OK, gentlemen, I'm seeking some informed advice as to what I should go with in building a great single shot. Years ago, I took Roy Vincent to visit Pachmayr's woodshed up near Oroville, CA. They had a bunch of blanks and I purchased a beautiful piece of walnut, two pieces actually to build a single shot rifle. I've never done anything with that wood, but now that Roy has moved to the USA from Zimbabwe, I thought I'd have him build me a nice single shot. I have a few questions, and would appreciate advice on...

What caliber? I've been considering calibers such as .257 Roberts, 7x57, .30-06, .300 H&H, .270, etc. I'd like a classic caliber, and don't want a big magnum. I normally shoot a .338 win mag or .264 win mag when hunting, and other than those two probably shoot a .270 more than anything else. I'd like a 'classic' caliber, not something belted in all liklihood. What do you guys suggest?

Action? What actions would you consider, and why? I only have one single shot, a Ruger #1, so that's all I have to go on. I'm sure there are other actions out there that I should give serious consideration toward.

Barrel? I'm guessing I'd go with at least a 24" barrel, but why not a 26" regardless of caliber? Your thoughts?

What else would you suggest I consider as I design the specs for this rifle?

I have a Ruger #1 in .300 H&H (my favorite caliber) which would be nice in a flanged cartridge as well.

My favorite of the readily available factory actions is the Browning Highwall or B78, if you can live with a Miroku made product. They have the smoothest actions and have a classic look as well, if somewhat different from the Ruger. I have a .22-250 in the Highwall, and wow is it nice. Looking to add a 7mm mag in a Highwall as well.

Of the custom single shots out there, my favorite is Soroka followed closely by Searcy and Bradshaw. But you've already got your own gunsmith.

Try to find a dealer in your area that a Browning High Wall in any caliber, and go in and play with that. Sweeeet.

As far as caliber, .300 H&H or 7x57 both are true classics. And the .300 H&H can be loaded so many ways, from 150's all the way up to 220's. where it really excels.

Kind of rambling, probably didn't help much, but a nice topic to ponder.

Mike

I have always like the look and feel of the Hagn and the rifle Ralf Martini builds...here is a link to a few that may give you some ideas

http://www.martiniandhagngunma....com/singleshots.htm

My thoughts would be similar to your...300 H&H or 7x57 depending on use..The 7x57 would make a really neat little stalking rifle.

Well then, I will proceed with the assumption that you meant what you said, "building a great single shot".

There are several good types of actions available but the strongest and best are falling block actions. The Ruger is a strong, fairly well made action, but to be "great" it needs a lot of reworking and going over. There is a recent thread where one of the forum members had a really nice rifle built on a Ruger number 1 action. However, it involved so much work, including milling the action sides straight and parallel, that I would recommend starting with a better made action to begin with. I have owned and shot many single shot falling block rifles throughout several years. These included the original Falling Block Works (FBW), Rugers Number 1 and 3, Colt Sharps, Farquharson, Francotte, and more. The best engineered and manufactured action I have seen that is currently available is the Hagn action. The Hagn action is not inexpensive but costs not much more than the cost of properly reworking something like a Ruger Number 1. The Soroka is a new action that may also be well made but I have not seen one so I cannot recommend it. Anyway, I understand Soroka does not sell the actions separately. The action is the heart of the rifle and I would choose a Hagn action.

There are a handful of makers that build rifles on Hagn actions and most of them will make you a very fine rifle. However, the most prominent makers of "great" single shot rifles are Martini Gunmakers, Ltd., Hartmann & Weiss, and Holland & Holland arranged, in my opinion, in increasing "greatness". Ralf Martini (Martini Gunmakers) has probably built more rifles on Hagn actions than anyone else has. He does very good work, especially with the metal. Many of his rifles used to have a Germanic touch to them but it now looks like he is building more and more single shot rifles to the British style and it looks like he is getting better and better at his craft. Hartmann & Weiss also do a "great" job. They catalog single shot rifles on Hagn actions but their rifles are made to order. Holland & Holland does not catalog single shot rifles but they have Hagn actions on hand and will build a rifle to your specifications. If I had to choose among these three, I would choose between Martini and H&H. Martini will give you a great rifle at the best price point and a rifle that is very close to the quality of a Hartmann and Weiss. Holland & Holland will give you the best rifle - period - but at a cost. They will make your barrel in house and they will have specialists work on the various parts, for example, actioner, barreler, stocker, engraver, finisher. I have personally compared, in my hands, falling block rifles built by Hartmann & Weiss and H&H and, though the Hartmann & Weiss is truly superb, it still is not quite a Holland.

If your rifle is built on a Hagn action then it will have no trouble functioning with modern, high pressure, rimless cartridges. The .264 WinMag you say you are used to shooting would be an excellent choice. Falling block rifles tend to be short for their barrel length and a 26" or 27" rifle in .264 WinMag would really be handy. The 7x57 you mention is a wonderful caliber but, in my opinion, a 7x64 or .280 would be a better choice. For a larger caliber I don't think you can do better than the 300H&H and it is a real classic, too. The .338 you are accustomed to, or maybe a .340 Wby, might be getting close the bigger bores you are trying to stay away from. However, the .340 Wby could take advantage of a long barrel.

Regarding barrel length, allow me to relate something I experienced with my single shot. When I ordered the rifle, I was asked what barrel length I wanted. I said that I wanted the barrel to be whatever length would make it balance in the right place, as long as it was between 24" and 29". They barreled the rifle and laid the front sight and sight ramp various places along the barrel, working out calculations along the way. Then they contacted me and said that the perfect balance would be achieved with a barrel something like 27-3/16" long. It was suggested I round that out to 27" so nobody would ever think that it had been cut down from 28". So I said, okay, 27". I thought that seemed a bit long at first. Then I started researching the old British falling blocks and found many were built with 27" and 28" barrels. Now, I knew why -- balance, perfect balance!

Fantastic info there Grenadier, from someone who has been there and done that with a variety of action types and from different 'smiths. Food for thought! I always thought the long 27" barrels seen on the original Farqs were to provide complete combustion for the black powder loads but perfect balance is the hallmark of a good falling block rifle.

While the Hagn action is without doubt one of the finest available currently I have always thought the rifles built on that action had too much drop in the comb for my liking. Aesthetically they look fantastic but I would prefer a stock with little to no drop as this would allow the recoil force to come straight back into your shoulder and not throw the gun up to slap you in the face. Perhaps not a consideration for smaller bore weapons but something to consider for calibres that provide some "feedback". I owned an original Mauser A-Type in 9.3x62 and it had a similar drop in the stock as I have seen in Hagn actioned rifles and that old gun recoiled viciously.

Grenadier perhaps you can offer some insight. Is the drop in a Hagn actioned rifle necessitated by the tang angle on the action or could the stock be produced with no drop to it?

The drop in the stock of any rifle is going to be dependent upon how high you want to position your eye above the bore. A rifle can be fitted with both scope and metallic sights but it will only have one drop to the stock. Nearly all rifles you buy off the rack, and most custom rifles, have stocks dimensioned to favor scope use. A stock made primarily for scope use will position your eye 1.5"-2" above the bore to naturally center your eye behind the scope. Quite often, if you remove the scope from these rifles, you need to press your cheek way down into the stock to get a sight picture with the metallic sights. Sometimes the stock is so high that it is impossible to even get a proper sight picture with metallic sights. Some rifles have stocks that are made to be a compromise of optimal dimensions for either scope or metallic sight use.

This is why rifles made prior to the 1940s generally have a lot of drop to the stock. This is true for bolt rifles, lever rifles, pumps, autos, as well as for single shots. Back then, shooting rifles with scopes was the exception. Today it is the rule.

An example to help illustrate differences in rifle stock drop is the M16/AR15 based rifles. The M16 was designed to deliver the automatic's recoil directly into the shoulder to reduce muzzle climb. So, the stock comb on the ARs is directly in line with the bore. That positions the head very high and, as a result, the sights, optical or metallic, are mounted to coincide with an eye position about 2.5" above the bore.


Another consideration is the drop of the stock at the shoulder. Is it optimized for hunting on foot, using while prone, or for shooting from a bench? For example:

Here is a stock dimensioned for metallic sight use while standing:


Here is a stock dimensioned for scope use while prone:



The beauty of getting a fitting and having a rifle made to your specific dimensions is that you can specify whether you want the stock to position your eye for scope use, iron sights, or some in-between position. Drop at the comb and drop at the heel specifications should be different, not only for sights but for how you intend to use the rifle. Imagine trying to shoot the Winchester above from a prone position or the Remington above from a standing or kneeling position.

Another example. Here is the same rifle set up for different uses. These are three current offerings from Winchester. I know from experience that, for me, the metallic sights on the bottom rifle would be unusable and I would prefer another 1/2" drop on the first rifle for metallic sights:

Drop at the heel is 1-1/2":


Drop at the heel is 1-1/4":


Drop at the heel is 1":


For my H&H single shot, I went for a fitting. I was fitted in a standing position. I specified that the metallic sights were to be my primary sights and to make the stock accordingly. I was cautioned that use of a scope might feel awkward as a result. But I knew from experience that it is much easier to raise your head to shoot with a scope than it is to smash your cheekbone into a stock to get a half-decent sight picture over iron sights. The end result is that my rifle has a very comfortable and intuitive natural point of aim with the iron sights. And, when I shoot it with the scope, I rotate my head into a more upright position and raise my eye to center the cross hairs in the tube. That's exactly the way I wanted it.

Grenadier,

Wow, not that's a real beauty, and in my favorite caliber. Love that engraving and case coloring; just classic. More pictures please.

Matabele,

I'm not with you on the straight stock, no drop theory. I feel that a single shot classic rifle, just like a double rifle, should throw up like a shotgun. A shotgun styled drop is the best for low-profile irons sights and low mounted scopes which I prefer. 2.5" drop at heel, 1.5" at comb is my preference, with the 2.5 being down the rib for a shotgun and through the iron sights on a rifle. Just my personal preference.

Mike

Grenadier,

Great examples and a better explanation than what I posted, but we're thinking along the same lines. Well put.

quote:

Originally posted by mdstewart:
I feel that a single shot classic rifle, just like a double rifle, should throw up like a shotgun. A shotgun styled drop is the best for low-profile irons sights and low mounted scopes which I prefer. 2.5" drop at heel, 1.5" at comb is my preference. Just my personal preference.

Mike

I am in complete agreement with you, Mike. But some fellows like scopes with 60mm objectives and high stocks for bench and prone shooting.

I posted more on my rifle in another thread. This thread is not about my rifle.

Why not something with a rim? I know it is not necessary in a modern single shot, but it is kind of cool. I was thinking .225 Win., .30-40 Krag, or .303 British, or a wildcat based on one of those.
joe

kinda depends on your budget & what you want to do with the rifle. custom actions are great but expensive. Old Winchesters are classic. Martini cadets are great for small stuff. nothing wrong with #1's at all. your use, taste and budget will dictate

7x65R.
Regards, Joe

Call Bailey Bradshaw or Raif Martini. End of story.

Lots of good ideas here but what is lacking is your budget.

You can't go wrong with a No. 1 or an 1885.
You cannot get a custom trigger for the 1885.

As for caliber, either will work with rimless, flanged or belted cartridges.

If you go with a No. 1, try and find an early red pad model as the interior workmanship is much better than today.

My red pad ex 30-06 now 300 H&H bought right here and finished up to be more "English". The obvious cartridge is the 300 H&H and I would suggest a 26 or even 28" barrel as single shot is always shorter than a bolt gun.




Also some of my 1885s: 40-82, 30-06 and 25-06.

The Ruger is a nice rifle indeed but to make one "great" takes a lot of work by expert hands. I owned this Ruger for a while. It was built by H&H and is a wonderful rifle. There is nothing wrong with the Ruger. I currently own a Number 1 and a Number 3. They are nice rifles. But, even with all the work it received by H&H, the Ruger action still couldn't measure up to the Hagn action. That was the reason I decided to have a rifle built using the better action.

IMO, to be "great" it just can't be built on a Ruger action. Don't get me wrong, thay are good value and I do own a few, but they just don't have the IT factor compared to the English actions or the Hagn.
If I were in uour shoes and was having a rifle built from the ground up, I would look into this: http://www.sidelever.com/

I own original Farquharsons - Jefferys, trade Farqs and Gibbs Farquharsons and they are great guns, but the Fraser is just a bit sweeter. If these guys produce an action approaching the originals, I can't see how you could go wrong.

Still waiting for the "budget number".....

An Aston Martin DB5 is "great"

A MG TC is "great"

BUT the cost is a lot different.

Budget is the key. For myself, I like the 1885. Next level up would be a Miller/Dakota. Haven't seen a Luxus yet, so, can't judge that one. Whether it is in the same vein as a Miller, or at the Ruger/Win/Browning level, I suppose, remains to be seen. After that it is how much are you really willing to spend on it? Now you are into Searcy,Bradshaw and then Hagn. If I was to build one in an old tradition cartridge such as a 38-55 or 40-65, I'd go with a CPA.
26-28" octagon barrel on any of them.

Figure we all have our own definition of the word "great," but even with the lowly Ruger No.1 you can build a very, very nice rifle w/ lots of bells and whistles as case hardening, engraving(Ruger has a source for this) high quality barrel, deluxe wood/checkering/fitting, custom sight pkg. and on and on. The NO.1 is as durable as they come and w/ all the embellishments may not be a "great" rifle, but very near that level and in fact could build a matching one for the money some of the "great" rifles fetch. Just think, you could have both a NO 1 and a NO 2!! Obviously I like Ruger NO.1's

IMO absolutely the ONLY reason that # 1s are not more wildly popular with the custom rifle folks is that the # 1s are too inexpensive for The Doctrine of Conspicuous Consumption sub-group.

Sure the newer ones sound a little clacky and their surfaces aren't square & smooth but those are picayune matters for any smith. They are as strong & safe as any single shot action extant, and far stronger/safer than most others including some highly-touted more expensive ones.

And IMO the Rugers are better-looking than almost all the others too, with the exception of a nicely bench-sculpted Hagn a la Ed Webber's example in Steve Hughes' book.

BUT, almost anyone can own a Ruger(horrors!) and that's the kiss of death for some folks.

Reminds me of long ago when Ford won both Le Mans and the Monte Carlo Rally against the likes of Ferrari and Maserati. Oh, the shame of it all! Oh, the desperate attempts by the motoring press to gloss over such STUNNING looks and performance for so little money!

Bah, the pretentious BS of it all!

If and I say only if I liked modern SS rifles then I wouldn't hesitate to build a No 1 to any level of smoothness, precision and ostentation.

And, no disrespect intended for anyone else, I would settle for nothing less than a US-made or Ron Smith-made barrel. Apparently no other barrels have proven nearly as consistently accurate in world-class matches, so why not use the very best?
Regards, Joe

My argument against the Ruger is based on my aversion to taking an action and then "reworking" it to maybe approach the finish and smoothness of one you can just buy right off the shelf such as the Hagn.
IMO, they will both run roughly the same money for stocking, engraving, barreling etc. so why not kick in the extra grand or two at the front end and then you will have a true custom rather than what most will see as a "spruced up" No.1. The market will be more kind to you in the event you decide to part with it as well.

I would consult with Ralf Martini.

I have handled his single shot rifles.

They are Great.

JD, There is no question that Ruger actions are strong - very strong. And the Number 1 is very graceful and attractive. But, even you pointed out the Ruger needs some work because they "sound a little clacky and their surfaces aren't square & smooth". No problem if you are qualified and have the tools to do the work yourself. Otherwise, you need to add that work to the cost of the action.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the standard Ruger No.1. It is an excellent rifle and there is nothing close to it for two, three, or even four times the price. But there are other things to consider. For example, the Ruger comes in one size. It is used for everything from .204 Ruger to .577 Nitro Express. Whereas the Hagn action comes in four different sizes - mini, small, medium, and large. So, if you want to build a rifle in a particular caliber, you can use an action of the appropriate size. Another consideration is the steel, how it will take a finish, and how that will look over time. Ruger actions are cast with a steel that tends to turn purple over time. You can see it in the lever of the H&H Ruger I posted above. What you can't see in those photos is that the entire action was getting plum colored and was in stark contrast to the nice black of the barrel. Add to that, Ruger's chosen engraver, Baron Technology, says that the cast action must be annealed (softened) to properly engrave, and then re-heat treated afterwards.

So, buy a Ruger No. 1 (used or new), pull the barrel and sell it on eBay, remove the stock and sell it on eBay, rework the action, replace the trigger, replace the safety, anneal it so it can be engraved, engrave it, reheat it, barrel it, and give it a wonderful rust blue that will eventually turn purple. Many have followed such a procedure and produced very nice rifles. Again, the H&H Ruger above is such a rifle. But wouldn't it be better to start off with an action more suitable for building a custom?

By the way, if you are speaking of Ford in 1964-1965, then you must mean Ford's specially engineered racers, designed by Englishman Eric Broadley and built in Slough, England by imported U.S. mechanics working under the supervision of ex-Aston Martin racing-team manager John Wyer. The only thing those racers had in common with assembly line Fords was the name on the hood.

In your automobile analogy it is more accurate to say the assembly line Ford engine is more like the Ruger No.1 action and the prototyped aluminum V8 Ford racing engine is more like the Hagn action. You can completely rework that factory engine and replace many components with specialty parts but you'll never achieve the performance of that better engineered and better constructed racing engine.

Ford's Le Mans entries did indeed use specially-built bodies such as their GT-40 and later GTs. IIRC however these cars used relatively standard Ford V-8s albeit high-performance versions such as their Weber-carbureted high-rpm medium-riser 427s. And they used relatively standard Falcons with 260 Holley-4V V-8s to win the Monte Carlo. No aluminum blocks, no overhead cams(except some GT-40 small-blocks), no fuel injection, no European super-technology, just Weber or Holley carburetors and Ford engineering know-how in all these winners.

After having owned several British sports cars including Jaguars, I won't comment on their 'reliability'. Perhaps the Aston-Martins were better but I could never afford one.

And, even the lowly Austin Mini managed to win the Monte Carlo against the high-priced spreads! An Austin Mini-Cooper at that time cost about 1/30 of the price of a Ferrari or Aston Martin and really played whup-ass with them in the mountains!

So much (snap of the fingers) for Conspicuous Consumption!

And if you'll check Ed Webber's Hagn, you'll find that he spent just about as much time recontouring it as would be necessary for a Ruger. Some Hagns have a REALLY ugly lever and their wrists and receiver rings need attention too for best looks.

But all that is personal opinion. I personally have never thought that a high price or a big name automatically ensured superiority, all I hafta do is look at many lately-produced double shotguns and any Weatherby to see THAT!

Your point about the action sizes is a good one though. The Ruger IMO is entirely too large for small cartridges and I wish it was available in a smaller size.

BTW I've never had trouble with factory Ruger triggers as long as I was prepared to alter them slightly. It's not rocket science but it does take some bench work to achieve a good light pull with safety.
Regards, Joe

If ones desire is to have a really, really "great gun" might want to check out Mr. Peter Hofer's web site, www.PeterHoferJagdwaffen.com Browsing his web site is an experience and one should have some fine wine and cheese to go along with the accompanying music. Truly works of art and about any configuration of firearm you can imagine.

Wow, I'm away for a few days and surprised, in a good way, at how much feedback and advice you've all posted, Thank you! This all gives me good stuff to consider. I'm actually thinking of something other than a Ruger #1 action (though I'd use a #1), so appreciate all the comments. I neglected to mention that my son has a .22 hornet in a slick little Browning falling block action (I think a model 1885???)which seems like an interesting action.

Perhaps I should have said "A really nice hunting single shot" rather than 'great' single shot. I'd like it to be a very nice rifle, but don't need to make it super fancy as I do intend to hunt with it and don't want to worry about nicking it. I'm also not inclined to spend a couple grand on an action by itself, so that will limit my choices, it seems.

Caliber... That is proving to be an interesting aspect to consider. I'm rather intrigued by the 7x57, but the .300 H&H is interesting too and so is that little .257. Trouble is, I don't think I want another magnum rifle, at least not for this project. I'm also leaning toward getting a caliber that I don't already have, and I currently have rifles in .243, .25-06, .264WM, .270, .308, .30-06, .300WM, .338WM, and .416 Hoffman. I'll have a scope on the rifle, something with a top end around 8x or so, and would like a caliber that'll work on medium sized game out to about 300 or so yards, and all the ones I originally mentioned will easily fit that bill, including the .257 Roberts. If I may muddy the water a bit more, what do you all think about a .35 Whelan for a single shot caliber? That's another caliber I've been interested in, but have never owned.

Barrel, thanks for the advice on 27", as I've been thinking something 26-28" as a starting point, so that really helps. Until now, I hadn't given much thought to an octagon barrel, but that's kinda interesting to ponder. What do most of you think is more appropriate for a single shot?

Budget, I don't even know at this point as I've had the wood for a long time, but never decided what I wanted to do with it until recently. I paid $300 for the stock blanks, and that was over 20 years ago when I bought them. Since I've waited this long to start, I guess going a little slower to make the rifle 'just so' is more important than how much I spend to get it built - within reason.

Check out Butch Searcy's single shot. I looked at a 375 H&H at SCI. It pointed like a fine shotgun. Prices start at $8000.00, lots of options at that price also.

I thought Searcy was no longer offering the falling block rifle. If they are then that, too, is another option. I believe his actions are very similar to the Hagn action.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
... The best engineered and manufactured action I have seen that is currently available is the Hagn action. The Hagn action is not inexpensive but costs not much more than the cost of properly reworking something like a Ruger Number 1. The Soroka is a new action that may also be well made but I have not seen one so I cannot recommend it. Anyway, I understand Soroka does not sell the actions separately. The action is the heart of the rifle and I would choose a Hagn action.

It is my understanding that Martin Hagn,has personally studied and discussed the Soroka in the presence of Glenn[from Soroka].
Mr.Hagn has given the Soroka the big thumbs up.... .. commenting that the Soroka had the best machining he has ever seen.

Soroka gallery ...


If you have the budget for a Hagn or Soroka, dont see how you can go wrong.
It is wiser to spend such dosh on either of those, than attempting to extensively refine & improve the agricultural Ruger #1.

Greandier,

Yes, the Searcy does look like the Hagen. I do not know if Searcy makes them or outsources the actions, but they are fine rifles.

DLS,
Here's an option in 6.5X55.
I would study the photos / stock patterns of the older 1885 Low Walls and have my stock maker copy one, setting it up to use a peep-site off the top of the receiver.
Williams makes one but being made out of aluminum it doesn't look all that classy.
You could still use a scope if you so desired.

http://www.winchesterguns.com/...mily=002C&mid=534161

I also had the single shot "bug" and had a couple of Highwalls built in .30-40 Krag and 225 Win. The .30-40 weighs 8 pounds and the .225 three ounces more. I found that I kept picking up my old Ruger No 3 with No 1 wood more than the Highwalls as it is more convenient to hunt with. I like the idea of a hammer but I like the convenience of the hammerless Ruger more. Here is a shot of the pair and a link to the entire album. http://s396.photobucket.com/al.../Highwall%20Actions/

You should also take a look at Steve Earle's Wesson #1.

Since your favorite hunting rifles are all fairly flat-shooting, I'd go with a fairly flat-shooting chambering. I like the Krag.

What style rifle are you wanting? The American styles are pretty different from German or English etc. Deciding this will help you narrow down your options. Do you have some pictures of rifles you really like or would want to use as models for a build?

Mike, no I don't have a solid idea of the style rifle I'd prefer. I do know that it'll be a rifle that I will use for hunting, rather than just a pretty gun that kills primarily paper. Based on advice here, I'll probably go with a 27-28" barrel, no matter the caliber. Action is still a question mark for me, some of those actions are wonderful, but I'm not inclined to spend big $$ on the action when one a little less quality will save me serious $$ and still be quite good. Caliber remains a big ??? for me. You guys have given me some options to consider that I'd not thought of.

On a budget, lightly used Ruger #1s and #3s can be a great bargain if you find one close to what you want. Have you checked out the Luxus rifles? There are lots of options.

I personally think that the lines of the Ruger are superior to the Hagn. The breechblock on the Hagn just looks clunky to me and the lever looks like a bit of an afterthought. I love a good bargain, and my favorite No 1 custom .30/06, done by MV Highsmith, cost less than the sights on the overpriced, pretentious guns. My gun still has the original factory wood, reworked by Highsmith. Highsmith also reworked the action to much smoother operation. The Corky Frankolini engraving probably cost more originally than the rest of the gun.


http://s396.photobucket.com/al...th%20Ruger%20No%201/

The Ruger is a handsome rifle. While it has its problems good looks and reliability aren't. If only 2 or 3,000 had been made we would be falling all over each other trying to acquire one and bragging about what a wonderful rifle it is.

Jerry Liles

You hit it out of the park, Jerry!

The main problem with the Ruger is that almost any member of 'The Great Unwashed' can afford one!
Regards, Joe

It must be frustrating that no one is sufficiently impressed at how much you wasted on that status symbol.