Luxury Deep-Woods Gun (Part 1)

I have often spoken of the need for a decent deep-woods gun — preferably carbine-length barrel, with a hard-hitting cartridge that could take care of any game likely to be found inside a hundred yards.  (From memory, the average distance for game taken in Pennsylvania forests is about a hundred feet.)

Of course, we all know what fits this bill:  the venerable lever-action rifle chambered in something like .30-30 (.30 WCF), which has always done the job with distinction and will no doubt continue to do so for the rest of time as we know it.  Here’s a Marlin 336 as seen at Collectors:

Or if we were to go upscale, so to speak, then there’s always the gorgeous Cimarron 1894 carbine:

Now as all my Loyal Readers know well, I am not one who tinkers lightly with tradition, so as a rule I would just say, “That’s that” and move on to other topics.

Not today.

You see, there’s another kind of deep-woods hunting, this time as practiced by Germans, Austrians and the like for as long as anyone can remember.  And they didn’t use lever rifles, but bolt-action carbines chambered in their equivalent of our .30-30, the 7x57mm Mauser cartridge, which they found quite adequate for hunting in the forests of Western- and Central Europe (which are as dark and deep as any forests to be found in the U.S., as anyone who has seen them will attest).

And as all my Loyal Readers also know, I have a deep, abiding love for the old Kraut cartridge, having taken many, many impala, springbok and even kudu back in the day with its long, thin and deep-penetrating bullet.  (Also one eland, but we can talk about that another time.)  Here’s a comparison between the 7x75mm and the well-known .308 Win:

In my case therefore, were I looking for a deep-woods rifle, I would not be limited to a Marlin, Henry, Uberti or Winchester, oh no not me.  That would be too easy.

I would also be considering a bolt-action carbine in 7x57mm (just to make my life even more complicated than it should be).

So… with all that background, imagine my surprise, as I was meandering along the electronic highways and (mostly) byways of Ye Internettes, when I stumbled into that evil place known as Steve Barnett Fine Guns, and found this:

Have mercy.  A Mannlicher-style full stock encasing an old Mauser?  Be still, my beating wallet.

And beat it would;  for this paragon of musketry costs over six thousand dollars, in that it was built by master gunsmith and stockmaker, the late Dale Goens.

In Part 2 next week, I’ll be talking about this situation in detail.

Quarantine Project

Last week I posted how a friend decided, whilst being confined to quarters, to clean his shotguns.  Clearly, he’s not the only one getting twitchy.

From another locked-down Reader comes this project:

Nothing else to do, so I attacked my Thompson Center R55 .22 rifle.  The stock always felt clumsy and clunky to me, so I smoothed out the sharp edges, rounded the corners & cut away near the trigger.  Then finished it with automotive clearcoat.
And I think we can all agree that this was time well spent:
What a beauty.  And I’ve written before how good a rifle the R55 is.
[jealous]
If anyone else out there has been bored out of their tree and taken to fiddling with their guns in this time of cholera Chinkvirus, feel free to share the details, with pics.

Gratuitous Gun Pic: Ruger Talo Carryhawk (.45 LC/.45 ACP)

While seeking to assuage my Lockdown Blues a couple days ago, I stumbled on this little piece at Collectors:

Hmmm… a down-sized carry revolver in .45 Colt/ACP;  what could be bad about it.?

Leaving aside the single-action issue (not an optimal choice for self-defense, really), what’s wrong with this piece is the bird’s-head grip.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find revolvers thus gripped to be almost uncontrollable:  the damn thing turns in my hand not just up-and-down (which is a good thing with the bird’s head as it helps handle recoil) but side-to-side as well, which is a huge problem.  I once had a pretty little Ruger Bearcat revolver in .22 LR, like this one:

…and after a couple years I sold it to someone who wanted just that kind of revolver.

Maybe it just was my hand size, I dunno;  but I just had no fun shooting it.  And that was a .22 LR revolver:  what, I wonder, will it be like trying to control that grip in a meatier chambering like the .45?  I’ll probably never own this type of gun again, but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

Your thoughts in Comments.

Cooped Up

A Longtime Friend writes and tells me of his terminal boredom with this lockdown bullshit, made worse by a day’s rain.  So he decides to clean some of his shotguns:

My only comment is that there are WAY too many over-and-unders…

Because, as any fule kno, a proper shotgun’s barrels should be side by side like a man and his dog, and not over and under like a man and his mistress.

(For a closer look at this magnificent Piotti shotgun, go here.)

Gratuitous Gun Pic: Last-Ditch Rifles

As the above post recommends, it’s during times of plenty when one lays in stocks of the necessary stuff, in anticipation of Dark Times.  (And having lived through the Urkel Regime quite recently, and the Chinkvirus right now, I think everybody understands what I’m talking about here.)

Let me also be clear about what I’m suggesting in this post.  I think that everyone needs a rifle that could be regarded as ugly / awful / not wanted when one has, say, a couple AR-15s or AK-47s, or even a smart-looking hunting rifle or two.

By “ugly rifle” I mean the gawdawful Mosin M44 carbine or its older and taller brother, the 91/30 rifle, respectively:

Rugged as all get-out, these rifles have survived Russian winters and worse yet, Russian soldiers.  The only problem I have with them is their ammo.  While cheap and plentiful, 7.62x54mmR cartridges are not what one would call “common” ammo — i.e. available at Bubba’s Guns ‘N Bait Store in Bumfuck, Nowhere.

The same is true for just about any of the “ugly” rifles out there — even the not-so-ugly ones (which are still relatively cheap) like the excellent Swiss K.31 rifles in 7.5x55mm Swiss:

Fantastic rifles, usually only a couple-hundred bucks more than the Mosins, but that ammo… highly effective to be sure, but is it on the shelf at Bubba’s?  No?  Aahhhh…

See my point?

Here’s what I think is the rifle which checks all the boxes:  ugly, cheap, reliable, BUT found in a chambering which is so common, it makes Miley Cyrus look classy:  the rebuilt Spanish small-ring Mausers, in 7.62x51mm NATO.  This is the 1916 model, derived from the 1893 model (not  the ’98), which was made from 1916 till after WWII in 7x57mm, and later rechambered into 7.62 NATO:

Best of all, these old warhorses are seldom found at a price higher than $500 — and it’s usually less than $400, with a decent bore and iron sights which will still deliver at minimum a “minute of 6-inch paper plate” at 100 yards, if the shooter knows his stuff.

It’s not pretty, it’s not a rifle to be proud of owning, it has a severe recoil (like the M44), and it’s not even worthy of a place in your safe:  trunk of the car, semi-annual cleanings timed to coincide with range visits, you get the picture.  But it’s the ammo  which sets these battered old ladies apart from their newer, semi-automatic and sexier cousins.

And yes, the 1916 small-ring Mausers can handle modern .308 Win cartridges — those will be the ones that kick like hell, btw — but even that can be avoided by shooting lighter bullet sizes (<150gr).   If you look up the rifles and hear warnings about “soft Spanish steel” and “use only the light 7.62 CETME loads”, you are in the presence of major league bullshit.  I know this because I myself used to own one, and after well over a thousand rounds of commercial .308, I had it checked out and it passed with flying colors.

I’m not saying you should run out and buy one of these right away;  but on one of those occasions when you feel the need for another rifle, but have less than $400 handy, I am saying that one of these rifles deserves some serious consideration.

Gratuitous Gun Pic: High Standard Supermatic Citation (.22 LR)

Here’s a lovely old pistol:

I don’t know anyone who’s had much bad to say about High Standard Citation .22 LR pistols, other than the fact that replacement parts and magazines are ruinously expensive to come by — this, of course, because HS stopped making the line over forty years ago.  It remains the only U.S.-made pistol ever to have won an Olympic gold medal (Rome 1960), and still features in NRA competitions today.

In the 1960s you could have bought one of these beauties for about $40, and today they fetch close to a grand, depending on condition.

Mostly, HS pistols are known for their reliability — provided  that you clean them often (more so than modern pistols), that is, because their tolerances are so tight.  (I was once told by a gunsmith that 100% of the “malfunctioning” High Standards brought to him for “fixing” needed only a thorough cleaning before going back to their original flawless operation.  And we all know that .22 ammo, particularly the El Cheapo practice brands, can be filthy to shoot, right?)

Speaking for myself, the “rake” of the High Standard Citation model is a little too Luger, not enough 1911 for comfort — but that’s just me.  Others love the feel of it, and reckon its point is so natural as to almost compel good marksmanship.  And back before my eyes started to fail, I recall shooting a Reader’s Citation off a rest, and getting sub-1″ groups at 25 yards.

And, of course, he refused to sell it to me (the bastard).