Singelshotman:

Thanks for your reply, but I don't understand your concern about offhand shooting.  I don't think I've taken an unsupported shot at a deer in 20 years.  I take deliberate shots.  I want excellent accuracy because many of my shots (in four different states) annually come from stands or on stalks where I have time to use a tree, a rock or crossed  sticks before taking a shot.  I don't jump shoot deer.

I'm a little surprised that there doesn't appear to be an icon like Echols, Jarrett, Sisk or Bansner, whose ability to put together a single shot rifle with premium components and painstaking craftsmanship to produce a .5 MOA rifle is legendary.   

I'm also not sure why a rimmed cartridge is preferable in a single shot?  Won't a rimless cartridge function reliably?  All my single shots to date have chambered rimless cartridges.  Other than the 25 Krag and 7.65R, what are the rimmed cartridges you would recommend that produce ballistics similar to the 25-06 to 280 range?  What are the hot 6.5mm's I should look at?  Is the 7x57R a popular choice?  I would much rather have a traditional cartridge but I don't think I'll find one with the energy or trajectory needed for 350 yard shots at large deer.

I do appreciate the input from those who have been there and done that!

Jim

Old Dog,

Rimmed cartridges were the state of the art when most of these actions were designed, and thus the extraction systems were designed around them.  Rimless cases didn't come into vogue until well into the bolt-action era, and the typical claw-type extractor was designed for these cases as well (to maximize magazine capacity and give reliable feeding in military bolt guns).  These classic actions can be converted to handle rimless cases, but it requires all sorts of mechanical gyrations.  Rugers (which you don't like) and the new Browning 1885's were likewise designed to handle rimless cases, as well as rimmed.

As far as accuracy potential, you're comparing apples to non-apples.  While the classic single shot can be made to shoot VERY WELL, it typically requires much more effort, from both the 'smith and the shooter (and his handloading skills) to maximize the potential that might be in the barrel.  It just ain't the same as screwing a Hart barrel on a sleeved Remington 700 action, glueing the works in a McMillan fiberglass benchrest stock, and calling the result a hunting rifle.  I don't doubt that Kenny Jarret can build an accurate Ruger No. 1, for example.  I'd bet you won't get him to make his famous 1/2" guarantee with one, though...

As always, your mileage may vary, and these opinions are worth exactly what they cost!

Good luck in your search,
Greg

Greg,

  Looks like it, doesn't it.  But, you did add a few points, and maybe we can put to rest the idea Old_Dog is gonna get a 1/2 MOA rifle out of the box. If we could do that with a SS I'd lay out some pretty good money to get one to.

PETE

the sharps borcharct is one of the best, i had one till my wife went on disability and i had to sell it to pay my property taxes.
If you like hammer guns it's hard to beat a high wall-i don't recommand Stevens 44-1/2's- i have trouble getting in a 38-55 cartridge.

Old Dog, If I were emBARKing (no pun intended    ) on the quest you are, I would start with a Browning/Winchester (new made) in .25-06 and learn the idiosyncracies involved with two piece stocks, breech blocks instead of bolts, etc., etc., etc.  Once I had really convinced myself that I had learned what I wanted and needed to know in order to make an informed decision and armed with the knowledge born of experience, I would then plunk down the several thousand hard earned dollars you mention to buy the ideal rifle that I now knew to ask for.  From my current vantage point, I would probably end up with a Meacham or Ballard Rifle Co high-wall in some appropriate caliber (I still kinda like .25-35, but YMMV) or I would call Al Story in Oklahoma, I believe, and order one of his gorgeous Sharps Borchardt repros.  But these are MY feelings developed from MY experiences and as with all such matters YMMVWidely!   
One thing we should have mentioned from the get-go is that you should read everything you can get your hands on about single shot design, building, care, and feeding.  I highly recommend "The Modern Schuetzen Rifle" by Dell and Schwartz and "The Breech Loading Single Shot Rifle" by Roberts and Waters.  You also should go through (if not buy and outright devour) at least the first couple of James Grant's series, "The Single Shot Rifle," "More Single Shot Rifles," "Still More Single Shot Rifles," etc. and at least the first of Frank deHaas' books, "Single Shot Rifles."  Much of what you read here we gleaned from these and similar sources, but just like reading the Bible and ending up a Baptist or  a Presbyterian, your views will be based on your life experiences, personal views, and a strong shot of serendipity...heck, you might even find out you like something wierd like a Stevens!  (Sorry, leadball! 8)  ) 
Well, this rant has gone on long enough, but I hope you will enjoy and get something out of it, congratulations for finding "the one true way" of shooting, one shot at a time!   8)

Regards,
Froggie

Your high end estimate is a couple hundred shy.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

I am amazed, nay I'm astounded at the price of the Hall action. IMO it's not worth anywhere near that much, primarily because it's not very attractive to my eye. Kinda reminds me of the Dakota 10 in that aspect, it's just not very attractive to my eye considering the price. The self-setting set trigger is an excellent feature but doesn't make up for the price. The rear line of the receiver is very unattractive to my eye because it clashes with the lines of the wrist, it really needs to be altered somewhat in order to be good looking. Also the receiver ring is far too short for either best looks or best accuracy IMO.

IMO it would be a great action for around $1500 or less, sorry Alan.

If I wuz planning on spending $3-6K for a rifle, I would INSIST that it be attractive, in fact I would insist that it be a VERY nice art object in and of itself in addition to and regardless of its performance. This does not mean simply good or even excellent workmanship although a superior workmanship level is absolutely required in a rifle costing this much.

No, I would also insist that the lines and shape of the rifle be very attractive to my eye. And the Hall isn't, nor is the Dakota or the factory Borchardt or any Stevens for that matter. And the Hoch or Miller-de Haas kinda look like trot-line sinkers to me. But that's why they make chocolate & vanilla and have horse races & elections, differences of opinion.

I guess I'll hafta stay with my choice of the Hagn for an expensive action with either an altered Ruger or altered Borchardt as my second less-expensive choice. I love Winchester walls but they too are not the most attractive if left unaltered, they need a different top tang line for best looks IMO, and the wall tang line is difficult to alter successfully. And then there's that lever.........

You can get either a Ruger or Borchardt for much less than a Hall or Dakota or Hagn, and use the extra money to alter and improve its looks before your smith begins the stock work. AAMOF a new lever & a little scalloping on either action will effectively improve and disguise its appearance so that it's almost unrecognizable as the common or ugly original that it once was.

When I worked in nuclear power we were introduced to the famous 80-20 rule, i.e. solving 80% of any problem takes 20% of the total time and the last 20% of the problem takes the other 80% of the time.

Well, I figure that I spend 80% of my time in handling & fondling a rifle but only 20% of my time in actually shooting it or hunting with it. So the aesthetics are very, very important to me & therefore a rifle that's less than beautiful is NOT what I want to spend my money on.

True, accurate rifles are always interesting rifles but I'm sorry, ugly rifles don't attract me at all regardless of their accuracy. It's too easy to have both beauty AND accuracy, why sacrifice either one?

I suggest you call my friend the estimable Mr hst, he can build you a rifle that's as accurate as any. His record of proven personal accuracy performance with his own rifles is very enviable and his machining skills are impeccable. I haven't yet seen any of his stockwork but his metal-working skills are unsurpassed IMO.
Good luck whatever your choice, Joe

Joe:

I agree with you on both the accuracy and the aexthetic requirements.  In fact, about the only thing we don't agree on is the attractiveness of the Ruger action. 

Jim