Ultimate rook rifle

[dirtyjim]

having handled one of bailey bradshaws 22-hornet doubles i would have to say that rifle chambered in 25-20 or 32-20 would almost be the ultimate rook rifle, one of his falling block doubles in 32-20 would be ultimate.
the hummingbird is scaled down to much in my opinion, baileys rifles are scaled just right and are a steal at what he charges for them.

 

[CraigC]

I'd be all over a svelte little .32-20 double!

 

[bangaway]

My rook rifle is a H & R handy rifle in .357 mag. reamed to .357 max. Nice deer gun in either caliber. As a rook rifle I load a 92 grain lymans mold #358121 in .38 specials. Very little red dot powder gives me 891 fps and 161 ft pds energy. Very quiet, no muzzle jump, no kick. This load dents the side of a pop can before going through. Good rabbit load if you want to eat something.

 

[Art Eatman]

Looks different, doesn't it?

Grammaw had to use a bunch of Liquid Plumber to clean it up, and she doesn't want to have to come back.

Silly squabbles can mess up interesting threads...

 

[natman]

Well, yes and no.

Rooks were shot out of trees, which means the rifle was elevated and a miss -- or even a hit -- would let the bullet continue on for some distance. Now in small arms, momemtum (related to mass) is more critical than velocity in determining maximum range -- mass increases with the cube, while drag (which slows the bullet down) increases with the square (for bullets of equal shape.) So a .36 caliber rook rifle will shoot a lot farther than a .22 LR.

Well, a sphere does increase in mass with the cube of its radius and air resistance does increase with the square of velocity. Although both statements are individually true, you can't just jump to the conclusion that a larger, heavier bullet will automatically go farther. Let's try using the appropriate formula and see what happens:

The crucial factor in determining the trajectory of a bullet is its Ballistic Coefficient (BC). The formula for BC is:

BC = w / (i*d^2)

Where:
w = weight of bullet
i = form factor (drag)
d = diameter
http://www.jbmballistics.com/ballistics/topics/secdens.shtml

So, yes, a heavier bullet will go farther because greater W makes a greater BC. However, BC decreases with the SQUARE of diameter, so any increase in weight is quickly countered by the increase in diameter. But, you say, W should be going up with the CUBE of the radius. Well, even though it could, it doesn't have to.

In actual practice, the rook rifles used light for caliber bullets that generated trajectories quite similar to a 22 LR. Nominal BCs are commonly given by bullet manufacturers and as it turns out, the BC for a 22 LR (.142) is quite close to the BC for common pistol bullets, e.g. .357 125 grain (.148), so if fired at the same velocity, trajectories would be virtually identical despite the differences in weight. Sure, you could in theory fit a far heavier bullet in a 36 caliber bore, but it would be much longer than a 360 rook case. 360 rook loads varied from 82 - 145 grains, not the 250 grains a 35 caliber rifle might use.

BTW, I didn't compare the trajectory of a traditional rook rifle with a 22 LR. I compared it to a 22 Hornet and a 17HMR, both of which have longer maximum distances.

 

[SeekHer]

Well Dakota has a few starting with their Nbr 10...They partnered with both 'Lil Sharps and Miller so offerings from them would be great.

There are also the Winchester 1885 copies that a few companies are getting from Italy or companies like Ballard and C. Sharps are building.

A Remington Rolling Block especially a Hepburn Conversion from C. Sharps, D.Z Arms or Lone Star.

Then again, a Ballard in the #2 action -- Rook and Rabbit or Cresswell or their #3 --Lightweight Hunter or Jeffery's Sharps would be lovely and they are coming out with a Farquharson.

CPA Rifles using the Stevens Model 44½ Action would be a nice build.

Ruger Nbr 1 or a T/C would also be more then adequate for a good build.

Then again you can always try and find a Marini-Henry.

 

[eye5600]

Around where I live (southern New England), all the crows seem to have been killed by West Nile virus.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the .17 HM2 is dying on the vine, and would it qualify?

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Well, a sphere does increase in mass with the cube of its radius and air resistance does increase with the square of velocity. Although both statements are individually true, you can't just jump to the conclusion that a larger, heavier bullet will automatically go farther. Let's try using the appropriate formula and see what happens:

The crucial factor in determining the trajectory of a bullet is its Ballistic Coefficient (BC). The formula for BC is:

BC = w / (i*d^2)

Where:
w = weight of bullet
i = form factor (drag)
d = diameter
http://www.jbmballistics.com/ballist.../secdens.shtml

So, yes, a heavier bullet will go farther because greater W makes a greater BC. However, BC decreases with the SQUARE of diameter, so any increase in weight is quickly countered by the increase in diameter. But, you say, W should be going up with the CUBE of the radius. Well, even though it could, it doesn't have to.

So...is the crow dead or not?

 

[JackCrow]

I'd have to say that that Hummingbird is one of the most beautiful rifles I've ever seen.

 

[BCRider]

From the looks of the many fantastic looking rifles I've seen in this thread it is very apparent that the rook rifles of olde where firearms of the upper class used for sport while out for country walks. Meanwhile the peasants just looking to fill the stew pot would have been using whatever would do the job.

Still, our modern lifestyle has given us enough spare time and money in most middle class cases to be able to afford a few luxaries. And if a very nice rook/rabbit gun is one of those then we'll all enjoy the pictures

This thread along with the side track in my thread about Martini actions has me thinking about rook rifle project guns chambered in some oddball cartridge that I SWORE I'd never do. You see... I've got a couple of Stevens rolling block receivers that likely were used for either .22LR or .32 rimfire. To build them up to shoot something like .32 Long Colt would not stress the action at all and would certainly prove to be a conversation piece. Especially if I can find some really nicely figured wood for the stock and fore grip.

The real trick will be finding a suitable barrel to modify. That will likely determine the caliber moreso than any other factor. For example I notice that .32LC uses a .312 diameter bullet which just happens to be the same as lead rounds for .303 British as shot from Lee Enfields. A barrel of that sort should be easy to find which then means that I just need to find or make a suitable chamber reamer. But the twist rate of the .303 barrel almost certainly will not be what I need for a .32LC bullet travelling at a third or less of the speed..... or I may just go with .22LR which means I can use any number of barrels.

 

[Art Eatman]

I made a tragic strategic error. I let BossLady Fran see the Hofer Hummingbird. When she learned that yes, you can get cleaning gear for a .17, her eyes lit up.

I may be in trouble.

 

[redmond]

5th rifle down from the top is a Holland and Holland Rook Rifle in .360

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

Seems to me that the Uberti 'Baby Rolling Block' in 357 magnum would be very similar to the old English rook rifles. It has the old time style, and when loaded with 38 specials would be close to the 360 Rook ballistics.

 

[natman]

So...is the crow dead or not?

No, he just fell asleep reading my post.

 

[SeekHer]

From the looks of the many fantastic looking rifles I've seen in this thread it is very apparent that the rook rifles of olde where firearms of the upper class used for sport while out for country walks. Meanwhile the peasants just looking to fill the stew pot would have been using whatever would do the job.

Well, actually it was the other way around--Yes, some of the bespoke makers put out Rook guns for those who wanted to shoots hares or rooks but the majority of them were plain old Birmingham made rifles that you'd find in Army and Navy.

Also rook rifles were used to shoot Roe deer from a stand, driven or stalking.

 

[SeekHer]

I made a tragic strategic error. I let BossLady Fran see the Hofer Hummingbird. When she learned that yes, you can get cleaning gear for a .17, her eyes lit up.

I may be in trouble.

You're in a very sad state for I believe that particular model went at the SCI convention in 2006 for around $375 to $400 thousand.

His vierling model, 4 barrel, done up in bumble/honey bees went for $1 million.

Hofer is probably twice to thrice the expense of a Purdey or Holland & Holland which for a double rifle start at about $125,000 and Peter's begin at close to $300,000...I spoke with him not too long ago--he's been wanting to build me a 4 calibre barrel set takedown stalking rifle (fits into an attache case) since we talked about at the 2002 SCI Convention but we can't agree on the calibres and the price is over $150K which I surely can't afford.

If ultimate means most expensive then you shouldn't need to look much further then him--his work is exquisite but there are a lot of other Ferlach or Suhl or Italian makers that produce as good a gun mechanically wise for a lot cheaper...I'm kind of partial to Philipp Ollendorff of Austria since he makes a variation of the MacNaughton Bar-in-Wood singles and doubles which I think are the prettiest--most graceful guns around.

 

[natman]

I know what your trying to say, but if you actually run the numbers on the 17HMR you will be surprised.

If you fired a 17HMR up in the air at a 45* angle, It would indeed go a long ways - but by the time it hit that theoretical 2 mile radius, but would be falling at an insignificant velocity. Just how slow is very difficult to tell, because at about 2000 yards (1.3 miles) it becomes so slow that none of the ballistic calculators can compute numbers for it (under 200fps). My guess is that if you managed to loft a 17HMR bullet out to 2 miles, it would be falling at LESS than 150fps, and have less than half the energy of a Daisy Red Ryder.

I tried to 'stack' the calculator outputs by going back and lowering the input velocity to the previous output velocity, but at around 2,000 yards the amount of drop becomes so huge it exceeds the amount of space allotted. SO huge, the programs still cant track it even if you set the zero range at 1,000 yards to negate some of the drop.

If you decreased the angle of incline to something more realistic, say 18* - 20*, the bullet would still travel nearly about 1.5 miles, but would still impact with less than 4 foot pounds of energy, which is about equivalent to that Daisy Red Ryder.

Yes, someone could get their eye put out if they happened to be looking up in the air at the exact angle in the exact place at the exact time the bullet landed. Or you may shatter a window... But simply knowing what is around you and down range of your target would negate that very very low risk.

Despite their velocity, the 17HMR bullets are just too light weight and have ballistic coefficient too low to carry any real energy. Combine that with their fragile construction and I just don't see that there is any significant risk to using a 17HMR as a 'rook rifle'.

That's why my 'ideal rook rifle' would be a Browning T-bolt in 17HMR, with some good iron sights custom fitted. The fielded rifle would still be under 5 lbs without the need for a scope, and have good capacity.

It's an interesting approach, but it's based on the premise that the bullet will go the theoretical maximum before it runs into anything, which is shaky at best. You might not fire it at the optimum angle or something might get in the way before then. At 1000 yards a 17 HMR bullet is going about 500 fps, and while that "only" generates about 9 ft-lbs of energy, I'd still prefer not to get hit by one. Also, the bullet doesn't have to be capable of generating a fatal wound to get you in trouble. Telling the guy with the bullet hole in his window that the bullet wouldn't have hurt very much if it had hit him would be a tough sell.

I prefer a 90 grain .314 wadcutter. This bullet is blessed with the lowest BC of any bullet I can find - a truly measly .04. If you had a jacketed version and fired it at 2000 fps it would stay within 2" of POA inside 100 yards and drop like a stone thereafter, dropping 5 feet by 225 yards. According to JBM's Maximum range calculator, it only goes a maximum 750 yards, as compared to 1933 for a 17 grain 17 HMR. I'd prefer a bullet that can't go more than 750 yards to a bullet "that won't do too much damage" when it hits something more than a mile away.

 

[S. Hill]

Blaser makes a little break-open rifle, their K-95. You can get it in .22 Hornet. They list the weight at 5.3 lb.

Other than that, a little Martini or Ballard action would make a sweet little rifle. There are plenty of cartridge options, if you are willing to handload and convert cases from existing brass.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Blaser makes a little break-open rifle, their K-95. You can get it in .22 Hornet. They list the weight at 5.3 lb.

And you can easily download the Hornet to .22 LR velocity and use cast bullets.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

Nice trick Natman! Using a wadcuter is a smart way to limit range.

Ofcourse, if you do an apples to apples comparison and use a nosed bullet of the same weight, the range of your 32 doubles to nearly 1,500 yards.

Im still plenty comfortable with my 17 though. I drew a 2,000 yard radius around the public hunting grounds a mile up the road from my house... South west (back towards my small town) is the only direction where the bullet wouldn't land in a farmers field. With the larger parcel up the road, every conceivable direction would be safe.

I don't think it would have 1/2 as good a chance of penetrating brush as a 90 grain lead pill either.

 

[alemonkey]

For the ultimate budget rook rifle I think a .357 Handi Rifle shooting light .38 loads would be ideal. But for me a rook rifle will always be a small frame Martini. One of these days I need to buy or build one.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

I'm finding the idea of a TC Contender carbine in 32 H&R very appealing. Ballistics should be very close to a 300 Rook as well - same velocities for bullet weight, and only a few thousands larger bullet diameter.

 

[S. Hill]

"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

The NEF "Handi-Rifle" and the TC "Encore/Contender" are never going to be the "Ultimate" anything. They are inexpensive and versatile, but they lack... class. You can add the fanciest wood in the world, and they still will lack gracefulness.

The Ruger #1 and the Dakota Mod. 10 are too heavy and large for a rook rifle. If you put an ultra-light barrel on either of them, the balance isn't right. If you start with one of those actions, you are stuck with a 6.5 lb. rifle. While that is great for a medium / big game rifle, the whole idea of the rook rifle is to be light and compact.

 

[BCRider]

It's a little older but it seems like an old Steven's Favourite in .32 rimfire would fit the bill just due to it's classy old rolling block action and relative rarity. And it's got "The Look" to my eyes. It could either be converted to shoot .32LC or one could use the round ball buckshot conversion cases that use .22industrial blanks as the pressure source. A round ball shot with a nail gun charge of that sort should do a nice job out to 50 to 60 yards on the sort of game we're looking at for these guns. And the slow round ball wouldn't carry all that far beyond that range.

Have a look at this;
http://www.nrvoutdoors.com/FIRST SHOT/FIRST SHOT.htm

 

[CraigC]

The Ruger #1 and the Dakota Mod. 10 are too heavy and large for a rook rifle.

I think most of us who referenced those rifles also stipulated that they would have to be scaled down to an appropriate size. IMHO, Ruger should have at least three if not four sizes of the No. 1 action anyway. The folks that pay big bucks to have one converted to .22LR blow my mind.