Arms Locker Gun Forum
Go Back   Arms Locker > Gun Forums > Rifles


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-22-2005, 04:24 PM   #1
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Brockman "Practical" Rifle

I recently received a custom rifle I'd ordered from Jim Brockman of Brockman's Rifles (www.brockmansrifles.com). Now that I'm an older fart of almost 47 and have enough time with rifles with rifles under my belt (including one exceptionally eye-opening Randy Cain Practical Rilfe course), I knew what I wanted to build, and I started out on a quest to have someone develop a short, handly rifle to my specs. This thread is about the rifle, and let me just cut to the chase and say, "I am one happy customer!"

I thought it'd be easy to get what I wanted done, but no one seemed to want to add iron sights to a custom rifle. The usual response was, "We don't add iron sights to our custom rifles!" My unspoken (I'm a nice guy, and there'd have been no point anyway) response was, "It's not YOUR custom rifle - it's MY custom rifle!" Anyway ... 'nuf of that. At Randy's suggestion, I contacted Jim, and ... well, this rifle is the result.

In a nutshell, this is a .308 that's basically one off Brockman's Ultimate Rifles, which you can see on his web page. I added a few bells and whistles to the basic rifle.

This rifle started life as a Winchester Classic 70 Compact. Now, the receiver wears a 20" barrel, composite stock, Talley bases and QD rings, ching sling, deeper bottom metal, a tritium-insert protected front site, and one of Brockman's own rear pop-up peeps that springs into place when the scope is removed. I went with a low-powered (2x7) Euro varialbe with a 30mm tube. Each of these is addressed in a followup post with a photo.

To start the ball rolling, here's an overall view of the rifle (and remember, I'm no Ichiro Superfotoguy!
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0547.jpg  

Last edited by BigJon; 06-22-2005 at 04:54 PM.
 
Remove Ads
Old 06-22-2005, 04:45 PM   #2
Registered User
 RIKA's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
From: In the freezer section

Posts: 10,279
Its awesome. That extended magazine reminds me of Jeff Cooper's Lion Scout. I looked at Brockman's website and really impressed.

RIKA (wow!)
 
Old 06-22-2005, 04:49 PM   #3
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Guess I'll start at the top and go down.

The rifle is topped with a low-powered Euro Leupold in Talley QD mounts., no glowing reticle or any other bells or whistles. Actually, I had wanted an electronic reticle, but it was either that or the 30mm tube, but not both. I opted for the latter.

I also had a first-generation M1 (the ones on which the turrets turn the opposite way from the way they turn on subsequent models) in the safe, and I had Jim screw some QDs on that too, however I expect the little scope to stay on the gun for most, if not all, the time; the rifle is very light, so light in fact that changing the scopes yields a VERY noticeable difference in weight and handling.

Here's the little Leupold, mounted on the rifle ...
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0545.jpg  
 
Old 06-22-2005, 04:51 PM   #4
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
... and for no reason other than I took a picture of it, the M1 in it's QDs.
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0551.jpg  
 
Old 06-22-2005, 05:03 PM   #5
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Brockman's already makes a front sight that was just what I wanted. Here's a photo of the tritium-insert protected front sight. Yea, I know it's out of focus, but that's just a product of old-fartdom that we'll just have to live with. There's a much clearer photo of the unit on Brockman's site.
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0543.jpg  
 
Old 06-22-2005, 05:09 PM   #6
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Here's the rear scope base with its integral pop-up peep. When I first scoped a Winchester short action, I found that I had to turn the rear base 180 degrees to get the little scope I was using at the time to fit. In the intended position, the rear base left too long a gap between the rings, and turning the rear base around was the only way I could find to close the distance so that both rings would grab the tube. The Brockman rifle arrived the same way - with the rear peep turned backwards. It's not a big deal to me, because I was used to topping off the magazine with the rear base turned around backwards when this rifle was in its factory state, but I had not thought that a custom sight would also have to be turned around instead of manufactured differently for the Winchester short action. Again, though, I am not complaining; the unit seems to function well, and as I said, I'm already used to this type of deal. So, here's the rear base ...
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0544.jpg  
 
Old 06-22-2005, 05:20 PM   #7
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Now, here's an item that, according to Jim, he'd not tried before (and I am quite certain he was humoring me.) From what I can tell, there are three ways to run a rifle bolt after the shot. The one most of us see at the range is the careful back, manually lift out the empty, and close. With a field rifle, though, one is more likely to be crankin' that thing open and closed hard! One way, by slappinig the bolt up, back, forward, and down with the palm of the hand works well for some folks, but I have the nagging problem of getting my friggin' ring finger caught between the bolt handle and the ocular on the return stroke, and let me tell you, thwacking your fingernail on a scope hurts! Cured me, so I opt the for the third method - taking a firm grip on the knob and running the bolt.

Badger makes a great oversized bolt knob, but on a little rifle like this, it would have looked like a tumor. I explained to Jim what I was looking for, and he came up with the bolt handle on his own. Here are photos of the handle. You can see that it sits away from the stock, but not so much that it detracts from the spartan size, shape and weight of the gun.
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0542.jpg   Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0550.jpg  
 
Old 06-22-2005, 05:27 PM   #8
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
The stock is a composite. I can't remember the manufacturer; it may be a Brown Precision because Jim and I were talking about them one day on the phone - during one of his REGULAR calls to let me know the status of the project (gooooooood customer service, folks!) Nothing unusual about the stock, except of course for the Ching sling studs, and also a little light attachment I asked him to attach over on the left side of the stock (that's just where I like it).
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0546.jpg  
 
Old 06-22-2005, 05:34 PM   #9
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Fit and finish were tops, as were the mechanics. The trigger would be a bit heavy for most of you sniper types - around 3.5 pounds, but again, that's the way I wanted it, since this is a field gun, and as I said earlier - it's my friggin' rifle!

I also mentioned earlier that the receiver had come from an M70 Compact I had. A gunsmith had done a "trigger job" on it, and the gun crapped out during a hard run one day, failing to cock. The smith remedied the problem, but it was never the same - and yes, I did tell Jim that when I sent the barreled action to him. When he got started, he called to let me know that he'd experienced another first - the bolt came apart on him. He was able to weld, or somehow otherwise get everything back in strong shape, and a potential trip back to Winchester with the unit was avoided.

The action is very smooth, and the bolt turns down sweet, soft, and snug in the recesses.

The finish is black T. Jim called one day to let me know that the rifle would be delayed a couple of weeks because they'd used a third party to do the finish, and Jim said that there was a small place on the barrel that was not perfect. "Perfect" ... Cool. I came to the right place!

Every post has had a photo, so here's another. The engraving is sharp and, again perfect; the photo's blurry because of unsteady camera hand - solely.

The photo is also gratuitous - no purpose other than because, hey, this is my thread! My name's engraved on the other side, but I can't post a photo of that on the internet, or all the chicks will be hammering at my door.

Yea ... right.
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0549.jpg  
 
Old 06-22-2005, 05:38 PM   #10
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Finally, here's a photo of the bottom metal. The extended belly allows the mag to legitimately hold 7 rounds.
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-dscn0541.jpg  
 
Old 06-22-2005, 05:44 PM   #11
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
We'll head to the range soon, and I'll let you know how she performs. I can already tell you this, though - I would wholeheartedly, and without reservatio of any kind, recommend Brockman's Rifles to anyone who appreciates quality work and excellent customer service.

And now, only one more thing....

You may have noticed that a "B" is engraved on the bottom metal (foregoing photo). That doesn't stand for "Brockmans".

I actually had Jim build two rifles for me, identical in all respects except the lengths of pull and the names engraved on them. I did this because I owe a friend of mine my life. In some ways, he owes his to me. I am not a soldier, or an operator, and I have never been to war in the military sense. However, I have most certainly been engaged in the tough battles life throws in the way of us civilians from time to time, and my friend has always been there to back my ass up, as I have his. For this reason, I had Jim build an indentical rifle for my friend, and I gave it to him a dinner a couple of weeks back. He didn't know what to say. I told him he didn't have to.

Oh, and what does the "B" on the bottom metal stand for?

Brothers. And yea, there's a "B" on his rifle too.

Last edited by BigJon; 06-22-2005 at 06:01 PM.
 
Old 06-22-2005, 06:36 PM   #12
Registered User
 BigEd63's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
From: Greater Fayetteville Co-Prosperity Sphere

Posts: 3,781
Fine looking rifle you got back Jon.
 
Old 06-23-2005, 03:02 AM   #13
Registered User
 Magnum88C's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2003

Posts: 5,890
Hey Jon, top notch rifle there.
It's nice to get EXACTLY what you want eh?

Oh, and a BRAVO on repaying your friend. A lot of people don't bother, and that's the difference between good friends and "brothers".
 
Old 06-23-2005, 06:02 AM   #14
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 2,400
That's pretty. I like a lightweight bolt-action .308; it can do a whole lot of things awfully well.
 
Old 06-23-2005, 10:56 AM   #15
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Have had a couple of folks email me asking the same question, and I thought I'd follow up with the question and my answer. The question is, "Why didn't you just go with one of Brockman's stock scout rifle offerings?"

One reason (the lesser) is that I wanted some extras that didn't come on Brockman's package rifles, such as the modified bolt handle mentioned above. The other (the main reason), though, is that unless I have a picture hanger that's falling out of the wall and needs to be hammered back in, I have no use for a scout scope. It's certainly a very subjective thing, and I know that a certail Colonel and his disciples might think me nuts, but hey, I just can't use one any more quickly than a scope in the standard position, provided the latter is of low power - 2.5 probably pushing it on the high end. Light gathering is another problem with scout scopes, but that's not a big deal to me, at least not with this rifle's intended purpose - the little Leupold I have on the rifle doesn't gather much light either, with it's tiny objective, but it does do better than the scout scopes I've tried.

So, the bottom line is that this rifle is basically just one of Brockman's Universal Hunter models (which has the scope atop the receiver and no base on out on the barrel for a scout scope), with the aforementioned bells and whistles added.

Best,
Jon
 
Old 06-23-2005, 02:37 PM   #16
Registered User
 Magnum88C's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2003

Posts: 5,890
Hey it's your rifle, you don't have to justify it to anyone but you.

I happen to disagree with the Colonel's idea of a scout rifle also. I don't particularly like scout scopes. Only use I found for one (Leupold 2.5x) is on one of my Mosin Nagants (M38) for hunting purposes. Reason for the scout scope is it doesn't interfere with the use of stripper clips, and it can be mounted without doing a hack job on the rifle.
 
Old 06-23-2005, 06:34 PM   #17
Registered User
 neolithic hunter's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
From: on the back porch

Posts: 1,621
nice rifle bigjon. i got only one question why 7 rounds? most states restrict you to 5 when hunting. like texas if you have room for seven, you have to block the magazine to only take 5 rounds. cool rifle though i like the irons on it.
 
Old 06-23-2005, 07:35 PM   #18
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by neolithic hunter
nice rifle bigjon. i got only one question why 7 rounds? most states restrict you to 5 when hunting. like texas if you have room for seven, you have to block the magazine to only take 5 rounds. cool rifle though i like the irons on it.
Hi, neo. The rifle will be multi-purpose, and I always try to top off when safe and practical to do so during a course of fire, and the extra two rounds is nice to have in case that gets delayed.

Best,
Jon
 
Old 06-24-2005, 02:50 AM   #19
Registered User
 Magnum88C's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2003

Posts: 5,890
Neolithic. . .is that restriction for manually operated guns? Most states only have a 5 round limit on semiautos.

I always thought it'd be cool for varminters to have a bolt rifle with a nice, sturdy built-in bipod and a 75 round drum. . .
 
Old 06-24-2005, 08:40 AM   #20
Registered User
 neolithic hunter's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
From: on the back porch

Posts: 1,621
they haven't put the restriction in the new tpw books, but on discussing it with some of the tpw dept folks i know, it's a 5 round limit for all firearms, excluding handguns and shotguns, even if its not in the book. they say there is talk going around tpw to dis-allow all firearms smaller than .243 for deer and other hunting. so it looks like some of the guys i've talked to, and they tell me how well there 22-250 works on deer will have to use a larger caliber to hunt with. i think this will actually be for the better. as most states aready dis-allow anything smaller than .243. there is nothing worse than a slob hunter, unless it's a slob hunter using a .22 cal. rifle.
 
Old 06-24-2005, 02:11 PM   #21
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
The key is the "slob hunter" part - it's not caliber-specific! I've shot my fair share of deer with a .22 K-Hornet with either a 40 grain soft- or hollow-point bullet (yep, that's legal here in Alabama). Two I have taken with head shots, but most have been centered in the side of the neck a couple of inches behind the head when I was certain (experience will tell you when) that the target would be stationary for several seconds. I've done it quite a few times. I think the longest shot I've taken like that was around 45 yards or so.

I think I understand your point, though, and it's that if you have a slob hunter, at least if he's shooting something larger, the animal will have a comparativley better chance of avoiding a slow death due to the shooter's negligence than if he were shootin' a .243 or less. Small consolation, but the point makes sense.

I'll probably rile some feathers here, but I'd be much more comfortable shooting a deer as I described, and again with the carefully selected shot, with my little K-Hornet than I would shootin' one with a .300 or somethin' similar out at 800 yards or more, the latter giving the animal too much time to move once ones' brain has committed to send the round, at least for my tastes.

Gosh, I guess I've taken ... hell, I dunno, somewhere between 2-300 deer in my life, and do you know what my longest shot (meaning the longest I've ever decided to attempt) was? 285 yards, and I had the best rest in the world - a round bale of hay, and the shot was into a doe's shoulder as she fed calmly and undisturbed in a field in the afternoon.

The second longest shot accounted for my largest buck to date (but hey, I'm headin' to Kansas in December to try to remedy that!). THAT was a satisfying shot! Long story short - big deer, right at dawn, just sliiiiiiiightly walking away from 90 degrees. Dropped right down the mud between some small planted pines and used my pack as a rest. Got him in the crosshairs, and tracked him in the scope as I waited for the trigger to break. When it did, it surprised me (just as I'd wanted it to!) Dropped him on the spot. Handloaded .300 Weatherby with a 185-grain Nosler Partition, which is still my favorite huntin' bullet in the world.

Strangely, I've never been presented one past that that I'd take - oh, sure, I've SEEN 'em out farter, but the deer was walking, or standing but acting nervously, or something else that kept me from taking the shot. Not saying anything over 300 would be per se bad - certainly not! Just me and the circumstances that have presented themselves over the course of my hunting years have never meshed so that I PERSONALLY would have felt comfortable taking a shot past 300. Most of the shots I am presented with are within 150 yards anyway.

Anyhoo, can you tell I'm rambling? Can you tell it's Friday?

Have a great weekend, my friends.

Best,
Jon
 
Old 06-24-2005, 02:25 PM   #22
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by neolithic hunter
there is nothing worse than a slob hunter, unless it's a slob hunter using a .22 cal. rifle.
Except perhaps a desk-jockey bureaucrat on a power trip mandating things arbitrarily. (Not talking about you; talking about the “Fish & Game” bureaucrats that wouldn’t recognize a mallard from a mackerel.

Mandating things like a “.24-caliber” is ok, but a “.23-caliber” is a crime, is IMO right up there with mandating “10-rounds” is ok, but “11-rounds” is a crime. Personally, I didn’t like that arbitrary mandate either...
 
Old 06-24-2005, 02:32 PM   #23
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Yea, I see what you're sayin' John. Makes sense, but think about what they're really doing in context. There's no "law enforcement" way to crack down on slob hunters the way there is to crack down on folks who use guns in crime, so I see this issue as slightly different from the gun-control arguments in general. What they're doing here is not infringing on our right to keep and bear, but regulating a sport. The only thing they can do is try to remove the chance that a slob hunter will screw up an animal by putting these regulations into place. Not a perfect solution, but I understand it, and I'm a LOT more willing to live with it than I am any more gun control, that's for DAMN sure! Also, if I decide to hunt with my AR and am required to use a 5 rounder, that's okay with me. I'll either do that, or just leave the mags at home and go single-shot. As long as they don't tell me that I can't HAVE the AR - now THAT won't fly! Nosiree!

Best,
Jon
 
Old 06-25-2005, 08:08 AM   #24
Registered User
 Coyote's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,903
Well dude, that is one fine rifle you have. I hope you have great times with it.
 
Old 06-26-2005, 08:16 AM   #25
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Thank y'.

Jon
 
Old 06-27-2005, 06:08 AM   #26
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon
Yea, I see what you're sayin' John. Makes sense, but think about what they're really doing in context... What they're doing here is not infringing on our right to keep and bear, but regulating a sport.

...Also, if I decide to hunt with my AR and am required to use a 5 rounder, that's okay with me. I'll either do that, or just leave the mags at home and go single-shot. As long as they don't tell me that I can't HAVE the AR - now THAT won't fly! Nosiree!

Best,
Jon

True enough. Fortunately, our deer aren't all that large here, and a good .223 load works fine. I came across a break-open single-shot .223 for $199 yesterday, and may go back & pick it up for one of my kids later this week.

(I don't have any AR "5-rounders", so I used a 20-rounder here. Figured a 30 might be a bit much for deer hunting... )
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-nov13-14-2004-004-small.jpg  
 
Old 06-27-2005, 08:44 AM   #27
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2005

Posts: 2
BigJon,

Sir,

My question in no way detracts from your rifle, it is a work of art! I have asked the following question in a number of other locales, and I have never received an answer, so I thought I would try here. As a caveat, the greatest bulk of my experience has been mil style self-loaders (M1, FN-FAL, HK91, AR15/M16, etc), so that paints my frame of reference.

The significantly great bulk of game/hunting rifles seem to be bolt-action. When it comes to dangerous game, they reign supreme except for a small percentage of double rifles. That being said, within the realm of modern warfare, (which sure is dangerous game to me), the choice is invariable a self-loader. (Also, please understand that I am in no way positing that a bolt-action can not be used for warfare.)

My questions are:

Since it seems that split-second, life/death shooting situations (in warfare and LE situations) at close range where the agressor MUST be stopped now are dealt with by using self-loaders, why does the platform change when it comes to four-footed creatures?

If there is a weakness in self-loading platforms, why is that weakness not universally(both human as well as animal dangerous situations) evident?

Respectfully
 
Old 06-27-2005, 09:13 AM   #28
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Hi, RFB. Those are some of the most long-standing topics of debate out there (especially on this board), and I certainly don't have all the answers - which is good, I suppose, because then we'd have no fun talking about such issues on a talk board. Here's what I personally think though:

I think that you see a lot more folks using bolt guns than autos when hunting because, as far as the average guy I see at our hunting camps goes, ...

a. Dad and Granddad shot one and that's what they taught me to use safely,
b. Misconception that an autoloader cannot be as effectively accurate as a bolt gun for hunting,
c. Easier for the guy who doesn't ever practice before hunting season to operate (not espousing this, only recognizing it),
d. cheaper to buy,
e. Grief that most folks, even gunny hunter types will give you if you show up at camp with any auto other than a BAR or Benelli (in other words, snobbery).

So, why did I build a bolt gun instead of an auto-loader (am assuming your next question)? One doesn't negate the other. I spend most of my time in the city, and regardless of whether I have my new .308 with me or not, my shorty AR will continue to ride on its pad under the back seat of my truck. It's also the rifle I take inside at night when I'm in a rural environment and will be based in a a cabin or camp.

To give you a little more insight into my thinking though, consider that the autoloader is a very versitile platformm, but a bolt action can be too, if the guy building it understands how to use it and to set it up to cover his specific needs. This new bolt gun is intended for broad purposes (i.e.: not just the bench OR the woods OR defense, but all), and so I set it up, and know how to use it, for all those purposes. What I have, is a subjectively very useful rifle that carries substantially more whallop than my AR in 223.

Would I be just as happy with an equally light and equally reliable auto loader in .308 if possible? Probably.

Best,
Jon

Last edited by BigJon; 06-27-2005 at 09:39 AM.
 
Old 06-27-2005, 09:46 AM   #29
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
... IF the .308 auto were as light and compact as my new bolt gun.
 
Old 06-27-2005, 10:12 AM   #30
Registered User
 RIKA's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
From: In the freezer section

Posts: 10,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon
Grief that most folks, even gunny hunter types will give you if you show up at camp with any auto other than a BAR or Benelli (in other words, snobbery).

Jon
Its actually more than snobbery. Even many gun savvy types freak out if you show up at hunting camp with an AR15 or an M1A even if its equipped with the 5rd magazine. You're automatically lumped in the Rambos and militia types. The fixed stares at the cocked and locked 1911 on my hip finally discouraged me from carrying it. They don't even pay attention to me if I carry a 357 or 44 magnum though most of the ladies who carry seem to like the little toe-poppers.

I've actually hunted quite a bit with both the AR15 and the M1A but only late in the season when almost no one is around. Both make excellent hunting rifles when used on the proper game.

RIKA
 
Old 06-27-2005, 10:39 AM   #31
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Yep, you right on the money, mamma. About six years ago, I went to a hunting camp nearby. The first morning, I opted to still hunt with my Garand. One of the big shots (you've seen em - new clothes each year from Cabela's, and the bredth of his stories and importance of his participation in them increases in direct proportion to his nightly bourbon consumption?) looked at me and my rifle and said, "You're gonna hunt with a Chi-neeeze assault rifle?!" I said, "No, I think I'll just stick with the rifle I have." He looked perpexed. That was just fine with me.

lol!

Jon
 
Old 06-27-2005, 01:32 PM   #32
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2005

Posts: 2
Gentlemen,

Thanks for the replies and for not ladling them full of the snobbery you mentioned.
I definitely do not have all the answers; I don 't even have many. I know that if I need to manipulate a certain platform, that the basics are all the same, but my reflexive skill set has more than 30 years of self-loader ingrained reinforcement. I would rather try to build upon that foundation than to invest the time to add another that will not be predominant. (Being left-handed does not ease the issue either.) Finding reasoned discussion of SL non-mil rifles is hard to come by, and I appreciate any experienced suggestions.
 
Old 06-27-2005, 01:41 PM   #33
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Any time, and thank you for providing an avenue of adult discussion, something that occasionally is lacking here - at least with Rika (she just hates being referred to as "Gentlemen"!)

Just kiddin. Notice you are anew poster. Welcome aboard! I'll remember you as somone who knows alot more about autoloaders than I.

Best,
Jon
 
Old 06-27-2005, 01:49 PM   #34
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
RFB1, want to know what my bottom line answer to your initial post really is? It's this:

The type of action doesn't really matter. If the average civilian (not talking about professional applications) studies until he understands how to use a rifle for his intended purpose, and then sets it up the way he wants, and practices so that he has confidence in using it, the action type really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's a matter of the personal preference - and confidence - much more than factual arguments about action type.

Just my thoughts.

Jon
 
Old 06-27-2005, 04:39 PM   #35
Registered User
 cbass's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
From: Heart of Dixie

Posts: 164
Jon, your rifle turned out schweet! Cracked bolt? Is this the action that was run over by a 4-wheeler once?
 
Old 06-27-2005, 05:48 PM   #36
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Yes! Sheesh, we got folks with elephant memories 'round here. lol! Yes, but the stock didn't make the trip to Brockman's. If you remember, all I did was pop the stock in two right at the pistol grip, and then did a little home schoolin' on stock repair, putting it back together with crossed deck screw and a liberal dose of Elmer's wood glue before grinding the bolts to countersink them, plugging the holes, and roughly refinishing them. Worked out right well.

Best,
Jon
 
Old 06-27-2005, 06:25 PM   #37
Registered User
 cbass's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
From: Heart of Dixie

Posts: 164
Yeah, I remember. I saw it once. Loads of character, with two or three screws in the pistol grip!

I saw you posting some on Tactical Forums about that rifle. If I recall correctly, it was shooting great with match ammo, but the groups opened up unpredictably with hunting bullets. I didn't see the resolution, but I guess you got it straightened out to your satisfaction.

I'm looking forward to a range report.
 
Old 11-07-2005, 08:54 AM   #38
Registered User
 BigJon's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Montgomery, Alabama

Posts: 1,062
Finally got the chance to test my Brockman at the range. It was ...

... SUPERB!

I shot it with both scopes - my 2X7 Leupold Euro, and the old M1 Leupold. The scopes - BOTH of 'em - returned to point of aim after removal and installation! BOTH OF 'EM! NO WAY! But, they did!

And what's more than that, ...

... with EITHER SCOPE and REGARDLESS OF AMMO USED - get that? "Regardless of Ammo Used!" - I got groups within 1 MOA! And look at the friggin ammo I used!

Federal GMM 168
GA Arms remanufactured 168
Black Hills new and remanufactured match
Federal Premium 150 grain, Ballistic Tip.
Federal Premium 165 grain

Yea, I know - that's impossible. BUT IT DID! (Not same point of impact, but equally good groups).

This rifle friggin' CRANKS! A good friend of mine was shooting with me. After the third or fourth 5-shot string, I just sorta muttered to myself as I was coming up off the bench, "This rifle and I are going to have a long relationship." He smiled and just said, "Yep."

I LOVE THIS RIFLE! DAMN, it's nice to have something work so well. No bumps, no hiccups, no problems, nothing ... but absolutely superb performance and bullets where you want 'em.

This is quite possibly the most satisfying performance I have ever had out of any piece of any equipment of any kind I have ever had built to my specifications. Now you sniper types - y'all can go to the GA Precisions, etc. of the world, and that's fine - I am certain that they are stellar performers. I've got a few "precision" guns myself, but personally, I will never have a bolt gun built anywhere else but Brockman's. Never.

DAyum!

Best,
Jon
Attached Thumbnails
Brockman "Practical" Rifle-brockman-1.jpg  
 
Old 11-07-2005, 12:28 PM   #39
Registered User
 DaRkWoLf's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
From: Miami, FL

Posts: 2,785
Glad you like your custom rifle Jon. The multi-ammo ability is usefull indeed. Nothing quite like a good shooting iron that does exactly what you want it to do.
 
Reply

  Arms Locker > Gun Forums > Rifles


Thread Tools
Display Modes






Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Arms Locker. All rights reserved.