This is their general website: http://www.waffenjung.de

This is the page I would like you to look at, and tell me what you think:

http://www.waffenjung.de/pdf/jagenweltweit_1_2004.pdf

For 5500 euro one must like it a lot.......It's clearly a fine looking gun.

I see two things I need to see closer and in better detail than this webpage offers. [1] the checkering pattern is exactly what I am looking for on the Repetierbüchse „Classic“ mit Mauser-System as is [2] the stock style.....

Does anyone have better photos of one of these rifles ??????

what's not to like?

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:
what's not to like?

300 WSM for almost $10,000 ?

I do not like the way that scope is mounted at all. It is definitely too far back. If that rifle is anything more powerful than about a 257 Roberts -- and I see that it is actually a 300 magnum -- when you fire it, the recoil will likely cause the scope to hit you and give you a cut above your eye and/or a black eye. It's also mounted too high. I like scopes to be mounted as low as possible so that the bell of the scope does not touch the barrel.

Other things about this set-up annoy me too, but those others are matters of taste.

I will say the magnum mauser in the 416 Rigby is interesting though. Much more to my liking.

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:
I do not like the way that scope is mounted at all. It is definitely too far back.
...
It's also mounted too high.

Do you mean the scope mount featured in this article (JWW Jung Article)?? If yes, then with the choice of mount (claw on receiver), they would have had a hard time mounting it any different. A lot of European scopes, in particular older ones, like this one looks to be, have quite a short eye-relief. So it probably had to come back quite a bit. When they then chose to use the claw mount on the receiver in combination with the objective ring, they really did not have a lot of options. Likewise, this mount pretty much dictates how high the scope will be mounted. Needing the entire objective bell (plus mount parts) to be above the front base does not exactly help.

Sometimes, one sees a claw with the front base mounted on the barrel. This solution has its own problems (one mount on barrel, the other on receiver), but at least it will allow the scope to be moved further forward.

So why did they choose this mount?? Heck, I don't know. But I would guess they were trying to create something "special", so anything as profane or worldly as a pivot mount might have been considered out of place?? (My guess only). This in spite of the fact, that the pivot mount might have helped them with both the problems you mentioned. But who knows, maybe there were other reasons (like the scope was already available, and the customer specified the claw mount. Who knows?).

Btw the picture



Showing them working on a fully finished stock with a chisel is a bit unrealistic...

- mike

P.S. I should admit that the takedown makes my head spin. There are several of the high end smiths in Europe, who make equivalent guns - Johannsen, Jung etc. Man oh man, are those rifles sweet!

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:
I do not like the way that scope is mounted at all. It is definitely too far back.
...
It's also mounted too high.

Do you mean the scope mount featured in this article (JWW Jung Article)?? If yes, then with the choice of mount (claw on receiver), they would have had a hard time mounting it any different.

Yes, that's the one I meant.

I don't see why they had to mount it as far back as they did, even using claw mounts. If, instead of having the ring of the front mount go over the bell of the scope, it had, instead, been the same diameter as the rear ring and were placed on the body of the scope behind the front bell, they could have moved the entire scope forward about two inches (about 5 cm. for those of you who do not use proper measurements).

If the scope they used really has only a 2 inch eye relief, or thereabouts, then it's definitely not suited to a rifle that recoils as much as a .300 magnum.

The mounting I suggest would still have been too high, but that too could have been corrected by using mounts in which the height of the ring above the claw was smaller than in the one in the illustration.

I admit that European tastes in rifle stocks do not move me -- they seem grotesquely ugly to me. I also do not understand the taste and desire for takedown rifles.

I also intensely dislike open (iron) sights on rifles because I think they are not needed, are ugly, and spoil the lines of the rifle and the barrel, but that too is a matter of taste.

See the first rifle in this collection (the Weatherby Mark 5). In my opinion, that's the way a rifle should look and its scope should be mounted.

http://www.accuratereloading.com/rc4.html

________________

Lloyd, power to you for having a particular taste. I'm certainly not going to argue that with you - how could I??

I like the classic style you refer to. But there are many rifle styles available, and I happen to think you can find well executed specimens in many of them.

You are certainly not the only person who prefers "the style we have at home". Many Europeans are as guilty of this as you are. I guess it just shows people get to like what they grow up with, or get used to. Nothing wrong with that.

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:
I don't see why they had to mount it as far back as they did, even using claw mounts. If, instead of having the ring of the front mount go over the bell of the scope, it had, instead, been the same diameter as the rear ring and were placed on the body of the scope behind the front bell, they could have moved the entire scope forward about two inches (about 5 cm. for those of you who do not use proper measurements).

This comment is slightly misinformed. On a claw mount, you have to be able to tip or tilt the scope forward to have it enter or leave the mount. That is how these mounts work. Thus, the front ring has to be close enough to the front of the scope - be it with an objective ring or with an objective mounted rail - for the tilting motion to be possible.

So if they wanted the scope mounted further forward, they would have had to choose a different mount - the point I was trying to make before. Or at least move the front ring onto the barrel.

I'm not particularly keen on claw mounts myself, they are expensive, tricky and, as you have seen, position the scope a bit higher than is necessary. But, they are a very traditional mount, so many people (even some in the US) choose to use them when building a very "traditional" rifle.

Like I said above, I did not build this rifle, so it is kind of hard for me to guess as far as the reasons why this or that solution was chosen.

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

This comment is slightly misinformed. On a claw mount, you have to be able to tip or tilt the scope forward to have it enter or leave the mount. That is how these mounts work.

Good point. I was not aware that the scope needs to be tilted forward to enter or leave the mount, as you say. So my solution to the problem would not work.

_____________

I think color case hardening on a bolt action is inappropriate. Especially this one as it obscures the engraving.

quote:

Showing them working on a fully finished stock with a chisel is a bit unrealistic...

- mike

If you talk to anyone does checkering, you may find that checkering a finished stock is not a bit unrealistic. has to do with chipping...

You are right, if he is checkering, this naturally has to be done after the finish has been applied. I should have thought of that, so point well taken.

Looking at the picture, it does look a bit like he is working further back than the (already finished?) checkering, though. But maybe I'm just seeing things and trying to defend my point

- mike

I believe that the craftsman in that picture is inletting the extended tang into the stock. Or he is cleaning up the inletting (for the tang)post finishing

I dont believe the craftsman is doing anything but striking a pose for the photo! . Hale Berry or Jessica Simpson could have filled in,oh sorry, its a German rifle,Claudia Chifer preferably.

LE270,

you state that you dont understand the taste or desire for a takedown rifle, would it be safe to say that you also dont appreciate other things that come in two piece such as fishing rods and women in Bikinis?

You would be surprised how practicle it is to have a compacted down rifle when flying in by small chopper to remote areas.
When one or two persons has to fit gear into somnething like this:

http://www.helispot.com/photos/00401.html


believe me,two piece rifles or anything else can make a real difference.

Ditto LE270 and Woodjack. That looks posed, not a working photo. The craftsman doesn't have his center of gravity close enought to the work for good tool control, if that makes any sense to others.

Quite agree about the posed photo - finished wood looks a lot better, and sells more rifles...

I also happen to agree about the issue of take-down rifles, but I was not about to start a shit fight over it. I can't imagine travelling with regular rifles these days. But to each his own.

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:

LE270,

you state that you dont understand the taste or desire for a takedown rifle, would it be safe to say that you also dont appreciate other things that come in two piece such as fishing rods and women in Bikinis?

Some things, such as the ones you mention, are intended by God to be two-piece. Some guns, the hinged ones -- SxS and O/U doubles, break-open single shots -- are intended to be takedown. Bolt action rifles should be solid. Understand?

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:

LE270,

you state that you dont understand the taste or desire for a takedown rifle, would it be safe to say that you also dont appreciate other things that come in two piece such as fishing rods and women in Bikinis?

Some things, such as the ones you mention, are intended by God to be two-piece. Some guns, the hinged ones -- SxS and O/U doubles, break-open single shots -- are intended to be takedown. Bolt action rifles should be solid. Understand?

But when taking a rifle to far off places, or with the use of small helicopers, that God did not intend for one piece rifles to be taken, then a take-down is the only way to go! Understand?

I like it, but I don't like it THAT much $$$$, and wouldn't spend anything near that for any custom in that chambering. I do have a few things I don't like.

without seeing it better the checkering, from those pics, does not look like what I would expect for that money

I don't read german but if that is a modern production rifle why have the clip slot?

looks like the bolt release lever has a build up to make it easier to manipulate, but looks higher than I would like

I don't like the front sight, and am not sure how much I like the rear sight, don't like the scope setup, although I like the mounts.

I haven't gone through their website but of course there is a reason for take down bolt actions, the pure fact that mechanically they take more skill to make properly, the easy of transport. If we're going to make blanket statements about bolt action rifles then there is only one to be made "there is no reason for any bolt action design after the m98 mauser". After that, everything else is.....

still a good looking rifle, just too much money for what you get.

Red

Le270,

I seem to be diametrically opposed to mainstream,cause I appreciate T/D bolt guns and one piece "solid" SxS rifles like the HagnSxS Falling Block double.
Works fine for me,cause I see merit to all of it be it bolt/break/block 1 or 2pc. By the way, the blades on that chopper are t/d aswell(for container transport), and in flight you can go where no "solid/fixed" wing craft can even dream of.
Saying that something should only be a certain way,may only be applicable to how you see/do things.

If every man took the narrow view that Bolt rifles should only have fixed barrels, aircraft should only be fixed wing and Double rifles should only be break action,then undeniably,we would be missing out on some wonderful things.
That I do "understand".

quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:
I don't read german but if that is a modern production rifle why have the clip slot?

They state that only some of their rifles are built on new actions.

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:

If we're going to make blanket statements about bolt action rifles then there is only one to be made "there is no reason for any bolt action design after the m98 mauser". After that, everything else is.....

Well, maybe...

The military Mausers tend to need a lot of work to make them look good. They also tend to be heavy in the sense that rifles made on them tend to be heavier than rifles made on some other actions. If rifles are carried in the field, lighter is better than heavier.

If you can find a G33/40, those can be worked up to quite nice, light, sporters, but those actions are becoming rare and, consequently, expensive.

Mauser actions have a long lock time. You almost never see a target rifle made on a Mauser action.

I think the Winchester Model 70 and Dakota actions -- they can be thought of as modifications of the Mauser 98 -- are really better nowadays than the Mausers.

Remington 700 actions are inherently more accurate, and the Weatherby Mark V is stronger. The Savage 110 doesn't look so good, but it produces very accurate rifles for only a little money.

What does the '98 have going for it that sets it apart from others? I think the answers are only two: tradition and the long, sexy-looking Mauser extractor.

So it seems to me that unless you are willing to spend a lot of money to get a '98 Mauser worked over, there are considerably better actions available now.