Appreciate all of the kind words.
I did make one error: the bottom metal is not Burgess' but rather was from a batch that Echols had made for use on his rifles
Echols BM is still more or less based on the Burgess, but with added improvements and refinements.
The Jasper Raeburn/Joe Zoofall M98 shrouds Echols uses, are the best shrouds bar none!
the machining and finish is impeccable. - I didn't regret one bit the money spent on buying some.
On the bottom metal, it looks like a 1909 reworked by Tom......The internal dimensions of a 1909 box are perfect for a 270.
To me the bow looks more like the geometry of the Burgess design used by Echols.
https://echolsrifles.com/pages/classic-standardFrom my experience of having a top grade .270win 1909 built (right on par with Echols stds) I wouldn't call orig 1909 box dimensions ideal
for .270win ....not at all. Even some of the new manufacture BM for mausers leaves something to be desired in that department.
eg; I wouldn't use Wiebe BM because in my metal career opinion and my smiths opinion, they are a sub-standard item for a really top flight rifle.
I don't even consider people like Wiebe as being in the absolute top tier of custom gunmakers (I've just dented some egos no doubt)
especially after he personally described some of the crappy machining stds he uses on rifles.. But people who know no better know no different.
The smith I used also didn't like Blackburn and neither does Echols, but if the customer insisted ,my smith would then alter-rebuild the Blackburn
to his higher std. He has also used mauser BM supplied by Echols.....I was also looking at building the rifle using Burgess QD rings we had on
hand, in his technical view opinion there were some upgrade-rebuilding processes he wanted to apply to deal with some shortcomings.
Thats how far the best std. of gun building has come...but most of the tech./funct. improvements are subtle and visually unnoticeable to many people,
hence why some might question its increased cost, value, or relevance.
