Well, it's a long story so I'll start with the simple stuff that has to do with attention to the details.
I am a big fan of the GH QR scope mount system. It does a lot right IMO. For example, there is no scope base on the front bridge of the action, makes for a much nicer carrying rifle in your hands right where the balance point is. I've had1 rail, and 2 sets of rings for that rail within this year. This work was done on a an existing GH 375 HH model Pre64 Model 70, re-barreled to 404 jeffery. The work to mount the rail on the rifle was very good, appears to be done right, the scope rings and the clamp rail not so much. For example, why would all the levers look different? On the 30mm set up they look the way they should, at least they are acceptable, the second set for 1" rings looks like a totally different lever, and they stick out an incredible amount and one looks bent to me. When you are spending $1000+ to have a scope provision put on a rifle, I would think this is an important detail. Secondly. When they sent the rifle back to me with the Schmidt & Bender Zenith 1.25-4 mounted that I provided and ready to go....should I have checked the scope ring screws for tightness. To me, no, I would think that they have put this together, checked it twice, shot it profusely to check their work, zero, whole ball of wax. I believe they did shoot it and zero it, as it was on target. I pulled the trigger 4 times, had a good group going, if I wouldn't have noticed that both of the right-side ring screws snapped off, I would have had a S&B scope to the face on the next shot. It marred up the scope pretty bad, it was not my idea of a great first range session with a gun I just spent 9k to have built up. SO back to them it went. And why would they be using tiny little 8x32 screws in their rings, which have incredible meat to them, on a 404 Jeffery? Needless to say, I requested they re-do it with 8x42 torx head (NOT so they could be tighter, they only need 15-18 inch lbs.) but torx screws are easy to check, they don't show wear, etc. I hate flat head screws in scope rings. All this being said, the front sight work is good, the rear sight is a Lyman 48. I also had a sling swivel stud removed from teh stock and a barrel band installed on the new barrel,....I'm pretty sure the plug on the stock could have been done better. All this being said, the rifle feels lively in the hands, comes to shoulder very nicely, and the scope can be taken off and re-installed without removing the Lyman 48....which is what I wanted. See Pics.
The second GH Rifle, a Mauser 98, early production, 425 WR. It actually says on the barrel, "the first 425 Westley Richards by Griffin & Howe. There is a long story behind its acquisition, that said, it came with a small crack in the stock in front of the recoil lug, leather falling off the red pad, and didn't feed at all properly. Most hear know the sage of feeding problems with this caliber. So, I sent it to GH and wanted to remedy all of these problems, the 2 most important, crack, and center feed conversion like Westly does to their rifles. Now, the had the rifle for about 1.5 years and still didn't do anything to it. said they were getting an action from WR to take measurement and machine parts,...well, that never happened. I had them send the rifle to my go to guy, Matt Roberts. He is actually excited about the project. Now, wouldn't you have thought a historical rifle like that, they might have wanted to work on it themselves, unreal. I'm pretty sure they just don't have the right people there to do such a thing, but I have faith that Matt will pin it. I'm, into the rifle right as far $, so what having someone other than GH do the work and the effect on value I really don't care. The rifle came from a friend of mine that will never go to Africa, I am determined to take it there and at least give him the pictures. I can post a few pics of this rifle if anyone cares to see it
