JOHN RIGBY & CO. BATTERY

[PCC600]

Oh man, great idea! I should’ve done that. I’ve got a few, I didn’t even think about it.

Could’ve used this one

View attachment 791971I think this is the most important rifle of all the Rigby bolt actions you have shared with us . Many think it is the 416 - a great rifle / cartridge combo . But there were other bolt actions that were far more common and with similar performance eg 404J and 425WR . But the 400/ 350 was the first of the magnum length Mauser actions . While a slant box action it was basis for all the magnum length cartridges . I must also say yours is a magnificent example . Thanks for sharing .

 

[PaulB]

This is one of my favorite rifles I own

 

[mark-hunter]

Extraordinary collection!
My vote goes to.... 416 Rigby!

 

[deewayne2003]

@PaulB

My apologies I asked a question to the wrong person out of confusion.

In you’re collecting of these fine guns, have you ever come across inventories or lists of weapons kept by the colonial aristocracy or large land holders?

I’m curious as to what those who could afford anything they wanted and had access to the best hunting grounds actually preferred to take afield.

 

[woodsrunner]

Lovely! It's a real education examining the vintage Rigby's. Such a range of woods and hues to the woods, yet very few examples (at least insofar as the images I have witnessed) of the really ornate woods many insist on today, despite the fact that i'd have to think such woods were much more abundant then than they are now, as per the trend with resources in general. (My own theory here is that as the people carrying firearms of all makes spent less and less of their year on average actually hunting once the golden era of more relaxed clocks and unfettered spaces combined with manageable human numbers was over, the hunter's need to occupy him/herself on their passion needed to find new areas of related focus, and logically this became the arms themselves. The demand for better wood, and for those who couldn't afford that, levels of accuracy and other ballistic details that while useful no doubt to a professional sniper and perhaps for focusing the attention away from the hideousness of a plastic stock, no one really requires on a hunt. Did Wally Johnson spend much time pondering wood grade?) The vintage examples when examined underscore just how expertly/successfully Rigby in our times has taken the old stylistic elements of the marque and distilled them into generally more handsome and perhaps more immediately recognizable-for-what-they-are designs. It's all turned out to have been very well-played.

 

[PaulB]

@PaulB

My apologies I asked a question to the wrong person out of confusion.

In you’re collecting of these fine guns, have you ever come across inventories or lists of weapons kept by the colonial aristocracy or large land holders?

I’m curious as to what those who could afford anything they wanted and had access to the best hunting grounds actually preferred to take afield.

I have not

 

[PaulB]

Lovely! It's a real education examining the vintage Rigby's. Such a range of woods and hues to the woods, yet very few examples (at least insofar as the images I have witnessed) of the really ornate woods many insist on today, despite the fact that i'd have to think such woods were much more abundant then than they are now, as per the trend with resources in general. (My own theory here is that as the people carrying firearms of all makes spent less and less of their year on average actually hunting once the golden era of more relaxed clocks and unfettered spaces combined with manageable human numbers was over, the hunter's need to occupy him/herself on their passion needed to find new areas of related focus, and logically this became the arms themselves. The demand for better wood, and for those who couldn't afford that, levels of accuracy and other ballistic details that while useful no doubt to a professional sniper and perhaps for focusing the attention away from the hideousness of a plastic stock, no one really requires on a hunt. Did Wally Johnson spend much time pondering wood grade?) The vintage examples when examined underscore just how expertly/successfully Rigby in our times has taken the old stylistic elements of the marque and distilled them into generally more handsome and perhaps more immediately recognizable-for-what-they-are designs. It's all turned out to have been very well-played.

First off, you make some excellent observations and points. If I may, I think there are a couple of additional factors at work here.

First, I don’t believe the highly figured Turkish/Circassian walnut that we associate with modern best-grade rifles was nearly as prevalent in the British trade then as it is today. English walnut was very commonly used, and much of the wood selected for sporting rifles had considerably less mineralization and dramatic figure than the Turkish blanks we tend to prize today. That’s not to say highly figured walnut didn’t exist, this is one factor, but I don’t think availability alone explains why we see relatively little of it on surviving Rigbys.

I also think the old makers were selecting wood primarily as rifle makers rather than as collectors. On a rifle intended to spend its life in Africa or India, straight grain and proper grain flow through the hand were far more important than spectacular figure. This becomes especially important with the larger cartridges,

There is another interesting mechanical consideration with the early Rigby, Holland and Jeffery rifles. Many of those rifles had relatively small grips—around 4½ inches in circumference—compared with the fuller grips generally used today. Highly figured and heavily mineralized Turkish walnut can be less forgiving in that relatively thin wrist, particularly when subjected to the recoil of a .350, .416 or the larger Nitro Express cartridges. I have a 500 Jeffery from 1928 that has a 4.5” grip, (this gun is a real thumper) and wouldn’t handle a blank with a lot of mineralization or figure. All that to say, A beautifully figured blank isn’t necessarily the strongest blank.

So I suspect what we’re seeing is partly availability, but perhaps even more a difference in priorities. Rigby was building working rifles for hunters who actually intended to carry them hard and shoot dangerous game with them. Strength, grain orientation, weight, balance and durability came before dramatic figure.

Your point about Wally Johnson is a good one. I doubt men like Johnson spent much time worrying about whether their rifle had exhibition-grade figure. The rifle was fundamentally a tool, albeit an exceptionally well-made one.

Today the rifle itself has become a much larger part of the hobby. We admire the wood, engraving, accuracy and minute details in ways that the original owner of a 1910 Rigby probably never contemplated. Modern Rigby has recognized that extremely well. They have retained the unmistakable proportions and styling cues of the old rifles while refining and emphasizing them for a modern customer who appreciates the rifle as an object in its own right.

In some respects, the old rifles may actually tell us more about what Rigby considered important: not necessarily the prettiest piece of walnut, but the right piece of walnut for the rifle.

 

[PCC600]

Anyone who operates a sawmill will tell you the more figured the timber the weaker it is . The old makers who made thousands of high end rifles knew exactly what they were doing . They were about function over form . Exhibition grade is not about durability . And the heavier the calibre the more the potential weakness is exacerbated . Rigby offered me a selection of higher grade stocks for my Shikari - I chose the plainest - which is still a lovely piece of wood . My two bob’s worth .

 

[ZG47]

Tha

THE “RIGBY BATTERY”

This Rigby lineup displays in one group, the extraordinary breadth of John Rigby & Co.’s magazine rifle offerings during the golden age of the sporting Mauser. Built between 1901 and 1920, these rifles span the classic Rigby big-game spectrum, from the light, wonderfully efficient .275, the historic .303, to the powerful .350 Magnum and finally the formidable .416 Rigby. The .275 was Rigby’s British sporting interpretation of the 7×57 Mauser, whose case originated in 1892, light-recoiling, flat-shooting and remarkably penetrating, it became legendary in Africa through men such as W.D.M. Bell and was equally at home on deer and plains game. The .303 British, developed in 1888 and adopted in 1889, was not actually a Rigby proprietary cartridge, but Rigby produced some exceptionally fine sporting rifles for it, making it an important part of the firm’s early magazine rifle story. The true proprietary .350 Rigby Magnum, introduced in 1908, was an original rimless design firing a 225-grain .358-caliber bullet at roughly 2,600 fps, an exceptionally powerful and flat shooting medium bore for its era and one of the great African all-round cartridges. At the bottom of the image, but in my opinion at the top of the battery stands the .416 Rigby, designed in 1911, with the first rifle delivered in 1912. The .416 was built around the great Magnum Mauser action, its enormous rimless case drove the original 410-grain bullet at approximately 2,370 fps, giving hunters magazine-rifle handling with power approaching the great Nitro Express doubles. Together, the four rifles tell the story of Rigby’s transformation of the Mauser sporting rifle, from the elegant small-bore .275 to one of the most celebrated dangerous-game bolt rifles ever created, the .416 Rigby.

Which one is the most important?

These guns are part of my personal collection and not for sale.

View attachment 791893

THE “RIGBY BATTERY”

This Rigby lineup displays in one group, the extraordinary breadth of John Rigby & Co.’s magazine rifle offerings during the golden age of the sporting Mauser. Built between 1901 and 1920, these rifles span the classic Rigby big-game spectrum, from the light, wonderfully efficient .275, the historic .303, to the powerful .350 Magnum and finally the formidable .416 Rigby. The .275 was Rigby’s British sporting interpretation of the 7×57 Mauser, whose case originated in 1892, light-recoiling, flat-shooting and remarkably penetrating, it became legendary in Africa through men such as W.D.M. Bell and was equally at home on deer and plains game. The .303 British, developed in 1888 and adopted in 1889, was not actually a Rigby proprietary cartridge, but Rigby produced some exceptionally fine sporting rifles for it, making it an important part of the firm’s early magazine rifle story. The true proprietary .350 Rigby Magnum, introduced in 1908, was an original rimless design firing a 225-grain .358-caliber bullet at roughly 2,600 fps, an exceptionally powerful and flat shooting medium bore for its era and one of the great African all-round cartridges. At the bottom of the image, but in my opinion at the top of the battery stands the .416 Rigby, designed in 1911, with the first rifle delivered in 1912. The .416 was built around the great Magnum Mauser action, its enormous rimless case drove the original 410-grain bullet at approximately 2,370 fps, giving hunters magazine-rifle handling with power approaching the great Nitro Express doubles. Together, the four rifles tell the story of Rigby’s transformation of the Mauser sporting rifle, from the elegant small-bore .275 to one of the most celebrated dangerous-game bolt rifles ever created, the .416 Rigby.

Which one is the most important?

These guns are part of my personal collection and not for sale.

View attachment 791893

Thank you for sharing this image. Beautiful rifles. My choice would probably be the .303 but the .275 is also a lovely practical rifle. I simply don’t need anything bigger than my 8.2x57 IS or .30-06. That being said, any rifle in this group would be a fine world travelling choice for a responsible hunter.

 

[Accidental Villain]

First off, you make some excellent observations and points. If I may, I think there are a couple of additional factors at work here.

First, I don’t believe the highly figured Turkish/Circassian walnut that we associate with modern best-grade rifles was nearly as prevalent in the British trade then as it is today. English walnut was very commonly used, and much of the wood selected for sporting rifles had considerably less mineralization and dramatic figure than the Turkish blanks we tend to prize today. That’s not to say highly figured walnut didn’t exist, this is one factor, but I don’t think availability alone explains why we see relatively little of it on surviving Rigbys.

I also think the old makers were selecting wood primarily as rifle makers rather than as collectors. On a rifle intended to spend its life in Africa or India, straight grain and proper grain flow through the hand were far more important than spectacular figure. This becomes especially important with the larger cartridges,

There is another interesting mechanical consideration with the early Rigby, Holland and Jeffery rifles. Many of those rifles had relatively small grips—around 4½ inches in circumference—compared with the fuller grips generally used today. Highly figured and heavily mineralized Turkish walnut can be less forgiving in that relatively thin wrist, particularly when subjected to the recoil of a .350, .416 or the larger Nitro Express cartridges. I have a 500 Jeffery from 1928 that has a 4.5” grip, (this gun is a real thumper) and wouldn’t handle a blank with a lot of mineralization or figure. All that to say, A beautifully figured blank isn’t necessarily the strongest blank.

So I suspect what we’re seeing is partly availability, but perhaps even more a difference in priorities. Rigby was building working rifles for hunters who actually intended to carry them hard and shoot dangerous game with them. Strength, grain orientation, weight, balance and durability came before dramatic figure.

Your point about Wally Johnson is a good one. I doubt men like Johnson spent much time worrying about whether their rifle had exhibition-grade figure. The rifle was fundamentally a tool, albeit an exceptionally well-made one.

Today the rifle itself has become a much larger part of the hobby. We admire the wood, engraving, accuracy and minute details in ways that the original owner of a 1910 Rigby probably never contemplated. Modern Rigby has recognized that extremely well. They have retained the unmistakable proportions and styling cues of the old rifles while refining and emphasizing them for a modern customer who appreciates the rifle as an object in its own right.

In some respects, the old rifles may actually tell us more about what Rigby considered important: not necessarily the prettiest piece of walnut, but the right piece of walnut for the rifle.

Very nicely written and highly educational. Thanks for sharing.

At one point I had access to a rather large collection (some with good provenance) consisting of mainly pre WWII English best guns. Comparing them, also with bespoke guns with genuine circassian walnut was interesting to say the least. The H&H`s, Jeffrey`s, Rigby`s all quite similar meaning non-spectacular wood at first glance, but when you look at them closely, absolutely superb super dense and straight grained wood. You could easily use these daily for decades no problem, and that was their purpose. There was a Maharajah style Rigby 416 and a 450/400 rising bite that stood out but ultimately fell in the same category as the others. A WR 577 box-lock was very different though with highly figured beautiful wood so it might have been sourced from elsewere.
Thanks for filling in the blanks. Very interesting and educational.

 

[Jack Stevens]

First off, you make some excellent observations and points. If I may, I think there are a couple of additional factors at work here.

First, I don’t believe the highly figured Turkish/Circassian walnut that we associate with modern best-grade rifles was nearly as prevalent in the British trade then as it is today. English walnut was very commonly used, and much of the wood selected for sporting rifles had considerably less mineralization and dramatic figure than the Turkish blanks we tend to prize today. That’s not to say highly figured walnut didn’t exist, this is one factor, but I don’t think availability alone explains why we see relatively little of it on surviving Rigbys.

I also think the old makers were selecting wood primarily as rifle makers rather than as collectors. On a rifle intended to spend its life in Africa or India, straight grain and proper grain flow through the hand were far more important than spectacular figure. This becomes especially important with the larger cartridges,

There is another interesting mechanical consideration with the early Rigby, Holland and Jeffery rifles. Many of those rifles had relatively small grips—around 4½ inches in circumference—compared with the fuller grips generally used today. Highly figured and heavily mineralized Turkish walnut can be less forgiving in that relatively thin wrist, particularly when subjected to the recoil of a .350, .416 or the larger Nitro Express cartridges. I have a 500 Jeffery from 1928 that has a 4.5” grip, (this gun is a real thumper) and wouldn’t handle a blank with a lot of mineralization or figure. All that to say, A beautifully figured blank isn’t necessarily the strongest blank.

So I suspect what we’re seeing is partly availability, but perhaps even more a difference in priorities. Rigby was building working rifles for hunters who actually intended to carry them hard and shoot dangerous game with them. Strength, grain orientation, weight, balance and durability came before dramatic figure.

Your point about Wally Johnson is a good one. I doubt men like Johnson spent much time worrying about whether their rifle had exhibition-grade figure. The rifle was fundamentally a tool, albeit an exceptionally well-made one.

Today the rifle itself has become a much larger part of the hobby. We admire the wood, engraving, accuracy and minute details in ways that the original owner of a 1910 Rigby probably never contemplated. Modern Rigby has recognized that extremely well. They have retained the unmistakable proportions and styling cues of the old rifles while refining and emphasizing them for a modern customer who appreciates the rifle as an object in its own right.

In some respects, the old rifles may actually tell us more about what Rigby considered important: not necessarily the prettiest piece of walnut, but the right piece of walnut for the rifle.

Well said.

 

[woodsrunner]

Anyone who operates a sawmill will tell you the more figured the timber the weaker it is . The old makers who made thousands of high end rifles knew exactly what they were doing . They were about function over form . Exhibition grade is not about durability . And the heavier the calibre the more the potential weakness is exacerbated . Rigby offered me a selection of higher grade stocks for my Shikari - I chose the plainest - which is still a lovely piece of wood . My two bob’s worth .

Amen. There is an elegance to certain forms of understatement. About the only walnut i am not a fan of in a rifle stock, and i'm sure you've witnessed it, is that which displays virtually no grain nor pore whatsoever, and could almost be a piece of composite when finished. But nice straight grain? Absolutely! As long as there is grain and pore visible, for me the more important points are the overall aesthetic and handling based on the design, combined with little details of shaping and also the hue of the wood. Some tones, whether light or dark, are simply more attractive and it's hard to say which ones those will be until you see it. (Fortunately, this is easily altered to good effect with practice, as the early makers were clearly aware from the photos.) Here's a celebrated 1913 example that make, vintage and historical relevance aside, is plain and yet exquisite in effect:

 

[PCC600]

Amen. There is an elegance to certain forms of understatement. About the only walnut i am not a fan of in a rifle stock, and i'm sure you've witnessed it, is that which displays virtually no grain nor pore whatsoever, and could almost be a piece of composite when finished. But nice straight grain? Absolutely! As long as there is grain and pore visible, for me the more important points are the overall aesthetic and handling based on the design, combined with little details of shaping and also the hue of the wood. Some tones, whether light or dark, are simply more attractive and it's hard to say which ones those will be until you see it. (Fortunately, this is easily altered to good effect with practice, as the early makers were clearly aware from the photos.) Here's a celebrated 1913 example that make, vintage and historical relevance aside, is plain and yet exquisite in effect:
View attachment 792342

Superb wood .