JB,
Do you have some idea as to what decade a factory barreled action dropped into a synthetic stock went from a practical home shop answer to bad weather and became so called "Custom Rifles"?
Painted plastic stocks and expensive scopes on factory rifles wasn't "custom" when I was growing up in the '60s and '70s.
On top of that, the first synthetic stocks I saw were jeered at by magazine writers as cheap and gauche.
Now we have people dropping Remchesters into Mcplastic stocks and showing us their "custom" that I can duplicate in a few minutes with no skill. Product of our instant gratification seeking population?

Edit: I'll grant there are advantages to synthetic stocks. That still doesn't come near the wonderful skill and artistry of true custom gunsmiths that create rather than just screw aftermarket parts together.

Oh, would you be suggesting that a length of pvc pipe, a tube of araldite, and a can of filler foam does not constitute a "custom"?

I am sure JB will wade in with his wisdom and experience but as a "magazine writer" in the early 1980's I expoused the virtues of synthetic stock on rifles because they offered real benefits to serious shooters and hunters.
I agree with you that cheap, plastic rifles do not have the viceral appeal of a nice wood stock rifle but just today at a local gun show I was having a talk with a few knowledgable Alaskan gun makers and hunters about the very real virtues of the superb accuracy of the "cheap and gauche" Ruger American rifle.

I am not ready to abandon my wood and steel custom Mauser's, M-70's and Springfields but to pay the devil his due, most of the AR's and plastic POS rifles shoot as well, and usually better.

So much better that one of the top gun builders is even considering building custom stocks for the Ruger American !!

I would prefer my blued and wood in the theoretical sense and often use them. However, I was very content with my old Win 70 375 H&H stainless classic last fall when we had bluebird weather, ice, rain, snow, etc. and needed to improvise an antler tool for raking. That POS M70 cheapo plastic stock sure worked well for beating the brush and getting the hackles up on a couple of bulls all at once when the time came. And I didn't have to worry about scuffing or denting a nice and/or expensive stock.

Somebody asked me one day, "did you build that AR?" and I replied "no, I assembled it". Which is pretty much true; all I did was bolt it together with factory parts, although the best parts I could get, regardless of cost. You can do pretty much the same thing with a bolt action gun - at least until you get to headspacing, fitting, tuning, etc.

I own mostly blued steel & walnut too, but when you have a synthetic stocked rifle, that has extensive machining, fitting, or modification of the parts, to suit the owner, then I have no problem calling it a custom.

It is kind of interesting, even on relatively expensive stainless/synthetic rifles, where every detail is either special or fine tuned, you see very few of them that are embellished or engraved. Unless you count fancy paint jobs

Hey I am with you man, I have some custom Tupperware in the kitchen and it is spic!

I am bored so why not.

There are most definitely custom rifles that utilise synthetic stocks, but you are correct in your assertion that every tom, dick, and harry shoves something into an after-market something or other and labels it as "custom"...apparently everyone has the right to be "special", even if they don't spend the money or have a skill.

Just wander on down a few fora and you will see a myriad of painted/rebarrelled "customs" proudly shewn off by their owners/creators.

Back around 1980 or thereabouts I had a M70 stock hang around the dry air of Wyoming fort about a week before it went mule deer hunting. I had shot it upon arrival and it was nicely zeroed....but not after a week of drying out.

It hit out, high and right. I bought a Brown Precision stock and that was the end of the that.

Built dozens (literally) of similar rifles in various calibers on M70, Mauser, and Rem 700 actions,and hunted them all over North America. I called them all "parts guns", utilitarian but never considered them "custom".

To me, custom was something with a handmade wooden stock by a top quality maker like Biesen, Goens, Brownell,etc and top notch metal work. Still feel the same way.

It's evolved since then....you can have a custom made with synthetic stocks and the metal done by top makers rivals and likely exceeds the old school stuff for pure accuracy,and durability,even if they lack class and panache.

I doubt I have owned a better custom for function, accuracy and durability in a moderate weight package than my 7mm Mashburn Super built by Gene Simillion with Legend Edge stock.

But factory barreled actions bedded in afar market stocks still don't qualify as "custom" in my mind, even if they work better. No matter....killed piles of game with them. so who cares what we call them?


To me, this is a contemporary custom:






This is an old school custom by a top maker:






And this is a "parts gun".....Krieger barrel, Brown stock, M70 action. Lovingly coddled together by various hands until it ended up "right". But not really a custom.

But it killed two great bucks its first year in use so who cares? One of my favorites.

Yep, a handmade wooden stock isn't anything like a layered and finished McMillan, just like putting a new stock in a factory action isn't anything like an engraver scrimshawing all kinda decorations on a NIB Smith 53...


Strike up the ornate 870's....and don't forget how the old masters would customize those 1897's, Model 12's and Brownings with a Cutts or a customized Poly choke...

Deflagrate,

I haven't seen too many factory rifles with a synthetic stock bolted on called "custom," but when it does happen I always scratch my head....

There are some real custom syn-stocked rifles. I'll always remember my first, a .280 Remington built on a Remington 78 action by the late Dave Gentry, partly because it was so light and yet very accurate, and partly because Dave did so much work! He not only fitted one of his Model 70-type safeties, but did other extensive work to the action, including milling down the receiver, changing to bolt-stop to a Model 70 type, and (one of his secrets at the time) sawing most of bolt's body out and replacing it with aluminum, again to save weight. The barrel was a Douglas #1 stainless, but Dave chrome-blacked the entire barreled action, then pillar-bedded it in a Garret Accur-Light stock, one of the early makers who produced very good and light stocks, but isn't around anymore. Oh, and of course the scope was mounted in Dave's very light but strong, wrap-around steel rings. The rifle not only light and accurate, but very lucky, taking one of my two biggest caribou and what's still my biggest mule deer.

But many of today's so-called custom synthetic-stocked rifles are more appropriate to Bob's term, "parts rifle," since they're aftermarket stocks and barrels screwed into a Remington 700 action. They can work great too, and I've owned and even built several myself, but can't call them real customs--partly because "custom" means as the customer wants. Too many of today's rifles are simply a standard model some gunsmith screws together, with no options, and that's not custom.

John I was always surprised that you sold that Gentry 280, because it was a sweet rifle and obviously very lucky for you.

But we all know how that goes and have BTDT...

I totally agree with Bob. I have a few rifles like that with the Mcmillan and Brown precision stocks. I call them utilitarian and somewhat better than factory because of the things Bob pointed out. No warpage like the wood stocks and much better for the poor weather that is often associated with the hunting seasons around here. However, I guess I have one rifle that I've referred to as a "semi-custom". It is a pre 64 model 70 338 win mag built on an H&H receiver that has a stainless steel Gre-tan barrel, Brown precision (Brown pounder) stock, and cerakoted midnight blue. It's not custom, just put together right:



A rifle just thrown in a McMillan stock is just an upgrade as far as I'm concerned. My 375 H&H is one I consider upgraded by just putting it into a more stable stock:


My 270 is the same way. Definitely not considered a "custom":

The true beauty in these rifles is, they are a pretty much just a grab and go proposition. No worries about them changing POI because the stock warped on you overnight... Like I said before, just an "upgraded" factory rifle when they are dropped into a Mcmillan or Brown precision. IF DONE RIGHT: You get better balance, less weight, better fit and feel, which all correlates to quicker handling and better shooting in the field.

Big difference between "Re-barreled/re-stocked" and "Custom" IMO. Similarly, I believe there is a large expanse between "Gunsmith"and "Gunbuilder".

I have a few rifles that have been re-barreled and re-stocked. A M70 SS Classic in a McMillan w/Lilja chambered in 257Wby. I also have a Lawton action left port, right bolt, single shot, in a McMillan Tooley MBR stock w/Brux bbl in 7WSM that I still don't consider "custom".

This is "Custom" IMO. Commissioned by the wife of one of the American judges presiding over part of the Nuremberg trails in the late 1940's to his specifications:





In 7x57 of course.

Perhaps the underlying problem with all of this is the umbrage taken by those who feel deserving of veneration based on how much they spent on a true custom when some interloper who did not spend enough to join the club attempts to weasel his way in.

Well we all like to discuss the rifle we cobbled together and that worked out well...but sometimes there have been a few that did not....even customs.

You tried to spare a few bucks but somewhere things went sideways....too many people messing with it, wrong bedding techniques,half assed smithing etc.

You see theses things coming after awhile and decide to pull all the stops...spend what's required, put it in the hands of one quality smith and pay to make it right. Like my Simillion. Worth everything I paid.

That last "parts" 270 of mine was sort of a problem rifle, built of good stuff by good people but the ball was dropped on bedding. Took an old school smith, a match shooter with M70 experience , to bed correctly and make the light rifle shoot.

Wow! Nice!

Bob,

I sold the Gentry .280 for several reasons:

I'd wanted a .270, but Gentry insisted the .280 was far more accurate. (This was back before laser rangefinders turned the argument into "drifts less in the wind.") I found that while the Gentry .280 was accurate, especially with one specific load, it wasn't as accurate as at least two factory .270's I'd owned.

But I got the .280 before trying any Ultra Light Arms rifles, partly because ULA's were still very new on the market, and Dave had been around quite a while.

After Melvin let me borrow an Ultra Light for a year, I wanted one, since it was lighter, more accurate and balanced better than the Gentry. I got a .270, but my wife decided she wanted it, which made some sense, since I already had the .280.

After trying a couple other ULAs, eventually I got an ULA .30-06, partly because I was traveling a lot more by then, and the .30-06 is more practical for hunting more animals, in distant places than any other cartridge I'd tried. I just had to try the others to remind me of that fact.

I still have the .30-06, 20 years later, and it's taken more big game animals than any of my other rifles during that period--and it's also been very lucky. It's done the job both with handloads and factory ammo, at everything I ever pointed it at, including animals wounded by other hunters, and Eileen used it considerably too, before she started getting recoil headaches.

The .30-06 may be boring, and in fact some people I've run into during my travels made that comment--which is also a fact. But as Col. Whelen once noted, the .30-06 is never a mistake. And even now, with quite a few rounds down the barrel (because I've used it not just for hunting but testing ammo and scopes) the Ultra Light is still more accurate with a wide variety of loads than the Gentry ever was.

However, it also can't be called a custom rifle. I ordered it with a 13-1/2" length of pull, but that's what Melvin delivers unless somebody wants something different. I also ordered a 24-inch #2 barrel, and the stock black, about as basic as it get.

While those were obviously my choices, before Melvin could build my rifle he got a return rifle from a shop in Germany that just happened to be exactly what I'd ordered. He asked if I'd take the "German" rifle, and I said yes, which is why my Ultra Light Arms .30-06 has a proof-mark stamp on the barrel, a tiny red stag. So even after ordering a specific Ultra Light Arms rifle, it still wasn't made for me.

It's not a custom, but it works.

John I see the progression. I know that 30/06 has been a favorite of yours for years and has taken lots of animals.

Of course i consider anything that comes out of me l's shop as "custom", even if it's made to his standard pattern. The quality is custom level, no doubt about that.

Dang! My Remington 721 action with a 700 take off 06 barrel screwed in with the writing pointing into the Brown Precision stock and the 700 bottom metal isn't custom?
Oh the shame of it all.
Well, it does shoot nice groups and has shot a lot of game.
I for one will likely not own a custom rifle, though my first rifle built on a Mauser action with Herters best wood and a Sharon 6mm barrel might have been. i like to look at custom rifles. The fear of Scratching them or denting them makes them a work of art to me. Something to show my friends, but not to take hunting in the mountains.
The second stock I built and spent >100 hours on, broke as it and I tumbled down a slope. My hunting partners thought it was funnier than I did. So I'm an utilitarian hunter I guess.

Looks like a Brno model 21, and whilst they are very nice and very desirable they are by no means "custom".

Kind of what I was thinking. I saw a nicer example in a LGS about 5 years ago for $400.00. Still kind of wish I would have bought it though.. However, just like Bob said in an earlier post: "so who cares what we call them?"..... Personally, I could care the fu ck less to own a rifle that was "commissioned by some dipchits wife during some trials". Now if it were an old rifle JOC owned, or one Roger Rule had in his safe, or even JB's or Ingwe's, Bobin's, or Dobers rifles here. I'd be a little more impressed... Just saying..

I have several "traditional" custom rifles with hand-shaped, finished and checkered stocks made of various better grades of walnut, but have never felt like leaving them in the safe rather than taking them hunting. In fact, one of them is my Serengeti (now Kilimanjaro) 7x57 that has been my second-most used big game rifle, next to the Ultra Light Arms .30-06.

Partly this is because they were built to hunt. But partly it's because stocks made of dense walnut, with some variety of finish IN the wood, aren't nearly as easily damaged as typical factory stocks made of soft walnut with a thick layer of brittle finish. They do get nicked, but unless you fall down a rock slide with one, they keep looking very good, despite pretty hard use.

However, they are heavier than top-notch synthetics, which is why I own hunting rifles of both kinds. And even fancy walnut-stocked rifles can be made pretty light. One of my wife's favorite rifles, which has also been used pretty hard, is a .308 made by Serengeti/Kilimanjaro on a short Kimber 84 action and a very nice piece of European walnut. With a 3.5-10x40 Leupold it weighs 6-1/2 pounds. It already has the patina of use, and she plans to carry it again this spring after black bears and this fall after elk.

HERE, is a proper insult to the old custom makers !



And it was custom made by me, for me, for a specific purpose.

Getting some good responses and most people caught the drift of my question. Some are taking umbrage.
I'm not saying synthetic stocks don't have a place in custom rifles. What I'm saying is that I keep reading threads where cousin Billy dropped his entry level bolt gun into a cheap molded stock and calling it "custom" because he painted stripes or leaves on it.
Guess I should have left well enough alone and let Bubba feel good about his ability with a spray can and screwdriver.
Congratulations to those of you who have a nice custom with a synthetic stock. You weren't the subject of the inquiry.

Thank you, I feel much better now.

It depends on whether you used Krylon or Rustoleum.

I shook the cans by hand, the old fashion way, rather than a mechanical shaker. Shouldn't that count for something ?

There's a limit to most all of us as to where custom starts and where it becomes "Museum" quality. I'll hunt and have with two thousand dollar rifles. But I wouldn't take what I used to read about in Rifle - Gunsmith Guild rifles made with gold inlay - everything absolutely perfect in my eyes. $20,000 and up rifles.

Actually, it's not just the dollar amount either. If my money is being spent on making the rifle the best functioning rifle that's one thing. But if the money is going to gold inlays and scroll work, well there's a difference to me as I suspect to us all.

I'm no gunsmith but One of my hobbies is to buy rifles that were created by Bubba and I'll redo the bedding, refinish, true up the lugs or whatever. Someday my kids and their kids might enjoy rifles grandpa worked on. But they are not custom in I suppose.

My response is a little long, but you like to read gun related stuff, right?

There are at least two things that have happened to the creation and modification of rifles.

First, there are very few gunsmiths left in the world, period. By definition, a gunsmith was someone who worked with metal. He was the fellow who could forge, shape and bend it and create a workable firearm. He rarely worked with wood. That was someone else.

So what happened to gunsmiths? That's easy, progress made them redundant. The need to sweat over a forge, or use hand tools to shape and bend metal, was virtually eliminated by the machine age. Even before CAD software and modern CNC tooling, machines were invented which guaranteed more precise control and efficient production than what a gunsmith could manage in his shop. There is still a need to hand fit certain parts during final assembly, but compared to making a whole rifle from scratch, there is much less of a requirement.

Most of the improvements to manufacturing came from the world wars. When you have to quickly produce millions of rifles, techniques and equipment were developed that made firearms more reliable, more accurate, easier and quicker to assemble.

Firearms have always been made from parts. In days of yore, gunsmiths made all the metal parts and assembled them, creating the mechanism. That was fitted to a wooden stock. But these days, there are better, cheaper and more efficient ways to make metal parts than by banging on steel with a hammer. That's why gunsmiths, cousins to the blacksmith, went out of business. Progress made their job redundant.

But there's this next bit. It has more to do with the thread itself.

I'm talking about the holder. You know, the stock. Some gunsmiths could make them, but more often than not, the wood came from another fellow who had the talent 'to work in wood'. This is part of gun making that has also changed for the better.

Making a stock is really what most people consider to be the gunsmith's art. It isn't, but because you hold the stock and look at it, the stock leaves the greatest impression. That said, it's that creation of the stock itself, not the material used, that takes talent.

Working with different materials to make stocks takes skill. Custom stock makers who work with polymers still need to sand and layer and colour and fit the stock to the mechanism. At first blush, it might seem easier than carving wood, but it's not. Don't get too hung up on the fact that synthetics have supplanted wood.

Wood was used for a long time because there was a lot of it around, and it was free for the taking. It was also easy to work with. Really, wood was 'the plastic' of days gone by. Or maybe plastic is the new wood of today.

Stock makers also discovered that some woods were better than others, and priced accordingly. Some woods took staining better. Some could be more easily shaped, but were still hardy. Stock making was an art, all on its own. That art hasn't disappeared though. It's adapted.

Time marches on. These days, wood has become less common and more expensive. Progress made synthetics affordable to use and a vastly superior platform onto which to mount the mechanism.

There can be no reasonable argument supporting the use of wood in firearms other than beauty. I am not suggesting that attractive stocks aren't important, but it is an individual thing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Do you want good looks or a stronger, more accurate platform? Its your choice.

For those of you that remember when all rifle stocks were made of wood, you will also remember the grades of wood that were offered. Plain, uncheckered stocks were cheaper than fancy scrolling and hand cut checkering. Cheaper wood like birch or maple, was used on the eco-guns.

Then, there were the rifles that featured one of the various types of walnut, crafted by a 'custom' stock maker - a woodworker who made gun stocks, not high end furniture. His talents were apart from that of the gunsmith. The two performed different functions, related, but separate.

Today's stock makers aren't just squeezing out plastic. Certainly, you can buy stocks that way. The cheaper rifles use less expensive polymers and production methods, just like when they used cheap birch stocks, but 'custom stock makers' still exist. Only the material has changed. The talent required to join polymer and steel is just as important as it was years ago, mating the steel to wood.

While Bubba might be spray painting leaf patterns on his rifle and calling it custom, that has always been going on. Hacking up factory wood stocks, or cutting down old surplus military rifles is still done. Bubba also does it to today's polymer stocks.

Some people just go out and buy an after market stock. It still may need fitting or staining, just like the old, aftermarket wooden ones, but it's custom to them. They made it to order, and that's custom - just not custom for you.

And last, but not least, there are regular Joes who make their own stocks out of 'the maple tree that blew over in the storm a couple of years ago'. It's custom, but may not be properly fitted, or even pretty.

Rifles are better made than they were thirty or forty years ago. Machine techniques have improved. Metallurgy and forming is better than in the past. Most stocks are synthetic now; the platforms into which the rifle sits have improved.

It's just that, for off the shelf rifles, plastic isn't as appealing to the eye.

A Garrett Accur-Lite Featherweight stock on my son's 700 SPS .270. I used the stock (originally left handed) for over 20 years, also in a .270.

I guess I have some custom rifles and, in fact, have no unaltered rifles (except for a recently acquired Winchester 22)and I have, more and more, developed the attitude that I don't care! Especially with the current popularity of the "tactical" rifles, a custom rifle is, more and more often, an assemblage of parts. A barreled action is bolted into a funny-looking stock (now known as a "chassis"), given a big, ugly bolt knob, an angled scope mount rail, a set of robust rings holding a big, heavy scope, and you have a modern day custom. I don't see anything necessarily wrong with that. Clients like it and it sells.
When I was starting out, it was expected that a real gunsmith could do it all. He could weld, machine, carve, or file anything and end up with a gun. Now he outsources things he feels are more easily or better done by someone else. Nothing wrong with that either.
Ultimately, it mostly comes down to nostalgia and the fact that, today, everything changes so quickly. Used to be that the evolution of the gun was relatively slow and one had time to get used to the adoption of the percussion cap before the self-contained cartridge came along. Now, the firearms and, more importantly, the culture, is changing so quickly that we have to get used to so many things it's hard to keep up. That's life...I guess. GD

It's nostalgia alright. It's a dream. It's a romantic vision of the distant past that almost no one alive can claim to have witnessed first hand.

How many men alive are skilled enough that they can make their own triggers, sights, rings, barrels and stocks? How many men have the equipment? I'm not speaking about companies, just a man. Of what might be a handful, how many would take the time to create any firearm from scratch?

They would have to be independently wealthy. No one could afford the price of a rifle made completely from scratch by one man.

It's safe to say that no one makes anything completely from raw materials anymore. It takes skill to make and fit a stock, install or adjust an OEM trigger, properly scope a rifle, but the days of independent gunsmiths building entire rifles has been gone for a long, long time.

Custom shops are still custom, in that they assemble what the client wants. But they do not manufacture the barrel, the trigger, the stock or most of the rest. These things come pre-made. The shop merely fits them now. /that makes them assemblers.

It still takes talent to assemble or modify any firearm, but long gone are the days when a man could claim he created an entire rifle from raw materials.

It's is a romantic view of a time, that because of progress, is long gone.

To really do it right, a person would have to mine and process his own ore, not only for the material for the rifle, but to make the tools that he would use as well. To use wood from a tree that he didn't grow at least from a seed would probably disqualify him as well. I am in agreement with Steve, not denigrating his points, but expanding upon them.

I was thinking of the original term, gunsmith. Someone who smithed guns. IOW, built everything. Took steel and formed it into hammers, frissens, barrels etc. Gunsmiths bought raw metal stock and shaped it. Stock makers, a separate trade, bought wood, or grew it, and cut, rough shaped and dried it, forming the properly aged pieces into a proper stock.

Even way back when, shops bought aftermarket parts, just not as many. I don't think we've actually had gunsmiths in the traditional sense, since the 1800s.

I was trained to spin on and headspace barrels, replace triggers, change firing pins, bolts, form small metal parts like trigger guards, and use hand tools to fit new parts to firearms.

I was not trained to manufacture barrels, actions or sights. Those, and other parts were obtained from parts manufacturers.

I think it's a romantic vision of the past. It's progress that today's gunsmiths do not make as many parts from scratch that their fathers of grandfathers did.

It still takes talent to properly replace and repair these things. That said, we are lucky if we can install our own scope mounts, and not need to drill and tap, as in days of yore. Triggers can be replaced, depending on the firearm, as cheaply as having the original reworked. Some need a gunsmith's attention. Others do not. Most long guns come with sling swivels. Etc.

Bob,

One other factor that turned me to the .30-06 Ultra Light was newer powders. Found Ramshot Big Game easily got essentially 130-grain .270 velocities with 150-grain bullets in the ULA .30-06, with fine accuracy and very consistent results at temperatures from 70 down to zero. And 200-grain Partitions got 2675 with H4831SC, with plenty of accuracy for larger game, at pretty much the same POI.

Can't see much reason to use anything else for big game, other than a .375-458 for really big stuff, but for a rifle loony that doesn't make "sense"!

Have you observed a worthwhile difference in the field between the '06 150's and the 270 130's?

That IS veddy inter-esting ! ! !

I'll HAVE to Xperiment with that. THNX

Jerry




ps - don't tell me you are spoofing.

Steve, (and everyone)

If you look into the muzzle-loader culture you will find many of the old gunsmith skills still practiced. I am amazed at videos of the work of these craftsmen. Seeing someone forge a lump of steel into just the right shape to build a hammer or frizzen or pan from it with little waste. The skills that are preserved and still practiced are incredible and quite a surprise to one used to more modern rifles.

And, 5sDad: Yes, there are still one or two craftsmen who start by making their own iron from ore.

It seems that every traditional gunsmith craft still lives on in some form in the traditional muzzle-loader community.

Check out some of the builder threads at http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/index.php?
or
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php

Yes, those fellows who still build muzzleloaders are the few that I made reference to. There is an art to building rifles. I'm glad that there are still people interested enough to build such beautiful things. And use black powder!

Examining those older designs, we can see the increased complexity in modern rifles. That is also a reason for the disappearance of the the traditional gunsmith in firearms manufacture. Rifles got harder to make!

Not a writer, but I have and have had enough custom rifles to appreciate the difference.

Along about mid eighties, I bought an early commercial FN barreled action and since I had kids in college, opted to go with a Brown Kevlar stock. I had a smith bed, finish and paint it. Basically, this was a bolt together job. Not a custom build. A friend still has that one. I replaced it with a custom stocked version. Still have that one.

As I recall, the choices were limited, but synthetic stocks had been out for a while.

Best,

Jack

I know of only a few guys who can do it all and a few less who do it all well. I can do almost anything and even get paid for it but when I drop in and visit Martin Hagn, I always leave feeling like an inadequate hack. He can do it all well and, seemingly, so easily.
His former protege, Ralf Martini, is another who is very talented and when he outsources a given task, it is only because it makes economic sense to do so or he feels a better product will result. He does beautiful metal and woodwork and has turned out his fair share of fiberglass guns as well.
There are, perhaps, fewer of the complete masters out there but they are still there and there are some young guys coming up who are interested in doing it all and are keeping the craft alive.
By the way, there are more than a few guys who specialize in making mosern, synthetic/stainless spoters or even ugly tactical guns, who can also do most anything thay care to do and do it better than I so I'm pretty careful not to be too critical! GD

Hey, Phil, did you ever break, or have go bad, one of those little 2.5X Leupolds ?
Is that your " never has failed to stop" big bear rifle ? E

Not yet, but it's only been on the rifle for a little over 30 years.

I don't like how you referred to Phil as "Bubba", other than that great post...

My mother always told me that if the shoe fit, wear it and in the case of my 458 I am afraid the shoe might classify as a pretty close fit. So no offense taken, and it was a good post

I just wish I could find a BAR MkII "satin", the one that doesn't have the roll marks trying to be fake "custom" "engraving" defacing the sides of the receiver.

Once upon a time, I wrote something called, "There's a Lot of Bubba in All of Us". The gist of it was,we all want to customise our rifles, but few people have the necessary skills. That never stopped them from trying though. I felt sorry for guys whose names were actually Bubba, so I don't use it much anymore. Ocassionally though, it slips out.

Kind of like being called a fudd, but probably worse, because no one names their child "Fudd". Mind you, it sounds like a possible story idea.

Phil's a Bubba. Most of us are.

Laffin... . A lot of truth in this..

Yeah. When I first started my website, people were writing in, suggesting all sorts of things that scared the crap out of me.

Headspacing with tinfoil, paperclips and washers. Sliding rubber O rings over the case to fill in space for headspace that was out of spec.

I got tired of saying, "If your rifle is that badly out of adjustment, take it to a gunsmith." It did little good.

Dumping unknown powder from unfired European surplus cartridges (that were not 303s), into their 303 British cases because they bought a bunch of surplus ammunition at a great price. "Please don't. That's dangerous." It's alright, they said. I've done it lots of times. Sure you have.

People were filing down parts of their military trigger, because they read somewhere on the web that it would lighten the pull.

I'd get emails with lots of stock chopping, filing and grinding "tips". You know the old joke, take a $200 rifle and turn it into a $50 rifle.

The list just went on. If you remember that female exercise guru who used to shout, "Stop the madness!", that was what I used to say too.

In 2010, I put this up. It will stay there. If just one person takes his rifle to the shop rather than fixing it himself, I feel better. Of course, I'll never know.

https://www.303british.com/id69.html

Steve,

Thanks for a better illustration of my sentiments.

Can't (or won't) argue with any of your history on the subject.


I recently had a barrel installed by a reputable smith and modern "gunbuilder".

He's very good at what he does and I'm sure he'd rather "build" me a rifle than rebarrel my actions, but I honestly think the accuracy and function wouldn't improve one iota for a grand more.

What would be the philosophy, or essentials, to a "custom?" Posts above have suggested that the stock must be custom bedded, and is a chunk of wood more custom than a synthetic that is properly made? Must the wood be hand-shaped or can we include Dale Goens philosophy of using a machine profiler for rough-shaping? Must the barrel be aftermarket, and chambered by hand? How about the action? Can it be an ordinary commercial action and must it be re-machined so it is "square?" Do you get extra credit if the action is custom made on a semi-production basis by a single master craftsman?

Two examples, where #1 is generally called "custom" and #2 is called not, by Mule Deer at least.

1. Reworked and engraved commercial action and barrel, hand-cut chamber, figured walnut with hand checkering, etc. Maybe gold inlays, etc.

2. Custom proprietary action, completely "squared" and clearanced by its manufacture in a very small shop with one master gunsmith (gunmaker?) and a few helpers to do specific, simple tasks. Commercial aftermarket barrel with contour selected by the gunmaker, and hand-chambered and fitted. Proprietary synthetic stock that no other concern has copied successfully. The stock has rigidity and light weight unequaled elsewhere, hand bedded, usually to a standard shape but with customization available if needed--the shape was arrived at by considering what works best in general. Trigger started out as commercial but the safety is custom to the gunmaker. Scope mounts designed by the gunmaker and production "farmed out" to a company that specializes in making scope mounts.

To me, #2 is a truly custom rifle, and not lessened in importance by the fact that there are several thousand of them out there. #1 is also custom, and we can see examples in the Safari Club 5 rifles, etc. #2 is the NULA, and every one is custom made by Melvin Forbes, even though they fit a general pattern. Well, so does a Dale Goens stock, but it is also custom.

I am of the opinion that the term "custom" has no real value other than making the owner feel that he has, and therefore is, something special; since there is not universal criteria, everyone is free to define "custom" to his own satisfaction, both to elevate his own firearm and to denigrate those of others.

To me, a "Custom" is a rifle made to my (or the original owner's) specifications. It may or may not be duplicated for other customers, but the key ingredient is that the original owner dictated the final configuration to meet his needs and desires.

'Custom made' is a rifle made to the customer's specifications. It doesn't have to be blued or trued. The original barrel, stock or other parts can remain or be replaced.

It depends what the customer asks the gunsmith to do.

My tastes in gun stocks or finish may be different from yours. If I contracted a rifle to be custom made for me, the first consultation is determining which parts will be used.

Will it be a new action, or are you providing one?

It goes from there.
---

If I was to come across a rifle that was custom made for Jack O'Connor for instance, it's likely that the stock would be wrong for me. That would affect my ability to align the scope to my eye. I may not like the trigger pull or the finish.

At that point, I have to make a decision. Do I leave it as a JOC custom rifle or have it altered to fit me? That would mean more work. Customized to my wants.

Custom built rifles always have features that you want or need, but these features may be no good for future owners. If that is the case, your custom rifle might have no more value than an off the shelf firearm. To be frank, your custom rifle won't be custom to the next user.

Are you an old custom gun maker or just their union rep?

Deflagrate,

Have you ever watched someone make and fit a custom built synthetic stock to a rifle? It will open your eyes.

These stocks are not the cheap plastic ones, like the kind attached to eco-guns. Hours of work go into their creation. Think of it like the work required to re-skin a fibreglass bodied Corvette.

High end synthetic stocks have as much work done to them as expensive wooden ones. In some cases, more hours are required to get what is required by the customer.

This is where I sit on it, too.

"Custom" simply means made to specific criteria for one person; i.e. no one else can walk into a shop and grab the exact same rifle off a rack and buy it.

When I order a custom rod, no rod smith is laying up and turning the rod blank with his own hands for me. I'm choosing the blank I want used, from a shop or company that makes blanks, and directing the rod builder to use that blank. Then I choose the guides I want, the reel seat, the grip, etc. I tell him/her what I want to use the rod for, and that often dictates a little bit in how the guides are placed or spaced, but so does my casting style. When it's done, anybody is going to pick it up and say, "Wow! Beautiful rod!" but not everybody will appreciate the colors of the guide wraps, the feel of the grip, or get the max casting distance out of it, because it was made to fit me.

The fact that the blank, guides, reel seat, et al were made by someone other than the builder means nothing. It's still a custom rod because it was made to order for one person only.

Some may say it's not the same thing, but it really is similar enough to the point. There was a time when ONE guy did build it all, from a piece of bamboo or other material for the rod blank on up. If I used a bamboo rod for some of the saltwater fishing I do, I'd be severely handicapping myself compared to what's available for the purpose. Just because materials advanced and improved for the purposes, doesn't diminish the pride or workmanship in the product when you hold it in your hands and it fits you exactly the way you wanted it to.

I get the point of the OP, and I'd bet I feel the same eye roll of slight derision when some guy shows up with an off the rack factory made rod that he had his name painted on in fancy decor and tells me it's a "custom rod". By my above definition, it's not. But, whatever. Guys everywhere need to feel special, or elite, for some reason. It's still no insult to the bamboo rod builders that I call my hand built carbon fiber 8 wt fly rod a custom rod.

I don't think there's anyone out there who thinks the guy who can still turn a bamboo blank is not an absolute master craftsman and artisan, just like the guys that can take a piece of walnut and turn it into perfection.

Best -
Andy

Unfortunately, my shoe normally fits my mouth best.

And some folks sometimes need a shoe placed in the other end before they start to listen.

Is that allowed anymore? A good asswhoopin' has always been good medicine since the dawn of time.

I think the term "customized" is about right, like with cars.

Bolt-ons like Cragars, Mickey Ts, Hooker headers, Holley carbs, etc. "customize" your factory supercar.

When you start replacing major internal engine parts, re-doing the interior, and modfying the body, stuff most of us have to pay a professional to do, then you're talking "custom".

I was driving through the SD badlands and at a road construction stop a native looked in and saw my Deluxe Model 64 Win in 30-30. I believe it was 99%. The native said, "If you gave that rifle to me, I'd sand it down and refinish it for you. I'd make it look real pretty."

I missed my chance of having a custom rifle that day.

If you were real lucky, he would have added some brass tacks in a pleasing pattern. GD