Rigby made in California......any experience

[Major Khan]

@Red Leg sir is correct in his assessment.
I am a regular reader of a magazine named , " Man Magnum " and they had THIS to say about the California made " Rigby " rifles ( I use the term " Rigby " loosely " of course . )

When a person takes over a British gun company with a very apparent disdain towards British products ... well , it is downright shameful.
During the time of my career from 1961 to 1970 , the only 2 double barreled rifles built by John Rigby & Co. which l have seen clients bring , were both chambered for .375 Holland & Holland magnum . But they were beautiful things which functioned reliably even with the belted rimless cartridge .I believe that a gentleman named David Marx was at the helm of John Rigby & Co. at the time.

 

[Major Khan]

I saw a California Rigby 375 built on a Dakota 76, on gunbroker. I think he wanted like 15000 for it. It was a nice looking rifle, but for the price you could get an English one.

Of interest to you , Master Smith :
Just yesterday , l was having a very interesting conversation with @spike.t about John Rigby & Co. rifles . I learnt that only 6 rifles were ever built by John Rigby & Co. for the .458 Winchester magnum cartridge .
3 of these were built when Mr. Paul Roberts ran John Rigby & Co. and these were built on Mauser 98 actions ( most likely salvaged . ) in the 1980s.
The other 3 of these were built in the 1970s when David Marx ran John Rigby & Co. . The astonishing thing is that these 3 rifles were built on Finnish Sako actions !
I was quite surprised to know this , because Rigby is the last company whom l would ever imagine to ever use push feed actions on their bolt rifles . I wonder if any of them have survived to this day.

To be fair though , l have also personally seen and held a client's .458 Winchester magnum calibre bolt rifle , built by Holland & Holland on a push feed Mauser 66 action .

 

[wesheltonj]

Can you post the rest of that article? Thank.

 

[Major Khan]

Can you post the rest of that article? Thank.

Should l post it here , or would a private message suffice ?

 

[DieJager]

I also would like to read the whole article if it isnot too much to ask.

 

[Alistair]

Should l post it here , or would a private message suffice ?

Here if you wouldn't mind Major, I think there's a few of us who'd like to read it in its entirety.

Thank you!

 

[Major Khan]

Alright , gentlemen . Hold on .

 

[Major Khan]

It is a good thing that when l am not actually hunting or shooting ... I am always reading about hunting or guns .

 

[One Day...]

Just a quick question for the uninformed like me, Is the barrel stamped Rogue River or how do you tell between a true Rigby and California Rigby?

Proof marks
Unmistakable.

 

[Scott CWO]

So in essence, neither are really Rigby but one is closer than the other.

 

[Hank2211]

@Scott CWO, I'm not quite sure I agree with "neither are really Rigby", although I can't prove anything one way or the other.

There are very few institutions or businesses in the world which have existed for more than a century and have been owned by the same family or group of persons. Even if they are still within a founding family's ownership, does that make them "really" the same company that existed at the time of its foundation?

Is Fortnum & Mason any less Fortnum & Mason because no members of either founding family are involved in the enterprise anymore? Is Chanel less Chanel since Coco died?(!)

I don't have an easy answer for what would make a company "really" Rigby, but I note that Holland & Holland is owned by the aforementioned Chanel, who know a bit more about clothing than about making guns. Does anyone question whether Holland & Holland is really Holland & Holland?

It seems to me that in order to "really" be something, what's required is at least access to and usage of the rights and trademarks of the original, but that's not enough. What's required, in addition, is a commitment to the principles of the founders, as well as a general, although not necessarily uninterrupted (although that helps) business history. Maybe most importantly, I'd ask, "would John Rigby (the founder) feel his reputation was enhanced or hurt by the ongoing venture? I'd suggest that John Rigby wouldn't have recognized any aspect of the California operation except maybe the double R, and would have wanted nothing to do with it. Similarly, I think he'd be proud of the job that Marc Newton and his team are doing with Rigby today.

I own two of the "new" Rigby's - the highland stalker in .275 Rigby and the double square bridge in .416 Rigby. When I compare these rifles to those from the earlier days of the last century, I see a strong - very strong - family resemblance. Enough to satisfy me that I have not only rifles that are really Rigby's, but also ones that would make John Rigby proud, were he alive to see them today.

 

[Major Khan]

@Scott CWO, I'm not quite sure I agree with "neither are really Rigby", although I can't prove anything one way or the other.

There are very few institutions or businesses in the world which have existed for more than a century and have been owned by the same family or group of persons. Even if they are still within a founding family's ownership, does that make them "really" the same company that existed at the time of its foundation?

Is Fortnum & Mason any less Fortnum & Mason because no members of either founding family are involved in the enterprise anymore? Is Chanel less Chanel since Coco died?(!)

I don't have an easy answer for what would make a company "really" Rigby, but I note that Holland & Holland is owned by the aforementioned Chanel, who know a bit more about clothing than about making guns. Does anyone question whether Holland & Holland is really Holland & Holland?

It seems to me that in order to "really" be something, what's required is at least access to and usage of the rights and trademarks of the original, but that's not enough. What's required, in addition, is a commitment to the principles of the founders, as well as a general, although not necessarily uninterrupted (although that helps) business history. Maybe most importantly, I'd ask, "would John Rigby (the founder) feel his reputation was enhanced or hurt by the ongoing venture? I'd suggest that John Rigby wouldn't have recognized any aspect of the California operation except maybe the double R, and would have wanted nothing to do with it. Similarly, I think he'd be proud of the job that Marc Newton and his team are doing with Rigby today.

I own two of the "new" Rigby's - the highland stalker in .275 Rigby and the double square bridge in .416 Rigby. When I compare these rifles to those from the earlier days of the last century, I see a strong - very strong - family resemblance. Enough to satisfy me that I have not only rifles that are really Rigby's, but also ones that would make John Rigby proud, were he alive to see them today.

A very fair minded and agreeable view , Hank . I will give another example , using the most popular safari cartridge of all time : The .375 Holland & Holland magnum .

When Colonel Jefferson Spydell designed the .375 Holland & Holland magnum in 1912 for Holland & Holland , he described it as " an excellent general purpose cartridge for all game up to lion and tiger , which can also be used for making a snap shot at any elephant or bison under favorable circumstances . It is of course , not a heavy game rifle . "

Today , 9 out 10 client hunters who go to Africa for a safari , end up using a .375 Holland & Holland magnum calibre rifle for taking their Cape Buffalo or African elephant.
I do not think that Colonel Spydell ever anticipated what modern propellant powders and monolithic solid bullets could do , to boost the performance of the .375 Holland & Holland magnum calibre.

 

[Scott CWO]

@Scott CWO, I'm not quite sure I agree with "neither are really Rigby", although I can't prove anything one way or the other.

There are very few institutions or businesses in the world which have existed for more than a century and have been owned by the same family or group of persons. Even if they are still within a founding family's ownership, does that make them "really" the same company that existed at the time of its foundation?

Is Fortnum & Mason any less Fortnum & Mason because no members of either founding family are involved in the enterprise anymore? Is Chanel less Chanel since Coco died?(!)

I don't have an easy answer for what would make a company "really" Rigby, but I note that Holland & Holland is owned by the aforementioned Chanel, who know a bit more about clothing than about making guns. Does anyone question whether Holland & Holland is really Holland & Holland?

It seems to me that in order to "really" be something, what's required is at least access to and usage of the rights and trademarks of the original, but that's not enough. What's required, in addition, is a commitment to the principles of the founders, as well as a general, although not necessarily uninterrupted (although that helps) business history. Maybe most importantly, I'd ask, "would John Rigby (the founder) feel his reputation was enhanced or hurt by the ongoing venture? I'd suggest that John Rigby wouldn't have recognized any aspect of the California operation except maybe the double R, and would have wanted nothing to do with it. Similarly, I think he'd be proud of the job that Marc Newton and his team are doing with Rigby today.

I own two of the "new" Rigby's - the highland stalker in .275 Rigby and the double square bridge in .416 Rigby. When I compare these rifles to those from the earlier days of the last century, I see a strong - very strong - family resemblance. Enough to satisfy me that I have not only rifles that are really Rigby's, but also ones that would make John Rigby proud, were he alive to see them today.

No offense meant. I agree that companies change hands all the time. Just seems like this wasn’t a direct buy out or a handing off of the same facilities, employees, products, etc... They later acquired the trademarks, etc... and started fresh. Sounds like they are making an admirable go at it with new people and facilities and making a good product.

 

[Bullthrower338]

I’d like to know how they got the Rs back!
They must have had a favorable outcome in court or bought it from the investment group as I believe they have the old documents back as well.

 

[Red Leg]

View attachment 332172 View attachment 332173 View attachment 332174 View attachment 332175 View attachment 332176

It is a good thing that when l am not actually hunting or shooting ... I am always reading about hunting or guns .

Ten-year-old article, and history has long since rendered its verdict with the demise of the California experiment.

 

[sierraone]

@Scott CWO, I'm not quite sure I agree with "neither are really Rigby", although I can't prove anything one way or the other.

There are very few institutions or businesses in the world which have existed for more than a century and have been owned by the same family or group of persons. Even if they are still within a founding family's ownership, does that make them "really" the same company that existed at the time of its foundation?

Is Fortnum & Mason any less Fortnum & Mason because no members of either founding family are involved in the enterprise anymore? Is Chanel less Chanel since Coco died?(!)

I don't have an easy answer for what would make a company "really" Rigby, but I note that Holland & Holland is owned by the aforementioned Chanel, who know a bit more about clothing than about making guns. Does anyone question whether Holland & Holland is really Holland & Holland?

It seems to me that in order to "really" be something, what's required is at least access to and usage of the rights and trademarks of the original, but that's not enough. What's required, in addition, is a commitment to the principles of the founders, as well as a general, although not necessarily uninterrupted (although that helps) business history. Maybe most importantly, I'd ask, "would John Rigby (the founder) feel his reputation was enhanced or hurt by the ongoing venture? I'd suggest that John Rigby wouldn't have recognized any aspect of the California operation except maybe the double R, and would have wanted nothing to do with it. Similarly, I think he'd be proud of the job that Marc Newton and his team are doing with Rigby today.

Hank, this is the best post of this thread!!!

I own two of the "new" Rigby's - the highland stalker in .275 Rigby and the double square bridge in .416 Rigby. When I compare these rifles to those from the earlier days of the last century, I see a strong - very strong - family resemblance. Enough to satisfy me that I have not only rifles that are really Rigby's, but also ones that would make John Rigby proud, were he alive to see them today.

 

[sierraone]

@Scott CWO, I'm not quite sure I agree with "neither are really Rigby", although I can't prove anything one way or the other.

There are very few institutions or businesses in the world which have existed for more than a century and have been owned by the same family or group of persons. Even if they are still within a founding family's ownership, does that make them "really" the same company that existed at the time of its foundation?

Is Fortnum & Mason any less Fortnum & Mason because no members of either founding family are involved in the enterprise anymore? Is Chanel less Chanel since Coco died?(!)

I don't have an easy answer for what would make a company "really" Rigby, but I note that Holland & Holland is owned by the aforementioned Chanel, who know a bit more about clothing than about making guns. Does anyone question whether Holland & Holland is really Holland & Holland?

It seems to me that in order to "really" be something, what's required is at least access to and usage of the rights and trademarks of the original, but that's not enough. What's required, in addition, is a commitment to the principles of the founders, as well as a general, although not necessarily uninterrupted (although that helps) business history. Maybe most importantly, I'd ask, "would John Rigby (the founder) feel his reputation was enhanced or hurt by the ongoing venture? I'd suggest that John Rigby wouldn't have recognized any aspect of the California operation except maybe the double R, and would have wanted nothing to do with it. Similarly, I think he'd be proud of the job that Marc Newton and his team are doing with Rigby today.

I own two of the "new" Rigby's - the highland stalker in .275 Rigby and the double square bridge in .416 Rigby. When I compare these rifles to those from the earlier days of the last century, I see a strong - very strong - family resemblance. Enough to satisfy me that I have not only rifles that are really Rigby's, but also ones that would make John Rigby proud, were he alive to see them today.

This is the best post of this thread!!!

 

[Scott CWO]

They really bought a name to help them with marketing and market share in the marketplace, not an operating business. The Rigby name, in and of itself, is very valuable and known in certain circles, world-wide. This is common in business. I guess to me, since it was not an immediate buy-out of an existing and operating company and since they just bought the rights and cannot go back and hire the former employees and craftsmen and those former craftsmen did not train the new employees, etc... that I will always probably feel that the older Rigby guns are of more value and prestige. I have a sneaking suspicion that the market for guns will follow this thinking even though the new owners of the name/brand are building an admirable product. That said, would I like to someday buy one of the new models, absolutely. But if the same type of gun was available from years ago for about the same money, I would buy the older gun.

 

[spike.t]

Mark who makes the stocks and has featured at sci and possibly dsc worked for Paul when he owned Rigbys..Marc Newton worked for Paul Roberts for quite a while and learned from him, and to be in the English gun trade there aren't many people better to have learned from than Paul....and one of Rigbys descendants is also working there and apparently she is a very good gunsmith and working on the rising bite double rifles.... not sure if any of the classic gun makers are still owned by original family members.... As has been said Hollands is owned by Chanel.... Wesley Richards was bought by the clode family in late 1950s....so as has been said that's how it is now....but when I look or handle any of these makers guns then to me they are what they are...a rigby a Holland....a Westley...etc....Ferrari is owned by fiat....but still a Ferrari....

 

[wesheltonj]

And that’s the problem today, everyone want to be a “marketing Company “