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

The horror!

I relish my gun magazines. When I get one of the good ones like Rifle or Precision Shooting I go through it backwards, page by page, back to front, before I start to read it. That way I get a feel for the content I am going to be enjoying but by going "against the grain" like that I'm less inclined to "dig in" and start reading. This gives me the most prolonged enjoyment of each new issue.

So, I received the latest issues of Rifle and Precision Shooting two days ago. The first evening I gave them both the back to front perusal and what do I find on the last pages of Rifle? Terry Wieland DESTROYING apparently perfectly acceptable milsurp rifles! My blood ran cold!

Terry: I understand that the M96 "Swede" and M17 "Enfield" you destroyed probably look like mere floor sweepings to someone such as you who apparently has ample opportunity to enjoy the finest of the classic British rifles, but to some of us those milsurps are everything. They are the only way for many of us to affordably explore strange, divergent rifle designs and arcane cartridges.

I understand that the rifles you chose were probably not prime examples. But did they not deserve to live? For instance, I notice the M17 still had the rear sight ears intact. Couldn't you have found one of the many buggered up "sporters" to destroy, one with the ears ground off? And why sacrifice the stock of the M96 when the point of your evil "experiment" was to test action integrity with overloads, not destroy stocks? Was that an intact M96 stock?

Thank goodness the other writers in that special Mauser issue did not have the same perverted approach to their articles. Thank goodness John Haviland did not see fit to destroy Orbendorf Sporters, Brian Pearce did not destroy a Custom Mauser and Mike Venturino did not demonstrate the differences in the predecessor Mauser designs by documenting their failure modes!

Have you lost your copy of P.O. Ackley's work? Surely a refreshing survey of his rifle destruction experiments could have satisfied your deviant yearnings?

Please, please try to come to grips with this demon before you graduate to experimenting with how big-bore British doubles let go when overcharged with modern powders.

Do you own other milsurp rifles? Perhaps it would be best for all concerned if they went to live elsewher for a while?

Please, Terry, my floors sag under the weight of milsurp rifles which I treasure. Sure they are rough little ragamuffins but they are my treasures. Don't torture me with visions of their brothers and cousins whom I could not rescue falling victim to your milsurp holocaust!

I believe that what the owner of a rifle does with their rifle is their business....

I wonder if most failures would occur in a way that would not harm the shooter before the rifle became unusable.

Been a while since I read his description, but I think they had to be hammered open to continue the test long before anything catastrophic happened. I think the lugs held and never did shear or let go.

GunReader,

Take a powder, pour yourself a little drink, and sit down for a while. Breathe deeply, thaaat's it. Inhale...exhale.

GunReader
Reading your post gave me more chuckles than I've had in a looonnngg time! Thanks

The current issue of Rifle (the Mauser Edition) is a real gem.

Terry has been doing very nice work since he started with Wolfe.

Agreed! I enjoy reading his articles very much.

He has the ability to peak my interest into what he writes about. His tastes in firearms seems to very varied, not in a rut with one paraticular type of firearm. A refreshing change indeed.

drover

Fixed. He's done stellar work in Gray's, as well.

Phil,

I just finished reading your article on Mausers in the latest Rifle - Great article! Now I wonder why I sold my FN.

drover

I think we've all butchered or sporterized military surplus rifles in the past. I cringe to think of the wonderful '98 Mausers that I sporterized in the 1950's when they cost $15 each and you could just walk into Interarms Firearms (Alexandria, VA) and have your choice of any of the hundreds that were piled high on the floor.

Mauser �94�s, �95�s, �98�s, Lee Enfields, Mannlicher Carcano�s, M-I rifles, M-1 carbines, Boy�s Anti Tank rifles (50mm) and a couple of Lathi 20mm canons were just sitting on the floor for purchase!

Who else is guilty?

I've operated on my share of Mausers, Lee Enfields and P14s. It just made the survivors more valuable. I've got some of them too.

WRT Wieland, he actually fled to the US because his life was in danger from these delightful creatures - Daleks. They landed in England in 1963 and have been loose ever since.

He purchased some milsurp rifles at a place in Ontario, Canada called Ellwood Epps and altered them. This was noticed by a doctor who had an affection for Lee Enfields. The doctor told the Daleks and the rest is history - EXTERMINATE!



Daleks are like evil versions of R2D2.

Haven't seen the Rifle article, but from the description I'm pretty sure it's a "recycled" one. I remember reading that same story, I believe in Rifle Shooter, several years ago.

When the sporterizing job is well done, I have no problem with it provided it's not a rare rifle that's been sporterized. Swede Mausers are magnificent rifles, mostly ignored becuse people think the 98 is so much better, but I say it's a fantastic action and barrel for making a truely world class sporter. Then again, it's one of the finest bolt action military rifles ever made, outstanding workmanship for a military rifle.

The Swede is not a rare specimine of a military rifle, but if I had my druthers, I'd hate to see somone sporterize the better ones.

As for the 1917, they are starting to get less and less common, especially one's with good bores. Again, before I would condine such a thing, my hope is that someone does a truely outstanding job or it's a waste. I have a 1917 action in the garange that somone butchered up a few decades ago that I keep threatening to screw a .35 Whelen barrel to...Maybe when I retire.

Terry has had some wonderful rifles built by James Flynn, Gunmaker, here in Louisiana. Several of these have been featured with great articles. He's really a good writer and from what I've heard, a good guy, although I've never met him myself. James has good things to say about him and James is a good judge of character, doesn't suffer fools kindly.

Check out James Flynn, Gunmaker on line. He may have some of Terry's guns on his website.

DF

Hopefully the present owner of the Mona Lisa doesn't think she needs a mustache. This may be an extreme example, but owning vs. being a steward are quite different. Those guns were made before Wieland, unless he destroys them totally, they will be here long after he is gone.

If you want to wreck a rifle go get a short magnum or a Ruger handgun...

Is Wieland the writer being sued for not returning the double rifle?

Dink

There's only ONE Mona Lisa; there are millions of military rifles. That's why they're so cheap.

That's the beauty of living in a 'free' country. You own it for awhile, you do with it as you wish.

Never heard that one...Don't know if there's any truth to that at all, but such things won't make a writer very popular with gunmakers.

I've never met Wieland so I have no opinion of the guy. While I love what he writes about, I don't necessarily love his writing. Seems to lack passion.

A friend of mine who REALLY knows fine and vintage guns tried to tell Wieland something about a rare patent feature on an exquisite gun made by a relatively unknown maker, and Wieland had absolutely NO interest. For someone who is supposedly passionate about fine guns, that really surprised me. When I'm in this guy's presence, I'm all ears, and I've learned that it's the obscure stuff like what he was trying to teach Wieland that's the really good stuff. Holland Royal actions with Scott spindles, Purdy under bolts, and southgate ejectors...these features are everywhere. Yeah, they're great, but a bit boring now (don't get me wrong, I'll take one). But it's really cool to see some truely ingenious ways other makers came up with to get around all the "standard" patents, yet still worked very well.

We all know that the "best" isn't always what's out there or the one that sells the most. Wonderful that the H&H Royal is, there are some gun designs that were market failures that many would consider to be better guns, or some design features that were superior to all the standby features we see now.