back to db page
Yukon Class Comparisons
The Yukon Class is a very impressive
PCP format that has never quite been understood. I'm sure that's
my fault. There simply isn't enough hours to cross-reference all
of the information. Hope this page helps. We'll discuss the two
major design differences between the Yukon and Yukon 2, and discuss
related topics.
Note - I'll link
hunt stories - it will be YOUR CHOICE if you want to view the
things naturally related to hunting. I won't just sandbag you
with them - but it you click over - it will be your choice. Thanks.
This is the first
Yukon. This is the one that was featured
in the Forbes Magazine article (for those of you who have been
reading awhile). I made this rifle and took it on a Russian Boar
hunt. Worked great.
You'll note this center section
is different from that of the Yukon 2 immediately below. (The
Yukon 2 was made to take on my American Bison hunt).
The basic difference
between the models is that the Yukon uses a Billet trigger
housing which includes the guard and extends into a lamb's tongue
grip. The Yukon 2 (immediately below) has it's trigger
housing inside the stock wood, and uses a finger bow guard/grip.
Let's talk about each of these features
and what they offer:
Yukon:
Two Pc. stocks
More "Canvas"
for carving or engraving
Formal presentation
Yukon 2:
One pc. stock
Different "Control
Surfaces" for gripping.
Less billet.
More of a target
and/or hunting rifle
Comment:
I've found, during the past 33 years of business, that most folks
find it difficult to be P.C. when discussing the various models
of my product. For example: It's nearly impossible for most people
to tell you that they think one of your daughters is beautiful,
without immediately following that they think another one is butt
ugly. haha ;?) As the father of all my children, I've always found
it alittle difficult to smile, and find an appropriate follow-up
comment. ;?)
I'd prefer to tell you, up front, that I like
both of the Yukon models, or I would never have completed either.
They are different by design.
Yukon is the more formal design. The extensive
billet components offers an excellent "canvas" for carving
or engraving. It visually divides the gun
in length ... allowing for a two pc. stock. This yields many options
to the "wood nuts" among us. ;?) It's far more difficult
to find extremely long stock blanks with good grain and color
throughout. It's often possible to find two matching sections
for front and back stocks.
Yukon 2 offers a more positive "target
grip" for those who feel they want more control. Those who like "Pistol Grips" would find
that the finger bow offers the same sort of hand control and feel
as a Pistol Grip. It can be more vertical or angled back. I recently
had a discussion with a customer who felt a pistol grip design
did not fit his idea of a "antique-like" format. The
finger bow guard was history's Pistol Grip on long range rifles.
The "Lamb's Tongue" is
also an antique relative of the pistol grip. The lamb's tongue
does not use dedicated individual finger grooves either. However
... the more linear the angle becomes, the more your thumb is
forced into an "over the top" position. Many antique
format designs used a very "dropped" butt portion. However
... that is determined by the mechanics of the design.
The Finger bow shown
on the original Yukon 2 was my own preference. Someone may wish
to have one which is more "vertical" and thus, even
more like a pistol grip format. This one just happens to be anodized
to a case hardened tone. That's optional - brushed billet would
be the default - polished is available.
It would be incorrect
to view either of these major components as simple "trigger
guards" ... they are your "control
surfaces" for the gun, and thus critically important to accuracy.
Many people wish to see some thin, frail little whisp of a strap
trigger guard. That's fine if you like it, but there has to be
something for your hand to grip and to control. In the Yukon series,
these functions are handled by the billet machine work.
The Yukon Class
is a unique "Fire Through Bolt" format. This is more complex than the normal
bolt action. It uses the unique aluminum bronze material for strength
and visual effect.
It is a Devastating
Beast of an airgun. That's a 2" hardened Oak Plank that it
just ripped through.
If you want a more
conventional bolt format ... then the new Woodsman Versions might be for you. The 45 IXL and 58 XLT are excellent
rifles.
The finish of
the rifle is
determined by the taste of the customer, balanced with the purpose
of the rifle, tempered with the realities of the materials used.
Regarding stocks:
If you'd desire to have
a thin machined stockwood wrapped cap atop the rear hammer tube
... it could be done as an option. A higher/larger cheek pc.would
not work because the line of sight would not allow for it. The
option would require matching stock wood, considerable work, finish,
and altered attachment methods ... but it's possible.
The default materials
of the rifles will be steel. Steel may be carbon steel or stainless
steel. Stainless steel is an option and
will not be blued. It will be brushed or polished bright like
chrome. Carbon steel must be hot salt blued, but may be done in
brushed or degrees of higher polish. This will depend somewhat
upon personal taste, however; design and usage dictates finish
as well. Many people think they are getting a higher quality if
something is polished within an inch of it's life. However; can
you imagine the appearance of a Kentucky rifle with a foot deep
dark blue glossy shine to the metalwork? There's a discipline
that's helpful with ordering features. Just because something
is possible - and it's more work - doesn't mean it's going to
add to the final package.
Both Yukon and Yukon
2 are full sized rifles due to their power specs and 3 shot fill.
There's no free lunch.
A far lighter and smaller version of the Yukon was the original
V-Twin format. I love it. It is enough for 85% of anything you'd
ever do with an airgun. However; it cannot develop the power of
the Yukon. The power of the Yukon Class dictates what is required
to feed it's three shot string with on-board power. Reality is
reality. It's up to the customer to decide if they want what the
Yukon represents.
The Woodsman
Class (with it's IXL and XLT versions) offer people a lighter weight, thinner
format - however; at a reduced power scale to the Yukon's brute
force. Far more power than even the V-Twin, it can handle 98%
of anything you'd ever wish to do with an airgun.
Let's discuss
a related issue - one which comes up over and over and over. That would be the topic of "skinny,
frail looking, light weight, antique copies". Bits and pcs. of this discussion appear
throughout the site, but I'll attempt to be concise here. Two
main issues come into play.
1). This is not
1760. Nobody in America today has a bunch of apprentice who will
file out period correct parts all day, for a bowl of soup and
a cot. ;?)
Parts today are
machined. Factories use computer controlled machines - as they
must make thousands of copies to reduce per/item costs. My shop
is manually controlled and more of a "model shop" or
"proto-type/research/development" shop. I've amassed;
through purchase or by building myself, all of the machines needed
to make my product. However; I
must design my products to effectively use that machinery which
I own. That is exactly
what the owners of 18th century shops did too. However; the cheapest
thing they had available was hand labor. So, those historic parts
were not made that way in order to be charming or interesting
... they were made that way because they had ten guys with files,
and no milling machine.
Now; to follow up,
if you had one of those period pcs., you'd find your fantasy expectations
were not realized. Those
iron sheet, riveted and brazed air reservoirs were not made for
high pressure. They can be light weight ... since they would never
see more than 500 psi from the hand pump that came with them.
I'm certain I don't need to explain to you why I don't make replicas
of those things. It would not matter if you wrote 500 PSI all over the gun, reservoir, and case - in twenty languages
with pictographs; the first thing someone would do would be to
cobble together a bunch of adaptors to hook the thing to a 4,500
psi carbon fiber tank. BOOM!!!!!! ... hair, teeth, and eye balls
all over the field.
2). The antiques
could be frail and light because they were only capable of producing
a small fraction of what my large PCP designs will produce. (I
have small and light too, in those power ranges and higher). However; shoot a buffalo with one
of those old things and you'd better be up a tree quick. They
would be pretty annoyed with you. By comparison, the full grown
Buffalo I shot from 50 yards with the Yukon 2, collapsed and died
within a few yards and a couple of minutes from the slug that
ripped clear through the beast.
Link to the
Buffalo Hunt.
Link to Boar
Hunt
Link
to Another Boar Hunt 03
Link to Boar
Hunt 04
It's easy to approach
this category of specialty items (Modern PCP guns), with a very
calloused and jaded background.
Modern firearms are simple, powerful, available, cheap, and common
place to everyone's experience today. In 1725, they were not.
We really should
approach PCP rifles with the same sort of wonderment which we'd
reserve today for a human powered airplane, or an 80 mph human
powered bicycle. Instead, too many come to modern PCP guns with
an aura of willingness for "cutting some slack" to the
"shortcomings" of the PCP guns ... but they hope to
reduce those shortcomings to a minimum. Seems velocities are never
high enough (while they are nearly twice that of antique guns),
power is never enough (while it's perhaps 8 times that of the
antiques). Distance is never far enough (while it's commonly 3-4
times the effective range).
This is the result
of the culture we live in. But - it places unrealistic expectations
on the near miracle capabilities of modern PCP. It robs us of
much of the wonderment we should feel. It also confuses the issue
of modern vs. antique PCP. Everybody longs for something that
"looks like" something that it is not. They want their
airguns to look like firearms, Want the modern airguns to look
like antique airguns. They also want to attribute performance
specs. to antique airguns which were never a reality. Makes a
better story though. ;?)
Fact is, modern
PCP rifles look like what they are. They are stand alone designs
which have never existed before ... with performance specs. previous
airguns could only wish for. I expect that they be appreciated
for the unique objects they are - without apology.
Last related
topic; Weight/bulk.
Yes - we've been
here many times. However; on this page, I repeat that the weight of the rifle depends upon
your expectations. I can
make it more thin and light ... like the Woodsman version of the Justice Concept of PCP. However; if
you desire more power, more air storage, then I must provide the
larger, heavier reservoir and machinery for those requirements,
and I must wrap it in all a much larger stock. Simple reality.
Really hope all
of this has been helpful and interesting. Thanks for studying
the various materials. I appreciate your interest and your research
into my work.
Many Thanks,
Gary
Direct
E-mail Link to Gary