For the record I was not sniping at anyone on NE forums....generated a few phone calls though. Previously there has been a bit of mis-information on one or two other forums, and I wouldn't waste my time setting them straight.

Matt, yes Cameron is a good bloke. I know him pretty well, and he's in full knowledge of my prior post.

The Rigby style pattern which Cameron has is a proven one. Copying "vintage" originals is a can of worm, for lots of reasons. Respect and Ethics must be considered, for me at least. Other than that there are other things to consider. Not the least, is that for example all early Rigby's I have seen in person had heavily filed tangs, which is much of the reason they feel nice in the hands. A supplier of machined stocks has to deal with this issue. Does he supply the stock machined say 0.020" oversize, and expect the person fitting the stock to file the tangs up? Will the striker nut "ditch" need dovetailing, or the shroud lock attending to to prevent the striker nut riding up onto the tang and jamming? Is the bolt so loose in the receiver that it's going to be a problem anyway? Ditto, what trigger will be used? The position in the guard bow is somewhat dependent on the make of trigger used, which can result in a grip not to the customers liking. Much to consider than "I want a replica Rigby style stock". If the metalwork is done first (the smarter way) how does one ensure the machined stocks tangs will match, and the stock still look and feel right. It doesn't take much to throw it out. If you machine with lots of extra wood, how does a bloke know some horrid job of it won't be made, which you get the blame for?

Ditto, modern built rifles rarely have open sights slung nice and low to the bore. These mostly have to be made and not many will cop the expense. Kits sights like those from ERA/NECG are very high off the bore axis, and work OK in conjunction with a low slung scope. But they are completely at odds with the drop at heel of many original open sighted stocks that folk so badly want to copy. And even if the owner reckons he can see the sights OK, well they look like a "goth" hooker dressed in an Edwardian dinner dress. Or whatever else is horrid to some but perhaps not all.

Then there is the fact that from memory all pre-WWII Rigby 275's I've seen (quite possibly they did them on std length actions though) were built on intermediate small or large ring 98's. They did make them on std length actions (I have a few stocks here, mid 1950's), but they feel different in the hands even if they look so alike. Much of the modern bottom metal used on custom rifles is bloody heavy, and before you know it you have a fat pig in your hands when you wanted a slimmer model. So when Old Mate rings up wanting a traditional Rigby style stock, there is much to consider. And by the time you have run the customer through all the intricacies, you've blown the loot earned in machining the bugger - assuming you get a job that is. Not a good business decision, then, but more a passion.

Assuming you get the job, how do you guarantee making tolerances the customer wants, if you don't have the metalwork? Whole nother mission, that. And then, if the customer wants a custom quality job, does he or she have the skills to achieve that? Machined stocks have a few differences fitting them up as opposed to letting metalwork into a bandsawed but un-shaped blank - for just one example, they move much more and you have to be very careful not to get false transfer of lamp black when inletting. The whippier the stocks, the easier it is to wind up with gaps through poor technique. And of course the way human nature often works -well it's normally the bloke machining the stock who dunnit....... The slim ones are harder to machine, too. You have to be mindful of bending the pattern and blank due to centre pressure - it doesn't take much. And you have to have good steadies and be able to use them. The whippier the stocks, the harder it all is. And wood movement has to be minimised by best practices, which is yet another subject hardly ever talked about. Yes, I also reckon wood stability problems are more likely to become a problem with the whippier stocks, at least that's what my experience tells me.

Other than just loving them so much, the above are just a few of the reasons that demonstrate why I'll never part with those stocks. The same issues apply to Geoff Slee's "custom" patterns - they just don't suit most of the metalwork out there and represent a trap for the unwary. Not many folk seem to consider such things, in my experience.

Geoff's non-vintage "Rigby Style" patterns were designed to avoid most of the above issues, and still give Joe Average a bit of "Rigby" flavour. Which was very practical of Geoff, all things considered. The drop figures were done to what Geoff reckoned was the go at the time, and it works OK for most with either a scope or most of the higher "kit custom" iron sights out there. Unless someone wants to be really thorough, and go all the way to a full vintage style rifle, Geoff's pattern is not a bad way to go. The same sort of thing applies to his other pattern styles, they suit the more commonly encountered metalwork much more so.

Funnily enough this M98 Rigby pattern was the first stock I ever machined, on Geoffs machine which he allowed me to spend a bit of time on. When I was first invited to spend time with Geoff, he took a fair bit of time off to show me how things were done. Picked me up at the airport, took me hunting, cut some blanks together etc etc. The pattern back then had a bit of negative cast (warpage from memory), which I did not like, so we re-made it suit a RH'er with very minimal if any cast. When the time came Geoff pulled out a really horrid looking blank that very few would touch back then, and watched over while I bandsawed and set it between centres to avoid the white wood, bark inclusions and a few pinholes and termite holes, and trap the best colour considering grain flow etc. It cut low end exhibition. It just cleared a perfectly sound stock, and I was hooked. What a revelation. From memory there is a LH version of it, too. Prior to that I was a "from the block" minded snob, but in some ways the machine has distinct advantages, to me at least, which are rarely mentioned.