The Clash of the Titans: Heym Martini Express VS Rigby Big Game

woodsrunner · Sunday at 1:21 PM

Moody808 said:
Would this be Jakob Strasser?

Chris Griesbach.

Garciamarquez1918 · Sunday at 4:50 PM

SStomcat said:
If all in house build from scratch is a classification for " finest rifle" then there are only a handful of them. That would, by definition, preclude many know makers. Matt Roberts also starts from a factory action or GMA action for example.
Heym wins in this category along with Purdey and few others Dakota?, but I dont mind owning one where componesnts are sourced from quality makers and then all put togeter like the London gun makers of the pre war era or still today.

Yes. And he outshines the pre-war London makers because he does every aspect of the build himself to an incredibly high level.

JPbowhunter · Sunday at 5:34 PM

BJH65 said:
With 74 votes so far I’m honestly surprised of the results. Several own both, curious as to how they voted?

The main reason I don’t take anything from internet polls is that most people probably don’t own both/either and quite a few haven’t handled both.

I didn’t vote because while I have a Rigby (hs not big game) I’ve never handled a heym.

It’s all personal preference.

BJH65 · Sunday at 6:25 PM

JPbowhunter said:
The main reason I don’t take anything from internet polls is that most people probably don’t own both/either and quite a few haven’t handled both.

I didn’t vote because while I have a Rigby (hs not big game) I’ve never handled a heym.

It’s all personal preference.

Makes perfect sense. Same as an automobile poll if one hasn’t driven both vehicles. It wouldn’t be too hard to find a Rigby BG to handle but it’s very rare to come across a Heym Martini Express. But I also believe a lot of guys order a custom rifle to their specs without ever handling one too.

If you find yourself in Oklahoma you’re welcome to checkout my Heym and shoot it at our place.

SStomcat · Sunday at 6:42 PM

Garciamarquez1918 said:
Yes. And he outshines the pre-war London makers because he does every aspect of the build himself to an incredibly high level.

Wow that is some serious talent. I have not seen any in person much less used, maybe someday. Do you own a gun from Matt ?

mms45 · Sunday at 6:53 PM

BJH65 said:
Makes perfect sense. Same as an automobile poll if one hasn’t driven both vehicles. It wouldn’t be too hard to find a Rigby BG to handle but it’s very rare to come across a Heym Martini Express. But I also believe a lot of guys order a custom rifle to their specs without ever handling one too.

If you find yourself in Oklahoma you’re welcome to checkout my Heym and shoot it at our place.

I had the fly to Dallas to meet chris to handle the Heym the rigby I bought with out ever holding but with cabelas I could have rejected it when it got here if it didn’t fit.

mms45 · Sunday at 6:53 PM

BJH65 said:
Makes perfect sense. Same as an automobile poll if one hasn’t driven both vehicles. It wouldn’t be too hard to find a Rigby BG to handle but it’s very rare to come across a Heym Martini Express. But I also believe a lot of guys order a custom rifle to their specs without ever handling one too.

If you find yourself in Oklahoma you’re welcome to checkout my Heym and shoot it at our place.

I had the fly to Dallas to meet chris to handle the Heym the rigby I bought with out ever holding but with cabelas I could have rejected it when it got here if it didn’t fit

Garciamarquez1918 · Monday at 6:55 AM

SStomcat said:
Wow that is some serious talent. I have not seen any in person much less used, maybe someday. Do you own a gun from Matt ?

No I'd like to at some point. I've watched all of his videos on YT.

SStomcat · Monday at 10:18 AM

Garciamarquez1918 said:
No I'd like to at some point. I've watched all of his videos on YT.

Ahh... that changes the equation for me, respectfully, Sir.

I did a little reading on him and watched a few of his videos, including the one where he was load developing a .505 Gibbs from a synthetic stock rifle off the bench. I have to admit, watching him nearly lose his grip on the rifle was probably not the particular demonstration of .505 Gibbs taming I was expecting.

There is no doubt he is exceptionally talented, and I would have no hesitation putting him among the top tier of American gunmakers today.

Where I respectfully disagree is with the suggestion that his work overshadows the great pre-war London makers. That was a rather extraordinary period in gunmaking, when firms such as Westley Richards, James Purdey, John Rigby, Boss and Holland & Holland were operating at an almost absurd level of craftsmanship and refinement.

Modern makers can certainly produce superb rifles, and some are extraordinarily talented. But comparing them to the pre-war London masters is a pretty high bar. In my humble opinion, that's less a case of comparing good with bad and more a case of comparing very, very good with the people who helped define what "the best" actually meant.

Garciamarquez1918 · Monday at 10:53 AM

SStomcat said:
Ahh... that changes the equation for me, respectfully, Sir.

I did a little reading on him and watched a few of his videos, including the one where he was load developing a .505 Gibbs from a synthetic stock rifle off the bench. I have to admit, watching him nearly lose his grip on the rifle was probably not the particular demonstration of .505 Gibbs taming I was expecting.

There is no doubt he is exceptionally talented, and I would have no hesitation putting him among the top tier of American gunmakers today.

Where I respectfully disagree is with the suggestion that his work overshadows the great pre-war London makers. That was a rather extraordinary period in gunmaking, when firms such as Westley Richards, James Purdey, John Rigby, Boss and Holland & Holland were operating at an almost absurd level of craftsmanship and refinement.

Modern makers can certainly produce superb rifles, and some are extraordinarily talented. But comparing them to the pre-war London masters is a pretty high bar. In my humble opinion, that's less a case of comparing good with bad and more a case of comparing very, very good with the people who helped define what "the best" actually meant.

I don't think we disagree and if we do of course no offense taken. I wasn't meaning to say he over-shadows pre-war London makers. I meant that pre-war London (and currently) had very specialized people to do every aspect of the gun: stockers, finishers, barrel makers etc. Matt all by himself fills roles that in London are filled by many specialists.

Killo · Monday at 11:21 AM

SStomcat said:
They weigh 9.5 pounds without scope which I feel is a good wt for a 404. They add mercury reducers, I read here it seems to work well. Do u see any issues with mercury reducers ?

Both of my Rifles .416 Rigby and .375 h&h weigh 11.5 fully dressed with scopes and slings
They do have mercury reducers and are really sweet to handle

SStomcat · Monday at 12:15 PM

Killo said:
Both of my Rifles .416 Rigby and .375 h&h weigh 11.5 fully dressed with scopes and slings
They do have mercury reducers and are really sweet to handle

Are they Parkwest Dark continent ?

Killo · Monday at 2:20 PM

SStomcat said:
Are they Parkwest Dark continent ?

The .416 Rigby is a Dakota
The .375 and .300 H&H is a Parkwest Dark Continent

Tex .416 · Monday at 2:51 PM

SStomcat said:
Ahh... that changes the equation for me, respectfully, Sir.

I did a little reading on him and watched a few of his videos, including the one where he was load developing a .505 Gibbs from a synthetic stock rifle off the bench. I have to admit, watching him nearly lose his grip on the rifle was probably not the particular demonstration of .505 Gibbs taming I was expecting.

There is no doubt he is exceptionally talented, and I would have no hesitation putting him among the top tier of American gunmakers today.

Where I respectfully disagree is with the suggestion that his work overshadows the great pre-war London makers. That was a rather extraordinary period in gunmaking, when firms such as Westley Richards, James Purdey, John Rigby, Boss and Holland & Holland were operating at an almost absurd level of craftsmanship and refinement.

Modern makers can certainly produce superb rifles, and some are extraordinarily talented. But comparing them to the pre-war London masters is a pretty high bar. In my humble opinion, that's less a case of comparing good with bad and more a case of comparing very, very good with the people who helped define what "the best" actually meant.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but asking a sincere question. What exactly are the specific differences you perceive between the high end gunmakers then vs now?

farmer_john · Monday at 3:26 PM

Adam Stevens said:
If a 404 Im going with the Heym martini express

If a 416 I'd take the rigby in big game vintage

I agree with that rigby calibers in a rigby gun.

SStomcat said:
Ahh... that changes the equation for me, respectfully, Sir.

I did a little reading on him and watched a few of his videos, including the one where he was load developing a .505 Gibbs from a synthetic stock rifle off the bench. I have to admit, watching him nearly lose his grip on the rifle was probably not the particular demonstration of .505 Gibbs taming I was expecting.

There is no doubt he is exceptionally talented, and I would have no hesitation putting him among the top tier of American gunmakers today.

Where I respectfully disagree is with the suggestion that his work overshadows the great pre-war London makers. That was a rather extraordinary period in gunmaking, when firms such as Westley Richards, James Purdey, John Rigby, Boss and Holland & Holland were operating at an almost absurd level of craftsmanship and refinement.

Modern makers can certainly produce superb rifles, and some are extraordinarily talented. But comparing them to the pre-war London masters is a pretty high bar. In my humble opinion, that's less a case of comparing good with bad and more a case of comparing very, very good with the people who helped define what "the best" actually meant.

I think if you were making the argument verse then and now in general firearms industry id agree. But from a technical standpoint just modern meterlurgy alone makes for better guns. The rest is care and attention to detail wich many high end gun makers never lost.

SStomcat · Monday at 3:27 PM

Tex .416 said:
Not trying to be a smart ass, but asking a sincere question. What exactly are the specific differences you perceive between the high end gunmakers then vs now?

It's a fair question, and probably deserves some clarification on my part.

When I refer to the prewar London makers as being at the pinnacle of gunmaking, I'm not necessarily saying that today's best makers are less talented. Quite the opposite there are some extraordinarily gifted craftsmen working today. What I see as different is the environment in which the rifles were made.

The great prewar London houses operated in a period when a very high degree of hand craftsmanship, individual fitting, regulation and finishing was simply part of the process. A tremendous amount of time could be devoted to a single rifle, with many operations being performed by highly specialized craftsmen.

There was certain degree of obsessive attention to things that may have little or no practical effect on whether the rifle puts a bullet where it belongs, the quality of the jointing, stocking, filing, engraving, finish, balance and the overall "rightness" of the rifle in the hands. Those things are difficult to quantify, but they are very real.

Modern makers have enormous advantages that their predecessors didn't have for ex. better steels, CNC machining, modern tooling, improved measuring equipment, better optics and a much greater understanding of materials and ballistics. A modern rifle can certainly be more consistent and technically sophisticated in some respects.

So I don't really see it as "then was better than now." It's more that the two eras had somewhat different ideals.

And perhaps most importantly, I'm admittedly placing a lot of value on the heritage and romance of those rifles. That's part of the appeal for me. You can call that nostalgia if you like I probably wouldn't argue with you.

I would particularly point to my grandfather's British Paradox hammer gun, which is close to 130 years old. It is part of our family heritage, has been used and passed down through generations, and yet it still goes bang each time, every time. There is something rather special about that combination of craftsmanship, longevity and history that is difficult to quantify.
So when I say "pinnacle," I'm really talking about that particular combination of craftsmanship, tradition, refinement and history. It's a very high bar for anyone, then or now.

farmer_john · Monday at 3:46 PM

SStomcat said:
It's a fair question, and probably deserves some clarification on my part.

When I refer to the prewar London makers as being at the pinnacle of gunmaking, I'm not necessarily saying that today's best makers are less talented. Quite the opposite there are some extraordinarily gifted craftsmen working today. What I see as different is the environment in which the rifles were made.

The great prewar London houses operated in a period when a very high degree of hand craftsmanship, individual fitting, regulation and finishing was simply part of the process. A tremendous amount of time could be devoted to a single rifle, with many operations being performed by highly specialized craftsmen.

There was certain degree of obsessive attention to things that may have little or no practical effect on whether the rifle puts a bullet where it belongs, the quality of the jointing, stocking, filing, engraving, finish, balance and the overall "rightness" of the rifle in the hands. Those things are difficult to quantify, but they are very real.

Modern makers have enormous advantages that their predecessors didn't have for ex. better steels, CNC machining, modern tooling, improved measuring equipment, better optics and a much greater understanding of materials and ballistics. A modern rifle can certainly be more consistent and technically sophisticated in some respects.

So I don't really see it as "then was better than now." It's more that the two eras had somewhat different ideals.

And perhaps most importantly, I'm admittedly placing a lot of value on the heritage and romance of those rifles. That's part of the appeal for me. You can call that nostalgia if you like I probably wouldn't argue with you.

I would particularly point to my grandfather's British Paradox hammer gun, which is close to 130 years old. It is part of our family heritage, has been used and passed down through generations, and yet it still goes bang each time, every time. There is something rather special about that combination of craftsmanship, longevity and history that is difficult to quantify.
So when I say "pinnacle," I'm really talking about that particular combination of craftsmanship, tradition, refinement and history. It's a very high bar for anyone, then or now.

I think even then they had alot of mechanization in the process.

pjaln · Monday at 9:55 PM

most every pre war British firm had many workers building different parts of the guns they built ,actions were made in Germany as well as barrels actions a rigby exclusive and some say stocking also. so it was a concerted effort to produce rifles in England not matter who the firm was a lot of trade workers made many rifles for everyone . a gunsmith like Matt builds everything himself in house except the action his work and his styling which is very much prewar Britain is phenomenal ,,Ralf Martini being a German was trained in building the whole gun as well as Reto beuhler ,, I own many rigbys I will admit the new rigby 416 that I own is not the same fit and finish as my originals but the styling is mostly there and the sights are pretty good and very close to the original tho the inletting is mostly machined and is ok not sure how much hand finishing goes into the heym/martinis. I would give the rigby the nod but would go with an original Ralf Martini/Hagn possibly over both

mooze · 2026-09-15T01:58:19-0500

Garciamarquez1918 said:
In looking at the Rigby's site, the London best rifles do use Mauser actions. But keep in mind that Rigby bolt action rifles have always used bought-in actions.

Originally Rigby's were the UK's exclusive agent for Mauser. During leaner times they used Brno actions and others.

So their using Mauser actions is really a return to the roots of the Rigby bolt action.

they are all part of the Blaser/Sauer/Mauser consortium, so I guess you could call using Mauser actions "in house"

Garciamarquez1918 · 2026-09-15T06:41:47-0500

It's important to remember too that then and now Rigby made different grades of rifle. I know in doubles there were three grades -- I'm sure someone on here knows whether the same was true of bolt rifles.

So if we're comparing a current Rigby to a pre-war Rigby we need to be sure it's apples to apples.

The Clash of the Titans: Heym Martini Express VS Rigby Big Game

Heym Martini Express or Rigby Big Game in your choice of DG cartridge

Heym Martini Express

Rigby Big Game

woodsrunner

Garciamarquez1918

JPbowhunter

BJH65

SStomcat

mms45

mms45

Garciamarquez1918

SStomcat

Garciamarquez1918

Killo

Attachments

SStomcat

Killo

Tex .416

farmer_john

SStomcat

farmer_john

pjaln

mooze

Garciamarquez1918

Members online

Forum statistics

Proudly sponsored by

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Share this page