I had one just like it chambered in 220 Weatherby Rocket and still have one chambered in a wildcat cartridge at the time.It's in 22-250,but does not have a bull barrel.Yours is what's called a Weatherby Southgate, Round nose.About the first 900 or so rifles Weatherby built on FN actions were stocked in Weatherby style,but had rounded off forearm clips of ebony.After that Roy squared things up and started using rosewood forearm clips with the 45 degree angle.Very nice rifle.It's worth a lot of money.I mean a lot of money.
Thank you for your insight into these rare rifles! I actually did know about the round nose characteristic, I've joked with other collector friends that this was the "ultimate" round nose Weatherby stock, since it has the wide beaver tail forend. It's great to hear that you've owned similar Weatherby rifles! You said that your .22-250 doesn't have the same bull barrel as what's on my rifle, but does it have the same/similar type of heavy target/benchrest style stock? What about the .220 Weatherby Rocket rifle that you mentioned? Does that rifle have the same barrel and stock that's on my target rifle? If possible, can you post some photos of these 2 rifles in this thread? And could you also post any other photos you might have of other Weatherby rifles in this configuration (pics you've taken of someone else's rifle, found online, etc.)?
I'm never going to sell this rifle, it's a family heirloom and I'm very proud to have been chosen by my grandfather to be it's current caretaker, but I would like to get an accurate estimate of this rifle's current value for insurance purposes. So, when you say that "It's worth a lot of money.I mean a lot of money," what exactly is a lot of money? I don't know what high-end, rare/unique Weatherby rifles sell for, so please let me know what you think this rifle is worth. My current collection isn't massive, but my friends have told me that my collection consists of a "quantity of quality," whatever that's supposed to mean. So, I'd also like to see where this rifle would fall in with the rest, in regards to valuation. This estimate would be very helpful, as is any other information/photos you can provide.
Thank you very much for your assistance, I truly appreciate it!
There is also another weatherby forum, https://www.weatherby.dk/forum.php I whould post there as well. You can get a manual for that one, pdf of the orginal, but its basic
Thank you for the link, I might start a thread over there, but that forum doesn't look too active. Is the manual you're referring to specifically for the target rifle version of the Pre-Mark V rifles (like mine) or is it for the regular production Pre-Mark V rifles? If it's specifically for my rifle, I'd love to get a PDF copy of the manual! Do you have a link to this PDF or is it something you can post here in this thread?
I cannot begin to put a price value on that rifle. It almost certainly was handled by Roy Weatherby. That would be hard to prove and not mean much to a non-Weatherby fan. Too bad for those souls is all I will say. As for the use of the rifle, I would shoot it----with great care----but I would shoot it. It was built to be shot.
..........
Shoot that target rifle and tell us how it all went.
I agree with you, this rifle was most definitely handled by Roy Weatherby! I also think that's it's pretty easy to assume he handled it, getting rock solid proof would prove to be more difficult. I think it's easy to assume he handled it, or even built it himself, just based on how early it is, how it's a completely custom non-standard rifle and due to the complete lack of information about it at Weatherby.
My earlier Pre-Mark V rifle, serial number 117 (serial numbers started at 100, so it's the 17th one made) had an entire list of complete information on the COA from the Weatherby archives. So, the archives do still have information about their earliest Pre-Mark V production rifles, unlike Winchester who lost their early records to a fire. Unfortunately, this rifle has absolutely no known information at the archives and it's COA is populated with information that I provided to them. I highly doubt a rifle would somehow slip out of the production line and not have a data sheet for record keeping purposes without Roy Weatherby himself being involved.
Unfortunately, it's a good story and it's easy to assume that it could have happened. However, finding rock solid proof that it did actually happen is an entirely different matter. Maybe the trust lies somewhere in the middle, in some way we haven't thought of yet. Even though I don't have rock solid proof, I strongly believe that Roy Weatherby had a hand in either producing the rifle or just examining it after it was produced. I'd like to think he actually shot it or maybe even used it in a match, but even that is stretching what I'd like to believe in without any proof.
That being said, you're right about convincing a non-Weatherby fan about this provenance, but there might be Weatherby enthusiasts like me who can see the possibilities of what the provenance could be based on some things we've observed. I'm not trying to argue anything, as you can see I definitely agree with you. I just wanted to get some thoughts typed out to be used as a basis for conversation. I'd like to hear what other people think about it and whether or not they think Roy Weatherby is connected to this unique rifle in some way. It's pretty much speculation based on the few things we do know, since there's no solid proof, but it's still an interesting topic.
I also agree with you on shooting it! I shoot most of my firearms, the ones that I don't shoot have a reason behind it. For example, I won't shoot my 2 original handgonnes that were used in the Battle of Aljubarrota on August 14, 1385 because they would probably kaboom due to metal that's over 637 years old, lol. I also don't shoot a few of my modern rifles, such as my original USMC issued IBA XM3 that was 1 of 4 XM3's my sniper platoon had in Fallujah, Iraq in 2008/9. Even though the XM3 was a regional asset and we turned it over to 1/7 when they ripped with us, they didn't record any shots fired with my XM3. So, the last time my USMC used XM3 was fired, it was one of my buddies in the platoon who pulled the trigger.
Since the rifle was last shot in Iraq by a member of my sniper platoon, I don't want to shoot it here in the US. It's just awesome knowing that the last time the rifle was used it was by my platoon in a war zone (I'm also assuming the platoon that replaced us didn't fire it since there's not shots recorded)! Here's a link to an article about the rifle my platoon used in Fallujah, Iraq and I purchased from the CMP (maybe someone here will find it interesting):
https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2017/06/milsurp-gold-the-27556-xm-3-sniper-rifle/So, that's my very long winded way of saying that I prefer to shoot the firearms in my collection, but there's also ones that I will never shoot (and there's reasons behind those decisions). This rifle was passed down to my grandfather and he loved to hunt and target shoot. I figure that if he were around right now and he was healthy enough to take it to the range, he would have probably shot it this weekend. He bought it to use and enjoy, so it's up to me to keep that fire going in this firearm! It's rarity and value don't keep me from enjoying this rifle, it's just been finding the time in that past decade to do so (and a myriad of other excuses).
I actually have rifles that are far more rare/expensive than this one that I usually take to the shooting range (such as Major Dick Culver's original USMC Vietnam War used M40 sniper rifle). Some people look at me like I'm crazy when I bring that M40 to the range, but I'm definitely with you on this one, "it was built to be shot!"
This turned out to be much longer than I thought it would be, but it's 2am and I'm just rambling, lol.
8 Replies
3877 Views