Quote:

---

Im not one to normally come and piss on the bonfire but...

Isnt there a considerable gap between the left sidewall of the action and the stock?
The action looks to me as prefinished with a carding wheel.(Rounded corners , no clean lines).
Have seen much better craftsmanship.

What really turned me off is the stock, especially the rear tang groove for the cocking piece.
The cocking piece clearance at the back of the action doesn't look like it was ever sanded and the inletting does look loose.

Being given away I guess the owner cant complain, but just my 2 cents..




















For comparison, here is a dorleac in a similar style.

---

I think I would take issue with that…very respectfully, of course.

First the wood – Both of the features you mentioned could be accounted for by just the angle or lighting of the image. Since most of the other inletting can be seen clearly and looks right, I’m willing to go with the assumption, the rest is right. (Honestly the real test is with the eye, and rifle in hand).

As for the “squareness” of the receiver. Perhaps you have seen more Rigby’s or other English magazine rifles, or perhaps different ones than I have seen. The vast majority I have seen exhibit no signs of “truing up the action” or facing of the action. Or even truing up the edges from what came off the assembly line from Oberndorf. These were inexpensive (relatively speaking) rifles, and most of those who turned these fine sporters out, found very little that was objectionable with the original Mauser rifle. This is Mauser 98’s I’m talking about.

Go to ‘94’s, ‘95’s & ‘96’s and things change a bit; but only a bit. Your average pre-98 Mausers tended to come off the assembly line with such edged a little more crisp than those of the 98’s. I have handled several brand new, unfired military 98 Mausers and most had some subtle rounding of the front of the receiver ring; just like the Rigby in question.

So while an action that has been squared up may be somehow “better” may or may not be true. If I were looking for a modern rifle, I would absolutely demand it. But to my eye, what the gentlemen at Rigby are trying to capture is the magazine rifle of a century ago (or there ’bouts; no offense to HRH The Queen) not an English magazine rifle of today. Today standards and expectations are much higher from a very technical standpoint.

To my eye at least, and I know I’m not completely alone in my assessment; the magazine rifle of yesteryear is far more appealing than the magazine rifles turned out by the big houses today. Yeah, that’s right…I actually DON’T WANT my rifle action trued; I want it exactly as it was back then. Square off corners and true the action on a new gun. But if you’re going to do a modern “vintage” rifle, then pick up a file and do it like they did it.

Again, respectfully sir.

Post Extras