RJ Renner "Old Africa" Model 70 Upgrade

[C.W. Richter]

For pg as you mention proper fit with whatever sighting system you plan on using is the most important. Low poer scope should fit exactly. When you close your eyes mount the rifle and then open your eyes the sight picture should be there if not the stock fit is not correct

Or, the base/ring height is inappropriate for the selected optic. Luckily most 1-6ish powered optics can accomodate low mounts, which keeps it close to the eye (even with the lion's share of classic stocks.)

 

[Mtn_Infantry]

Some truth to that rifle maker's thinking but with the proper scope, rings, and base(s), it is possible to find a happy medium where very little eye raising or cheek lowering is needed to get on the target when switching platforms. When I had my 404 in its first stock, the old 1" Weaver 3x, semi-pic rail, and Warne low QD rings came pretty close to natural acquisition when I mounted the gun.
View attachment 599339
Finding the iron sights required getting on the cheek piece more firmly. But the comb on that stock was so high the sear on the striker barely grazed it when the bolt was retracted. With the new stock and setup - lower base, lower power 30mm scope with better eye relief, and 30mm low QD Warne rings - any adjustment when changing platforms is negligible.
View attachment 599340
With scope detached, the front sight comes up just a bit high and left when I do the closed eyes and mount test. But the offset is so minor I'm sure I could still hit a charging buffalo where it counts at forty yards even if I didn't have the composure to bring the bead fully into alignment. The scope is set up perfectly. Again, on 1x the hood and front sight come into view instantly, just very slightly left of center. I'm sure a good gunsmith/maker could bend the stock to make it "perfect" but what's the point? I'll be 72 shortly and my hunting days are obviously numbered. "Perfect" for me likely won't be perfect for the next guy/gal.

As myself and others said the perfect stock design can only be one. Happy medium isn’t perfect. Renner is doing a perfect classic stalking rifle for use with irons.

 

[degoins]

Get your tomatoes and old cabbages ready…

A open sight sporting rifle is not a shotgun or a target rifle!
Most of the design concepts which are often seen as important in those disciplines just don’t really come into play with a stalking rifle.

You may find yourself in any number of situations in the field. Uphill, downhill, offhand, kneeling, sitting, prone, against a tree, off sticks, top of an anthill…. could go on and on.

I suggest, if you haven’t, get your hands on a vintage British rifle or an original Oberndorf Mauser - heck even a Winchester 54 or pre War Model 70 - and see how they feel to you. If the Renner rifle is close and has a LOP you like, good enough.

Have you ever been to a shoot where a scrawny kid outshoots a grown man with his own rifle? You think that rifle fit that kid better than it did the adult?

How many of the great African hunters had rifles built to their specifications? Very few I’d bet. Selby’s guns were all second hand far as I know and that didn’t seem to hurt his marksmanship. I don’t recall Taylor going into a dissertation about drop, cast, toe, cheek weld etc.

The most adaptable component to rifle shooting is you. Unless you have a condition that prevents comfortable shooting, one can get used to just about any rifle and shoot it well.

Thus has absolutely been my experience.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

As myself and others said the perfect stock design can only be one. Happy medium isn’t perfect. Renner is doing a perfect classic stalking rifle for use with irons.

As Plato pointed out, we know what perfection is ... but we also realize that it is unobtainable. Because we understand the concept of perfection, it must exist ... somewhere. Just not in this mortal world. But that should not discourage us from attempting to achieve perfection.

If the goal is to build a gun that is "perfect" for iron sights or scope, as the situation dictates, then "a happy medium" stock fit is acceptable. Perfection becomes increasingly unobtainable when the build goal is expanded to become essentially all-inclusive: e.g. scope + iron sights + classic design + hi tech (lighted reticle) + dangerous game + plains game + "handy," + less recoil + etc + etc.

 

[hoytcanon]

RJ designed his stock configuration for iron sights. It is impossible for the stock to offer the same weld for irons and optics unless you get the sight plane for both to the same height... I haven't seen that personally. I would decide if this rifle will be used scoped or not. At my age, my eyesight has deteriorated to the point where that decision has been made for me, all of my rifles are scoped, so Renner's comb height would be sub-optimal. However, if you are planning to use the rifle with irons only, or perhaps with a QD mounted scope, the lower, sloped comb would be fine. After all, it is called the "Old Africa" build because they were not scoped back then for the most part. On the upside, you can make your body fit a scoped rifle without the perfect (most comfortable) comb height, but this is much harder & slower to do with iron sights... the good thing about this fact is that when using the scope you usually have time to make these adjustments, but when using the irons, haste is often paramount.

 

[PARA45]

In the case of my rifle (pictures previously), I chose low ring, and when I shoulder my rifle with my eyes closed, the scope is perfectly aligned with my eye. Maybe I got lucky, who knows.

 

[Cutter1420]

I've got a post-64 model 70 Super Grade (claw extractor, not push feed) in .270 Win that I'm considering having Roger Renner do one of his "Old Africa" upgrades on, including a barrel conversion to 9.3x62. I briefly considered having JES do a rebore job on it to get it to 9.3x62, but thought better of it when I considered how thin the barrel is and how little "meat" there is on the barrel profile. Plus, I'd really love a Rigby Highland Stalker style rifle with a hooded front sight, express leaf rear sight, ebony forend, and barrel band front sling swivel, but I don't have $10k+ for a genuine Rigby. Might as well have Roger do a rebarrel job on the model 70 super grade to get there.

The only thing about Roger's upgrade package that gives me pause is the stock modification. It seems that he takes the comb down even more than factory which he claims makes the rifle lighter and handier, but from what I can tell, would make a proper cheek weld with even low mounted optics much more difficult. In talking to Roger, he claims that having a lower comb is lighter, quicker, more maneuverable and prevents banging the cheek under recoil, (not to mention more historically accurate) but I'm not so certain about all that.

When I took the SAAM Safari course at FTW Ranch (arguably one of the most respected civilian riflecraft shooting schools in the world), they outfitted almost every student rifle with a synthetic strap-on padded cheek riser, even the $50k+ big bore double rifles with AAA+ wood, because according to their curriculum, proper cheek weld and eye alignment behind the optic in ALL positions (not just standing) was far more important than stock aesthetics or "handiness".

So I'm torn about it. I'm sure I could have him just do the rebarrel work without the stock mods, but that would hardly be in the spirit of sending it to someone like Roger... I'm sure any number of other smiths could do that work... but then again I wouldn't have a genuine RJ Renner Old African Stalker rifle either.

Just how important do YOU feel having a proper comb height relative to the optic is for an African plains game rifle? Is it something you can adapt to for the sake of having a beautiful rifle custom rifle, or do you find proper practical fit is more important when hunting and taking ethical shots?

I have had RJ RENNER work on 2 rifles … a Ruger 77 made into beautiful 7x57/.275 Rigby and a Montana rifle in .375 and aske him to not take comb down to iron sight optimum level as I was clearly using scopes on both (older eyes you know etc) and I am very happy with both

 

[hoytcanon]

I have had RJ RENNER work on 2 rifles … a Ruger 77 made into beautiful 7x57/.275 Rigby and a Montana rifle in .375 and aske him to not take comb down to iron sight optimum level as I was clearly using scopes on both (older eyes you know etc) and I am very happy with both

There is the answer for the OP if he will be using a scope predominantly.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

In the case of my rifle (pictures previously), I chose low ring, and when I shoulder my rifle with my eyes closed, the scope is perfectly aligned with my eye. Maybe I got lucky, who knows.

Interesting. That rifle stock has a low profile. What make are the rings? Those are definitely low!

 

[PARA45]

Interesting. That rifle stock has a low profile. What make are the rings? Those are definitely low!

Those are Alaskan Arms quick release mounts.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Those are Alaskan Arms quick release mounts.

Thanks. I admit to never having heard of them before. I'll check out their website (if they have one). Those look much lower than my low Warne Quick Detach rings ... which are working fine. However, I am a bit concerned about this old Weaver one-piece base/rail. It is lower than the semi-pic rail I had on the rifle before changing stocks and scopes. But it's also aluminum and appears rather thin. Not sure if it will hold up to the 404's recoil. I still have the steel rail to fall back on but I'm fairly certain this stock with lower comb and new 30mm scope would not acquire as nicely wearing it. Not with the Warne rings. If I have to fall back on the steel base, I'll probably be exploring for lower rings.

Note that I mounted my QD rings with the lever on the right side. For some reason most seem to prefer putting them on the left side. It really makes more sense to have all protrusions on the same side: bolt handle, elevation turret, and QD levers. On the left side the levers are catching on clothing when rifle is slung on right shoulder. Putting the levers on the right side does not in the least interfere with loading or ejection. Obviously, if the turret doesn't interfere with loading or ejection, the levers surely can't. And finally, if I decide to remove the scope, my natural inclination is to use my right hand to release and remove the scope while maintaining control of the rifle with my left hand, just like when I'm loading the magazine or cycling the bolt. Right handed shooter should want all operations handy for his right hand, right?

 

[PARA45]

@Ontario Hunter, remember that on the CZ rifles these mounts go directly into the receiver, which give you a much lower profile. They are great and solid mounts and not too expensive either. My rifle made it to S Africa, then to the Eastern Cape, and the Kalahari, and the rifle never lost zero.

 

[hoytcanon]

Alaskan Arms makes a solid QD scope ring, I have them on a few Ruger rifles.

 

[C.W. Richter]

In the case of my rifle (pictures previously), I chose low ring, and when I shoulder my rifle with my eyes closed, the scope is perfectly aligned with my eye. Maybe I got lucky, who knows.

Low are the way to go when they fit! I put higher, QD rings on my 416 so that I wasn't looking at the iron sights through the scope on low power, and it's not a long-range rig so it doesn't affect accuracy too much.

 

[PARA45]

Low are the way to go when they fit! I put higher, QD rings on my 416 so that I wasn't looking at the iron sights through the scope on low power, and it's not a long-range rig so it doesn't affect accuracy too much.

I don't remember if I noticed the front sight or not, but now I'll have to go and look.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Low are the way to go when they fit! I put higher, QD rings on my 416 so that I wasn't looking at the iron sights through the scope on low power, and it's not a long-range rig so it doesn't affect accuracy too much.

I see the iron sights on low power but the hood is still below the crosshairs. Hood, ramp, and bead do not obstruct the view but the barrel does. I think raising the scope to eliminate that would put me way up off the gun. Then the recoil becomes more noticeable and I'm hunting for crosshairs.

 

[C.W. Richter]

I don't remember if I noticed the front sight or not, but now I'll have to go and look.

it only happens up to 2x, but it's distracting!

 

[Ontario Hunter]

it only happens up to 2x, but it's distracting!

Maybe a bit. But at ~50yds or less a scope on 1x still gives a better sight picture with less obstruction than looking through iron sights without a scope. With iron sights everything below the notch is out of sight. Looking through the 1x scope I can see a lot more below and around the crosshairs.

 

[RR 314]

Right handed shooter should want all operations handy for his right hand, right?

My EAWs are on the right side, but I have all of my other releases (mostly Alaska Arms) on the left. I adapt and overcome. . Seriously, not an issue at all. To each his own. I don’t think there’s an appreciable difference— whatever you like as far as aesthetics, familiarity and function.

 

[hoytcanon]

I always put the QR levers on the left, away from the bolt handle.