S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,549
Posts546,221
Members14,423
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,264 Likes: 81
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,264 Likes: 81 |
From the auction description: "On February 5th, 1904, Teddy received his 1903 Sporting rifle from Brig. Gen. William Crozier of army ordnance." Hmmmm, looks like Teddy used his influence while president to have the army work on his personnel project. Which he then kept and took to Africa hunting.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,264 Likes: 81
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,264 Likes: 81 |
Reading further from the description at the auction, apparently the people who commissioned the rifle up for sale, actually built 2 of them and are selling one of the pair. Since they were only completed in late 2019, it is obvious that the seller is selling one to help defray the cost of building the rifles. Probably explains the rather high (IMO) starting bid and again IMO opinion unrealistic estimate. Well the auction is 5 days off so we will see what if anything it brings. I know I have no desire to only a "replica"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 285 Likes: 22
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 285 Likes: 22 |
Sorry for the question but is this stock proportionally as whacky as it appears. Is there a better way to view it in perspective. Even enlarged it appears odd.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,264 Likes: 81
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,264 Likes: 81 |
Sorry for the question but is this stock proportionally as whacky as it appears. Is there a better way to view it in perspective. Even enlarged it appears odd. What looks "whacky" to you? Can you explain.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,163 Likes: 25
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,163 Likes: 25 |
Sorry for the question but is this stock proportionally as whacky as it appears. Is there a better way to view it in perspective. Even enlarged it appears odd. What looks "whacky" to you? Can you explain. I think understand, the stock certainly looks different than what we are accustomed to. But remember, this was way back when, when people were beginning to build bolt action sporters. If I recall the video correctly, Roosevelt sent his favorite Winchester 1895 and told them to stock the 1903 similarly. The comb seems kind of strange, forend overly long. Fred
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
I believe it is the opposite, where the '03 came first and the request was made of Winchester to duplicate the '03 dimensions on the 1895's, or so goes the story.
I think by the time the Kermit rifle was made, there were plenty of slimmer sporter style rifle stocks to emulate. Maybe, the background of Roosevelt, the nature of the factory and their smiths that made the original, and the stated intention of the rifle had something to do with the design of the stock and fitting the furniture. I would assume the museum would be preservation conscious, the original looks to have wear and scars of a good bit of field time.
The features that make it unlike a Kimber style American sporter, make it interesting to me. The original stock seems to me to be unable to derived from modifying a military stock. I think the stocker really knew what they were doing, rather than doing the work for just utility, pulled it off nicely to me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 285 Likes: 22
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 285 Likes: 22 |
The comb nose to grip transition looks overly deep, the cheek piece very broad and deep almost to the toe line, the LOP looks short but might be the picture and what make it proportionally unbalanced to my eye.
Last edited by prairie ghost; 06/23/20 08:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,264 Likes: 81
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,264 Likes: 81 |
The comb nose to grip transition looks overly deep, the cheek piece very broad and deep almost to the toe line, the LOP looks short but might be the picture and what make it proportionally unbalanced to my eye. You are seeing it correctly. Horrid comb line and the huge pancake cheek piece which adds 5 pounds to the look of the gun. Massive for sure. Not hard to see why G&H did not want their name on the "replica" version. TR was a very poor gun designer and if the original rifle was not associated with TR, the guns only value would be for a barreled action for a restocking project.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
The aesthetics are certainly not widely accepted, but there are numerous writings about TR being extremely particular about how a rifle he used was stocked.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 731 Likes: 24
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 731 Likes: 24 |
It's a replica, which to me makes it highly unlikely it will sell for the $7500 price tag.
|
|
|
|
|