I think I have read all the published articles about this rifle, but I've never seen an explanation for what appears to be a ring about 1/3 the way up the barrel. Is that for a stock attachment mount? Or perhaps part of a barrel recoil lug? Curiosity has got the best of me so thought I would ask here.

It has a dovetail slot for iron sight

Possibly? Doesn't seem near meaty enough to support a sight - looks to be no more than 1/4" wide? Don't know how to post pictures, so stole the below address from Interweb:

https://www.fieldandstream.com/sites/fieldandstream.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/images/2016/12/big6.jpg?itok=e3yzVG_9&fc=50,50

Potashminer-
I suspect your guess about the recoil lug is correct. In the description of the construction of the rifle published in Rifle magazine #101 (Sept-Oct 1985), there is a note that Shoemaker had a gunsmith cut the barrel to 21 inches, crown it, and then add a barrel-mounted recoil lug and a front sight. The fiberglass stock was set up with "a through-bolt behind each recoil lug".

The photo of the rifle on the cover of the July 2003 issue of Rifle magazine shows the barrel band pretty clearly.
---Bob
.

..

That thing IS a tool ! All compliments ! ! !


Jerry

I believe it has changed colors over the years.

Why a front sight? I guess he has a receiver sight for it as well. powdr

I’d like to start a collection to have Phil’s gun refinished! If for no other reason than it won’t be as offensive in future campfire pics!

Bettin' Phil likes it just as it is.

Weaver rings. Just sayin'

Yeah, Weaver STEEL rings. Any wonder ?

Jerry

Those look like "everyday" Weaver rings, albeit old ones based on the knobs. If so, they are steel tops but aluminum bottoms, correct? I believe the same rings are still on Finn Aagaard's .375, another well known rifle.

Just to avoid any confusion, I think they are great rings and I think it is cool to find them on such iconic rifles.

When I assembled Ole Ugly I was living in a cabin my wife and I had built with no electricity so I built everything with hand tools. I didn't know anything about the recoil of the 458, except that it ruined a lot of stocks, so I did everything I could think of to make sure it never happened . I added crossbolts to the Brown Pred stock, bedded it with Devcon liquid steel mixed with steel shavings from the floor of a machine shop, and since the first few MK X . 458 bbl actions did not have extra recoil lugs I sawed out a piece of 1/4" steel plate to be somewhat like the recoil lug on a Rem 700 and drilled a hole in it and slid it over the barrel, which I had wrapped with Emory paper, twisted it around until it was tapered like the barrel, drilled a hole through it that just barely touched the barrel, and pinned it in place.

I knew the Weaver scope rings were tough as we used them to mount a scope on an M-2 .50 cal while I was in Vietnam, so used them.

40 years and a hell lot of miles, bears, moose and caribou later, the rifle is still going strong ! I still have hopes of taking it after Cape buffalo

458Win,

Thanks for the additional information. Does the rifle wear a Wisner style two-position safety?

Yes, I prefer the simplicity of the two position safety.

No offense, but that only reveals a lack of knowledge...

How's that? He knew they were weavers......

I hear you. The only time you are truly "at risk" when unloading is the brief time from flipping the safety off to opening the bolt. After that, one never needs to close the bolt to unload, even on a push feed blind magazine rifle, let alone a controlled feed. If you can't point the thing in a safe direction for that brief time, maybe golf is your sport. If the rifle does happen to go bang when you flip the safety off, you have rifle issues that need fixing. (Of course you know all this. I am putting it out there for people that do not, because I think I learned it on a forum.)

I have seen pictures of at least two different incredibly ornate, incredibly expensive David Miller Mauser rifles. Both had Wisner style safeties. Model 70 type safeties for Mauser rifles are not cheap, but I'm pretty sure money wasn't the issue on those two rifles!

Somewhere I read where a smart guy wrote that the only reason for the middle position on a three position safety was to make field stripping the bolt easy. That made sense. So my dumb question to you is how do you field strip the bolt on that rifle? I would think that would be a pretty handy attribute for a professional's Alaskan working rifle?

Also, I'm building a 9.3 x 62 from an old J.C. Higgins Model 50 FN Belgian Mauser action. I'm trying to decide on a safety. I know I want a side swing of one type or another. So, your answer is more than just academic to me.

Thanks so much,
Gun Doc

None taken, but did you happen to read the part a few posts later where I clarified that I really like Weaver rings and think it was cool they are found on both Mr.Shoemaker's .458 and Finn Agaard's .375? Two very iconic and famous rifles that have seen no telling how many miles and how many animals both having the same rings on them for no telling how many years.

Then why question the use of Weavers? I’m not following, but perhaps I’ve missed something...

Give the factory safety on the model 50 a try before changing it. It is my favorite safety, it lays directly under the thumb and takes nothing more than a downward push to release it, very ergonomic.

drover

It got lost in translation, and in my abbreviated statement. What I meant to say was:

Hey guys, here is a famous rifle carried by a well known guide into rough country inhabited by critters that can easily kill you. In fact, he seeks them out. That rifle has to work every time, the man carrying it knows a hell of a lot about rifles, and he chose Weaver rings. Just sayin'.

I didn't question the use of Weaver rings, and I didn't use a question mark. I just pointed out they were Weavers, and threw in a cute remark. So I can easily see how one could take that either way.

BTW, I am pretty sure I have saved a picture of one of your stainless Model 70's in my files to illustrate how Weavers look on my favorite model of hunting rifle.

As usual, I’ve missed something in translation... thanks for spelling it out

It's all good.

Now, I do like one-piece bases. So maybe we can argue about that?

Besides being some of the lightest weight and slimmest rings, the Weavers are stout and I prefer the hand feel , and ability to remove by hand if necessary, of the larger, flatter old style rings.
I like the two piece steel bases as they too are tough, low and don't block the receiver when a fast reload is called for.
And I too used to prefer the older Sako/ M50 safety that was on the left side and felt it was the fastest and most natural of all. I even argued with Finn Aagaard about it as he liked the M70 style. But when I started doing more writing and testing various rifles with safeties on the right side and ended up fumbling for the safety on Ole Ugly when a wounded massive old boar was heading for the pucker brush I decided to add a safety on the right like most of the rifles.

Have you tried the BRNO ZG-47 safety?
Its my favorite M98 safety by far!

No I have not tried those safeties but It looks similar to the rotating safety on my M17 Enfield 9.3x62, which I like a lot.
What is the small button at the rear of the shroud ?

One thing is for sure, it is "ugly". But, like a few other rifles, it has been elevated in status by the legacy of it's owner. Other rifles of note were, "Big Nan" the old Mod. 70 .375 blown out to a .375 Weatherby and owned by legendary Alaskan brown bear guide Hal Waugh. It was down the road from me for a time and I looked at it often. Jack O'Conner's old Mod. 70 in .270 Win. and Elmer Keith's Mauser .338. Then there is the .416 Rigby carried by Harry Selby.

Out of all of them and based upon the pictures I have seen, Phil's rifle clearly owns the title of being the ugliest.

But, it is the men that carried these rifles that made them legendary. They do and did nothing other rifles can't do, but the men carrying them were extra ordinary.

My favorite safety is the m1917 style, since it is easy to manipulate. I believe the safety Northman posted, is a little bassackwards, if you ask me..

Yes, "S" meaning safe being forward and F meaning fire being rearward..... is backward to me as well.

Jerry

For someone used to hammer guns a safety like that makes sense , but under stress would likely get most of us confused and killed with DG.
So would safeties on safeties

My very first gun was (is) a bolt action 410 tube fed shotgun. The safety is a right side slide.
Forward is S and back is F. Since I was a kid and it was my 1st gun I didn’t know any diff. It’s the only gun I’ve owned designed like that.
After using other firearms I did NOT like that BACKWARD safety design. I still have it.

Jerry

I agree...

The "bassackwards" safeties on many of the BRNO rifles is the reason I don't have a couple in my safe. I am just used to the Mod. 70 safety, but I am ok with the slider on my little small ring Mauser and my Tikka Superlite. They are a bit small for my tastes and under stress I would be better off with the big mod 70 style safety.

My old 1903 Springfield Dad made up for me has the original military safety so I never used it as it wore a K4 Weaver with a post and the same rings Phil has on "old ugly". The old battle rifle is now a 338-06 and I gifted it to a grandson. I will probably get a 3 position Mod. 70 style from Ed Lapour if he makes some more up. I am thinking about putting the set up on my Dads old Mod. 99 in .300 Savage, just can't warm up to scoping it yet.

I have seen some left sided Mod. 70 style safeties advertised for Mausers.

Jeff Cooper noted this exact problem when writing about his heavy rifle in 460 G&A built on a Brno ZKK Magnum action. In the August 1978 issue of Guns magazine, he memorably described the "backwards" operation of that action's safety:

.
--Bob

The first rifle with a safety (rather than a cocking piece) that I acquired was a Marlin Model 81 .22 rimfire, purchased with paper route money at age 12. I has a "backwards" sliding safety, but since the most dangerous game it's been used on (and is ever likely to be be) has been prairie dogs, I haven't bothered converting it.

Even though I grew very used to the safety when young, I also prefer push-forward safeties on the right-hand side of the tang or bolt shroud, particularly on any rifle that might be used on dangerous game. But am actually not wild about the Model 70 type safety (though have had a few Mausers fitted with them), as it seems to require a long motion for the results. Like Phil (and Jeff Cooper) I like the safety on the 1917 Enfield more--and perhaps even more the 3-position safeties on the pair of CZ 550's I've hunted with for the past 15 years or so, one a 9.3x62 and the other a .416 Rigby. They don't require nearly as much movement as the Model 70 safety, so are very quick, but also loack the firing pin back. On some of the more recent 550's they've been changed to 2-position.

JB, I thought Marlin or some other gun manufacturer used to have a backward safety.

This is the reason that as much as I believe the accuracy reports of the CZ rimfires, I don't own one. Aren't their centerfires standard push forward to fire?

Why make them both ways? It's an accident waiting to happen.

I don't like the M70 safety either. Requires too much movement and can be noisy.

It is a nice safety, but I have two issues with it for my use.
I tend to mount scopes as low as I can get them and pretty far forward. Being right handed, the safety is not easy for me to get to due to the position of the scope's eyepiece.
Most of my hunting rifles are Model 70's and I want them all to have similar safety locations and actions.

However, that safety is nice for field stripping the bolt, assuming the scope is not in the way. With the rifle cocked, you pull the cocking piece back with a cartridge rim, then flip the safety about 180 degrees.

I think a question I asked earlier got lost. How does one field strip a Mauser bolt that is equipped with a Wisner style two position safety like the one on Ole Ugly?

Thanks,
Gun Doc

Good post.. Being a left handed shooter, I notice subtle differences like the position of the safety and how "smoothly" it operates. I love the model 70 as well, but growing up with the m1917, they are much easier (require no thought, just muscle memory) to manipulate... Not to put down the rifle shown in the pic (as I think it is a very nice looking rifle) but like Phil said, it could get someone killed if they were hunting dangerous game... Unless that is the only rifle they have ever used or ever owned. However, that is probably very unlikely... Back to Phil's "ol ugly", that is a very cool rifle with some history. I remember reading an article on that rifle some time ago and believe there have been many articles written about it. It's a tool with a specific purpose and Phil has trusted his life on that well thought out mauser. That says a lot about old rifles built on mauser actions. I look forward to hearing more about ol ugly and the adventures she goes on...

Twist the cocking piece counter-clockwise and unscrew it out of the bolt body. You need a suitable surface edge or some other means of pulling the cocking piece back to clear the cocking cam notch (is there a better term? Can't think of one) on each twist, but it's not hard to do.

[quote=AnsonRogers]JB, I thought Marlin or some other gun manufacturer used to have a backward safety.

Yes some had that backward setup. Very dangerous IMHO. Especially so with youngsters learning to shoot. In the heat of the moment we do what we practice and all theeir CF rifles had push to fire safeties.

Their older bolt action .22's did for sure. They changed it on the newer ones, I believe with the 800 series. Simply a different lever. You can buy the lever from Numrich and likely several other places.

I have changed out the six older oneswe own to the newer safety. I also tapped the markings out and restamped them to the newer format.

Well worth doing.

Gary

Thank you. I just tried it. I don't think I agree with the "not hard to do" part, but perhaps I just need to learn a few tricks or get some practice.

Also, you do have to depress the latch that prevents the cocking piece (edit: shroud) from turning, but I noticed that right away.

I assume on reassembly, you just have to live with it dropping hard into the "cocking cam notch" unless you can manage to keep the cocking piece under control?

Thank you for the reply and the "back story". I bought a new Zastava in 2013 in 458 Win Mag - I believe that brand is some sort of successor to the Mark X. FYI, it did not have a barrel recoil lug either, in a wood stock with just the military type cross bolt, so I have been hesitant to let it rip with full house loads - just been messing with cast and 400 grain Speers at mid 45-70 levels. We are not really bothered much by dangerous game here in the Canadian prairies; at least nothing a good 180 grain 30-06 can't handle comfortably.
FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly regarding Weaver rings - I have them on at least half of my rifles, including a Husqvarna 640 in 9.3x62 with a M8-3x scope. That rifle's comb is ideal for the iron sights, therefore really too low for scope use, but straight tube scope and low rings make the best of the set-up.

To GunDoc7 - not sure where I first saw it, but you can tie a loop out of bootlace or similar that slips over your wrist and engages on the sear face of the striker - pull back and take the main spring compression with that loop - leaves your fingers free to grasp the shroud and depress the shroud lock, then rotate the bolt body with the other hand. Something similar shown in manual of arms for disassembly of Model of 1917 Enfield (aka P17) bolt. Many commercial mausers have a small hole drilled sideways through the striker - pulling the striker back allows a pin to be inserted (straightened paper clip, finishing nail) that holds the striker back across the rear of the shroud and allows the bolt to be disassembled.

For reassembly, I have always been able to twist the assembly back into the bolt body without the use of any aids other than a rag or something to assist grip.

I also dislike the wing safeties on FN Mauser shrouds, as they can be somewhat difficult to put off safe because of the scope’s ocular housing. My two rifles with FN actions both wear Wisner safeties and I like this arrangement much better. Even though I’m a fan of the Model 70, I dislike the three position safety and much prefer a two-position safety like the Wisner. As others have said here, the old Enfield safety beats them all.

As long as this thread has morphed to safeties, I was wondering about folks opinion on this -

A safety like a Model 70 but positioned so it swings horizontally behind the cocking piece, almost exactly like an original Model 98 flag safety except in the horizontal plane. It wouldn't have to swing through 180 degrees, the M70 swings through just a tad more than 90. The handle would be 45 degrees to the right on full safe, straight back on middle position and 45 degrees left when off safe. Being low it would be as easily accessible under any scope bell as a tang safety, and like the 98 the thumb would sweep it off as it naturally grasped the pistol grip.

The current Model 70 safety, while nice in function, is on the wrong side and requires a somewhat awkward movement to push it off safe, then the thumb has to reacquire the grip unless one shoots "thumb high in the eye'" like a target shooter.

I also think that the safety on most rifles is on the wrong side for right handed shooters. And I am sure people who are used to pulling back a hammer to cock a gun feel that rearward to fire is more intuitive.
But with virtually every safety now being built on the right side and pushed forward to fire it would be confusing to change things

Jim this my opinion only. You asked what others thot.

The horizontal swing safety would be quite different and requiring attitude adjustment OR getting used to it.
IMO being so different it would take time to be accepted.

Now the Win 70 safety is only slightly different. You are still pushing the safety from rear to forward.
For right handed hunters (the majority) being on the left side the thumb would naturally touch the safety BUT pushing it forward would require
twisting or torqing the wrist or hand.

As to 458s comment, cocking only requies thumb up and back down.
I prefer hammer exrensions to be on the Left side of the hammer. That’s simpler than trying to push
a safety forward on the Left side.

That’s my opinion and not trying to be contrarian.

Jerry

The model 70 side safety was not always a push forward on the right operation. The pre-war Model 70 safety was centered in the rear. I tried to post a photo but could not figure out how to post it (I will work on that later.) This is also called at times the "flag" safety. This is on safe when pushed forward on the left and you pull it back to mid center to fire. When a scope has been mounted low there is very little room for this but it can, and has, been done. Thus, this original model 70 was pulled toward the rear to take off safe and fire. First post war safety had a clam shell, small, extension on the right and pushed forward. Later is had the wider lever we see so often. The original pre-war safety is also a 2 position safety. Flag straight back can fire, flag 90 degrees out to the left and both bolt and striker were locked. Only post war model 70's were 3 position safeties.

Ole ugly

Sven handsome

Low weaver rings with a short, compact, straight tube scope; it doesn't get any more rugged and foolproof. With the front of the tube not protruding much past the front ring, there is no chance of getting branches stuck under the scope when pushing through the alders. I have a front sight and no rear sight on my 35 Whelen. I can hit a six inch circle easily at fifty yard with just the front sight. The comb height on the stock locates my eye in the right place. GD

I like "other brands" that have tang safeties. Be Well, RZ.

Here's a couple pics of a Dakota 3 position safety on a JC Higgins M-50 showing both the safe and fire positions of the safety. While I do like the safety, I would have liked to see the safe position more rearward and line up closer to the bore axis than how it sticks out





Not sure if I'm going to use this safety or not.



The factory safety on another M-50 I have here awaiting it's trip to the blacksmith. It's a very good safety as is and well designed.

NOW I get it. Took me a few, I'm slow.
Good one,
Rex

I was rather proud of it. Thanks for recognizing it.

I just had my first one installed on one of my M50s and have the identical (minor) complaint. One the one hand, it looks easier to quickly move to FIRE than the competing M70 styles. One the other, looks a little easier to catch on something accidently bump to FIRE. Fortunately when my rifle is slung it's over my right shoulder 99% of the time, lessening the chances of the latter. That's also one of the things that scares me about the stock JCH M50 safety when slung on my right shoulder - I'm scared it'll rub against my coat or pack straps and bump to FIRE. Hasn't happened, but I try to eliminate potential for problems.

Sorry to join the gang of thread hijackers...
Rex

I don't tend to carry my rifles a lot on a sling, esp when deer hunting so I can keep an eye on that safety easier. When I was moose hunting with that rifle this fall, I carried it with an empty chamber and didn't chamber a round and use the safety until I knew there was going to be a shot.

Certainly a good practice, Super Cub. I probably ought to do that too.
Rex

Hi Phil Can you post some pics of your 505 Gibbs. Another fascinating rifle that you have.

I chose Weaver bases for a number of good reasons, one being I had seen how well they held up to extended recoil when mounted on a .50 BMG when I was in Vietnam. And the current military picitinny is nothing but a beefed up version.

The new Gun Digest has a full length feature on Old Ugly

What did you do with the 458 on a 1917 action you got from me?

THAT started life ugly!

Phil, how difficult was it to obtain a Adolph Minar rifle? My understanding is he made only a couple dozen customs prior to his untimely death.

W

It fell in my lap. One of our hunting clients from N Cal. Always seems to find interesting guns. He also found the 1906 Jeffery 404.

Uh, Mr Phil, I'm up for adoption ! Whatda think ?



I'd scout em. drag em, skin em, butcher em,..... sound good ?

Jerry

I just picked up a few new cans of Rustoleum just to do that same thing. Although the rifle must already have a dozen coats of paint already !

Phil,

what is the original rifle and what changes did you make over time other than the custom paint job? 😊

What would you recommend for the most reliable rifles you have seen over time?

Other end, which have you seen to have problems?

There was an interesting thread about reliable and unreliable rifles a few years ago from PH's in Africa, but you certainly are facing challenging conditions and dangerous game.

So, your insights would be meaningful.

Thanks.

I think my article in the 2021 Gun Digest will answer all your questions about how the rifle has worked and what small changes I have made, and why.

Ok, that was enough to make me order it. 👍

The new editor Phillip Massaro contacted me to ask for the full story on the rifle as I continue using it and making slight modifications .

Next year he wants the full 9mm Phil bear story and my testing results of various handgun loads.

As a kid, one of my great joys was thumbing through my dad's old Gun Digests. I had no idea they were still published.

Phil,
I read the article and was a little disappointed there was nothing, other than the picture, of the cape buffalo hunt. Will there be a story on your African hunt. I did enjoy reading about all the work that went into Ol' Ugly. How is your book coming along.

Ken

+1

Me, too.

DF

Thanks Ken, it is coming along slower than I had hoped as hunts and logistics are great ways to procrastinate. But this Covid is giving me time and I have been working on hopefully the last chapter and still need, or want, to search the Alaska museum for interesting historical photos

And then neat old guns keep popping up and need attention .

The Covid canceled the Wannamacher’s Tulsa Gunshow again so my search for neat old guns will have to wait a bit longer. I do enjoy your writing, please keep it up when you have time.
Ken

Phil: I read the Gun Digest article today. Great story.

Being a bit of a loony about such things, I'd be interested in knowing what you were looking for when you modified the stock for fit.

Yes, I know, so it would fit you. But did you shorten LOP to accommodate winter clothing? Offhand shooting from a squatting position?

That kind of thing.

I wanted it to fit, of course, and I knew that for offhand and quick shots that a bit shorter was usually an asset. Especially when wearing a jacket or raincoat. I kept cutting and slowly building it up until it fit the way it felt best. And now almost 40 years later it feels like an extension of me.

Phil,, Is your article in 20 or 21? I found it 2021,,,

Jim, the one on my 458 isin 2021

458Win, went to the GunDigest store online and ordered the 2021 Digest. Looking forward to your article, and the others. The table of contents looked like it will be a good read!

Is Ole Ulgy a witworth mauser?

Love Old Ugly! What a great rifle and history.

Tell us more about cutting in the thumb slot please. Looks great with it!