I raised the sight then let the rifle cool off and fired a five-shot group the first three again under .5 then the last two opened it to 1.25�. Few if any of these pre-war custom rifles had free floated barrels and my experience is about three shots then things seem to open up. Anytime I get my hands on an older custom that I can shoot I have some 150 grain Remington Corlock loaded to the same OAL as factory and that�s what I used in this rifle. I�m sure I must have fired a 100 yard group but it�s not in the file, suspect it was in the 2� area.

Anyone have more info on Koshollek, I did not mean to highjack this tread.

See above, edit to the EK picture, poor choice of words on my part. I have a much clearer picture and I�ll see if I can tell more about the rifle he his holding. If anything, it looks more like the one he made and is pictured from Linden�s book.





The illustrated rifle is a .30-06; notice the triggerguard safety and a new made bolt sleeve with peep sight.

Rifles like those have something that one of todays modern customs could never have, a past. Yea, todays whizbangers with Yamamoto stocks and night vision that are garanteed to zero in on the hair of a gnats ass are pretty impressive, but that "past" I mentioned has proven that even so, a simple set of iorn sights will still do the same thing that 95% of those whizbangers end up doing.

Fantastic thread gentlemen..

With all this talk of $800 stock blanks and $4-500 barrels I am curious what would it take today to equal what was considered a custom rifle in the twenties and thirties. I realize that a person can't fully compare today's custom rifles with those of that era, but there still is a top and bottom to both then and today. This is what I am curious about how others feel.

Case in point; I have a rifle I recently aquired that was built by one of the better metalsmiths of the day back then. His name is stamped on the bottom of the buttstock behind the grip cap and also under the steel buttplate that can be seen when the buttplate is removed. This person was Emil J Koshollek and he was from Stevens Point, Wisconsin. From what I can gather, according to some of his relation, this rifle was his personal hunting rifle for many years and his name was stamped using typewriter keys. I won't burden folks by posting a picture, as many would no doubt find all manners of fault with it by today's standards, yet this rifle did represent a standard of some excellence in the era it was made and certainly should have qualified as a custom rifle back then.

It is a 1903 Springfield made in the first year they were double-heat treated and has the original barrel from that year also. The bolt has been replaced with one that is nickel steel and the barrel shank reflects a change from the original position. I assume this was to correct the headspace for the addition of the different bolt. It has a Lyman band type front sight complete with hood and a Redfield Micrometer receiver sight. The stock has been whittled from a piece of Wisconsin Black Walnut with some figure in the butt. It is checkered with somewhat coarse checkering on the grip and features a wrap-around pattern on the forearm. The checkering looks well done and features a border line as was popular back then. It has a steel grip cap and steel butplate that I assume Emil made, but they aren't like the ones he made in later years for Alvin Linden and others. This rifle is very user friendly despite the butt having tons of drop compared to todays styles. When I put it to my shoulder with my eyes closed the butt nestles nicely into my shoulder where it should and upon opening my eyes the sights are lined up almost perfect. If I didn't know better I would say this rifle was made for me!! I would use this rifle a lot today if I could only see the sights better without my bifocals!!

Anyway, now that I have bored you with all these details, what do you feel would be the equivelent to this rifle in today's world of custom rifles in comparison? Back when it was made I am sure there were more fancy custom rifles made than this one, but I think that some perhaps were not up to the standards of this one either. Would todays rifle still use the military barrel, a Shaw, a Douglas, or something else. Would it use a $200.00 stock blank in todays world or something better, or something of lesser value? As a final thought, what would a representative rifle in today's world cost to build, $500, $1000, $2000, or whatever would you guess.

Finally, what do you feel constituted a Bieson, Goens, Milliron, Fisher, or others back in the twenties or thirties?

Many thanks

I feel today's state-of-the-art is the highest ever. The typical factory rifle of the 20s/30s was far nicer than most guns being mass produced today, but IMHO the finest custom G&Hs, Hoffmans, Parkers, Winchesters, etc. are no finer than today's best quality guns made by top U.S. custom makers or high-end shops in Europe, engraving included.

I feel fortunate in that I was able to study in person the work of many of the top pre-war custom riflesmiths when I was a very young man. This includes many Holland & Holland, Rigby, and Griffin & Howe rifles, Shelhammer, Owen, Minar, Hoffman, Linden, August Pachmayr, etc., plus some of the most ornate, engraved pre-war Custom Shop Model 70s ever to leave New Haven.

For its time and place in history, the best of the pre-war stuff has a special charm all it's own, but the very, very best rifles of that period by no means -- by any measure -- are the equal to the work of the best post-war craftsmen, beginning with Al Biesen and Dale Goens. And there is simply no comparison at all to the work of today's top craftsmen. Romance be damned, that's just the way it is.

Today's rifles are stocked better, work far better with scopes, are much better-engineered to deal with recoil, and are better fitted and finished, plus the finishes are far tougher. Today's metalwork is far more sophisitcated and precise, the barrels are better, bedding techniques are much better understood, as is proper heat-treating, etc., etc., etc. To be blunt, the pre-war rifles were great in their day, but they are thoroughly archaic by today's standards.

It's telling that Jack O'Connor quit the pre-war custom rifles by the late 1940s -- which he hunted with extensively before the war -- just as soon as he met and became familiar with the work of Al Biesen, and later Russ Leonard, Earl Milliron, and other up and coming young masters who had new ideas, were ready to break new ground, and figured out how to build stocks that worked best with scopes and could deal with recoil better than the pre-war stocks ever did.

AD

A rifle with both wood and metal by Emil Koshollek is a prime item and is to be treasured.

That is an important rifle historically, whatever its aesthetic failings. I await Mike Petrov's comments with interest.

Could you post a pic?

Idared is at work right now, but asked me to throw these pics up of just the stock. These are the pics I sent to Idared to refresh his memory......and to get an idea of just how bad I was about to take advantage of him. I had removed the metal to see if we could find any year stamped to date this piece. "E.J. Koshollek" is stamped externally behind the grip cap on the toe line of the stock, and once again under the buttplate. No year to date the work, but presumably in the 20's. Koshollek's metal skills improved measurably after this gun.

Emil never made his name in stock work, and the British influence is obvious in this piece. It's a great departure from Linden's work, and they were very good friends who spent a lot of time together......although I've never seen any of Alvin's early work either. Alvin's writing indicates his early efforts were pretty coarse. But then, barring the timber accident that left him crippled.....he might not have gotten into the stock making business at all.

GV

I would love to see a picture of the rifle. I really haven't seen enough rifles from that era to have a opinion. I'm betting it's like other hobbies....I prefer a 340 Cuda, Duster, Demon in muscle cars but love the old flathead hot rods of days gone by. When going to good car show it's fun to see the evolution of the sport and builders thru the decades. I'm guessing customs guns would strike me the same way. One thing I have noticed is many older rifles have darkened with age to the point of hiding the wood.

I concur with your judgement. But there is a romance and class that is associated with the older rifles that is hard to compare anything modern to. I love both era's!!!!

IDARED,
Please post pics of the rifle and share that classy rifle with us.

Emil Koshollek holding a rifle. I have no idea if it�s the same rifle, poor wording on my part. I just meant that EK was the man holding the rifle.

2MP,
That is one classy rifle. And a springfield action to boot!! My keys are shorting out due to all the slobber and drool on them. Thanks for sharing that with us. What is the caliber? If you say 35 Whelen I will start suffering from rifle envy.

In keeping with the theme.......some may find these interesting.

GV

Linden's original shop at left.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/055015.jpg

Linden's shop now....(2003)

http://www.hunt101.com/img/055016.jpg

Linden's family marker and headstone.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/055017.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/img/055014.jpg

Wow! That photo has gotta be the acme of impeccable documentation !

That an interesting rifle, do I have a picture of it? Any custom rifle with that kind of history is well worth documenting. Emil Koshollek made at least one rifle completely including the action and barrel but I have no idea where it is today. Tell us more, an overall picture please!

I would never try to compare the custom rifle work today to the work of pre-war makers. It was a different time, different type of shooting, most rifles then were made for iron sights only. Custom gunmaking has come a long way with the advancement of materials, technology and the sharing of knowledge. I love the older style of rifles they made back then so I have worked to preserve that history. This does not distract from makers before them or after, it�s the period in history when the modern bolt action hunting rifle was introduced to America and I find it fascinating.

The Spring 2004 �Gunmaker� has reprinted my article on Alvin Linden & Emil Koshollek. Any new information on either would be most welcome. When this was first published one gunmaker thought I was a bit hard on Linden regarding the quality of his inletting. He told me that he was not sure how good his work would have been working under the conditions that Linden did. He made a good point and that has helped me to try to keep things in perspective.

There are many �Unknown� makers who worked regionally and never had a national reputation who where every bit as good as the big named makers. This is an area where any information gathered is hard work but very rewarding.

The pre-war makers are in demand as much today as when they were working. Today (8-16-04) a Bob Owen Springfield was sold at auction for a price that would buy a nice modern custom rifle.

To quote Fred Adolph �The Quality is always remembered, when the price is forgotten�

I have two basic problems with modern custom rifles: First, they all look the same to me. While I can identify a 1920s or 1930s G&H, Hoffman, Linden or Shelhamer at a gun show from a pretty good distance, I am hard put to it to differentiate among makers like Bolliger, Miller, Simillion, Ottmar, Wiebe, Heilman, etc. The workmanship is admittedly wonderful, but to my eyes, which may be less expert than Allen's, their lines seem almost identical.

Second, these makers have become too finicky, over-refined. The contemporary business of little pads under sling swivel bases, 32 line checkering in elaborate patterns, and all the other little fribbles and furbelews that today's smiths indulge in leave me cold. The exhibition guns made for raffling or auctioning off at the annual Gunmakers and Safari Club meetings have been especially awful. The trend to big scope sights perched high up and hanging back over the rear end of the action doesn't help either. The old Stith Streamline mount was much more successful in integrating a scope into the lines of a rifle. There is a Brit bolt gun maker, the name may be Lloyd? - who sets the scope low and in an attractive mount that melds into the action. It also keeps twigs from hooking under the scope!

A hunting rifle is a tool and its appearance should be spare, severe, elegant and simple, without the fussy elaborations piled on by many of today's makers. I will also say that I do not think that superduper exhibition grade wood belongs on a bolt action high power rifle - it should be reserved for double shotguns.

As far as the original questions proposed in the lead-in post, I don't know who the "middle-tier" American stockers might have been in the 20's and 30's. The British and Continent were surely building custom guns in that era, but the American equivalent was really in its infancy. Whether much of the initial American work survived by identity is anybody's guess. Or perhaps Mr. Petrov's knowledge.

As Allen stated, the art and skill has advanced so much in both proficiency and technology. Deep into the 30's, Linden was working without power tools.....or any electricity for that matter. I have a mid 30's American Rifleman where he states in an interview that he just installed wood heat in his workshop. Well, northern Wisconsin winters can be a bit chilly.

There currently is a "pyramid" of gun makers in America, all of which are capable of producing very good work. The top of the pyramid does mind-blowing work. I doubt there's serious argument from students of the profession that the very best in the world is produced here in the US.

The early work of the important gunmakers survived to be examined, critiqued, and appreciated. That of lesser probably didn't.....at least not by identity. And my guess is the people involved isn't a lengthy list.

GV

That is a very nice stock. I like the Schnabel? fore-end. very classy looking. Please show the rest of the rifle. Its like being a teenager on a date with a hot girl. She gives you a peck on the cheek and gooses your ass at the same time just to torment you. Now quit teasing us and show us the rest please.

WOW - masterpieces for sure - one thing to also remember that having a bolt gun in the early days was being "custom" in the 20's the lever was still teh #1 gun (I would think)

Most guys got the custom bolt actions cuz they were the
different guns of the day!

Nowdays a truely different custom would have to be something other than a bolt- say a nice single shot (Dakota 10) or maybe a double - but todays costs with that are sky high and still based on an action that is many moons old!

Again thanks for the pictures!