The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Re: Serengeti ZephyrGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: Serengeti Zephyr | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Who is SDH? His profile says he is a gunmaker in Livingston, MT. | ||
|
| one of us |
We�re pleased to announce Zephyr, a new ACRAbond stock for the drop-in Market. Over the past year, Serengeti has gravitated toward the semi-custom space because the majority of customers wanted us to go there. That left a lot of people who used to buy from Mel Smart without a modestly priced alternative. Six months ago, I mentioned we were working on a solution, which is now available.    Zephyr is a Merlin geometry, machine-carved 16 at a time, and finished in Polyurethane. It has laser checkering, QD swivel studs and a rubber butt pad. The barrel channel is carved for a #3 contour. This is a true drop-in that will accept MRC M1999 actions. Long and Short action models, in RH are immediately available. List price is $375.00. Dealer enquiries welcome. Call Larry at 406-756-2399 for more details. Remington and Winchester models are planned in 2005. | |||
|
| one of us |
Ah, a "well thought out and balanced" reply, largely based on insinuations and personal incrimination. Pity we can't discuss this rationally and in a civil tone. Let's see, one could have written something along the lines of: Quote: See, it is actually possible to present an argument without resorting to expressions such as "naive", "ridiculous", "Get off the bench rest and imagine hunting", "Why don't you learn from history", "Is this your forum for self promotion" etc etc. Perhaps then we could discuss your arguments seriously - be they right or wrong? As it is, they just leave a sour taste, and attest to bad manners. Pretty poor effort, SDH. - mike | |||
|
| one of us |
Im no expert but if you put a staight edge across the picture it does look like a sway back horse. I enjoyed SDH's post. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I kind of like the response, and what amazes me, is how these types of things can happen with such an experienced base to draw on, or consult with, in your country. Chuck | |||
|
Moderator |
SDH, while this is not to my taste, it's setup well for scope use.. drop EQUALS kick, at least in the shoulder, as far as I can tell, when it's "too much"... for example, a 577 nitro double, with a good fitting stock, at 14.5#, still kicks like HELL with a 750 at 2050.... but a stock with less drop (say a 585 in a bolt gun) feels like much less recoil, at 250 fps faster... i didn't believe this until i did it... i'd like to see a close design, with about 1.75" drop, for iron sights, for what it's worth jeffe | |||
|
one of us |
Quote: Oh good grief..... If you'd do some reading on the subject, and attempt to understand the principles involved, rather than reacting to "who and how" the crtique was delivered.....you'd learn something. Rifle magazine of November 2004 has some rather good pictures that may help to illustrate. BTW......it also has an article about Serengeti Rifles. Good article, Rod. The subject of the article with the pictures I refer to is about the new Nosler rifle. It's pictured on page 37. A straight edge will show that this butt stock has a nearly straight comb......drop at comb nose and heel are nearly identical. The angle of the comb defines the relationship between the cheek and the shoulder. The reason this angle is referred to as an "anatomical" angle is because it's set by the skeletal structure of human beings. Husky, broad-shouldered, short necked people will likely have a shallower angle......when standing and in a firing position, their cheek may be only slightly higher than their shoulder. But it's amazing how uniform this measurement actually is. The shoulder is lower than the cheek....that portion of the cheek that rests against the comb. In other shooting positions, other than standing, the angle of the spine comes into play. When shooting off the bench, the spine is at a slight angle. This affects the relationship between the shoulder and cheek. Humans don't have double-jointed necks, so the shoulder gets raised and the chin lowered when taking this position. Likely putting them on the same plane. I'm sure you noticed this when shooting off a bench. Elevating the butt of the rifle with bags, and having an "inlet" cut on the bench is an attempt to get the rifle in somewhat the same position as off-hand. I believe pictures on pages 34 and 36 of the Rifle magazine article illustrate this. From the prone position, the spine is at a more acute angle, and raises the shoulder to a level that is likely higher than the cheek. A position that surely fits the Serengeti Zephyr. The natural position when shooting offhand is the cheek slightly higher than the shoulder. This defines a comb that slopes back down toward the butt pad. Field shotguns will definitely have this angle, and it will be more exaggerated than rifles. Why? Because typically the shotgun is used for wing shooting, and the act of raising the shotgun into the air increases the differential between cheek and shoulder. In order to maintain contact with the comb, that angle or slope is increased on a shotgun. The angle or slope of the comb also dictates how quickly the gun can be brought into shooting position.......cheek to the comb and butt to the shoulder. The grip hand does most of this work. And actually it works mostly to bring the comb up to the cheek.....hoping, assuming the butt will meet the shoulder at the same time.....correctly positioned. The cheek-to-comb is the more important anchor point because it controls the eye-to-sight alignment. Extremely important on a shotgun because it's your "rear-sight". On a rifle, the desired angle of the comb remains the same regardless of open sights or higher scope mounts. The entire comb, respecting the angle of butt and cheek, is ideally raised or lowered to align the eye to the sights or scope. If you've ever shot or shouldered any of the early custom guns with rather extreme drop at heel, you'll understand the premise. These guns, particularly those that are slender with nice grips and forearms are wonderful to handle. They mount like magic. The sights are right there. Even the early examples that started to raise the comb a bit for scope use. So why was this angle, more drop at heel than comb nose, changed if it provided such a nice fit? RECOIL... There is less felt recoil the closer the plane of the stock to shoulder gets......to the plane the cartridge and barrel are on. Additionally, any angle or "hinge" defined by the grip and slope of comb can exaggerates recoil by distributing it to the cheek as well as the shoulder. The monte carlo comb was the first attempt to raise the cheek to scope level and respect the cheek/shoulder angle. The monte carlo was then angled forward in an attempt to "slide away" from the cheek under recoil. Roy Weatherby sold a ton of guns with this style. Here's an example of what he did in relation to the Zephyr stock...  The comb on the monte carlo slides away from the face under recoil, and the dimensions of the butt and cheek are preserved for a quick mount. To this day people swear by them....or at them. As the "Classic" style (a style erroneously known as minus-monte-carlo more than anything else) became popular, the comb was designed as "straight", or with very minimal drop at heel in relation to the comb nose. It became the defacto standard for rifles. In a previous post, SDH related James Tucker's opinion about the severely straight stock. Most rifles with less than normal DAH won't be mounted with the full butt on the shoulder. With a hard kicking rifle it is good to have the entire butt surface contacing the shoulder." "Lessens felt recoil," From experience, and from watching others shoot, I believe this to be true. An example of such is on page 34 of the Rifle magazine I referred to earlier. I think that's a classic off-hand shooting position that young Nosler is demonstrating. That's also about an inch of butt projecting above his shoulder.......on a stock with a straight comb. The Zephyr (dimensions supplied by Rod in this thread) would have a heel that is an additional 6/16 inch higher......assuming the comb nose on both is just high enough to clear the open bolt. Regardless, the comb on the Zephyr slopes in an opposite angle of what I've previously described by a differential of 6/16 inch. (3/16 drop at heel vs. 9/16 drop at comb nose). It's certainly not my intention to hammer away at the Zephyr, or Rod, or his company on a whim. I support any work in the firearms field. I'm intensely interested in stock design and what it can do for the shooter.......both functionally and aesthetically. Having played around with my homemade "try stock", and after reading and watching others shoot various stock styles, my opinion is as follows.... The "straight" stock is a compromise solution for recoil, quick mounting and handling, scope sights, and aesthetics. The Zephyr is a further compromise solution for recoil and shooting poistions.......leaning heavily to bench and prone. And that's what SDH said in his posts.....perhaps less diplomatically. Does it work? It probably wouldn't for me......and I've experimented with the premise. On the other hand, straight stocks don't work for me either. I definitely require more drop at heel than comb nose........a comb that slopes down toward the butt. I further would bet that a significant number of shooters would shoulder the Zephyr stocked rifle in an off-hand position with a whole lotta butt visible above their shoulder. Respectfully submitted......  GV | |||
|
one of us |
Who is SDH? His profile says he is a gunmaker in Livingston, MT. I am not answering this because of allegence to anyone, but merely to try and caln the waters as others are doing. Mr. Hughes is a custom gun maker that makes his living at that. He also is a first class photographer and does more than a passable job at writing books and articles about the subject at hand. It might prove interesting for some to read some of his work. I will never own one of his fine rifles, but I certainly appreciate reading about them, and reading what he has to say about the subject matter. The fact that he may be a bit outspoken simply comes with the territory. Most people who are good at what they do are, and make no mistake, he is good at it. By the same token, Mr.Rogers is very good at what he does also, namely, putting out rifles that are above factory standards with custom features that reflect their customer's taste. That he and Mr. Hughes ideas clash sometimes does not make one of them right or wrong as far as I can see, it's just they don't go about doing their business in the same manner. Montana is still big enough for both of them as I see it and I wish them both continued success. I also am not trying to stick up for my brother here, but what he writes has been my experience also. It is rather funny, but he started out making mostly straight stocked rifles with little or no drop at heel. I know that, because I still have some of them. To make it even more strange the monte carlo rifle he has is one he got from me in a "horsetrade". But, over the years he has changed his ideas quite a bit because of his study of the human anatomy and as he said playing with his try-stock. I might also add that he isn't one to be led into anything, or back down from a good argument, especially on what he strongly believes is correct. Trust me, this I know from experience. We have had some dandies over the years.  Together we now have a common stock design that we pretty much both like and that is what most of his and my rifles reflect. Is it the perfect design? It is for me, but I won't hazard a guess as to whether it is for you. You have to decide that on your own. I might further add that stockmaking is a hobby to grandview, and he doesn't have to please anyone but himself and me.  Mr Hughes and Mr. Rogers don't have that luxury. They have customers to please and have to go about it as they see fit. Far be it from me to question how they do it.I also might pass on something that Dennis Olson told me one of the last times I was in his shop. Dennis doesn't have a web site and spends very little time on a computer. He was surprised at some of the folks who were on these forums and stated, "If I was on there I would probably be mad all the time!" He further stated that there were only a few real cuss words in the English language and when you say "web site" and "e-mail" you have just added two more. Whenever a discussion such as this takes place I think of those words. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
I agree with SDH. That stock has far too much negative drop for optimal handling and recoil management. Ya'll ought to study a Biesen, Goens, Curt Crum, Kennedy, Fisher, Echols, Tucker, or Milliron (etc.) stock for inspiration. Such stocks, of true American Classic persuasion, simply cannot be improved upon for scoped magazine rifles. I'm sorry to sound 'negative' (no pun intended), but that's how I honestly see it............ AD | ||
|
| <allen day> |
SDH just happens to be one of the world's best builders of truly fine custom rifles and side-by-side shotguns, and he has executed some of the most difficult, challenging, and unique projects in custom gun history -- many the likes of which I have NEVER seen anyone else take on before, and everything he does is executed to perfection. That's how talented and skilled he truly is. He's also one of world's best firearms photographers, a distinguished member of the American Custom Gunmakers Guild, and an accomplished author who has written about the subject of fine custom firearms in numerous publications, as well as the beutifully written and photographed book, "Custom Rifles In Black & White". He's been a full-time custom riflebuilder for his entire career, has associated himself very closely with some of the finest custom riflemakers in the world and has studied their work at length and in great detail for many years. Does he know what he's talking about? You damn betcha he does! He's forgotten more about stockmaking than most self-styled gunmakers or stockers are ever going to know, and that's no joke. You might not like everything he's had to say here, but this man is no drugstore cowboy, no showpony, and no phony bag of wind attached to an ignorant mouth. He's the real deal, and I certainly agree with the points he's made here on this thread. Some of it might not sound nice, but then most hard facts never do, especially if those facts fly in the face of widely-accepted ignorance. AD | ||
|
| one of us |
In 1983 each of us paid $500 for Pilkington's (and Ron Lampert's) class. The specific instruction was certainly worth it, but the nightly discussions and gossip were "priceless". The Internet is a great resource, but it's also a very impersonal communication or converstional media. What you can achieve face-to-face in casual conversation doesn't translate well on forums. Heated conversations can be diffused and continued face-to-face.......frequently with some humor. Doesn't typically happen on Internet forums. The diversity and agendas of so many different people won't allow it to happen. You won't have a casual converstation on a specific subject with everybody in Madison Square Garden either. Besides that, what you type on an Internet forum doesn't exactly exist in the same way what you speak in casual conversation does. A fact that many people forget. The stuff you type here can be rather permanent.......it likely won't be dismissed as casual conversation or mere hearsay. I'm not sure SDH would have been in an enviable position to debate the premise of this stock style (the subject of this thread....remember?), but he certainly is qualified. Of course he would have had to debate the premise with Rod, a popular poster on this forum, against the designer of the style.....who is now deceased, and with Dennis Olson's name having been evoked....a qualified smith who certainly wouldn't be on the forum to supplement the debate. Not to mention that virtually every poster taking a position against him.....never did so from an informed position of design or merit. Nor did they invite a discussion of the premise or development of the style. An opportunity was missed. GV | |||
|
one of us |
"Not to mention that virtually every poster taking a position against him.....never did so from an informed position of design or merit. Nor did they invite a discussion of the premise or development of the style. An opportunity was missed. GV " I don't think anybody, at least anybody familiar with his work and reputation, took a postion based on anything other than what seemed to be a hit simliar to a shot in the back. Assume for the sake of the argument Rod is wrong, SDH's response would only be appropriate if Serengeti were trying to knowingly pull the wool over the eyes of the people here. That isn't the case. He believes in the design. Sometimes people are wary of taking advantage of such opportunitys when they observe such a response. I'm not taking shots, SDH has been helpfull to me personally via the net by answering a few questions I had over on HA. I can appreciate that on one hand and take the position I had on this thread on the other. I suppose if I lived some place where the wind blows like hell 24 hours a day I may get a little edgy on occasion myself.  | |||
|
| one of us |
The secret to Dennis and email is Glenda. She prints them and answers for him. And the web has been and continues to be a love/hate relationship when you do have a dog in the hunt. I've "studied" Grandview's posts, both interesting and informative. If we're ever in the same physical location, I would like to mount a few scoped Leopards, Cheetahs, Merlins with him for a better demonstration of his point. Being called names because someone does not like "one" of our designs seems a little silly to me. Maybe I asked for it with the "drop-in" product description. In the end, it doesn't matter a hoot. We don't advertise on AR, sorry if it came across that way. In point of fact, my contributions here have dropped off a lot since I left MRC. Back then, there was a lot to add technology-wise and now there is less. I appreciated the words of support, but perhaps Grandview is right. Feeding fuel to the flames, so to speak. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |