What are the features/characteristics (including cartridge) of a bolt action rifle that would qualify it to be classified as a "stalking rifle", not necessarily classic, not necessarily German or English, but "stalking" in terms of use today, with iron sights and/or a scope?

I read and hear the term, and I have an idea what I think it means, but I would like to read your thoughts on this subject.

Thanks,
KB

Gosh, Kabluey, you sure know how to ask the toughies!!!

I suspect that term is really undefineable in an exact precise "classifying" sense. Kind of like "match grade".....or "master gunsmith" in North America.

Still to throw out some thoughts which I associate with "stalking rifles", here's a few...

- intended for situations where one "sneaks up" to within range of the game, often on hands and knees, and kills it with one well-placed shot, often from the prone position.

- usually a single shot or bolt action rifle with a "longish" barrel...probably 24" to 28" in length.

- usually chambered in a medium bore or "smallish medium bore" cartridge...that is to say, somewhat less than .358" groove diameter, and likely a bore minumum of about 6 m/m to 6.5 m/m.

- Because it is to be carried on the stalk by the same person who will shoot it, a tendency to be slighter of profile and lighter poundage than a bulky rifle which would weigh more than one might want to tote all day...especially on long, tall, hills.

- That often translates as well into no Monte Carlo comb, no cheek-piece buttstock, and a somewhat abbreviated length forearm of more or less "splinter" dimensions, rather than a beavertail shape.

- A cartridge case which is of the "express" variety...intended for medium light bullets for the bore, and relatively high velocities for its era.

- Both iron sights and a QD scope, to make the rifle optimally useable whatever the weather.


- A drab (non-glinting) finish to both wood and metal.

A trigger suitable to fine shooting at extended ranges from either prone or offhand, but heavy enough poundage of release to be safe in the environments where used.

None of those are absolutes (except the safe trigger), but all taken more or less together, draw a picture in my mind of many of the classic Scots moor rifles I've owned.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Gosh, Kabluey, you sure know how to ask the toughies!!!

I suspect that term is really undefineable in an exact precise "classifying" sense. Kind of like "match grade".....or "master gunsmith" in North America.

Thanks A B, for the good info for thought. I tried to ask the question carefully worded to make it open-ended because I was thinking that maybe a "stalking" rifle now-a-days may have a wide varity of forms, specifics, and character, valued differently from person to person.

I suppose for example, there may be a variety of "stalking" techniques or methods. Some may want to crawl around on their hands and knees, and others may want to stand up and walk slowly. As I understand it, in Texas "stalking" is riding a bad boy electric buggy to sneek up on um.

Since it will have both iron sights and scope, then probably it will serve general hunting uses including stalking, stand hunting. I sort of envision a stalking rifle to have characteristics for situations where quick-to-the-shoulder will be handy. The one you described, with the long barrel, causes me to think maybe it is not so handy.

So generally, I'm thinking of a rifle that isn't a clone of those I already have, all of which generally follows the pattern of straight comb, standard classic cheek piece, scope only - no iron sights. I'm trying to envision a rifle that is quick with iron sights, but can be used with a scope. Of course it includes all the standard necessities such as a good trigger, 100% reliable especially feeding and ejection of cases, and light weight.

Actually I have something rather specific in mind, but I'm intentionally not fully describing it because I want to read what others think about this, rather than simply express my thoughts. I already know what I think, so I want to know what you think about this too. I'm sure to learn something.

KB

bolt rifleKabluewy-

A bit more about a rifle that quickly enables good shooting with either iron or optical sights....

I think maybe one has to start by envisioning and then owning a rifle with good iron sights, likely permanently mounted, but not always. Then one thinks over what kind of optical sighting system can be added which will not require drastic changes in one's shooting positions,but can operate with few or no tools.

In Europe, that usually means claw-mounted scopes. In America it used to mean things such as the Stith Master Mount, the B&L type mounts, or the Griffin & Howe type sidemount. And of course, after Bill Weaver became a roaring success, the ordinary Weaver rings and bases work well too. A coin is all it takes to remove those rings and their scope from the bases, and Weaver-style rings can be had which will mount the scope as low as possible without banging the objective ring on the barrel.

Coommonly, the rifles are carried with only the iron sights in play, incase of an unexpected shot at close range, or in adverse weather.

If a long-range shot is encountered/required, then there is usually time to mount the scope, which was traditionaly carried in a holster either over the shoulder or on the belt.

Of course the rifles I described in my first post of this thread were really truly intended for hunting on Scottish moorland. There being little by way of forest in that area, much crawling or "duck walking" (Aaarrgghhh!) was often involved and the long barrels were not a particular handicap.

Bring that game to North America sort of changes it for me, into more of what could be called a "still hunting" specialty rifle. Then the trees may end up requiring what alpine hunting did in Europe...a severely shorter barrel for convenience and, in the alps, for safety.

Back to the iron sights...one can also consider a rifle which not only has a quickly removable scope, but one which also has quickly removable iron (receiver) sights. My first .375 H&H bolt rifle, which I bought in Alaska in 1963, was a Model 70 with a 19" barrel, G&H double-lever side-mount, and a Redfield receiver rear sight paired with a sleeve-mounted gold bead front sight. It was a darned good rig for still-hunting the rain forests, but not what I would deem a purist's" stalking rifle in the classic sense of the term.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
bolt rifle Kabluewy-

A rifle that quickly enables good shooting with either iron or optical sights....

what could be called a "still hunting" specialty rifle.

My first .375 H&H bolt rifle, which I bought in Alaska in 1963, was a Model 70 with a 19" barrel, G&H double-lever side-mount, and a Redfield long-slide receiver rear sight paired with a sleeve-mounted gold bead front sight.

It was a darned good rig for still-hunting the rain forests, but not what I would deem a stalking rifle in the classic sense of the term.

Yea, still-hunting in the rain forest - now that's what I'm talking about. If a rifle is well suited for that task, then in my book it is right for practically anywhere.

I have one of those NECG ghost ring sights for the CZ 550, which is speaking to me about needing a place to perch. I also see that NECG offers some high viz type front sight inserts, along with vented hoods to allow the fiber optic sight to gather more light. That's a start.

KB

Kabluewy, the stalking rifle can be as modern as yesterday or as traditional as tomorrow but what has been posted already is also what I have seen and and built as my personal stalking rifle. The bolt mounted Rigby style aperture sight is the traditional way with a scope in my backpack and in 7x57 it also falls into the traditional stalking rifle caliber. Even though I used an English style, the action is DWM 1908 so have it as 7x57 rather than 275 Rigby. It is very quick in handling and with just enough weight to hold steady for off hand, while with the scope in qd rings has the ability to reach out if necessary.



Von Gruff.

That is one simply beautiful rifle. What elegance. Bravo!

KB

Mr.Von Gruff -

That is a very nice rifle you have built for yourself. There is a possibility it would not work for me in the field though...

My concern is the cocking-piece rear sight. I am tall, long-armed, and long-necked. To some degree that makes me an automatic "stock-crawler".

Even though cocking-piece sights travel AWAY from the shooter's eye when the trigger is pulled, it is not always enough travel to offset the rearward thrust of a recoiling rifle for every hunter. In my case, I have a couple of such sights which I have had to remove from their rifles for the sake of my own eye safety.

Though I still have my vision, I have had the shooting-eye lens knocked out of my glasses on more than a half-dozen occasions....and that weith receiver mounted sights which are AT LEAST an inch farther forward!!

Those cocking piece sights lost their general popularity in about the mid-1930s and were replaced by receiver sights for a valid reason. Once in a while, particularly in prone or steep uphill shooting, the sight picture was the last thing the shooter would ever see with their master eye. Recoil would plant the sight right in the middle of the eye itself.

I cannot recall her name, but there was the wife of a famous hunting couple who lost her eye with a shot at a sheep in Alaska because of such a sight. He was a Doctor, so the damage was severe enough that immediate ordinary medical help was not enough to save her vision.

With some types of shooting, involving downhill or level ground shots, a longer buttstock can offset the problem's dangers, but longer stocks aren't always feasible on rifles intended for quick use, or for handy use in forests.

I am NOT criticising your judgement or your rifle built for your own use. I am just trying to remind folks that neat and nice as some rifle aspects may be for most people, all of them should be carefully considered for actual use by the user, not just installed because they have high "neato" power.

If I could safely use that kind of sight, many of my rifles would have them. As of right now, the ones of mine that did wear them have all had them removed.

I agree with the above. These two Walther's, 7x57 left and 8x57 right, have "stalking" safeties, or so I have been advised.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Mr.Von Gruff -

Even though cocking-piece sights travel AWAY from the shooter's eye when the trigger is pulled, it is not always enough travel to offset the rearward thrust of a recoiling rifle for every hunter.

That is a valid critique and as always a custom rifle is built to suit the taste and shooting style of the shooter, with body shape playing a major part in stock design, or it should be. For me as it was a 7x57, the recoil is negligable so didn't have to consider that in my consideration of the sight style. I have an aperture on my 404 as well but with the recoil consideration in mind, it is a bridge mounted unit

Although I am not a stock crawler I did consider the diferences in recoil and possible shooting aplications when deciding on the particular style for each of the rifles. For myself the bolt mounted aperture was more than a style consideration. It will get a workout tomorrow as we are away at 4.30 am for a day in the hills after goats.

Von Gruff.

As I recall the lady was shooting uphill
with a tang sight. This is a real problem
with Hard Kickers.
The cocking piece sights I have looked at had
some play in them.
Good Luck!

non traditional. 19" barrel, 7mmBR, 4.5x14 scope (got the scope yesterday), irons and a stock will come later.

Mr. Hawkins -

You may well be correct. It is entirely possible the lady was using a tang sight instead of a cocking-piece sight. The tang sights are even worse, so far as danger goes.

Now that you mention it, I believe the first time I heard about this particular incident, it was stated the lady was using a 6.5x54 Mannlicher/Schoenauer with one of those "spring-up from the upper comb" tang sights.

The next time I saw it reported, I believe it was said to be the result of a cocking piece sight on a rifle chambered for .280 Kynoch (AKA Ross). Both accounts agreed it was a steep uphill shot. I accepted the second version as more likely being correct because of the greater recoil of the .280 rounds.

Guess I'll have to start browsing the internet and see if modern technology has made it possible to better research the incident.

Whatever the outcome, as I mentioned I have had the shooting eye lens knocked out of my glasses on more than 6 occasions...probably more than a dozen times.... And that occured with receiver mounted peep sights on bolt actions chambered for .308 Winchester...my across the course match rifles which I was shooting prone at 900 meters and 1,000 yards.

I could not just "turf" those sights, as iron sights were required in DCRA competition, so I had to be come more careful about where and how I held my head.

It also thoroughly taught me one of the real values of wearing top quality, well-tempered, shooting glasses EVERY time I shoot. The lens would get punched out of the glasses frame back smartly against my cheek-bone and forehead, but the eye in between was always intact and unharmed in any way. Would hate to think what cheapo, frangible glass might have done....possibly shatter...and what else?

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
What are the features/characteristics (including cartridge) of a bolt action rifle that would qualify it to be classified as a "stalking rifle", not necessarily classic, not necessarily German or English, but "stalking" in terms of use today, with iron sights and/or a scope? ...

Hey KB, I'd offer that a good bit of the decision should be based on the actual Terrain where the Hunt is taking place. We have some places where I Hunt that a short barrel 12ga with 3" 000BuckShot is the Stalker Firearm of necessity. Your choice of Pump or Semi-Auto. No scope needed nor wanted, but Fire Sights do make an excellent option.

Other spots lend themselves to a short barrel rifle with Heavy Partition Bullets going fast enough to penetrate some, close to the Game, brush or Beans. Here a 20" 350RemMag M7KS with Iron Sights does right well.

Come to think of it, after that, it is whatever Firearm a person wants to carry. If a person is into "Roaming around until you finally happen upon some Game", then it should be whatever you think fits the needs. Perhaps the shots are on the l-o-n-g side and I'd select a Flatter Trajectory rifle over the 350RemMag. Perhaps a 7mmRemMag or a 300WinMag.

If the shots are not all that long, then it is perhaps difficult to beat a 20" 7mm-08 M7, 308Win M7 or anyones 30-06 that you prefer.

I'm sure you have heard people mention that if a rifle is "too Heavy" then one good option is to loose some Fat from around your body. For what it is worth, over the years I've lost more than a few rifles weight and a 10# rifle still carrys like a 10# rifle.

Best of luck on your Stalking Rifle.

Gee, I always thought a stalking rifle was a Model 94 Winchester 30-30.

Gentlemen
The injured lady hunter I believe you are refering to was the (then) Wife of the late Capt. Paul Curtis, at that time, the Shooting Editor of Field & Stream. I seem to recall him calling her "Babs" which I assume was a short form of Barbara. I read of the incident as described by Curtis in my copy of his 1930's Guns & Shooting.
It has been long enough since reading of the incident that I'm going down and I can't find the book to re-read the passage describing the tragic accident.

quote:

Originally posted by mel5141:
Gentlemen
The injured lady hunter I believe you are refering to was the (then) Wife of the late Capt. Paul Curtis, at that time, the Shooting Editor of Field & Stream. I seem to recall him calling her "Babs" which I assume was a short form of Barbara. I read of the incident as described by Curtis in my copy of his 1930's Guns & Shooting.
It has been long enough since reading of the incident that I'm going down and I can't find the book to re-read the passage describing the tragic accident.

That may well be an instance of a similar eye injury, but it is definitely not the one of which I was thinking. The one I am referring to definitely happened to the wife of a doctor, not an editor. Seems to me they were from somewhere in Illinois, Indiana, somewhere around there in middle America, or from Colorado.

I checked 22 pages of Google references, at 10 items per page today, but did not have time to keep looking. If I could remember the publications where I read the accounts referred to I would post trhem. With over 3,000 hunting and shooting publications in my library, it may take me a while to find them, but I will keep looking for the next few days (but not during the 'Bama vs. Florida football game tomorrow).

Anyway, the point remains the same. Pays to check those things out before spending one's money on them. They're great for those situations and people where they don't cause problems. Very dangerpous for the others.