Revisited, Courteney Stalking Rifle so far - 09/25/20
I am interested in any other owner’s experience with the Uberti Courteney Stalking Rifle.
After going through a barrel break in process and spending multiple time and hours at the range with my rifle, my experience is largely similar to the recent Shooting Times cover page and article on the Courteney.
My experience of stock fit shows this rifle was intended for use with iron sights. For those of us who are categorized as “elderly”, this is a problem. If you get a good cheek weld to the stock your eyes do align to the provided iron sight. However, these old eyes need a scope to have a chance of hitting an point of aim. Using a scope, even with low rings brings your cheek up from the stock.
Additionally, if you use low rings there is very little room to wiggle a finger under the scope to cock the hammer and less room to insert and remove extracted cases. Even if Uberti was to provide a hammer offset the room under the scope to handle the rounds is not convenient. I have relatively small hands, someone with large hands would find it even more difficult.
Early on in the barrel break in process, I elected to use high rings. This does provide the space to insert and remove rounds and more easily cock the hammer. However, this brings the head up off the stock with no connection to the stock and does not promote accuracy.
Like the Shooting Times article, I have found 5 shot group sizes to be a challenge. I have not used factory loads but have done all my shooting with my own loads. I used new Winchester brass and Remington and PPU bullets, 174 gr and 180 gr.. Primers used were WLR, Sellier & Bellot and Federal 210. Load books used were Lyman’s 50th, Hodgdon’s and Waters Pet Loads.
The best groups have been a bit more than 3” and the worst well over 8”. My frustration has come about with groups where the first round is over 3” to the left of POA, the next 3 center clustered in a ¾” group and the 5th 3” to the right of POA. This has happened 5 times with loads with Winchester and Accurate Arms ball powder.
I suspect the forearm is having some effect depending on where it rests on the forward pad at the bench. So, I will be looking into that. However, if any other owner has found and conquered the problem I am very interested in hearing their solution.
As far as the scope is concerned, I am considering replacing the high rings and scope with a long eye relief scope, ala scout rifle. It won’t be in keeping with the turn of the 19th century theme but may be a better solution to cheek weld and action access.
As for the rifle itself, the Shooting Times description matches mine. Wood fit is close and eye attractive. Blue and color case hardening is very good. The action is butter smooth and provides a tight lock when closed. Eye appear of the rifle is at least in my eyes a fine looking rifle.
If only to have 21-year-old eyes again and to be able to shoot with the provided sights; or even better to put on a peep aperture sight.
Bottom line, it appears to me that Uberti achieved the style of the late 19th to early 20th century when open sights were what you used. Now if I can only find the solution and get some tighter group sizes.
After going through a barrel break in process and spending multiple time and hours at the range with my rifle, my experience is largely similar to the recent Shooting Times cover page and article on the Courteney.
My experience of stock fit shows this rifle was intended for use with iron sights. For those of us who are categorized as “elderly”, this is a problem. If you get a good cheek weld to the stock your eyes do align to the provided iron sight. However, these old eyes need a scope to have a chance of hitting an point of aim. Using a scope, even with low rings brings your cheek up from the stock.
Additionally, if you use low rings there is very little room to wiggle a finger under the scope to cock the hammer and less room to insert and remove extracted cases. Even if Uberti was to provide a hammer offset the room under the scope to handle the rounds is not convenient. I have relatively small hands, someone with large hands would find it even more difficult.
Early on in the barrel break in process, I elected to use high rings. This does provide the space to insert and remove rounds and more easily cock the hammer. However, this brings the head up off the stock with no connection to the stock and does not promote accuracy.
Like the Shooting Times article, I have found 5 shot group sizes to be a challenge. I have not used factory loads but have done all my shooting with my own loads. I used new Winchester brass and Remington and PPU bullets, 174 gr and 180 gr.. Primers used were WLR, Sellier & Bellot and Federal 210. Load books used were Lyman’s 50th, Hodgdon’s and Waters Pet Loads.
The best groups have been a bit more than 3” and the worst well over 8”. My frustration has come about with groups where the first round is over 3” to the left of POA, the next 3 center clustered in a ¾” group and the 5th 3” to the right of POA. This has happened 5 times with loads with Winchester and Accurate Arms ball powder.
I suspect the forearm is having some effect depending on where it rests on the forward pad at the bench. So, I will be looking into that. However, if any other owner has found and conquered the problem I am very interested in hearing their solution.
As far as the scope is concerned, I am considering replacing the high rings and scope with a long eye relief scope, ala scout rifle. It won’t be in keeping with the turn of the 19th century theme but may be a better solution to cheek weld and action access.
As for the rifle itself, the Shooting Times description matches mine. Wood fit is close and eye attractive. Blue and color case hardening is very good. The action is butter smooth and provides a tight lock when closed. Eye appear of the rifle is at least in my eyes a fine looking rifle.
If only to have 21-year-old eyes again and to be able to shoot with the provided sights; or even better to put on a peep aperture sight.
Bottom line, it appears to me that Uberti achieved the style of the late 19th to early 20th century when open sights were what you used. Now if I can only find the solution and get some tighter group sizes.