Why are Weatherby guns in 375+ calibers not liked on a Safari?

[dchum]

Dunno, but I just bought a Wby 6.5 RPM Mark V and it has an integral muzzle break. Likely newer 340s will have too. An older 340 Mark V I have lacks the break, but is tolerable to shoot, recoil not as quick as the .300 Wby, but pushes back harder.

Oh I was asking about yours!

That ya a 340 weatherby with no break. That will be perfect hammer for all antelopes

 

[Paul Homsy]

Dunno, but I just bought a Wby 6.5 RPM Mark V and it has an integral muzzle break. Likely newer 340s will have too. An older 340 Mark V I have lacks the break, but is tolerable to shoot, recoil not as quick as the .300 Wby, but pushes back harder.

I agree about the recoil and it's tolerable even on the bench provided it has one of the more recent stocks. The older ones which I had were brutal. Mine didn't come with a muzzle break, the new ones all have a break.

 

[Tam Dl]

@Tam Dl You forgot to mention that Weatherby stocks have cast- (off for dexters and on for sinisters).

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt, but I didn't know that at all.

This makes me wonder to what extent when he had a small shop in Hollywood (?) whether he may have custom fit stocks for his wealthier clients. At some point the stuff starts coming from Japan, and that would be out the window.

 

[Tam Dl]

You and I must use different straight comb stocks - whether English or American - traditional or contemporary. While it is true that many a pre-war English (or American) rifle will have a bit more drop at heel due reliance on iron sights, that is certainly not the case of anything built in the last sixty years or so on either side of the Atlantic.

My Rigby Stalker, Blaser R8 and Ruger No. 1's represent a pretty broad range of examples for modern, straight comb production rifles. Not only do they offer superb scope or open sight alignment, but the design moderates perceived recoil, and mitigates muzzle rise.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Superb scope and open sight alignment just isn't a thing. Obviously Ruger agrees, as they offer a lot of their "Tupperware" stocks with two combs to handle just such problems.

I don't own a lot of rifles compared to many here, but I do own a No. 1, a Hawkeye, and an American Rimfire with laminated stock of conventional proportions. I can't get a cheek weld on any of them, and none of them has a straight comb, as I understand it.

Here is a picture of a No. 1 out of the current catalog, apparently only Lipseys wants them... It has a typical Ruger classic stock and it has drop at the heel. Most rifles designed to be shop with scopes have positive geometry even above that line if they are designed to shoot in standing, or off sticks.

Here is a picture of a "Futuristic" Air rifle for offhand shooting. Unusual yes, but only in the fact that is actually fits the shooter. The comb is actually above the level of the barrel. There are many modern hunting rifles that allow this kind of geometry.

And here is the picture Ruger used for their No. 1 in the current catalog. I don't think this has to be taken too seriously, but he seems to have added to his stock to counter drop and get closer to the eyebox of his massive scope. It also says something about the demographic...

 

[Tam Dl]

I would agree that classic military rifles don't use the high comb designs. Nor that rifles I have in mind are probably copying Weatherby, just using similar principles. The first picture below googled up as the new Marine Sniper rifle. And similar things are all the rage for a lot of new "hunters", who prefer rifles built on chassis. This isn't a suggestion on what makes sense for Africa, though if the market existed, someone would come up with a chassis to match classic hunts with something "technical'. I was musing on trends in military rifles. And they don't look that different whether they are precision jobs designed to shoot from ambush, or designed to shoot reactively, while walking up to encounters.

Here is a very poor version of a Don Heath picture that shows (as he described it) a man dealing with a cape buffalo with an FN FAL, just to show a case where a non classic stock is in use in the field by a wildlife officer who is reacting to a very fluid situation.

As a note, the FN FAL was designed for use with iron sights. It has a distinctive butt stock that drops from the action to the height by which the sights can be used, then actually follows the angle of the bore, before rising back up to the butt plate, well behind the cheek weld. Good workaround for sights on the gas system.

 

[Red Leg]

Thanks for the detailed response.

Superb scope and open sight alignment just isn't a thing. Obviously Ruger agrees, as they offer a lot of their "Tupperware" stocks with two combs to handle just such problems.

I don't own a lot of rifles compared to many here, but I do own a No. 1, a Hawkeye, and an American Rimfire with laminated stock of conventional proportions. I can't get a cheek weld on any of them, and none of them has a straight comb, as I understand it.

Here is a picture of a No. 1 out of the current catalog, apparently only Lipseys wants them... It has a typical Ruger classic stock and it has drop at the heel. Most rifles designed to be shop with scopes have positive geometry even above that line if they are designed to shoot in standing, or off sticks.

View attachment 603208
Here is a picture of a "Futuristic" Air rifle for offhand shooting. Unusual yes, but only in the fact that is actually fits the shooter. The comb is actually above the level of the barrel. There are many modern hunting rifles that allow this kind of geometry.

View attachment 603206
And here is the picture Ruger used for their No. 1 in the current catalog. I don't think this has to be taken too seriously, but he seems to have added to his stock to counter drop and get closer to the eyebox of his massive scope. It also says something about the demographic...

View attachment 603209

We are simply using terms differently. The Rugrr No. 1 has both a straight comp and drop at heel. The sniper rifle has a raised cheek piece and thus not a straight comb regardless of the lack of drop at heel. That particular FN stock is an abomination.

My Rigby Highland Stalker has a straight comb, no cheek rest, and compromise drop at heel to give it utility with either scope or irons. A pre-war Rigby would have somewhat more drop at heel for primary use of irons. My R8s have straight combs and no drop at heel. They accomplish iron sight utility by making them quite tall.

 

[grand veneur]

The classic stocks from Weatherby are Monte Carlo stocks which have some advantages when it comes to shooting with scoped rifles, but that only with rifles that don't have a strong recoil.

Roy Weatherby had his first rifles built by various manufacturers. Different actions were used for this, in particular FN Mauser and Brevex Mauser systems, but the stocks back then already had the famous Monte Carlo design. Roy Weatherby must have had some preference for this stock design.

 

[Bonefish2150]

...but, I really like the Weatherby stock design, it's quick, it comes to target easily and accurately, and it seems to me to handle recoil as well or better than other rifles I've shot. I've never suffered a Weatherby eyebrow, but have known those who did. The most uncomfortable stock I've run into is the Ruger No. 1.

Ruger stocks need to be straighter. Have collected, shot, hunted with Weatherby Mark 5 rifles for 50 years. Never received a Weatherby Brow. Mounted the scopes WELL FORWARD on 340, 375, 378 and 460s.

 

[Rule 303]

The classic stocks from Weatherby are Monte Carlo stocks which have some advantages when it comes to shooting with scoped rifles, but that only with rifles that don't have a strong recoil.

Roy Weatherby had his first rifles built by various manufacturers. Different actions were used for this, in particular FN Mauser and Brevex Mauser systems, but the stocks back then already had the famous Monte Carlo design. Roy Weatherby must have had some preference for this stock design.

Weatherby stocks to me are pig ugly but they do work well and reducing felt recoil and putting your eye where it needs to be for a scope. First Weatherby I fired was a Mk5 in 378Weatherby. Thought I was going to get pounded. Easier to handle than a Rugger 338WM in one of their boat paddle stocks.

 

[grand veneur]

MC-stocks are not suitable for big bore rifles. When shooting with rifles with strong recoil, the cheek of the shooter must not rest on the stock. This is the reason why many big bore rifles, above all custom built, have relatively straight and narrow stocks. I also use different stocks and appreciate the advantages of the MC-stock when it comes to shoot with a scoped rifle, but not with a big bore rifle with scope or not.

 

[sgt_zim]

MC-stocks are not suitable for big bore rifles. When shooting with rifles with strong recoil, the cheek of the shooter must not rest on the stock. This is the reason why many big bore rifles, above all custom built, have relatively straight and narrow stocks. I also use different stocks and appreciate the advantages of the MC-stock when it comes to shoot with a scoped rifle, but not with a big bore rifle with scope or not.

While a solid cheek weld isn't necessary to perfectly align pupil with the center of the scope for the sort of short-range shooting normally done with big bores, I found that adding a cheek riser to my Montana Rifle in 404J so I can form a solid cheek weld greatly reduces the felt recoil. Otherwise, with my face off the comb, the rifles jumps hard with the trigger pull and slaps the ever-loving shit out of my face.