I can tell you right now that if I had my way with the company, all the MO series would be scrapped, rifles would be built to oberndorf qualities and properly designed for real hunters use, prices would be cut dramatically as. Just don't see the m98 at that price point ever giving the company the critical mass to reestablish a foothold in the market along, but given the parent company, there's a conflict of interest there of course.
I would ensure the DG series were built and designed fit for purpose, not full of useless features and design flaws for such rifles...but, sadly, those who actually have a clue about real rifle design and how that links to best practice in the real world,,,are seldom given the chance to spearhead any such businesses or marketing initiatives..much like rifle scopes these days, marketeers sitting in a silo thinking up new ways to make money rather than thinking about what real hunters need and want.
There's a reason those who really know what's good for them use rifles based on the m98 design, no bs iron sights and proper front sight, sturdy mounts (if any), low power fixed or variable (ugh!) no frills quality scopes, good extractors, perfect feeding at any speed, no risk of dumping ammo out of the mag box, good simple bedding, dense walnut with wrap checkering, and a stock actually fitting in grip angle, width, thumb fluting, lop, and comb height to what sighting mechanism is used...it's really not rocket science, yet, not one company can seem to produce anything fitting these simple criteria without wanting a price equivalent to a sports car...the mind boggles
I don't really know how to respond to posts like this. I am away, and looking through the whole thread is a bit difficult, so I apologize if I repeat what others may have already said.
@fiocchi, you seem to know exactly what "real hunters" both need and want. You want a DG rifle "not full of useless features and design flaws" . . . But those "who have a clue about real rifle design" don't make the rifles. And my personal favourite: "those who really know what's good for them. ". Apparently, according to you, those who "really know what's best for them" want low power fixed scopes, and a bunch of other things including "thumb fluting" on the stock.
Where do I even start?
Firstly, I like to think I'm a hunter. I have been lucky in life and can get to Africa pretty regularly. In fact, as I write this, I'm in the Karoo waiting for the rain (!) to stop, so I have some time. I've hunted in lots of places, for lots of game, big, small and everything in between, using lots of different bullets and rifles, some mine and some from others, and with lots of people who make a living hunting. But what follows are my own opinions.
First, you need to get into the current century. A variable scope is "ugh"? Come on. I won't even call that being a purist - I call it being a Luddite. You want a rifle that is fit for purpose, but you propose to use a scope that fits only a narrow range of purposes. No one who uses a variable scope should feel the slightest bit insecure about using the best tool for the job.
Second, you imply - and I apologize if I have this wrong - that the Rigby DG rifle is full of useless features and design flaws. I have a Rigby Big Game in .416. It was not perfect out of the box, but very few guns are. But it is an exceptional rifle. It works as it should, and is exceptionally well balanced - a joy to shoot, even for a large caliber. It also looks exceptional (which I like, but then what do I know?). Anything you might describe as "superfluous" is likely something I wanted and asked for, which means, by any reasonable definition, it isn't superfluous.
Third, you seem to know exactly how a gun manufacturer should operate and what it should offer. But I note that you think "prices should be cut dramatically." There is a market price for beautiful stock blanks, and given how rare the best are, they will never be cheap. A good barrel takes time and expensive machinery to make, and many are rejected. I could go on, but perhaps you get the point. You talk about grip angle, width, lop, etc., but all of these, if you're serious, have to be custom designed, since they will vary for each person. How much do you think a stock maker should charge for his/her services, even apart from the cost of a precious blank? This level of custom work, let alone the best, will never be cheap.
Fourth, you know what "real hunters need and want," but to be candid, you clearly don't know what I need and want, and I consider myself a real hunter. Thumb fluting? Are you kidding? This is hunting we're talking about, not target practice at the range. I don't even want to hint about what the recoil on some of my guns would do to my poor thumb if I were foolish enough to stick it in a hole on a stock.
Lastly, if you know exactly what everyone needs, and what those who are in the business are doing wrong, I wonder why you aren't in the gun making business. I would think you'd think you would make a killing (pun intended) building exactly what real hunters need at a low cost.
So design that perfect rifle, price it out, build it and put it up for sale.
Alternatively, you could be a little less categorical about knowing more than everyone else.
