This looks like a fantastic rifle. Very capable, very sturdy.
For all of you ragging on this gun, my thoughts are that your sentiments are very misplaced. This is the gun that many professional hunters were trying to have built for themselves in the early 1900’s. Those hunters always were pushing the envelope in search of more power, more capability, more insurance that their shot would anchor the quarry and result in a quick clean kill. Look at the calibers of these men - always increasing in foot-pounds of energy, the bullets always getting more capable, a higher ballistic coefficient, a more solid “solid”. Many of us hunt with rifles and calibers that emulate or mimic the weapons systems of the pre-World War II era. But if we are going to truly pay respect to that era, we must acknowledge the innovative spirit and forward thinking mind set that those pre-WWII hunters held.
No, the stock is not of the finest oak. But so what? It is impervious to the months long wet season of Uganda, the C.A.R. and the Congo. I sincelerly
Actually, at the turn of the century with the full potential of smokeless powder starting to be realized, caliber started to get smaller. And in Africa, particularly for dangerous game, something with a 300-500 gr bullet moving along at 2100 t0 2500 fps emerged as the perfect combination for the things that could hurt you.
I find it unlikely a professional hunter would have been remotely interested in such a rifle - particularly when optics were a mere glimmer on the horizon and a herd of elephant were many hours and miles away. You would be hard pressed to find one today who would want such a thing for actual hunting in that configuration.
I would agree that either a laminated or synthetic stock makes all sorts of sense for a rainforest hunt for bongo or forest buffalo (I assume that is what you meant about rainy season wherever?) - but, just not configured in such a rifle as this. On such a hunt in such conditions most shots are measured in feet.
So sure, it is an interesting thing for whatever such things might be used. It simply has no place on a DG hunt in Africa. It might be useful In its .300 guise on a specialized safari for PG in a place like Tanzania or Namibia. However, much of that hunting is also about a lot of hiking or climbing (mountain zebra comes to mind), and a transportable rifle is as important as its accuracy.
I am also not a fan of using game animals as targets for long range “hunting;” the efficacy of which has been discussed several times here and elsewhere.
I am all for progress - like the ability to change calibers. I just don’t like this concept. I own a couple of Blaser R8’s and several different caliber barrels. However, the Blaser system mounts the scope on the barrel which means calibers can be changed without affecting zero. Not so in a system using a conventional action. And then there is a muzzle break that looks like it was designed for an anti-tank gun.
So, our OP posted photos of a rifle, I’m sorry “weapon system”, that captures most of the attributes that I find not merely unnecessary, but actually a handicap in hunting game in Africa. He then says it is designed for “safari hunting” in Texas, a place where I am “on safari” rather a lot. Guess I haven’t seen the safari yet in either place where such a concept would have much utility.
That he wants to have such a thing built is absolutely his right and privilege. At what range he uses it on game animals is a decision to sort out among his own ethical standards. I am just thankful I don’t have to shoot from the neighboring bench on some range.
