Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ganyana on Rifle Power

Don't forget Dumb Don...

That's why I carry JB weld in my pack to fix my bolt each time it falls off

The dinosaurs came and went, man evolved and Roy Weatherby appeared to save us all. People in trailer parks the world over rejoiced�.

I detest Weatherby's...

Any specific reasons, or generally?

trailer parks?..... Don't you mean cake eaters and champagne & strawberries for breakfast crowd?

The linked articles states:



This may be true of these rifles; I haven't worked mine so vigorously as to find out. Nor have I run my 358 (rebarreled 338 Win) hard enough to know. I do know that I had no trouble gunking up a brand new 30-06 MK II when I spilled part of a cartridges contents into the action and magazine. The point he makes about the ejector in the M77 MK IIs is a valid comment and probably applies to other makes as well which us a similar system. Some folks call this a standing ejector but it really isn't that since, as he points out, the ejector rises through a slot, a design which isn't materially different on the modern M70.

And although my Ruger 375 H&H feeds correctly (CRF-wise) and virtually flawlessly whether running fast or slow, I cannot say the same for most M77s I have used, or actually, for any of the other American made rifles I own. In fact, one of the worst has been a Model 70 I have which is quite picky about what it will feed well; length is it's issue however, so as long as they're 'long enough,' all is fine. I suspect feeding is generally a bigger overall issue than is extracting and ejecting with most factory issue rifles. That said, there is nothing like having a wolf or other high prize-value animal in the sights to really find out whether a bolt rifle can work fast and hard.

Don't we all run a bolt action fast and hard in practice to find out if they really work as intended?

This is the article that I find intriguing with his blunt talk over the evaluations.



http://www.africahunting.com/thread...ofessional-hunter-proficiency-exam.2604/

Well, you can't completely ignore what he says....he has been around the block that's for sure!

The stock design is a terrible fit for me, the ammo/brass is very expensize, I dont care for excessive freebore, I have found that Weatherby's are a bit bitchy in the accuracy department,and they look appalling to anyone not around in the 50-60's.
And I make these comments because I have owned more than a few. In fact my first rifle was a Weatherby Vanguard in .243 that at the time was offered with a McMillan stock. Have also owned several mark v's, and several more remingtons/Winchesters chambered in weatherby cartridges.

No, clearly not. But having known a few SA PH's (I lived there for a period between HS and college), I can say they sometimes have some weird ideas in regards to bullets and guns. Alot of it I believe is based on availability of quality ammo/guns and the expense associated with it. A good example is taking a 30-06, loading it with 220's at reduced velocity. Another is the fact that BRNO 602's are held in high regard, but CZ'z are crap, when they are pretty close in design.
My dad was part owner of a Zambian safari business and hunted extensivly. He used a model 700's, but this was a time before CRF rifles in safari calibers were widely available.

All valid comments sir, albeit a couple of caveats: The "Weatherby Freebore" is a thinkg of the past. With the advent of new powders, that freebore is not what it used to be. Accuracy-wise, at least for me, they have been the most accurate rifles I've ever owned. Cheers,

I followed the link to Mr Heath's comment on rifle actions for africa.

I tried to work the bolt as fast as I could on my 308win hawkeye to try to duplicate it's short comings. Could not duplicate so might be doing something wrong.

Is there a fix/solution for this short coming with the Rugers?

I'm not sure that I'd sweat details such as the ones he points out other than to give any hunting rifle a good going over and workout prior to using it for anything beyond 'gentlemanly' hunting. And then note every single little bobble and hitch the rifle has if you really expect it to work under the worst of conditions. Every single one of those things should get attention from someone who is both willing and able to replicate and remedy the issues until the rifle works flawlessly. Most people don't worry about a CRF rifle that doesn't actually CRF every single time from both left and right sides of the stack and both fast, slow, and everywhere in between; as long as it feeds, many are okay with that. But there are many, many things I've either learned about my rifles while hunting, or discovered why various 'minor' issues really aren't, in the heat of a hunt. Rifles that are finicky about how the magazine is loaded are not what is wanted if you need the reload in the midst of the action. Feed rails generally work alright as manufactured but relatively few work flawlessly; many probably either don't know or don't care as long as they work "normally" when used "as they were designed and intended". For something as 'simple' as a bolt gun, there certainly are a great many little details which can work well or not. The ejector problem he notes with the M77 is not a detail I'd worry about as much as some others. As I mentioned earlier, it is a design which can get 'gunked up' and is really no different in that respect than the Model 70's and perhaps some others.

And to be fair, the article linked above refers to rifles used by professionals where the element of 'self-defense' (defense of client) can be a major need and issue. The same requirements don't necessarily apply to most of us and few people even practice with similar rigor to that which is expected of PHs in their drills and exams. And the human element is no small part of the equation itself.

I think Heath is giving us a look at how these rifles performed at the highest risk level they are asked to work at. Surely we aren't concerned with charging mule deer, pronghorn or even a rut-crazed bull. The great majority of us will never use or come to rely on our rifle as do the PH's.

But it cannot be ignored that if the PH sees these problems in Africa, they can occur in North America. In a similar fashion, a NASCAR driver puts his modified car thru a more torturous environment in 4 hours than we do in many years. In both cases there are lessons to be learned.

Was your ejector clean? He was talking about dusty, dirty Rugers failing to eject. I'm a big Ruger 77 guy but he knows what he talks about and I'm not about to argue with him.

That's what I take from it.




Heath is talking about the fact that the ejectors on the rifles they tested did not 'rise' fast enough and in some cases therefore failed to be 'standing', so the case head was not caught by them and the case thrown. They used 7 M77 MK IIs and 6 of the 7 showed the problem. That either suggests they were using guns which were not cleaned prior to the testing -and that that model is prone to getting sluggish when they get a bit of resistance in them, or it suggests that they are really running them fast, much faster than most people ever will, and that the ejector simply wasn't fast enough in rising. I believe it would only take a slightly stronger spring to defeat that failure if such was the case.

I don't have access to the article and would appreciate it if someone can elaborate on Ganyana's ideas regarding different optics and QR rings.
Thanks,
Pete

Yet there are NO rules about how far one may drive a baseball or golf ball!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca