Take off from Holland and Holland 240 Apex

[eljefe]

Dunno about the golden era of gunmaking, but the golden era of shooting did end after the WW1.

This has been a very informative thread and comes as a breath of fresh air after many not-so-interesting (for me) posts on IFG.

All we need to do is keep the air clean and without malice.

Whatever the source, both of you know more than me.

Learning from the internet isnt necessarily a bad thing. (as long as the source is reliable; but then the same holds true for books). One has to learn somewhere.

I have seen a trend here that if someone quotes from the internet, it isnt seen with a lot of respect. What i appreciate is the fact that someone has spent time to go through the internet where mr. google gives c@#p websites results 90% of the time.

Keep it coming guys and thanks for the education.

VERY +1. Great info, sure go hammer and tongs at each other, but in the best traditions, do go out and have a couple of cold ones to.Thanks guys!!

[timmy]

I have seen a trend here that if someone quotes from the internet, it isnt seen with a lot of respect.

Quite right! Just because something is stated on the internet does not mean that it is less likely to have credibility, any more than printing something between covers, soft or hard, lends credibility to what is said by that process. There are plenty of books I've read that are full of bunkum, just like internet sites.

Whatever the source, an assertion can only be challenged by facts, not innuendo and name-calling.

From EGB Reynold's book on the Lee Enfield Rifle:

The new weapon did eventually serve a very useful purpose. It was converted to take the .303-in. British Service cartridge and, there being no available manufacturing facilities in the United Kingdom, arrangements were made for the rifle to be made at the Winchester, Remington and Eddystone factories in teh United States. It now became known as the PATTEN 1914 ENFIELD RIFLE and was adopted as the sniper's rifle for the British Army. In this capacity it was fitted with either the Pattern 1918 telescope sight or the Aldis offset, and was still in use in the early days of World War II. With the .303-in. Mark VII cartridge, it proved to be a very accurate weapon and became a grate favourite with many Bisley competitors, especially at the shorter ranges. In May, 1926, when British Service rifles became known by numbers, it became the No. 3 Rifle.

From Frank de Hass, "Bolt Action Rifles":

The three firms were Winchester, Remington and Eddystone. During 1915, 1916 and 1917 Winchester made about 245,866 rifles for England,. Eddystone made about 450,000 and Remington probably made more. In March of 1917, shortly before the British contract was canceled, Remington made up to 61,000 P-14 rifles in that one month alone.

About the 1917 US Enfield, from From Frank de Hass, "Bolt Action Rifles":

Production of this rifle ended in these plants in November, 1918. According to reliable sources, Winchester produced 545,511, Remington about 545,541, and about 1,181,908 were made at Eddystone, all at an average cost to the government of $26 each.

It does seem to be a shame when citations are needed in an informal setting such as this one, but when the factual content of what is stated is in question, I suppose it cannot be helped.

As a matter of my own opinion, however, I cannot consider Holland & Holland as anything other than a very high quality British gunmaker.

I agree, an interesting thread with much to think about.

[eljefe]

I must pull out my No4 and see whats written on it! Last I checked, i think it was by Enfield, but who knows what under the waterline and wood ?? and Skennerton was just down the road too, toowoomba I think...

[vrohan59]

@winnie
I fully agree with shooter,I like him don't know much,but am always willing to learn from others,and reading from the internet isn't bad at all.The last time I expressed my opinion and shared from my very humble personal experience on Ruger .380 revolvers you rediculed me.This is hardly to be expected from someone your age and maturity(I assume you are such a person),and every time you post some article all the members learn something new and interesting.So what we need is a clean and healthy atmosphere here.This isn't a personal attack,don't get me wrong.Thanks for sharing all the info you have,its highly appreciated,being polite never hurt anyone.
Regards
Rohan

[m24]

Well, gents, your word sparring inspired me to write to H&H about Dominion. Please find enclosed their response:

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the Holland & Holland " Dominion " shotguns. This model was in fact first called the "C" grade followed by the No3 model and finally named the Dominion in 1934. The earlier model gun that was retailed under the Holland & Holland name was in fact the Climax model which was supplied to us in the white ( unfinished ) by W & C.Scott which ceased in circa.1887. The Dominion was similar in appearance to the Climax but mechanically different in design.

I hope this information is of some interest to you and if we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Regards

[TwoRivers]

Sanjay: Right on!

[winnie_the_pooh]

winnie_the_pooh wrote: 3.Re. the cheapo stuff churned out by your beloved company,I will try to find links to satisfy you.

I am looking forward for it

Try this link

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat ... w=1#UNREAD

[timmy]

Regarding the US made 1917 Enfield actions, it is well known that the heat treatment in these actions was at times suspect, something noted more often in Eddystone made actions than in Winchester or Remington actions.

As a matter of fact, the heat treatment used on Krag actions and single heat treat 1903 Springfield actions was suspect as well, showing a small tendency to develop hairline cracks. In the Krag, because of the lower pressures used and the single bolt locking lug, the bolt was more prone to display such cracking, rather than the receiver.

Such problems were not noted in the British made P14 Enfields, which evidently had the proper heat treating.

Having said this, I would note that the P14/1917 Enfield was a fine, strong design for military use and, when modified for sporting use, was also a very serviceable action. It was also long enough, as someone noted, to accept the long 375 and 300 H&H magnum cartridges without having to remove an undue amount of the feeding ramp, a practice needed to enable M98 Mausers to be able to accept these rounds. (This practice greatly weakened the support for the lower locking lug in M98 Mausers.)

After WW2, there was a time when Magnum Mauser actions (longer than the standard M98 action) were not easy to come by for use with the longer cartridges.

Now, many fine gunmakers, both in Europe and in the USA, used M98 Mauser actions for custom rifles. Is there any difference between using one of these and using a P14 Enfield action? Or, to look at this from another angle, is there something about the P14 Enfield action that makes it inferior to the M98 Mauser actions used by other quality gunmakers to build custom rifles?

[TwoRivers]

What "British made P14 Enfields"? The British made a limited number of P13 rifles in .276, and had not solved the ammunition problems by 1914. All British sporters on the P14/M17 actions that I have seen were marked "Not English Make" on the side of the action.
As to the US made P14s, the Remington tends to be relatively soft, the Winchester leaves nothing to be desired in the heat treatment, and the Eddystone covers the spectrum from fairly soft to brittle.

[Bespoke]

winnie_the_pooh wrote: 3.Re. the cheapo stuff churned out by your beloved company,I will try to find links to satisfy you.

I am looking forward for it

Try this link

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat ... w=1#UNREAD

That is a discussion and someone's personal view and that doesn't satisfy me.

[timmy]

What "British made P14 Enfields"? The British made a limited number of P13 rifles in .276, and had not solved the ammunition problems by 1914. All British sporters on the P14/M17 actions that I have seen were marked "Not English Make" on the side of the action.
As to the US made P14s, the Remington tends to be relatively soft, the Winchester leaves nothing to be desired in the heat treatment, and the Eddystone covers the spectrum from fairly soft to brittle.

Excuse me, you are correct.

Regarding the 3 US makes of Enfields, my understanding is that Eddystones are the ones most likely to develop cracking. This problem, as I mentioned, was also found in Krags and 1903 Springfields with single heat treat, and in 1903 Springfields, was corrected with the double heat treatment.

(as a digression, I might mention here that the hard metal does make for a nice action: Krags were always noted for a smooth action and the double heat treat Springfields, which had the hard surface and tough inner core, combine slickness and strength in a way that the later nickel steel actions, which feel stickier, cannot match.)

What I should have said but didn't, in my haste, was that the British Enfields of that period (SMLEs, that is) did not suffer from bad heat treatment (like the aforementioned US made guns), nor, for that matter, was improper heat treatment common in the weapons of other nations of the time.

I would mention that many Mauser actions are not particularly hard -- their strength comes chiefly by design (tho my Radom does have surface hardness exceeding many of the German made Mausers I've looked at).

So I agree, my statement as it was written was incorrect, something which I've attempted to clarify here.

However, I would still stand by my point, which notes that many quality gunmakers used Mauser actions to make up fine rifles, and that I fail to see how the use of a P14 would cheapen a comparatively made rifle.

I do understand that some may not care for the P14/1917 rifles compared to other military arms, but I fail to see why one would turn their nose up at something as nice as a 720 Remington.

[TwoRivers]

Holland & Holland used P14/M17 actions quite a bit for .300 and .375 Magnum rifles; with the characteristic H&H bolt shape. P14, if I remember correctly. Probably in the inter war period, as by the fifties they were using M98 actions again. And it has always astounded me how slick and smooth these actions were, without being the least bit sloppy. They require more work than a M98 to make them look sleek, and the cock-on-closing feature is not in keeping with what American shooters are used to, and prefer.

[winnie_the_pooh]

winnie_the_pooh wrote: 3.Re. the cheapo stuff churned out by your beloved company,I will try to find links to satisfy you.

I am looking forward for it

Try this link

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat ... w=1#UNREAD

That is a discussion and someone's personal view and that doesn't satisfy me.

I am not here to satisfy you.I do not swing that way.Sorry.

[Bespoke]

I am not here to satisfy you.I do not swing that way.Sorry.

Grow up Winnie

[HydNawab]

@ Winnie & Bespoke

'Why so serious ?' Joker would say! A less knowledgeable member like I am totally up for healthy and informative threads like these where my misconceptions are cleared but the personal vendettas are of no help to either of you gents.

I would humbly request both of you to please refrain from personal remarks. Specially since both of you are from Punjab. An old Arab proverb goes, "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; and me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger."

Unless of course if there is a family feud among you gentlemen.