doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com G & H rifles....

I'm interested in picking up a classic American bolt rifle. Right now, I'm leaning towards a G&H like one of these:

http://rogerbain.com/catalog/product_inf...6f117f543b4a67f

Or this one (it's a 35 Whelen):

http://www.schwandtclassicarms.com/GH_Whelen_2008crop.jpg

What are the pros and cons of these guns? And what the difference between a sporterized Springfield and a regular G&H Springfield?

How is the market for these guns, too?

Thanks

OWD

Cons: old, expensive, ugly (action looks militarish with that knob at end of bolt), lack of scope mounts on these two and, if find one with it there is usually that bloody ugly G&H side mount.
Pros: much attention to detail during assembly such as very nice checkering,...

G&H are America's custom rifle makers.
The sidemount is klunky, and does seem to add pounds to the thing. I had a FN delux 250-3000 with this set-up, and it takes the balance right-out of the rifle.
Altho', I wouldn't buy one without - they seem to go together.

I find the springfield actions quite lovely, to each thier own.
Steve

OWD, my friend Mr. Bain's offering is an original NRA Sporter with the issue wood modified, accessorized, and checkered by Griffin and Howe. It is attractive, but not a full G&H custom. Compare the price with Bain's other Griffin guns, which are the real deal. The Schwandt gun is a full G&H custom or appears to be. Always ask if a G&H gun is serial numbered by them, indicating more work performed by them. An unserialed gun may just be someone else's work with a rebarrel job by G&H. Michael Petrov's fine book on early customs includes a chart debunking the G&H serial number system by caliber and date of work done. Anyone contemplating purchase of a prewar custom rifle should use this book for some background information. There isn't much other information out there.

Thanks for the input. I have Mr. Petrov's book and I'll check into it some more for further details.

The 35 Whelen at Schwandt's really caught my eye. To me, it's a great looking gun.


OWD

I like No. 3 a lot, it’s in a great caliber and was stocked by Seymour Griffin himself, I’m attracted to all these early G&H’s. When G&H first started (1923) they did not number their rifles. Next they tried numbering using the same number, one for each caliber, so there is more than one rifle with the number “3” on it. They next assigned blocks of numbers according to caliber, this stopped at No 500. From 500 on they used the next number in line for the work order (barrel number).

For a look at some other classic 1903 custom sporters you might check out this.
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/318101376

Mr. Bain's rifle is what I call a “Depression Era” rifle and I used this very rifle in a resent article published in March, 2007. Here is the text sans pictures.


Custom Sporting Rifle Makers

Part Twenty-one

Depression Era Sporters
By
Michael Petrov ©



The Great Depression was an economic downward turn in America, Europe, and other industrialized parts of the world which began in 1929 and lasted until the late 1930’s. The US was in an economic depression for about six months before the collapse of the stock-market on the New York Stock Exchange in October, 1929. By late 1932 stocks had dropped to only about 20 percent of their value before the crash; by 1933 about half of the banks in the US had failed and 25 percent of the work force was unemployed. No matter how you look at it, the custom rifle was a luxury item and those makers who could not adapt to the changing times failed. During 1930 the best financed custom gunmaker in America, Hoffman Arms Company of Ardmore, Oklahoma had gone out of business. Bob Owen was building houses out West and later took a job back East with Winchester.

For custom gunmakers to survive in these financially troubled times they had to be innovative and offer to do work that they would not have done earlier. In good times Griffin & Howe’s main business was the rebuilding of the 1903 Springfield and Mauser rifles into sporters. A sporter made with European walnut (Circassian) stock and normal bells and whistles ran in the $175-200 range, not including the price of the original rifle. One service that G&H offered at this time was to remodel a 1903 Springfield NRA Sporter using the issue stock. They offered two options.


“No. 1 Simplest Reshaping Job.”
“We disassemble your rifle and using its stock and receiver, we reshape the stock to the form shown in the illustration. We provide a new steel sporting butt plate (They used the standard Winchester one), steel pistol grip cap and buffalo-horn forend tip, and we checker the grip and the forend. Your rifle is reassembled, and for reshaping the stock as described our charge is $25. For adding a new barrel band and a swivel stud in the butt stock, Whelen quick detachable swivels and Whelen shooting gunsling, our charge is $7.50. For replacing the Government front sight base and sight with our G&H ramp front sight, and whatever style of hunting bead you specify and our slip-on sight cover, our charge is $12.50. Your rifle as thus finished is gone over carefully, and functioning and operation checked and smoothed up by hand where found necessary.”

“No. 2 Standard Rebuilding Job”
“Furnished the same Regular U.S. Springfield sporting rifle (NRA), we rebuild it as follows: The rifle will be disassembled completely, and the entire action will be hand finished and engine turned. This will insure perfection of functioning, and smooth, silent operation, with a very attractive finished bolt. The receiver top will be deeply matted in our own distinctive style, with smooth rounded shoulders. Bolt knob will be slightly bent in and the knob reduced on inside. The bolt knob and trigger will be finely checkered. A patch on the magazine floor plate will be checkered. This facilitates opening, and adds to appearance. The entire stock will be expertly reshaped to Griffin & Howe design, with refined pistol grip of most approved curve; new sporting steel butt-plate, and steel pistol grip cap. We will provide a refined G&H barrel band and sling swivels, and a Whelen leather shooting gunsling. We will replace the Government front sight with our special G&H ramp front sight, and furnish a slip on steel sight cover. Our charge for this work is $57.50.”


Griffin & Howe would also make and install a cheek-piece on your rifle.
“Quite a few customers wish an inset cheek-rest added to their stock, which we handle very successfully along with reshaping the Government stock. Our charge for this is $7.50”

The G&H rifle (in picture No. 1) is marked in one line on the barrel “Griffin & Howe, Inc. New York” This rifle would have cost the owner $41 for the rifle from Springfield Armory and $45 for the work by G&H. This rifle was originally ordered and sent to Kodiak, Alaska in 1931 and with the exception of a trip to Griffin & Howe for remodeling it has, to this day, remained in the state. Considering that you could buy a Winchester Model 54 in caliber 30-06 for $46 at the same time period this was an expensive rifle for the era. The 1922 caliber .22 with NRA stock (see picture No. 2) would have cost the owner $47 from Springfield Armory. I have been unable to learn what Niedner’s charged for this work but I suspect it would have been in line with the G&H price. I have examined one G&H rifle that started life as an NRA Armory stock, it had a cheekpiece added, bolt checkered. This rifle had not only the Griffin & Howe name and address on the barrel but had a work order number on it as well. I have also seen a couple of rifles done at G&H that have no markings whatsoever (see picture No. 6). This rifle is an early, possibly NRA sales rifle, circa 1911, made over using a later Armory stock. To summarize, these rifles can be found with anything from no markings to Griffin & Howe’s complete marking with work order number.


It was not until I was doing the research for this article I learned that Griffin & Howe would also convert the factory (NRA) stock on the Winchester Model 54. The first model 54 stock (1925) was not very well designed. The 54-NRA stock first appeared in 1931.

Another innovation offered by Griffin & Howe In 1933 was a fully inletted stock of plain imported walnut for the 1903 Springfield and other rifles with buttplate, grip cap and horn forend fitted. This rifle was roughly shaped on the exterior for the customer to finish and sold for $32.50. I don’t believe that I have ever seen one of these but until now it was not something I would have looked for.


Normally these rifles made with the issue stocks are easily identified by the straight grain American Walnut, the two cross-bolts and the stock cut out for the magazine cut-off. Griffin & Howe did make sporters with the crossbolts and it seems more are found on their rifles with a Mauser action than on Springfields. G&H also made some 1903 sporters using the Springfield NRA sporter barreled action and the 1922 M2 NRA Stock (see picture No. 4) which did not have the crossbolts or the stock cut-out for the magazine cutoff. These can be tricky to identify, however all armory stocks use two screws to hold on the rear sling swivel base. The custom sporters used a single stud so one of the holes had to be filled. Please note the curvature of the wood by the action (see arrow). This is found on all Armory stocks but not on custom stocks. The custom maker ran the wood straight until the end of the receiver ring than curved down.

The majority of these higher-grade sporters made from armory stocks seem to be done by Griffin & Howe or Shelhamer-Niedner. I’ve never kept track but I believe that I’ve seen an equal number from both firms. I have seen two rifles by James V. Howe, made when he was in Cleveland, Ohio. I’ve looked at a couple of other high-grade armory stock conversions but was unable to determine who did the work.

In an interview one former employee of the Niedner Rifle Corporation told me that during the depression they would take in any gun work they could. He told me that at the end of the week after expenses they would divide up what money there was between the employees. They had many custom rifles and barrels on order before the market crash and many simply defaulted on the orders but I was told that others would send a few dollars when they could and many, after a time, were able to pay their bill.

Picture No. 3 shows a pair of Shelhamer-Niedner rifles, one a .30-06 built using an NRA sporter and the other a .22 Hornet conversion of a 1922 Springfield. Notice that the pair have a schnabel forend and the Shelhamer-Niedner in Picture No. 2 has a horn forend.

I should point out that many hundreds of all the model 1903 and 1922 Springfield rifles were modified to one degree or another using the armory stock. Not only by the owners themselves but gunsmiths, some with talent and some without. Many will be found with checkered or reshaped stocks, recoil pads, drilled & Taped for scopes with the bolt bent and the stock inletted for the bolt, reblued. For every hundred of these I see, I find one done by the experts such as G&H or Shelhamer-Niedner.

These are very interesting rifles and reflect the prevailing economic conditions of the time. It took a lot of skill, time and craftsmanship to make such a handsome stock by reforming the armory one. I seem to run into a lot of resistance when I point out that these are reshaped armory stocks. Most owners, at first, just flat refuse to believe it. In the end, the final point that does convince them that their stock started life at the armory is to call attention to the filled sling swivel base hole (See picture No. 5). Pointing out the stock is the original armory stock is in no way belittling the rifle in my opinion. The marketplace certainly bears this out. From a 1932 ad by G&H titled “Special Limited-Time Offer to Hunters” talking about refining their NRA sporting rifle: “When you get it back you will have a Griffin & Howe Springfield that will be a lifetime source of pride and satisfaction.” These are great rifles and seventy-five years later I still find this to be true. Fine workmanship with or without a name will always make these rifles desirable.

The main thing about G&Hs is that they shoot very well. As Jager points out, a lot of hand work went into their custom rifles and you can see the results. I have shot a good number of them and I have yet to see one that wasn't accurate. I also happen to like the styling and fit amd finish of their guns. They made two QD scope mounts. One is the sidemount about which others have opined, which ism't all that different in profile from the H&H QD, for what that's worth. The other is a top mount that can hide on a quarter rib to the point that you don't know it's there. Both types return to zero absolutely, in my experience. Obviously, I like them and if Paul Chapman would just finish the 404 he's making up for me, I'd be a happy camper.

Michael, which of the accuratereloading forums do you use to discuss custom rifles? I can't quite identify a forum addressing that subject. Tell us more about the "Big Book". Since the Oberlies work was not pictured or discussed much in the "Little Book", I hope that the "Big Book" will cover that maker. I have run out of money to buy more, because of the shotguns, but will discuss supplying pictures of the ones I have with my friend who knows how to work a camera. The accuratereloading thread was a real treat. Bill Murphy wilmrph@verizon.net

U.S. engineers took the best bolt rifle ever designed (at least at the time), the '98 Mauser, then added about 50 million parts that were not needed and required tools to install and remove. That's why the Mauser is still being made and the Springfield isn't. If you look at it's simplicity, there probably will never a more reliable better designed bolt action. When you consider that the design was conceived over 100 years ago, it's even more amazing.

Bill,

About the only forum with a following on custom rifles with wooden stocks is the gunsmithing forum at accuratereloading.com. Short of starting a web page myself (don't have the time) I play there.

I've not done an in depth on John Oberlies yet but will, there are several makers I need to cover such as Pachmayr, Jaeger, King, Dubiel to name a few and a host of unknowns I'm still working on.

Classic custom rifles have increased in price at a frighting speed and I have had to sell doubles to be able to add rifles to my reference library.

I would welcome any pictures of Oberlies rifles or other classice makers.

Regarding the “Big Book”. I would like to publish a much larger book with color pictures and go into more depth on every maker. One large obstacle are photos from other collections that are good enough to publish. I have been teaching myself to take color and plan to travel to a few of the larger collections and take the pictures myself.

"and it takes the balance right-out of the rifle."

I would not immediately discount the G&H mount. It is still being built and still works exactly as advertized. They appear clunky in a photograph, but somehow seem just about right on a classic G&H rifle when in the hands. Roger recently had one in .375 which will be in Africa with Tony Makris this summer. Everything about that rifle looks terrific. Observations about balance are nonsense. Any extra wieght (ounces) lies between the hands.

My only caution would be to get at least an '06 in such a rifle. They are big guns and ought to have sufficient caliber to make the weight worthwhile. That .375 is a dream.

I’ve always liked the side-mounts, be it G&H, Noske or Niedner. One reason I like them is because you can use the receiver sight with the scope mounted. I acquired this rifle over twenty-five years ago from the original owner’s family. He had it made for a hunt in Canada then sent it back later for a scope. Included with the rifle were several boxes of the original 06 ammo, his hunting license and the leather G&H scope holster. This is a very early no serial number G&H with their name and address engraved on the floorplate.

Joe, my friend, you could have kept your praise of the side mount under your hat. Hopefully, no one will take a liking to them and deplete the supply of guns so equipped. I think the G&H side mount is a piece of work, especially as installed at G&H with invisible screws and pins. At least that's who I think installed them that way. Bill Murphy

Scope and G&H mounts can quickly turn a trim little rifle top heavy.

My meager little collection includes some guns equipped only with iron sights, but I sure am glad that some are equipped with those newfangled top heavy scopes and mounts. I'll learn to live with them, I hope.

You'd have to ask yourself the question ol'8b - are these rifles hunted, or housed?
Niether iron sights, nor G&H mounts are best suited for the week-in and week-out rifle.

Gee I guess I just have led a charmed life over the last several decades, but having actually hunted rifles with every sort of sight and mounting system of which I am aware, nothing is more practical on a "week-in and week-out" rifle than a quality set of dismountable rings. Claws are my preference, with lower modern rings or clamps, but a G&H would be a very, very close second. Nothing is more dependable or practical, particularly on the general purpose rifle. And yes, brother Murph, you can order up a brand new set to be installed just like the old ones. But you are right, I hope everyone agrees that they are both impractical and ugly as sin. And certainly they must wreck balance ... I had never fully invisioned all those American representatives of the carriage class first listing to the right and then to the left as they tried to swat some hairy thing out west of Mombassa. Think Roger will have a fire sale?

I see nothing of a charmed life, most riflemen have shot all of the above. Not much difference between "some hairy thing west of Mombassa," and a deer west of the Missouri.
A killing shot, is a killing shot eh!

The reason I may never have had a balance problems with them is my first rifle that had a G&H side mount on was a Krag sporter. It had that other hunk of metal hanging off the right side to balance it. The G&H side mount is about as foolproof as one would would want, The one on the Krag survived everything from -20 to a submersion along with the Lyman Alaskan scope. The thing that finely got it was a house fire. I wish more folks that are as well informed as Lowell would help spread the word and help keep the prices down.

That is a truly magnificent Springfield Michael.... and an ought'6 as well. I hope it still gets out in that incredible part of the country of yours. 150's on caribou and a 180 acubond on any thing with claws; what could be finer. Treat it well while you are its master.

Thanks, I don't hunt much anymore, got tired of killing critters after living around them for so many years. I now live in town and try to keep the moose from eating my apple trees. Last year I was 100 miles south of town shooting and walked around the 100 yard target headed to the 200 with a staple gun in one hand and a target in the other. I looked up and brown bear was headed to the 100 yard target, he must have been thinking of a big salmon because he did not see me until we were in spitting distance. He turned around and I did the same both looking over our shoulder until he was out of sight and I was back to the cabin. Now I carry my .400 Whelen or some other big gun when changing targets. I've been lucky over the years and never had to shoot a bear.

Not only well informed MP, but a user of the G&H mounts.
These mounts do no favors to the lite rifle, where's there no need to pop the scope off, and pop the scope on, and pop the scope off and pop the scope on again.
A low mounted scope of light weight, is what is needed to cover hill 'n dale.
You might need to get out and about again!

Lowell Frankly, I don't think you have ever held much less used a rifle equipped with G&H mounts or you wouldn't have made as uninformed a remark as you did concerning balance. Indeed, it makes me question how much you have ever used rifles for big game at all. With regard to detachable mounts in general, I suspect you speak with equal inexperience.

Certainly a light scope in a fixed mount is an absolutely suitable solution to a deer rifle particularly a rifle without open sights. In forty years of hunting and somewhere over a hundred head of big game, I have dismounted a scope from a bolt rifle and killed an animal exactly four times: twice to follow wounded game in thick cover, and twice due to a malfunctioning scope. On two of those occasions, I had detachable mounts, on the other two I was digging for an allen wrench. Probably not a compelling case for the value of detachable mounts, but I was glad I had them on the two follow ups.

All but three of my current rifles have detachables of one brand or another (one G&H, 2 Warnes, a couple of the new Leopolds, and three with claws). There are also a couple of drillings which have claws as well, but they are a different subject for another day. Of all of those, the only rifle which I think truly needs a detachable system is my .375. I think a dangerous game rifle should have an open sight option. Otherwise, I just like the versatility. They mount the same sorts of scopes to the same heights as fixed mounts, they weigh the same (Warne/Leopold) or virtually the same (G&H/claw) as any other, and they are, in my experience, absolutely dependable.

Joe, you should not take anything Lowell says with any degree of seriousness. He reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld who went on and on about nothing. Like you I would be surprised if he has ever seen a rifle with G&H mounts outside of a picture. Lowell’s job here is to bait & stir the $hit. I think he just likes to hear himself talk, so don’t let it get to you.

Good points, Joe. My favorite all purpose carry Springfield has three G&H tops mounted with three different types of scope, all sighted in. There is a Lyman 48 for the no scope situations. I don't carry all three scopes every time I go out, but if I am going more than 50 miles from home, I have at least one extra in the scope case. Another example of "all purpose" is my old FN with the Mauser style see through claw mount, three leaf express sights, as well as a 48 base. Admittedly, I have no extra claw top, but sure have plenty of iron sight backup. This mount has the advantage of iron sight capability with the scope mounted. When I get time, I will weigh a complete G&H assembly, base rail included, to see how badly we are handicapping ourselves in the balance category.

Here is a good example of a rifle set up for hunting with lots of sights. This is a Kirkwood Bros, Boston made before WWI. Sorry for the bright background color I was experimenting.

Oh boy, you know your in trouble when someone says, "Lowell frankly."
...but then again, thanks Joe for making my case, as to not making a very compelling case for G&H mounts!

MP,

Very nice rifle (and great pics) even for those of us who don't know much about them.

I'll be less polite. As to Lowell, ignore him. He is a putz from way back when.