quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Argument Ad Hominem

Shifting an argument from the point being discussed to the personality of an opponent. Instead of dealing with an opponent's thesis on its merits, the fallicious argument attacks reputation, moral character, or refers to low intelligence, inferior social position, lack of education, or similar personal shortcomings.

Argument Ad populum

Arguments which depart from the question under discussion by making an appeal to the feelings and prjudices of the multitudes.

argument ad coprolitum?
used in specialized cases, where shoo-that-away posts his own brand of crap?

My comment was actually NOT an "argumentum ad hominem", it was a query and a statement of personal experience. These are not the same, but, considering the source, I am not surprised.

The Ruger Magnum Rifle is fine, for what it IS, however, the drivel concerning how it will be better is, as are the ...ad hominem... comments, merely the ranting of those who do not have the experience to see what a Martini rifle is. Fortunately, there are only a very few such types here and most know whereof they speak.

I won't waste further time on this foolish hijack of an interesting and useful thread.

Heym rifles that I have examined are excellent examples of gunmaking and Ralf's abilities, character and efforts are beyond question to any of us who actually own and use fine rifles.

See "jeffeoso's" comments on ...crap....

Agreed that the shroud/safety are an insult to the eyes.

But since we are on the topic, why on Earth do all the manufacturers insist on putting the safety on the WRONG side?????????

For a right-handed shooter, the safety belongs on the left of the rifle. Where your thumb can find it in a natural move.

Try and fire a 1911 Colt with the safety on the right side of the receiver, and you'll get my point...

Philip A,
Only recently was it pointed out to me about the safety being on the "wrong side" and was done so by a local fellow who has considerable experience hunting Africa as well as other distant lands. He found out that I had purchased a left hand safety Mauser bolt shroud and explained to me that it was a more natural position for that type of safety than a right handed one. Good natured fellow and he laughed and said now that he had enlightened me, I probably would not sell it. I didn't.

As to the Heym rifle offered, I think the safety arrangement is far overshadowed by the many fine features of the rifle, but to each his own.

martin

Kevin
flinchie catagorically said the rifle may look nice, but unless he holds it, its junk. the other fella talks of his experience WITH the rifle.

those are perpendicular to each other.

RE: The shroud controversy

I am not a dyed in the wool traditionalist ( I like goretex )but I do tend to like more traditional stock designs and that one is really well done but I might or might not like the new shroud. It would completely depend on how easily I can move the safety position, most importantly from on to off, but secondarily from off to on. I use a pre-64 M70 daily and, while I've never had the safety go all the way from "off" to "on" catching on things, I've had it go from "off" to the mid-position quite a few times, which is quite a few times more than I like. OTOH, I don't want it to be so stiff that it takes a gorilla type effort to move it, this new shroud might solve that problem.

I want to be able to operate the safety quickly and easily with either my thumb OR my index finger. If the new one can be operated that way, then it would be an improvement, if it can't then I'd go for the retrofit.

Of course, it goes without saying that any real safety is between the shooter's ears.

Most of y'all are clinging to a "concept" of what you like based on traditional looks, and that's fine, but I don't daily drive a Model A, nor do I think that everything done "back then" is better, it might be, and then again, it might not. As I said, I'd have to try one for while to make my personal decision.

Beautiful rifle, new shroud or not.

Nobody asked, and this is completely non-traditional but I'd like to save a few bucks and have the same gun without sights. If they shoot as good as they look, Dakota better start ducking and weaving.

Gato, well said and I completely agree. I have a lovely Dakota and have hunted it here in B.C. since 1994; it is going to Ralf for some adjustments and improvements next month.

Based on my "hands-on" careful examination of about 10 Heym firearms and maybe 25 Dakotas, plus those of highly experienced friends, I would rate the Heyms well above the Dakotas in quality.

I do not care about the shroud, I am concerned with the overall functionality of this Heym rifle and my experience leads me to believe that it will be totally satisfactory under harsh hunting conditions as we experience in BC.

I also handle P-64s every day and have for almost 42 years, I currently have 10 pristine shooters and one working custom and sold another two days ago. My opinion on these mirrors yours and this Heym, with a moisture-stable stock looks to me like a "perfect" option and one I would love to own.

quote:

..any real safety is between the shooter's ears

absolutely,,,,and if one really wants great ergonomics in safety operation, iTs hard to beat a Tang version.
Ralf knows very much what hes doing, if theres any real "in the field function" related problem with that shroud, im confident he would have adressed it.
An 3 pos. safety is not required to safely cycle unload a crf.

Geez, who pissed in Dewey's Wheaties?

"Lighten up Francis..."

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
Any possibilty of a left hand model? in .404

Chris????? We LH shooters need more options than what is currently out there for the larger bores. Will Heym offer this?

I agree the saftey is ugly, my preference is for a Brno 21 type safety. I don't like the checkering pattern shape on the pistol grip either.

Sorry for the late reply. Lots going on lately getting ready for the shows.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommyhawk:
IMHO If Heym actually markets a rifle like this they will be miles ahead of the rest.

I agree with you, and I hope we’re both right. They ARE going to be produced, and parts are actually in production to make 2010 deliveries.

Volume will be very limited. We’re not interested in selling a bunch of “production” rifles, but more interested in selling a fewer number of rifles that are “right.”

Only about 50 rifles will be built in 2010.

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
Looks like my next 404J! How much are they going to set us back Chris?

The base price is $9,500.00
You can spend a little more on engraving, gold inlays, or higher grade of wood, but mechanically speaking, there really are no other options to add.

quote:

Originally posted by ROSCOE:
Chris????? We LH shooters need more options than what is currently out there for the larger bores. Will Heym offer this?

Sorry, Roscoe… As noted above, volume will be very low on these rifles, and a new left-hand action is tough to justify.


Stop by DSC next week (Booth 726) or SCI (Booth 5409) to see the rifle.

Ralf will be in the booth at Reno on Thursday to answer any questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
It looks like a nice factory rifle but looks alone should not be the only factor in choosing a rifle.Other factors such as balance,how it handles recoil in a chosen caliber,stock fit,barrel life and accuracy,feeding reliability and so on are far more important.It worries me that I may one day own a very expensive rifle and find my Ruger to better in many ways.Just because someone built rifles like this back in the good old days doesn't mean that they are best built that way.

Are you really as much of a total bloody idiot as your posts here indicate? My buddy and I hunt with rifles from Martini and have the Rugers and have handled the Heym magnum bolt guns. There is simply NO comparison

Dewey, Yea he is......

Looks like a great rifle that needs the recknagel shroud.......................DJ

For truly objective input, you should send one of those with a matching PH double to a pistol guy.
That way they could be objectively tested outside the box.
A gunsmith would be even better,one used to high round count testing. Honestly.
Really.... Im not JOKING!!!
I like it, but would NEED a left hand safety.

Chuck

I like the overall look, but.....

Safety shroud is UGLY and is on the wrong side and is UGLY. And did I mention that it's on the wrong side and is UGLY? And as for the bolt handle...well, to each his own.

For $9500 I don't care how well made it is, it's poorly designed with wood so plain I'd be ashamed to tell how much I paid for the rifle. I've seen Ralf's work and it deserves better than to be paired with the UGLINESS and poor design of that new bolt shroud and bolt handle!

But beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, or beer holder, or something like that. Good luck with your new rifle, I hope you change it a little though. I can assure you that if I wuz gonna pay $10K for a bolt rifle, either it better look a WHOLE LOT better than your pictured example or else it needs to come equipped with at least 2 French maids!

To tell you the truth I'm kinda surprised that Ralf didn't tell you to take that shroud and go pound sand with it!
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I like the overall look, but.....

For $9500 I don't care how well made it is, it's poorly designed with wood so plain I'd be ashamed to tell how much I paid for the rifle.

Regards, Joe

Wow, I guess tastes in wood differ greatly. It looks like an excellent stick of wood for a large caliber rifle to me. Good grain flow, excellent contrast, it's exactly the kind of wood I'd want to stock a boomer with. It's not a overly gaudy piece with more figure than strength that only the ignorant would put on an African rifle..........................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I like the overall look, but.....

Safety shroud is UGLY and is on the wrong side and is UGLY. And did I mention that it's on the wrong side and is UGLY? And as for the bolt handle...well, to each his own.

For $9500 I don't care how well made it is, it's poorly designed with wood so plain I'd be ashamed to tell how much I paid for the rifle. I've seen Ralf's work and it deserves better than to be paired with the UGLINESS and poor design of that new bolt shroud and bolt handle!

But beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, or beer holder, or something like that. Good luck with your new rifle, I hope you change it a little though. I can assure you that if I wuz gonna pay $10K for a bolt rifle, either it better look a WHOLE LOT better than your pictured example or else it needs to come equipped with at least 2 French maids!

To tell you the truth I'm kinda surprised that Ralf didn't tell you to take that shroud and go pound sand with it!
Regards, Joe

I tend to agree. At that price level, $9,500, plus adding a few "extras", I would just as soon buy the real deal from Ralph for a bit more. If it was in the $6,000-$7,000 range I would have some interest.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
It's not a overly gaudy piece with more figure than strength that only the ignorant would put on an African rifle..........................DJ

My counter is that only the ignorant would assume that an 'overly-gaudy piece' couldn't/wouldn't be strengthened to about 3 times the strength level of the pictured stock. That is, if the builder really knew what he wuz doing....and Ralf does.

I have no problem with the pictured stock, other than the fact that IMO it has no place on a high-dollar rifle and I personally would be ashamed to say that I paid $10K for it. If I think of a rifle as an art object as well as a tool, I like to fondle and admire it at every opportunity whether on the stand or having a drink at camp after the hunt or relaxing in my recliner at home.

If I wanted a plain tool, I'd buy a Remington 700. IMO much stronger and more accurate but, kinda like the pictured stock, absolutely no braggin' rights whatsoever. If all you want is a rifle to take to Africa, you can get a GREAT Mauser for a heckuva lot less than $10K!

For me, the beauty is much of the attraction of a fine custom-built rifle. Why would I not want the most beautiful wood I could afford?
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
It's not a overly gaudy piece with more figure than strength that only the ignorant would put on an African rifle..........................DJ

My counter is that only the ignorant would assume that an 'overly-gaudy piece' couldn't/wouldn't be strengthened to about 3 times the strength level of the pictured stock. I think this paragraph pretty much shows where you are coming from.

I like to fondle and admire it at every opportunity whether on the stand or having a drink at camp after the hunt or relaxing in my recliner at home.

If I wanted a plain tool, I'd buy a Remington 700. IMO much stronger and more accurate but, kinda like the pictured stock, absolutely no braggin' rights whatsoever.The preceding sentence also is a strong indicator of where you are at. If all you want is a rifle to take to Africa, you can get a GREAT Mauser for a heckuva lot less than $10K!

For me, the beauty is much of the attraction of a fine custom-built rifle. Why would I not want the most beautiful wood I could afford? Because pretty wood isn't always as strong as it needs to be. On an African Rifle grain flow through the wrist is more important than the amount of figure in the butt.
Regards, Joe

I'm not saying that the wood on the rifle is the best ever but it's certainly just fine for a 375 H&H and far better for it's intended purpose than you realize..................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
I'm not saying that the wood on the rifle is the best ever but it's certainly just fine for a 375 H&H and far better for it's intended purpose than you realize..................DJ

Of course it's fine for a 375, I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying it's NOT fine for a $10K rifle unless you like paying top $ for plain cheap-looking stuff with no eye appeal.

So when will you order yours?

And as far as your veiled references to where I'm at and where I'm coming from, those are weasel words. Say what you mean and let's discuss it like men.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
And as far as your veiled references to where I'm at and where I'm coming from, those are weasel words. Say what you mean and let's discuss it like men.
Regards, Joe

OK, your statements reflect your ignorance about what kind of wood should be on a heavy caliber rifle. It's a common mistake for people to want highly figured wood in places where it's inappropriate. On a heavy caliber rifle you want straight grain flow through the wrist that won't break under heavy recoil. Having wood so weak that it needs strengthening bolts through the wrist isn't the best idea either.

Sorry if trying to be polite made it seem like I was weasling words. In my opinion your comment made you seem not only ignorant but rude.....................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

I'm saying it's NOT fine for a $10K rifle

I agree with that.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

plain cheap-looking stuff with no eye appeal.

But I can't agree with that. I have come to really like the look of a well done stock fashioned from a strong, understated piece of walnut.

It seems the current emphasis is on ultra fancy wood. I think the blank on the rifle in question is much closer to what was seen on the iconic rifles of yesteryear, such as those owned by O'Connor, than what we see these days.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
And as far as your veiled references to where I'm at and where I'm coming from, those are weasel words. Say what you mean and let's discuss it like men.
Regards, Joe

OK, your statements reflect your ignorance about what kind of wood should be on a heavy caliber rifle. It's a common mistake for people to want highly figured wood in places where it's inappropriate. On a heavy caliber rifle you want straight grain flow through the wrist that won't break under heavy recoil. Having wood so weak that it needs strengthening bolts through the wrist isn't the best idea either.

Sorry if trying to be polite made it seem like I was weasling words. In my opinion your comment made you seem not only ignorant but rude.....................DJ

I agree and learned this the hard way when packing medium bore rifles here in BC, every day for defence while running various forestry projects and working fire lookouts. I always wanted gorgeous timber and fine checkering, but, after a few cracked stocks and checkering worn smooth by rubbing on my "Bonedry", I realized that FUNCTION is "beautiful", where serious rifles are concerned.

I like this wood and would REALLY like this rifle, in a 4+1 9.3x64 Brenneke chambering with a Micky stock. I can "live with" the shroud, but, a Recknagel WITHOUT the little lock would be better,IMO. It really could benefit from a "ghost ring" dovetailed into the bridge, as well.......

Apparently you folks think that a DGR stock shouldn't be strengthened, or maybe shouldn't need to be strengthened. Or maybe you just wanta disagree with me, I dunno.

But I DO know that anyone who builds serious using rifles will always strengthen the wrist and recoil areas, because Murphy will always strike when least expected. It's my opinion that anyone who builds or commissions such an unstrengthened DGR rifle is not serious or perhaps is merely ignorant or is taking the El Cheapo route.

One of my litmus tests for my own rifles is to back the rifle's butt against a large tree or concrete wall and pull the trigger on a full load. Several times. Try this with your unstrengthened DGR stock and report back to us.

Meanwhile please cogitate upon the fact that folks like H&H, Westley Richards, Rigby et al. liked fancy figured wood, even used it on their cheapest rifles not to mention their expensive DGRs. And I seem to remember that my old H&H 500/450 double had those pesky 'unnecessary' stock-stengthening straps along the wrist, horrors, how inappropriate for an African DGR!

At least according to you.

And as for paying $10K for a plain-Jane, please pardon me if I don't allow you to make any financial decisions for me!
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

Meanwhile please cogitate upon the fact that folks like H&H, Westley Richards, Rigby et al. liked fancy figured wood, even used it on their cheapest rifles not to mention their expensive DGRs.
Regards, Joe

Not true at all. Furthermore few, if any, of the best quality English bolt rifles had any "stock strengthening" measures that you allude to.

The English bolt rifle I owned/used for one season in northern BC, about 1973, IIRC, had very lovely wood, but, no provisions for stock strengthening. I have never seen one with the "grip straps" you mention, but, have handled doubles so equipped.

An interesting aside, is that a collector and amateur stockmaker I knew here had a singleshot rifle that belonged to Selous and it had "plates" on the sides of the grip to strengthen it.

I WOULD epoxy a 3/16 bolt inside the grip on some bolt bigbores, but, other than crossbolts, cannot see much use for any other strengthening measures as all my using rifles are epoxy bedded.

I think the piece of wood on this rifle is good for any type of rifle that is intended to be used. It has a near perfect lay-out for strength and stability and good contrasting black lines for figure. I've seen many "fancy" stocks that were warped, cracked, or broken in use because the basic principles of stock lay-out were ignored in preference to "fancy figure". Epoxying a rod down through the grip is nothing more than a repair method for a stock that was made from an improper piece of wood.

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:
Hope it will be at the Guild Show!

Yes, it will make the following appearances:

Dallas Safari Club Convention Jan 7-10 (Booth 726)

SCI Convention Jan 20-23 (Booth 5409)
Ralf will be in our booth on Thursday Jan 20.

ACGG Show - it will be in Ralf's booth on Sunday, Jan 24.

Great! I have a rifle on order with Ralph and spoke with him the other day about a couple of items. I am looking forward to seeing this rifle and speaking with the Heym folks from Germany

I hope I get to see this new rifle!

Terry

The stock's grain flow and layout and strength are all perfect. I've never argued about that.

No, my point is that the pictured stock is not one that would command my interest at the stated price. Yes, the grain flow etc is perfect, but is it worth $10K?

IMO the stock would be quite appropriate for a custom big-bore rifle in the $3K-$5K range.

And I don't care whether you guys want to strengthen your own stocks either, although I think it's kinda silly to pay thousands for a using rifle and not take every precaution against Murphy. Kinda like saying "These are the strongest tires on the market so I won't even bother to take a spare tire along!" But, to each his own.

I haven't owned that many classic UK rifles but every single one of them had highly-figured wood. Every single one. No matter how big the bore or how fearsome the recoil, they all had highly-figured wood. AAMOF I can't recall ever even SEEING a classic UK rifle that DIDN'T have figured wood!

On a personal level I like doing metalwork better than woodwork, so I try to have nice wood on every rifle I build in order to make all the effort worthwhile. Spending lots of time on a plain piece of wood is, for me, not A Good Thing, so I'll keep on using the best wood I can afford.

If you wanta use the plain stuff on your high-$ rifles, why go right ahead & knock yourself out, but please don't try to tell me that highly-figured wood is not suitable for a DGR. All, repeat ALL, of the classic UK makers apparently disagreed with THAT opinion!
Regards, Joe

If you look at traditional pre-war rifles by Holland, Purdy, Westley Richards and it has a stock with high figured wood on it, it usually is a replacement stock as very few if any were made with the kind of fancy wood we often see now. That is my experience of dealing in fine rifles for more years than I want to admit.

I have probably handled about 15 different pre-war British rifles from "name" makers and this is what I have seen, as well. I have examined superb Rigby Mausers with wood as plain as a plank and Westleys and even a Purdey with rather plain wood, BUT, properly laid out.

Of course, the Brits in "The Glorious Days of the Raj", did not really consider a bolt rifle to be "Best" or use them as DGRs, but, more as "plains rifles".

We used to see a lot of this stuff here, but, American collectors and dealers came north and scooped most of it up, when this was still legal. Now, very few here would know a Westley-Richards from a Tikka........NOT a joke, sad to say!

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
but please don't try to tell me that highly-figured wood is not suitable for a DGR. All, repeat ALL, of the classic UK makers apparently disagreed with THAT opinion!
Regards, Joe

You are just flat wrong about this and don't know what you are talking about. You need to go back and do some studying about classic big-bore rifles. (was that plain speaking enough? Sorry if it was rude, but it's the truth)....................DJ

Read his commnents on using rifles in Grizzly country and the P-64 Mod. 70, in particular. The open admission of a total lack of personal experience did not prevent him from making much the same sort of obnoxious remarks he has here.

Must read a lot of gun magazines.

I think if you search all of the web sites that sell classic British rifles, look at the pictures and you will see that the layout of the blank is the primary consideration not figure. I have probably bought and sold more than 40 better/best grade British rifles in my life as well as many times that number of custom rifles. None of the British rifles had more than plain, perfectly laid out stocks. Anyone that is looking at fine English rifles will cast a suspicious eye ant ANY rifle with highly figured wood as that was just not done in the classic era.

Well, I disagree wholeheartedly. I live a few miles down the road from Thad Scott's former emporium (may he rest in peace) and if you had ever been inside his large walk-in vault you'd know how all wet you really are. 3 walls full of all sorts of nice guns up to 150 years old and almost all had very nice wood.

So far as heavy-caliber rifles go, my H&H double was bottom-of-the-line with no engraving but had knock-your-eyes-out wood underneath all the grime. My Rigby 350 Flanged on a Magnum Mauser had no engraving but had the original scope and killer wood. A friend's Rigby double DID have engraving but also had quite nicely-figured wood. I could go on....

But it's pointless. In your case it's pretty obvious that The Rules (your rules) say that a DGR must meet certain stylistic criteria in order to be acceptable or fashionable or whatever. And it would appear that Your Rules also state that it's OK to pay big $ for a wallflower as long as it's a 'DGR'.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to Your Rules, I like my high-$ rifles to be beautiful as well as functional. Like I said, I can get a splendid Mauser 'tool' for about 1/3-1/2 the price of the new rifle, so why would I wanta spend any more?

And what do Your Rules say about backing your plain-&-strong-but-unreinforced rifle up against a tree and pulling the trigger? My highly-figured stocks, every one including an 8-lb 458WM (never again!), will and already have passed that test.

Can yours?
Regards, Joe

post some pictures! your idea of killer wood
nedds dsefinition. I live down the road from Champlins. doesnt mean a thing. Show us your stuff!

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

So far as heavy-caliber rifles go, my H&H double was bottom-of-the-line with no engraving but had knock-your-eyes-out wood underneath all the grime. My Rigby 350 Flanged medium bore NOT a DGRon a Magnum Mauser had no engraving but had the original scope and killer wood. A friend's Rigby double DID have engraving but also had quite nicely-figured wood. I could go on....

But it's Regards, Joe

You are referring to something completely different now. The Grain-flow requirements for a Double Rifle are completely different than they are for a Bolt rifle like we are talking to here. There is also a substantial price difference between a new high end Double and a high end bolt gun. A 350 isn't a Big Bore DGR and would be more tolerant of grain flow than would a 458 Lott or the like.

We are specifically referring to the wood requirements for a Heavy Caliber Bolt action rifle. And we aren't discussing them as a matter of taste but as a matter of what was needed for the proper performance of the rifle in the hunting fields.....................DJ

just looked at guns international, champlin, shcwandt and willoughbys. None of even the best double rifles with a price to $125,000.00 have better wood than the Martini/Hyme rifle that originally started this intense discussion. I have many custom rifles that have hand picked stock blanks, hell I have over 150 high grade blanks in storage. That doesnt mean much in this discussion. Picking a blank is like picking women s, the eye is in the beholder!!!

quote:

...For $9500 I don't care how well made it is, it's poorly designed with wood so plain I'd be ashamed to tell how much I paid for the rifle....
...Meanwhile please cogitate upon the fact that folks like H&H, Westley Richards, Rigby et al. liked fancy figured wood, even used it on their cheapest rifles not to mention their expensive DGRs...

Dumoulin .416

H&H .375 mauser [c.1928]

Westley Richards 404j.

John Rigby[London] 30/06.

Rigby 350Magnum mauser[c.1910]

Rigby London Built .416

John Rigby .416 Heavy African Xpress.

Holland & Holland gun rooms;
.458 bore "bolt action"
.465 bore "bolt action"



Harry Selbys " fancy " walnut .416rigby.

quote:

Originally posted by BFaucett: