Why are Weatherby guns in 375+ calibers not liked on a Safari?

[dchum]

Dunno, but I just bought a Wby 6.5 RPM Mark V and it has an integral muzzle break. Likely newer 340s will have too. An older 340 Mark V I have lacks the break, but is tolerable to shoot, recoil not as quick as the .300 Wby, but pushes back harder.

Oh I was asking about yours!

That ya a 340 weatherby with no break. That will be perfect hammer for all antelopes

 

[Paul Homsy]

Dunno, but I just bought a Wby 6.5 RPM Mark V and it has an integral muzzle break. Likely newer 340s will have too. An older 340 Mark V I have lacks the break, but is tolerable to shoot, recoil not as quick as the .300 Wby, but pushes back harder.

I agree about the recoil and it's tolerable even on the bench provided it has one of the more recent stocks. The older ones which I had were brutal. Mine didn't come with a muzzle break, the new ones all have a break.

 

[Tam Dl]

@Tam Dl You forgot to mention that Weatherby stocks have cast- (off for dexters and on for sinisters).

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt, but I didn't know that at all.

This makes me wonder to what extent when he had a small shop in Hollywood (?) whether he may have custom fit stocks for his wealthier clients. At some point the stuff starts coming from Japan, and that would be out the window.

 

[Tam Dl]

You and I must use different straight comb stocks - whether English or American - traditional or contemporary. While it is true that many a pre-war English (or American) rifle will have a bit more drop at heel due reliance on iron sights, that is certainly not the case of anything built in the last sixty years or so on either side of the Atlantic.

My Rigby Stalker, Blaser R8 and Ruger No. 1's represent a pretty broad range of examples for modern, straight comb production rifles. Not only do they offer superb scope or open sight alignment, but the design moderates perceived recoil, and mitigates muzzle rise.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Superb scope and open sight alignment just isn't a thing. Obviously Ruger agrees, as they offer a lot of their "Tupperware" stocks with two combs to handle just such problems.

I don't own a lot of rifles compared to many here, but I do own a No. 1, a Hawkeye, and an American Rimfire with laminated stock of conventional proportions. I can't get a cheek weld on any of them, and none of them has a straight comb, as I understand it.

Here is a picture of a No. 1 out of the current catalog, apparently only Lipseys wants them... It has a typical Ruger classic stock and it has drop at the heel. Most rifles designed to be shop with scopes have positive geometry even above that line if they are designed to shoot in standing, or off sticks.

Here is a picture of a "Futuristic" Air rifle for offhand shooting. Unusual yes, but only in the fact that is actually fits the shooter. The comb is actually above the level of the barrel. There are many modern hunting rifles that allow this kind of geometry.

And here is the picture Ruger used for their No. 1 in the current catalog. I don't think this has to be taken too seriously, but he seems to have added to his stock to counter drop and get closer to the eyebox of his massive scope. It also says something about the demographic...

 

[Tam Dl]

I would agree that classic military rifles don't use the high comb designs. Nor that rifles I have in mind are probably copying Weatherby, just using similar principles. The first picture below googled up as the new Marine Sniper rifle. And similar things are all the rage for a lot of new "hunters", who prefer rifles built on chassis. This isn't a suggestion on what makes sense for Africa, though if the market existed, someone would come up with a chassis to match classic hunts with something "technical'. I was musing on trends in military rifles. And they don't look that different whether they are precision jobs designed to shoot from ambush, or designed to shoot reactively, while walking up to encounters.

Here is a very poor version of a Don Heath picture that shows (as he described it) a man dealing with a cape buffalo with an FN FAL, just to show a case where a non classic stock is in use in the field by a wildlife officer who is reacting to a very fluid situation.

As a note, the FN FAL was designed for use with iron sights. It has a distinctive butt stock that drops from the action to the height by which the sights can be used, then actually follows the angle of the bore, before rising back up to the butt plate, well behind the cheek weld. Good workaround for sights on the gas system.

 

[Red Leg]

Thanks for the detailed response.

Superb scope and open sight alignment just isn't a thing. Obviously Ruger agrees, as they offer a lot of their "Tupperware" stocks with two combs to handle just such problems.

I don't own a lot of rifles compared to many here, but I do own a No. 1, a Hawkeye, and an American Rimfire with laminated stock of conventional proportions. I can't get a cheek weld on any of them, and none of them has a straight comb, as I understand it.

Here is a picture of a No. 1 out of the current catalog, apparently only Lipseys wants them... It has a typical Ruger classic stock and it has drop at the heel. Most rifles designed to be shop with scopes have positive geometry even above that line if they are designed to shoot in standing, or off sticks.

View attachment 603208
Here is a picture of a "Futuristic" Air rifle for offhand shooting. Unusual yes, but only in the fact that is actually fits the shooter. The comb is actually above the level of the barrel. There are many modern hunting rifles that allow this kind of geometry.

View attachment 603206
And here is the picture Ruger used for their No. 1 in the current catalog. I don't think this has to be taken too seriously, but he seems to have added to his stock to counter drop and get closer to the eyebox of his massive scope. It also says something about the demographic...

View attachment 603209

We are simply using terms differently. The Rugrr No. 1 has both a straight comp and drop at heel. The sniper rifle has a raised cheek piece and thus not a straight comb regardless of the lack of drop at heel. That particular FN stock is an abomination.

My Rigby Highland Stalker has a straight comb, no cheek rest, and compromise drop at heel to give it utility with either scope or irons. A pre-war Rigby would have somewhat more drop at heel for primary use of irons. My R8s have straight combs and no drop at heel. They accomplish iron sight utility by making them quite tall.

 

[grand veneur]

The classic stocks from Weatherby are Monte Carlo stocks which have some advantages when it comes to shooting with scoped rifles, but that only with rifles that don't have a strong recoil.

Roy Weatherby had his first rifles built by various manufacturers. Different actions were used for this, in particular FN Mauser and Brevex Mauser systems, but the stocks back then already had the famous Monte Carlo design. Roy Weatherby must have had some preference for this stock design.

 

[Bonefish2150]

...but, I really like the Weatherby stock design, it's quick, it comes to target easily and accurately, and it seems to me to handle recoil as well or better than other rifles I've shot. I've never suffered a Weatherby eyebrow, but have known those who did. The most uncomfortable stock I've run into is the Ruger No. 1.

Ruger stocks need to be straighter. Have collected, shot, hunted with Weatherby Mark 5 rifles for 50 years. Never received a Weatherby Brow. Mounted the scopes WELL FORWARD on 340, 375, 378 and 460s.

 

[Rule 303]

The classic stocks from Weatherby are Monte Carlo stocks which have some advantages when it comes to shooting with scoped rifles, but that only with rifles that don't have a strong recoil.

Roy Weatherby had his first rifles built by various manufacturers. Different actions were used for this, in particular FN Mauser and Brevex Mauser systems, but the stocks back then already had the famous Monte Carlo design. Roy Weatherby must have had some preference for this stock design.

Weatherby stocks to me are pig ugly but they do work well and reducing felt recoil and putting your eye where it needs to be for a scope. First Weatherby I fired was a Mk5 in 378Weatherby. Thought I was going to get pounded. Easier to handle than a Rugger 338WM in one of their boat paddle stocks.

 

[grand veneur]

MC-stocks are not suitable for big bore rifles. When shooting with rifles with strong recoil, the cheek of the shooter must not rest on the stock. This is the reason why many big bore rifles, above all custom built, have relatively straight and narrow stocks. I also use different stocks and appreciate the advantages of the MC-stock when it comes to shoot with a scoped rifle, but not with a big bore rifle with scope or not.

 

[sgt_zim]

MC-stocks are not suitable for big bore rifles. When shooting with rifles with strong recoil, the cheek of the shooter must not rest on the stock. This is the reason why many big bore rifles, above all custom built, have relatively straight and narrow stocks. I also use different stocks and appreciate the advantages of the MC-stock when it comes to shoot with a scoped rifle, but not with a big bore rifle with scope or not.

While a solid cheek weld isn't necessary to perfectly align pupil with the center of the scope for the sort of short-range shooting normally done with big bores, I found that adding a cheek riser to my Montana Rifle in 404J so I can form a solid cheek weld greatly reduces the felt recoil. Otherwise, with my face off the comb, the rifles jumps hard with the trigger pull and slaps the ever-loving shit out of my face.

 

[Tam Dl]

Is it possible that there is no happy medium? Either you need to be tight on the comb and ride it (sounds like a custom proposition), our you want the thing so low it can't lay it's hands on you.

I had thought that the point of the classic Weatherby stock was that it would move back and increase the space between your cheek and the stock. Sort of, going out of battery.

 

[EfRed]

No they are not, but the OP wasn't asking about how a rifle looked. He wanted to know why his or some PH didn't like Weatherby rifles and he wondered if recoil was one of the problems.

One of my rifles is a .340 Weatherby. Shooting 250 grain bullets our of a 9 lb rifle the recoil energy and recoil velocity are both greater than a 375 HH shooting a 300 grain bullet, a 400 Jeffery shooting a 400 grain bullet, a little bit more than a .458 Win mag with 400 grain bullets but under with 500 grain bullets.

Now the .375 Weatherby mag is just slightly higher in both recoil velocity and recoil energy but not by much. But once you go up to the 378 Weatherby mag, 416 Weatherby mag, and the 460 Weatherby mag you are jumping up quite a bit in both and would need to go up to the Nitro Express rounds to find their equal.

As for handling recoil some hunters/shooters can handle it better than others when shooting the exact same rifles. I'm not recoil sensitive like some but like all I do feel it.

But the OP also asked another question about push feed vs controlled feed which is another subject.

But I still don't understand what any of what I have posted above has to do with how a rifle looks. If a rifle works and does what it is suppose to do why worry about looks unless you just want to admire it?

Many of us want to admire them as well. A gun is a tool, a gun is a work of art.

 

[EfRed]

Life is too short to hunt with a ugly shiny rifle that has more than one hole in the front of the barrel, holds only 2 rounds in the mag, is push feed, has a tiny extractor claw, is difficult to load from the top, has excess velocity, has excess recoil, has no affordable ammo availibilty in Africa and is known to go off when the safety is disengaged in calibers larger than 375....

Yes I dont like Weatherby rifles in calibers larger than 375 and yes I do own a Weatherby actioned rifle, that now has a oil finish on the stock and not the shiny crap it came out with.

Maybe depends on what you grew up with. I like the classic Mark V and the old Mark V Safari Custom. Becasue I grew up handling Dad's 300 Mark V custom, the feel is familiar and comfortable to me. Interestingly, when I first shot that rifle (only shot '06s before that), I didn't even notice the recoil, did notice the noise, and the rifle did leap out of my hands. A firm grasp fixed that last problem. My 375s kick but not painfully, the Ruger one much improved by a synthetic Pendleton stock. My 404 Jeffrey (Mark V action) kicks, but very comfortably stocked with a synthetic. My Ruger Magnum .458 Lott kicks like a mule with full house 500 gr loads, but very nice with top level Hornady 350s. I imagein your experience with big guns exceeds mine a lot, as you are a hunter and I'm just a casual shooter.

 

[EfRed]

When i was 21 years old i had a 340 mk5 got a Weatherby eye brow at 74 i still have the scar.

Sorry. I've been lucky, but my Father's cousin constantly bashed his eyebrow. But he crawle dthe stock.

Is it possible that there is no happy medium? Either you need to be tight on the comb and ride it (sounds like a custom proposition), our you want the thing so low it can't lay it's hands on you.

I had thought that the point of the classic Weatherby stock was that it would move back and increase the space between your cheek and the stock. Sort of, going out of battery.

One thing occurs to me: maybe for a lighter recoiling round, many want a straight stock. But, I know that when I fire my .458 Lott Ruger Magnum rifle, there's a lot of muzzle rise, up and left. When I first shot it, I thought "Gee, I'm glad all that isn't coming straight back." It rocks me, and I think all that muzzle rise dissipates some of the backward blow, which is more than enough as is. Interestingly, there are also "parallel" considerations on the use of Magna-Porting on big caliber pistols. Longer barreled all steel guns with Magna-Port recoil more straight back than without the Magna-Port, and I don't like the feel. But a short barreled alloy gun, S&W P329, recoils back so fast and hard that I find it beside my left ear before I know its moving. And it hurts my hand a lot, as though I slammed it down hard and flat on concrete. Quadra-Ported by Kelly, the P329's extreme muzzle rise/rotation is tamed, it acts like a 4" steel .44 Mag; the porting is very effective and to my taste. The porting is a little analogous to dropped comb vs straight stock.

 

[Rule 303]

Is it possible that there is no happy medium? Either you need to be tight on the comb and ride it (sounds like a custom proposition), our you want the thing so low it can't lay it's hands on you.

I had thought that the point of the classic Weatherby stock was that it would move back and increase the space between your cheek and the stock. Sort of, going out of battery.

That is the idea behind them, and Roy Weatherby got everything -except looks- just right for me. For a factory/mass produced stock it works.

I don't have any Weatherby's and have more classic style stocks on my rifles and they work at taming felt recoil except my Ruger No1 and Ruger Hawkeye. The Rem stock on the 375H&H is a cheap SPS stock. Puts the eye where it needs to be and the plastic absorbs a bit of the recoil.

 

[jruby]

I have a Weatherby Mark V built by JP Sauer and sons back in the mid 60's. I bought it second hand. Its a pretty rifle and I like the 300 Weatherby cartridge a great deal. I relaod for it using IMR 7828 and Nosler 200G partitons. What I dont understand is why did they use a 24" barrel and a thin one at that. I have given serious consideration to rebarreling the rifle to something like a 28" barrel in a numer 3 contour. I also am not a fan of the safety as it is not easy to use. Seems extremley sticky. If I decide to keep it - it will be rebarreled. I think the weight would help the rifle shoot better.

 

[dchum]

I have a Weatherby Mark V built by JP Sauer and sons back in the mid 60's. I bought it second hand. Its a pretty rifle and I like the 300 Weatherby cartridge a great deal. I relaod for it using IMR 7828 and Nosler 200G partitons. What I dont understand is why did they use a 24" barrel and a thin one at that. I have given serious consideration to rebarreling the rifle to something like a 28" barrel in a numer 3 contour. I also am not a fan of the safety as it is not easy to use. Seems extremley sticky. If I decide to keep it - it will be rebarreled. I think the weight would help the rifle shoot better.

A 28 inch barrel seems insane to me haha.

I would not want to hunt with that.

 

[jruby]

A 28 inch barrel seems insane to me haha.

I would not want to hunt with that.

I have one on a 30-338 that fits my needs. It has a 30" barrel.

 

[grand veneur]

I have a Weatherby Mark V built by JP Sauer and sons back in the mid 60's. I bought it second hand. Its a pretty rifle and I like the 300 Weatherby cartridge a great deal. I relaod for it using IMR 7828 and Nosler 200G partitons. What I dont understand is why did they use a 24" barrel and a thin one at that. I have given serious consideration to rebarreling the rifle to something like a 28" barrel in a numer 3 contour. I also am not a fan of the safety as it is not easy to use. Seems extremley sticky. If I decide to keep it - it will be rebarreled. I think the weight would help the rifle shoot better.

The Mark V rifle caliber 300 Weatherby Magnum was offered in both barrel lengths 24" or 26". I just looked at an old catalog. Thin conical barrels were the standard by most serial rifles back then in the sixties. I am a fan of the cartridges from Roy Weatherby, but not his rifles. Despite it, I would also leave the rifle as it is. This rifles are collector's items. Better to sell it and to buy something else of the same caliber.