RJ Renner "Old Africa" Model 70 Upgrade

[perdurabo]

I've got a post-64 model 70 Super Grade (claw extractor, not push feed) in .270 Win that I'm considering having Roger Renner do one of his "Old Africa" upgrades on, including a barrel conversion to 9.3x62. I briefly considered having JES do a rebore job on it to get it to 9.3x62, but thought better of it when I considered how thin the barrel is and how little "meat" there is on the barrel profile. Plus, I'd really love a Rigby Highland Stalker style rifle with a hooded front sight, express leaf rear sight, ebony forend, and barrel band front sling swivel, but I don't have $10k+ for a genuine Rigby. Might as well have Roger do a rebarrel job on the model 70 super grade to get there.

The only thing about Roger's upgrade package that gives me pause is the stock modification. It seems that he takes the comb down even more than factory which he claims makes the rifle lighter and handier, but from what I can tell, would make a proper cheek weld with even low mounted optics much more difficult. In talking to Roger, he claims that having a lower comb is lighter, quicker, more maneuverable and prevents banging the cheek under recoil, (not to mention more historically accurate) but I'm not so certain about all that.

When I took the SAAM Safari course at FTW Ranch (arguably one of the most respected civilian riflecraft shooting schools in the world), they outfitted almost every student rifle with a synthetic strap-on padded cheek riser, even the $50k+ big bore double rifles with AAA+ wood, because according to their curriculum, proper cheek weld and eye alignment behind the optic in ALL positions (not just standing) was far more important than stock aesthetics or "handiness".

So I'm torn about it. I'm sure I could have him just do the rebarrel work without the stock mods, but that would hardly be in the spirit of sending it to someone like Roger... I'm sure any number of other smiths could do that work... but then again I wouldn't have a genuine RJ Renner Old African Stalker rifle either.

Just how important do YOU feel having a proper comb height relative to the optic is for an African plains game rifle? Is it something you can adapt to for the sake of having a beautiful rifle custom rifle, or do you find proper practical fit is more important when hunting and taking ethical shots?

 

[318AE]

I don’t think vintage rifles, or express rifles look right without iron sights. Any comb height that goes between iron sights and a scope is a compromise. I recommend mounting the scope as low as possible and not overthink it. A lower power 1” scope could be mounted very low. Others will scoff its not 30mm or 8x variable range, but it’s what looks best on these rifles. Vintage rifles scopes refurbishes them with new, modern glass….

How much do they teach you at that safari course about how to stalk closer?

 

[Puddle]

The comment by your gunsmith regarding cheek weld and eye alignment with the optic would give me pause regarding having him stock the rifle.

I always choose functional first, purty later.

 

[F. Vaccaro]

My suggestion is, you already question RJs theory. If I had ANY reservations about how it would fit after customizing it, I'd select another smith or tell him you don't want it his way. A Smith who builds your style rifle could probably be found.

 

[perdurabo]

Here's his website with examples of his modifications:

Pre-War Bolt Actions

Ruger M77 custom rifle, Ruger M77 custom work, CZ 550 custom rifle, Remington 700 custom rifles

www.rjrenner.com

 

[shootist~]

Proper cheek weld depends on the specific individual, does it not? Is there any fitting involved or more One Size fits all?

Conversely, are all M70 stocks set too high? ( Clearly no help from me.)

 

[Ontario Hunter]

For me fast acquisition is important. I do a helluva lot of wingshooting and skeet so I'm fairly confident taking running shots at game. However, like shotgunning, perfect fit in a rifle is paramount for moving targets. Close my eyes, quickly mount the rifle, open my eyes, and everything should be lined up instantly, crosshairs or iron sights. I know from looking at most of the "classic" African guns that this isn't going to happen. I do like a good looking rifle but it has to be highly functional too.

I'm working on restocking my 404J 98 Mauser. Also upgraded to a thicker 30mm tactical scope. I dropped to an extra low old-style Weaver one-piece base and low Warne QD rings. The Monte Carlo cheek rest helps counter the low hold effect of this stock's "elegent" thin wrist. Everything combines for perfect acquisition. My cheek lightly rests on the stock scope on or off. Doesn't look terribly classy but that is never the top priority for me. That would be having a rifle I can confidently use to shoot buffalo on the run.

 

[318AE]

I get the sense that RJ Renner is a blue steel and walnut guy. I’ve admired his work for some time. I know others here have some of his rifles. He talks about iron sights on his site and rebarrels Ruger No 1s for large pistol cartridges (lots of bore, not much cartridge case), clearly making a fast handling, short range rifle.

I also get the sense that many of the rifles that show up at the SAAM safari course are more cerakote, synthetic stock, often a lot of cartridge case, and not much bore. What some people may call a “600 yard elk rifle”. Heck, they may even have one of those scopes with turrets.

To each his own. There have been some exceptions in Masailand, the Hartman mountains, the Namib desert, but most of my shots in Africa have been under 150 yards and many less than 100.

 

[Mtn_Infantry]

I've got a post-64 model 70 Super Grade (claw extractor, not push feed) in .270 Win that I'm considering having Roger Renner do one of his "Old Africa" upgrades on, including a barrel conversion to 9.3x62. I briefly considered having JES do a rebore job on it to get it to 9.3x62, but thought better of it when I considered how thin the barrel is and how little "meat" there is on the barrel profile. Plus, I'd really love a Rigby Highland Stalker style rifle with a hooded front sight, express leaf rear sight, ebony forend, and barrel band front sling swivel, but I don't have $10k+ for a genuine Rigby. Might as well have Roger do a rebarrel job on the model 70 super grade to get there.

The only thing about Roger's upgrade package that gives me pause is the stock modification. It seems that he takes the comb down even more than factory which he claims makes the rifle lighter and handier, but from what I can tell, would make a proper cheek weld with even low mounted optics much more difficult. In talking to Roger, he claims that having a lower comb is lighter, quicker, more maneuverable and prevents banging the cheek under recoil, (not to mention more historically accurate) but I'm not so certain about all that.

When I took the SAAM Safari course at FTW Ranch (arguably one of the most respected civilian riflecraft shooting schools in the world), they outfitted almost every student rifle with a synthetic strap-on padded cheek riser, even the $50k+ big bore double rifles with AAA+ wood, because according to their curriculum, proper cheek weld and eye alignment behind the optic in ALL positions (not just standing) was far more important than stock aesthetics or "handiness".

So I'm torn about it. I'm sure I could have him just do the rebarrel work without the stock mods, but that would hardly be in the spirit of sending it to someone like Roger... I'm sure any number of other smiths could do that work... but then again I wouldn't have a genuine RJ Renner Old African Stalker rifle either.

Just how important do YOU feel having a proper comb height relative to the optic is for an African plains game rifle? Is it something you can adapt to for the sake of having a beautiful rifle custom rifle, or do you find proper practical fit is more important when hunting and taking ethical shots?

Comb height on a rifle designed for use with iron sights is lower than the comb height for a rifle with a scope even with the same individual.

I’d suggest talking to him and seeing how his rifles are designed and if he measures you for proper fit. If he’s like @318AE suggests he’s likely reshaping the stocks for use with irons. Many guns today are shaped for a cross between the two which is why you see a lot of adjustable cheek pieces, pads and other stuff added to precision rifles at a place like SAAM or other precision shooting school. Ultimately it’s your gun have the smith do what you want. He can always shave the comb after if you don’t like it, but he can’t add back to it.

 

[Puddle]

Proper cheek weld depends on the specific individual, does it not? Is there any fitting involved or more One Size fits all?

Conversely, are all M70 stocks set too high? ( Clearly no help from me.)

Probably, probably, and probably not.

When I bought my M70 SE some 20+ years ago it came with a lovely stock. Problem was, with my chosen optic (Vari-X III 1.5-5x20mm) mounted in Talley's when I brought the rifle up, fast or slow, I was always 'skooshing' my cheek weld just a touch to align my eye dead-on with the crosshair. Lovely wood, but I wasn't going to keep doing that, and I sold the stock in no time flat. The gunsmith, who was polishing up a few spots in the action, worked with me to get it right and the rifle has been sitting in a Bansner stock since forever. Now, when the rifle comes up into a healthy amount of cheek weld the cross hair is 'right there', every time, no matter what.

 

[degoins]

I would listen to RJ if you want your rifle to have the "Old Africa" look and feel. He knows his business.

 

[uplander01]

I had one of the best rifle makers in the country tell me once that, “you either build a rifle for express sights or an optic, not both”.that doesn’t mean you can’t put a scope on a express rifle, but both sight platforms won’t be completely natural. There is such a thing as a comb to “high” for proper alignment on open sights, raising you eye a little for an optic makes more sense to me

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I had one of the best rifle makers in the country tell me once that, “you either build a rifle for express sights or an optic, not both”.that doesn’t mean you can’t put a scope on a express rifle, but both sight platforms won’t be completely natural. There is such a thing as a comb to “high” for proper alignment on open sights, raising you eye a little for an optic makes more sense to me

Some truth to that rifle maker's thinking but with the proper scope, rings, and base(s), it is possible to find a happy medium where very little eye raising or cheek lowering is needed to get on the target when switching platforms. When I had my 404 in its first stock, the old 1" Weaver 3x, semi-pic rail, and Warne low QD rings came pretty close to natural acquisition when I mounted the gun.

Finding the iron sights required getting on the cheek piece more firmly. But the comb on that stock was so high the sear on the striker barely grazed it when the bolt was retracted. With the new stock and setup - lower base, lower power 30mm scope with better eye relief, and 30mm low QD Warne rings - any adjustment when changing platforms is negligible.

With scope detached, the front sight comes up just a bit high and left when I do the closed eyes and mount test. But the offset is so minor I'm sure I could still hit a charging buffalo where it counts at forty yards even if I didn't have the composure to bring the bead fully into alignment. The scope is set up perfectly. Again, on 1x the hood and front sight come into view instantly, just very slightly left of center. I'm sure a good gunsmith/maker could bend the stock to make it "perfect" but what's the point? I'll be 72 shortly and my hunting days are obviously numbered. "Perfect" for me likely won't be perfect for the next guy/gal.

 

[uplander01]

Some truth to that rifle maker's thinking but with the proper scope, rings, and base(s), it is possible to find a happy medium where very little eye raising or cheek lowering is needed to get on the target when switching platforms. When I had my 404 in its first stock, the old 1" Weaver 3x, semi-pic rail, and Warne low QD rings came pretty close to natural acquisition when I mounted the gun.
View attachment 599339
Finding the iron sights required getting on the cheek piece more firmly. But the comb on that stock was so high the sear on the striker barely grazed it when the bolt was retracted. With the new stock and setup - lower base, lower power 30mm scope with better eye relief, and 30mm low QD Warne rings - any adjustment when changing platforms is negligible.
View attachment 599340
With scope detached, the front sight comes up just a bit high and left when I do the closed eyes and mount test. But the offset is so minor I'm sure I could still hit a charging buffalo where it counts at forty yards even if I didn't have the composure to bring the bead fully into alignment. The scope is set up perfectly. Again, on 1x the hood and front sight come into view instantly, just very slightly left of center. I'm sure a good gunsmith/maker could bend the stock to make it "perfect" but what's the point? I'll be 72 shortly and my hunting days are obviously numbered. "Perfect" for me likely won't be perfect for the next guy/gal.

The point is a rifle can be perfect one way or the other, happy medium is not perfect for either.

 

[Huvius]

Get your tomatoes and old cabbages ready…

A open sight sporting rifle is not a shotgun or a target rifle!
Most of the design concepts which are often seen as important in those disciplines just don’t really come into play with a stalking rifle.

You may find yourself in any number of situations in the field. Uphill, downhill, offhand, kneeling, sitting, prone, against a tree, off sticks, top of an anthill…. could go on and on.

I suggest, if you haven’t, get your hands on a vintage British rifle or an original Oberndorf Mauser - heck even a Winchester 54 or pre War Model 70 - and see how they feel to you. If the Renner rifle is close and has a LOP you like, good enough.

Have you ever been to a shoot where a scrawny kid outshoots a grown man with his own rifle? You think that rifle fit that kid better than it did the adult?

How many of the great African hunters had rifles built to their specifications? Very few I’d bet. Selby’s guns were all second hand far as I know and that didn’t seem to hurt his marksmanship. I don’t recall Taylor going into a dissertation about drop, cast, toe, cheek weld etc.

The most adaptable component to rifle shooting is you. Unless you have a condition that prevents comfortable shooting, one can get used to just about any rifle and shoot it well.

 

[AZDAVE]

If you are looking for classic africa, it was iron sights. My suggestion is have him do the build in the classic manner for irons. Mount a scope with QR rings, get or have made a leather cheek riser and shoot it. If you need irons take the scope and cheek riser off and shoot irons. I do that on a FN mauser I built in 9.3x62.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Get your tomatoes and old cabbages ready…

A open sight sporting rifle is not a shotgun or a target rifle!
Most of the design concepts which are often seen as important in those disciplines just don’t really come into play with a stalking rifle.

You may find yourself in any number of situations in the field. Uphill, downhill, offhand, kneeling, sitting, prone, against a tree, off sticks, top of an anthill…. could go on and on.

I suggest, if you haven’t, get your hands on a vintage British rifle or an original Oberndorf Mauser - heck even a Winchester 54 or pre War Model 70 - and see how they feel to you. If the Renner rifle is close and has a LOP you like, good enough.

Have you ever been to a shoot where a scrawny kid outshoots a grown man with his own rifle? You think that rifle fit that kid better than it did the adult?

How many of the great African hunters had rifles built to their specifications? Very few I’d bet. Selby’s guns were all second hand far as I know and that didn’t seem to hurt his marksmanship. I don’t recall Taylor going into a dissertation about drop, cast, toe, cheek weld etc.

The most adaptable component to rifle shooting is you. Unless you have a condition that prevents comfortable shooting, one can get used to just about any rifle and shoot it well.

Perhaps with a stalking rifle making oneself fit the gun is more applicable. I can shoot just about any shotgun well on the trap range because it's a high gun venue (mounted to shoulder when target is pulled). But for skeet or most field situations, especially uplands, I shoot low gun. Shooting moving targets quickly from low gun requires a gun that fits the shooter ... instantly. Stalking rifles are typically shot off the sticks. Relatively speaking, there is no speed involved. Quite the opposite. The shooter typically has time to settle himself and the gun onto the target. For dangerous game that may not always be possible. If the OP intends to use his 9x62 conversion for dangerous game, he should be concerned about making the gun fit him. Sure, if he shot a poor fitting rifle every day like Selby did, he might learn to instinctively adapt (Selby was by all accounts deadly shooting left handed his standard right hand Mauser converted to 416 Rigby). But most of us don't change clothes in a phone booth ... or hunt dangerous game for a living.

The OP's conundrum seems to be that he's also somewhat concerned about ensuring the project fits the classic African gun image. I think the answer is something he'll have to sort out in his own head. If he's not going to use the gun as a DGR, then I think that simplifies the answer to one word: "whatever." If he intends it to be a DGR then the answer perhaps gets more complicated. I won't hesitate to shoot dangerous game on the run with or without a scope but I shoot a LOT of moving targets. Anyway, I'm not sure shooting moving targets with a low power scope on a gun that fits isn't just as deadly as iron sights, even for a novice. My DGR wearing a scope may not look like something out of the Roaring Twenties but that doesn't concern me immensely. I'm not hunting on a movie set. I built a good looking gun that is also versatile, scope on or off. That was my priority.

 

[PARA45]

This is my CZ-550 in 375 H&H that I purchased from a member from this forum, rifle stock was done by RJ Renner, and rifle has AHR #1 upgrade. To say that I like this rifle is an understatement

 

[C.W. Richter]

I've got a post-64 model 70 Super Grade (claw extractor, not push feed) in .270 Win that I'm considering having Roger Renner do one of his "Old Africa" upgrades on, including a barrel conversion to 9.3x62. I briefly considered having JES do a rebore job on it to get it to 9.3x62, but thought better of it when I considered how thin the barrel is and how little "meat" there is on the barrel profile. Plus, I'd really love a Rigby Highland Stalker style rifle with a hooded front sight, express leaf rear sight, ebony forend, and barrel band front sling swivel, but I don't have $10k+ for a genuine Rigby. Might as well have Roger do a rebarrel job on the model 70 super grade to get there.

The only thing about Roger's upgrade package that gives me pause is the stock modification. It seems that he takes the comb down even more than factory which he claims makes the rifle lighter and handier, but from what I can tell, would make a proper cheek weld with even low mounted optics much more difficult. In talking to Roger, he claims that having a lower comb is lighter, quicker, more maneuverable and prevents banging the cheek under recoil, (not to mention more historically accurate) but I'm not so certain about all that.

When I took the SAAM Safari course at FTW Ranch (arguably one of the most respected civilian riflecraft shooting schools in the world), they outfitted almost every student rifle with a synthetic strap-on padded cheek riser, even the $50k+ big bore double rifles with AAA+ wood, because according to their curriculum, proper cheek weld and eye alignment behind the optic in ALL positions (not just standing) was far more important than stock aesthetics or "handiness".

So I'm torn about it. I'm sure I could have him just do the rebarrel work without the stock mods, but that would hardly be in the spirit of sending it to someone like Roger... I'm sure any number of other smiths could do that work... but then again I wouldn't have a genuine RJ Renner Old African Stalker rifle either.

Just how important do YOU feel having a proper comb height relative to the optic is for an African plains game rifle? Is it something you can adapt to for the sake of having a beautiful rifle custom rifle, or do you find proper practical fit is more important when hunting and taking ethical shots?

I think it's important for longer range shooting-only (in both hunting and target shooting.) All old rifles have a classic stock, and many were great shooters, as is (likely due to no scopes being used or only 1" tubes being available-the comb angle as well.) IF a stock doesn't fit you (and I've purchased some that were just the completely wrong setup for me,) have the pull-length adjusted-even with differing thickness pads as not to mess up an original stock, take factory off and use an HS Precision made to your specs, or if the scope you settled on is just too high (30+ tubes being sold today situated higher relative to the line of sight, centerline-wise, for the existing stock, get a Quality slip on cheek pad (as I had to on 1 rifle. I detest keeping add'l. rounds on the butt out in the elements/heat, but sometimes the add'l. height is necessary.) These work well when necessary! https://www.beartooth-products.com/collections/comb-raising-kit-gun-cover-cheek-pad-weld-piece-riser

 

[IvW]

For pg as you mention proper fit with whatever sighting system you plan on using is the most important. Low poer scope should fit exactly. When you close your eyes mount the rifle and then open your eyes the sight picture should be there if not the stock fit is not correct