Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Terry Wieland must be stopped!

I am not sure if Wieland is the right writer that is having the pissing match over the double rifle.

The rumor I heard was one the writers was loaned a fine double rifle (something like a H&H) and the writer did not want to or refused to return it and it has ended up in court.

Dink

I see this as a basic property rights issue. Society doesn't have any interest in Mr. Wieland's guns. He owns them he uses them as he sees fit.

Gunreader,

You're a bit late. In the 4th paragraph of Wieland's article, he writes, "...finally, TEN YEARS AGO, [emphasis added] [I] set out to deliberately destroy it with excessive loads...."

Dink,

I found the following on line:


Rigby vs Rigby: The Proof is in the Gun
John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers), Inc., responds to the Insider Blog.
Geoff Miller, Managing Director, John Rigby & Co.


� Prev Article // Next Article � Comment Send to Friend In reference to article on the American Rifleman blog concerning �Rigby vs Rigby; the Proof is in the Gun�. I like to state for the record that both Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Wieland have personal issues with me and for that reason and no other have decided to defame John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers), Inc., its products and its personnel when the facts completely negate their statements in the blog. If one wishes to see how we regulate our guns I would refer them to Winter 2002 Double Gun Journal which deals exclusively with how we regulate double rifles.

Further, I would refer you to the Shooting Times Guide to Accuracy published this year with an article written by Terry Wieland who essentially cites us (Rigby) as the expert on regulating double guns. Further I would also refer you to Mr. Wieland�s book on Dangerous Game Rifles, page 6A where he states that the rifle we built him is �uncompromising Best Quality rifle�. Which, incidentally, he has refused to return or pay for.

The fact is we are considered the Premier Rifle Builder in this country and perhaps the world and have many letters from many satisfied clients to that effect. While I refuse to lower myself to their level and issue a bunch of personal attacks I would welcome anyone who has any curiosity about this situation to contact me at John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers), Inc. 805.227.4236 and I would be glad to discuss any aspect of the situation with you.

As a final word we do have every possible example of the name registered in the United States and the U.K. and have filed suit both in Federal Court here and in the English Court system ��documentation is a matter of public record.

Geoff Miller
Managing Director
John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers), Inc.

I for one, appreciated the OP's genuine concern for the old milsurp guns, while he craftily wrote "tongue in cheek" about his desire that the madness and destruction be stopped.

Wieland's article reminded me (as someone else talked about Ackley blowing up guns on purpose) of Hatcher's notebook on the Springfields, and what it took to blow them up. (As I recall, he could NOT blow up a heat treated early gun: the later, "better steel" and early guns not heat treated were able to be destroyed by blue pill experiments).

Terry's conclusion (or at least as I read it) alluded to a suggestion that the older Mausers, including Swede 94's, 96's and 38's were not the "weak" guns that we have been led to believe. Gas direction is certainly a concern in these guns, but they are strong.

This (for me at least) is not taken as a green light to ramp up loads, but rather reassurance that the guns are well made, strong, and with appropriate loads, nothing to be afraid of under any normal circumstance.

Yes, my OP was almost entirely tongue in cheek. I did wince at apparently intact milsurp rifles being blown up, but I understand Mr. Wieland's right to blow up his own guns if he wants to.

Actually, it was a useful bit of experimentation regarding the importance (or not) of the third lug in retaining the bolt as a rifle self-destructs. Because I have several pre-'98 Mausers in my accumulation, his results were a a comfort.

Still, there were only so many Swedish Mausers ever built and it seems heartless to go blowing them up.

And even the P14/M17s that were made in a quantity of three or four million are getting a lot harder to find complete in original form. The industry that has been built on remachining those actions and using them for custom rifles in magnum chamberings, as well as a horde of Bubba's whose first thoughts were "Those sight ears have to go!", has made any intact P14 or M17 a prize.

Oh well, those were his own rifles, it was all in the name of science, etc. But it was published as entertainment as well as intellectual elucidation and I, for one, would have been better entertained and equally enlightened if Terry had at least removed the stock before blowing up that M96 and maybe swapped for a less intact M17 action instead of blowing up one with ears intact. So, as the target of the firearms periodical publishing industry - a Gun Reader - I have to give that article an A or A- for knowledgeable inquiry and a C- for entertainment.

No big deal, not a rousing condemnation, just a comment in passing.


By the way: Yes! That was a great issue of Rifle magazine.

My alternate interest in the article was the fact that I have blown up a gun (not on purpose, and not a milsurp).

Winchester Model 70 (post 64, Lightweight push feed, XTR) in .223. The load was 25.5g of H335 behind a 55g Rem Powerlokt.

The cause (or at least near as I can tell) was faulty brass, and catastrophic failure at the head. Only the 6th firing in this lot of brass, but it was economical PMC stuff, and I will acknowledge the load is at the top end, and that it was the load for all 5 firings after the factory firing.

Squeezing the trigger on a Rockchuck, the aluminum floorplate blew off, with the hinge cracking just behind the recoil screw, and the aluminum trigger guard followed identical suit with amputation of the forward screw recess.

The extractor divorced itself from residence, the ejector plunger took refuge in the bolt head, compressing its spring into a solid wafer.

The left receiver side of the wood blew out, with multiple splinters going all directions, including to the rear.

The good news is that I was wearing a brand new pair of Bausch and Lomb Sportsman frames with impact-resistant prescription lenses. I'd picked them up at the optometrist literally on the way to the Rockchuck fields (having sat on my previous pair: I almost chose to go hunting without them, but the doctor put a rush on my eyewear for me). Two or three wood splinters in my cheeks (face cheeks, not the alternative), damaged pride, and a metallic smell in my sinuses like one gets in a car wreck were all the damage to me. Neither me or my partner know to this day whether or not I hit the Chuck. We were distracted somewhat.

Other good news is much as Terry describes: The gun itself survived. Full headspace tests and overall critical check at the local smith pronounced it worthy of my installing parts obtained very promptly from Winchester. Even the wood (a beautiful piece of burl rare from factories) was repaired to near-undetectable evidence of the disaster.

I keep the casualty parts including the brass in a baggie VERY observable at the loading bench, buy and use only quality brass, and probably needlessly lose a lot of money trashing it all after five firings. By doing so, I hope to keep my life experience in blowing up guns to be NOT by purpose, and very singular.

I subscribe to Handloader, Rifle and Successful Hunter and haven't received this issue yet... last Rifle I have is Sept 2011. So I guess I'll be getting it soon...

As for milsurp rifles - I am among the crowd that thinks they should be left alone if intact and that it is a loss to the gun community each time one of them is bubb'd. Of course, the particular model determins the "degree" of loss - a mosin-nagant 91-30 is different than a 1903 Springfield for instance.

However, if one has been sportered and such already, then I see no harm in taking that and using it for a project gun.

In fact, I did that with a (sniff sniff) M94 Swede carbine that I found at the local funshop - had been butchered to the point of not being a good candidate for restoration. So I bought it and worked on it until it became a nice sporter.



Conversly, my Dad gave me a very nice 1898 Krag that had been "sportered" by his uncle before he gave it to my Dad = but this only involved removing the hardware off of the muzzle and cutting the handguard back... so I restored it:

It never ceases to amaze me why people will crab about sporterising rifles. For the most part, it was done years ago when many people couldn't afford to save up $75 - $100 for a new Remington. There were literally 100,000s of these things lying around, readily available and sold dirt cheap. It was a different time.

A time when people used expressions like Japs or Krauts in everyday conversation to describe Japanese or German people. We mustn't forget DPs either (originally used to describe displaced persons around eastern Europe). When all men enjoyed having a gay time. Cartoons were full of this as well.

New cars were $2000 and gas was 25 cents a gallon.

There are still thousands of cut up milsurps available today that are beyond restoration. Chop them up, File them down. Grind the metal parts flat to your heart's content.

If someone does this to a rare rifle today, it merely makes the others more valuable.

A number of years ago I met a fellow shooter at our range who was a farmer by trade and an amateur gun smith. One of the rifles he had at the range that day was a rechambered milsurp 6.5 X 55 Swede (don't remember the designation). I was interested because I owned one. Get this... he'd rechambered it to .264 Winchester Magnum! He claimed it shot great and was a lot stronger than what was claimed in the press. He compared it to a .30-06 in strength if I recall... At least he didn't blow it up while I was there!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Thanks.

Whats a double Rigby worth? Something tells me its more than a Remington 700..grin.

Ain't it, though? When I opened it, was dismayed not to see anything by "Kid" Barsness in there, then eventually realized dey was two pages to the index.

My dad used to get upset with me droolin' on his bring-back VZ 24, when I was a kid, so I've always been a tad nuts for anything resembling a M98.

Fortunately, he wiped off the drool, because it's now my VZ 24 and still pristine. ;O)

I have since gathered up other examples and would never be without a few around the place.