I guess I've started to embrace ugly. I recently purchased, coincidentally, a very late, post-war (R-prefix, all-matching serial number) BSA Martini Model 13 and a seldom-encountered Haenel KK Sport falling block .22 LR. I realize beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that many here might consider both of these rifles rather elegant, but I'm afraid I do not…though they are beginning to grow on me…not unlike a toenail fungus…just kidding.
I'm afraid they look a bit uncomfortable standing between all this firepower; I feel the same way when I go to local gun shows of late:
![Image]()
![Image]()
![Image]()
![Image]()
![Image]()
![Image]()
The BSA
I bought the BSA, based on only a few photos, expecting it to be rough, given its price, therefore constituting the perfect candidate for conversion to .17 WSM. I was pleasantly surprised then (I guess) at its condition and feel. The Model 13 features the light, sporter contour barrel and weighs 6lbs 12 oz with the excellent PH7A rear sight, the PH front "tunnel" sight, and the PH Quick Loader installed. I've owned a number of BSA Martini rifles and handled many more, but this lightweight rifle is in much better condition than most, and its handling characteristics make it a delightful little gem, thus creating another conversion quandary for me.
In my view, the BSA Martini action is simple yet precise; robust yet petite; basic yet refined, unconventional yet efficient; ugly yet…ugly. I guess it's the hump-back receiver and the too-far-forward trigger that bother me most about the looks, neither of which can be helped, given the action design. I am building another sporter using a BSA International MII action. It does not have the humpback look and ejects to the right, but it is also heavier and has the same forward trigger position. I like the utility of the Martini lever, if not the shape; it is definitely efficient. The lever catch in the stock is pretty noisy and probably would not be ideal for squirrel hunting. The crisp but silent ball detent in the Haenel is more refined.
The trigger is very crisp and quite light. The lock time sounds very snappy, although striker sound can be deceiving. The Haenel striker sounds anemic, in comparison, but produces a much more impressive indentation in the case rims. The case colors in the BSA action are still quite vibrant, and the machining is crisp and well done, though the finish is not as nice as the Haenel. The earlier BSA Martinis often had cocking indicators along the side of the bolt. While I suppose it could be a handy feature in the field, I'm rather glad this rifle does not have one; it would have to impact lock time and ignition, at least minimally. I was also pleased that, although it does not have an ejector, per se, brisk operation of the lever will usually neatly throw the spent case away from the rifle, though 1 in 5 hit the aperture sight and fell back into the action. The swooping trough that allows the case to slide up and out also allows it to slide right back down into the valley of the action. This may get even worse with a scope in the way.
![Image]()
By far, its biggest liability for me is the inability to conveniently mount a scope on the rifle. Of course, it was never designed to accommodate a telescopic sight, and my rebarreling plans would have allowed a nice barrel-mounted, cantilever-style scope mount, but I could never drill holes in that petite little matching barrel. I may utilize the PH 7A base and fabricate a scope base that cantilevers forward, over the action, but still allows the spent cases to clear the action…could be a challenge. Also, it was clear that a thumb push of the cartridge into the chamber was needed to seat it far enough to allow the bolt to close. This was true of all the ammunition I tried, from Federal bulk to Eley Edge and Match. That could become very inconvenient with a scope in place. Hmmm. As nice as the rifle is, it may not have a place in the safe, since I can't really go to the effort of restocking it when the scope mounting would present such a problem.
The Haenel
The Haenal exudes quality from every surface, and, as one who has designed and made a few scratch-built falling block actions, it is clear to me that the designer understood completely the challenges and idiosyncrasies inherent to a .22 LR falling block rifle. Specifically, almost all falling-block .22 LR actions leave precious little room for loading and removing the small .22 LR cartridges and/or spent cases. The receiver walls just get in the way of fat adult fingers, like with the aforementioned BSA Martini, and even on the "low walls" of the Winchester 1885 Low Wall. This is exacerbated when mounting a scope. Not so with the Haenel. As can be seen in the pics, not only are there no walls to impede access to the chamber, the top of the block is flat with a nice little milled trough for sliding a cartridge right into the chamber.
Another problem involves extractors. The extractors on many falling block designs do not adapt well to the small rimmed cartridge, and designers in the past resorted to reconfiguring them to ensure reliable function, as Winchester did on its rimfire versions of the 1885s. The problem usually lies in the pivoting extractor design and the short travel. Anyone who has attempted to convert a Ruger No. 1 to rimfire will understand what I'm talking about: the downward pivoting action, combined with usually minimal engagement at about the 9:30 position, just above the centerline, tends to bind the small case, especially in a tight match chamber. Winchester used a pivoting extractor, but its design engages almost 180 degrees around the lower half of the rim and adds an ejector. On the Haenel, although there is no ejector, the extractor engages a larger part of the rim and telescopes straight out from the breech face, like a SxS or OU shotgun extractor, somewhat reminiscent of the CD drawer on a computer opening for loading. It also features much more travel than the average pivoting extractor, just enough to clear the 22 LR case mouth, at the expense of a bit of leverage…probably the perfect compromise, though, since the short, spent .22 LR case usually requires greater travel to allow finger access to the case, and not great extraction force.
The Haenel is a striker-fired, falling block rimfire design, so there is no external hammer, and there aren't many of those around (the BSA is technically not a falling block action, although some would argue it is). The Haenel features a square-headed screw, protruding up just behind the block, that allows adjustment of its two-stage trigger. The face of the trigger is very nicely checkered, adding a touch of class. These rifles usually have a thin, sheet metal band, or strap, secured by a cross bolt through the receiver and two serrated screw heads, that wraps around the top of the receiver to cover this adjusting screw head. This rifle no doubt had one at one point, as evidenced by the proud screw heads seen in the pics. I have read that this cover is to disallow access to the adjustment screw during a match, after all the triggers have been adjusted to the same weight. Maybe. In any event, the trigger release is light enough but is less than stellar -- quite mushy and creepy -- a surprise, given the overall quality of everything else on the rifle. In this regard, the Martini is far superior, at least to my Haenel.
The Haenel also boasts a gorgeous, wide, integral matted rib along the rear portion of the top flat of its tapered octagon barrel. The top flat remains matted to the muzzle, imbuing the rifle with a wonderful elegance.
![Image]()
![Image]()
The wider rear portion forms a 16mm male dovetail, allowing a perfect fit for 16mm Brno #1 or 527 rings, although its purpose was likely for a barrel-mounted open rear sight. As you can see, my Talley rings were about .020 too low to allow the objective bell to clear the barrel, so I had to use a .028" shim between the barrel and the rings.
This is less than optimal, since the ring claws now have a shallower bite into the dovetail, but I had to do something to mount a scope for this report, and slightly taller rings will provide a permanent solution.
![Image]()
![Image]()
![Image]()
![Image]()
On the ugliness on the rifle, I think the two things that grate against my admittedly elevated-standards for aesthetics are the very long receiver ring, and the overly long receiver. Some of this was no doubt necessary for the desired geometry of the action, and the long barrel shank may have been needed to accommodate the long, sliding-drawer extractor. In any event, the receiver looks lanky and ungainly to me, making the wrist look stubby. Additionally, the action utilizes large diameter pins that are retained with spring-loaded detents. Very nice, but they give the appearance of large rivets and make the receiver look as though it is made from stamped sheet metal…at least to me. Compare that look to the totally pin-less and screw-less receiver of a Dakota Model 10, and you'll see what I mean. Finally, the forestock appears overly long for its Schanbel styling, but that would be the least of my criticisms.
![Image]()
There seems to be some disagreement on the age of these rifles, some sources indicating their production predated the war, and others stating the KK Sport was made in the 1950s. Some of the rifle's features, like the ball detent that retains the lever in the closed position, appear too modern to be a pre-war design, and the wood and metal finishes look more 50s to me, but, then again, the polishing and bluing also remind me of the finish on the pre-war Mauser 340/350B series of rifles, so, I dunno.
The elegant and tastefully checkered (top and bottom) operating lever is smooth and positive in operation, providing plenty of leverage, just like a good "lever" should.
![Image]()
![Image]()
The cocking stroke is quite short, meeting resistance just when the top of the block aligns with the chamber. Further lowering of the lever of about ¼" causes the extractor to actuate, protruding quickly, like a child sticking out its tongue. Releasing the lever allows the spring to return the lever to the timed position level with the chamber. The timing is perfect, and the fit and finish are such that it is difficult to even see the extractor when it is retracted.
![Image]()
![Image]()
On this particular rifle, the large tang-mounted post for the rear sight features an expertly fitted Lyman rear sight. The originals evidently came with a very beautifully made, fully adjustable rear aperture sight that required a special key to adjust for windage and elevation. The same key was used to adjust the trigger and to remove the sight from its base. I have seen examples with open rear sights, however, and having both would seem redundant. I suppose mine came with that same aperture sight and is now missing (they are rare), but this Lyman is hand adjustable and looks to have been made just for this rifle. It's probably not original, but who knows what the factory might have done for a customer? The front sight is a typical tunnel or globe-type with removable inserts. It, too, is expertly fitted into the front ramp base.
![Image]()
![Image]()
With its relatively heavy contour, tapered octagon barrel, the rifle is a bit heavy at 8lbs 3 oz with the suspension-bridge-level mast and rear sight installed, 7lbs 12oz without it. In the off-hand position, however, it feels very nice indeed.
There are some small condition issues, as well. Along with the usual stock dings and dents (many dents), there are two areas where the stock checkering was flattened a bit. There is some very shallow pitting on the left side of the receiver (the pics make it look much worse than it looks with the naked eye), and some small scratches here and there. I have seen pictures of other Haenel KK Sport rifles with varying stock and sight configurations, but I really like this version I have best, with the tasteful Schnabel and tall comb, and it is one reason I decided to buy this one. And, where are you going to find another in such nice condition?
At the range, the BSA was at a disadvantage (with my eyes, anyway) since I could not mount a scope. I did use the PH7A with the appropriate aperture size and the post front insert, the only one I have, and was able to shoot some very nice groups, about ¼" at 25 yards. My targets were too small for using the post at 50 yards. Nonetheless, I am optimistic about how it will shoot when I make a scope base for it…if I ever do that. Frankly, I'm afraid the rifle is just not well suited to scope use, even with some creative engineering. Having to insert the thumb deep into the receiver walls to seat the cartridges might be a scope deal breaker. On the other hand, for a smaller shooter using the aperture sights, however, it is truly delightful. Imagine that: a rifle that performs exactly as is was intended.
The Haenel was a delight to shoot and outclassed the BSA ergonomically. With the exception of its creepy trigger, the Haenel functioning was more refined, with loading and extraction/ejection more convenient and positive. The rifle did not like Wolf MT, which threw a number of fliers, although I managed some ½" 50-yard 5-shot groups. The Eley Edge was more consistent, but the Eley Match was exceptional. Using the latter, the rifle shot as well as most of my best bolt-action .22s; namely, it shot a few ¼" groups, and a number of 3/8" and ½" groups. I would say it averaged about 3/8".
So, the question is: Will I be "Haenel" retentive? I don't know that either. I have a standing offer from a friend to buy the rifle from me for more than what I paid. Many rifles I buy have a very short shelf life, due to my very high quality standards for my rifles, and aesthetics play a large role in whether or not a rifle can earn its keep. I guess we'll see. I think the Haenel has a better chance of staying with me, though.
TBR
I'm afraid they look a bit uncomfortable standing between all this firepower; I feel the same way when I go to local gun shows of late:
The BSA
I bought the BSA, based on only a few photos, expecting it to be rough, given its price, therefore constituting the perfect candidate for conversion to .17 WSM. I was pleasantly surprised then (I guess) at its condition and feel. The Model 13 features the light, sporter contour barrel and weighs 6lbs 12 oz with the excellent PH7A rear sight, the PH front "tunnel" sight, and the PH Quick Loader installed. I've owned a number of BSA Martini rifles and handled many more, but this lightweight rifle is in much better condition than most, and its handling characteristics make it a delightful little gem, thus creating another conversion quandary for me.
In my view, the BSA Martini action is simple yet precise; robust yet petite; basic yet refined, unconventional yet efficient; ugly yet…ugly. I guess it's the hump-back receiver and the too-far-forward trigger that bother me most about the looks, neither of which can be helped, given the action design. I am building another sporter using a BSA International MII action. It does not have the humpback look and ejects to the right, but it is also heavier and has the same forward trigger position. I like the utility of the Martini lever, if not the shape; it is definitely efficient. The lever catch in the stock is pretty noisy and probably would not be ideal for squirrel hunting. The crisp but silent ball detent in the Haenel is more refined.
The trigger is very crisp and quite light. The lock time sounds very snappy, although striker sound can be deceiving. The Haenel striker sounds anemic, in comparison, but produces a much more impressive indentation in the case rims. The case colors in the BSA action are still quite vibrant, and the machining is crisp and well done, though the finish is not as nice as the Haenel. The earlier BSA Martinis often had cocking indicators along the side of the bolt. While I suppose it could be a handy feature in the field, I'm rather glad this rifle does not have one; it would have to impact lock time and ignition, at least minimally. I was also pleased that, although it does not have an ejector, per se, brisk operation of the lever will usually neatly throw the spent case away from the rifle, though 1 in 5 hit the aperture sight and fell back into the action. The swooping trough that allows the case to slide up and out also allows it to slide right back down into the valley of the action. This may get even worse with a scope in the way.
By far, its biggest liability for me is the inability to conveniently mount a scope on the rifle. Of course, it was never designed to accommodate a telescopic sight, and my rebarreling plans would have allowed a nice barrel-mounted, cantilever-style scope mount, but I could never drill holes in that petite little matching barrel. I may utilize the PH 7A base and fabricate a scope base that cantilevers forward, over the action, but still allows the spent cases to clear the action…could be a challenge. Also, it was clear that a thumb push of the cartridge into the chamber was needed to seat it far enough to allow the bolt to close. This was true of all the ammunition I tried, from Federal bulk to Eley Edge and Match. That could become very inconvenient with a scope in place. Hmmm. As nice as the rifle is, it may not have a place in the safe, since I can't really go to the effort of restocking it when the scope mounting would present such a problem.
The Haenel
The Haenal exudes quality from every surface, and, as one who has designed and made a few scratch-built falling block actions, it is clear to me that the designer understood completely the challenges and idiosyncrasies inherent to a .22 LR falling block rifle. Specifically, almost all falling-block .22 LR actions leave precious little room for loading and removing the small .22 LR cartridges and/or spent cases. The receiver walls just get in the way of fat adult fingers, like with the aforementioned BSA Martini, and even on the "low walls" of the Winchester 1885 Low Wall. This is exacerbated when mounting a scope. Not so with the Haenel. As can be seen in the pics, not only are there no walls to impede access to the chamber, the top of the block is flat with a nice little milled trough for sliding a cartridge right into the chamber.
Another problem involves extractors. The extractors on many falling block designs do not adapt well to the small rimmed cartridge, and designers in the past resorted to reconfiguring them to ensure reliable function, as Winchester did on its rimfire versions of the 1885s. The problem usually lies in the pivoting extractor design and the short travel. Anyone who has attempted to convert a Ruger No. 1 to rimfire will understand what I'm talking about: the downward pivoting action, combined with usually minimal engagement at about the 9:30 position, just above the centerline, tends to bind the small case, especially in a tight match chamber. Winchester used a pivoting extractor, but its design engages almost 180 degrees around the lower half of the rim and adds an ejector. On the Haenel, although there is no ejector, the extractor engages a larger part of the rim and telescopes straight out from the breech face, like a SxS or OU shotgun extractor, somewhat reminiscent of the CD drawer on a computer opening for loading. It also features much more travel than the average pivoting extractor, just enough to clear the 22 LR case mouth, at the expense of a bit of leverage…probably the perfect compromise, though, since the short, spent .22 LR case usually requires greater travel to allow finger access to the case, and not great extraction force.
The Haenel is a striker-fired, falling block rimfire design, so there is no external hammer, and there aren't many of those around (the BSA is technically not a falling block action, although some would argue it is). The Haenel features a square-headed screw, protruding up just behind the block, that allows adjustment of its two-stage trigger. The face of the trigger is very nicely checkered, adding a touch of class. These rifles usually have a thin, sheet metal band, or strap, secured by a cross bolt through the receiver and two serrated screw heads, that wraps around the top of the receiver to cover this adjusting screw head. This rifle no doubt had one at one point, as evidenced by the proud screw heads seen in the pics. I have read that this cover is to disallow access to the adjustment screw during a match, after all the triggers have been adjusted to the same weight. Maybe. In any event, the trigger release is light enough but is less than stellar -- quite mushy and creepy -- a surprise, given the overall quality of everything else on the rifle. In this regard, the Martini is far superior, at least to my Haenel.
The Haenel also boasts a gorgeous, wide, integral matted rib along the rear portion of the top flat of its tapered octagon barrel. The top flat remains matted to the muzzle, imbuing the rifle with a wonderful elegance.
The wider rear portion forms a 16mm male dovetail, allowing a perfect fit for 16mm Brno #1 or 527 rings, although its purpose was likely for a barrel-mounted open rear sight. As you can see, my Talley rings were about .020 too low to allow the objective bell to clear the barrel, so I had to use a .028" shim between the barrel and the rings.
This is less than optimal, since the ring claws now have a shallower bite into the dovetail, but I had to do something to mount a scope for this report, and slightly taller rings will provide a permanent solution.
On the ugliness on the rifle, I think the two things that grate against my admittedly elevated-standards for aesthetics are the very long receiver ring, and the overly long receiver. Some of this was no doubt necessary for the desired geometry of the action, and the long barrel shank may have been needed to accommodate the long, sliding-drawer extractor. In any event, the receiver looks lanky and ungainly to me, making the wrist look stubby. Additionally, the action utilizes large diameter pins that are retained with spring-loaded detents. Very nice, but they give the appearance of large rivets and make the receiver look as though it is made from stamped sheet metal…at least to me. Compare that look to the totally pin-less and screw-less receiver of a Dakota Model 10, and you'll see what I mean. Finally, the forestock appears overly long for its Schanbel styling, but that would be the least of my criticisms.
There seems to be some disagreement on the age of these rifles, some sources indicating their production predated the war, and others stating the KK Sport was made in the 1950s. Some of the rifle's features, like the ball detent that retains the lever in the closed position, appear too modern to be a pre-war design, and the wood and metal finishes look more 50s to me, but, then again, the polishing and bluing also remind me of the finish on the pre-war Mauser 340/350B series of rifles, so, I dunno.
The elegant and tastefully checkered (top and bottom) operating lever is smooth and positive in operation, providing plenty of leverage, just like a good "lever" should.
The cocking stroke is quite short, meeting resistance just when the top of the block aligns with the chamber. Further lowering of the lever of about ¼" causes the extractor to actuate, protruding quickly, like a child sticking out its tongue. Releasing the lever allows the spring to return the lever to the timed position level with the chamber. The timing is perfect, and the fit and finish are such that it is difficult to even see the extractor when it is retracted.
On this particular rifle, the large tang-mounted post for the rear sight features an expertly fitted Lyman rear sight. The originals evidently came with a very beautifully made, fully adjustable rear aperture sight that required a special key to adjust for windage and elevation. The same key was used to adjust the trigger and to remove the sight from its base. I have seen examples with open rear sights, however, and having both would seem redundant. I suppose mine came with that same aperture sight and is now missing (they are rare), but this Lyman is hand adjustable and looks to have been made just for this rifle. It's probably not original, but who knows what the factory might have done for a customer? The front sight is a typical tunnel or globe-type with removable inserts. It, too, is expertly fitted into the front ramp base.
With its relatively heavy contour, tapered octagon barrel, the rifle is a bit heavy at 8lbs 3 oz with the suspension-bridge-level mast and rear sight installed, 7lbs 12oz without it. In the off-hand position, however, it feels very nice indeed.
There are some small condition issues, as well. Along with the usual stock dings and dents (many dents), there are two areas where the stock checkering was flattened a bit. There is some very shallow pitting on the left side of the receiver (the pics make it look much worse than it looks with the naked eye), and some small scratches here and there. I have seen pictures of other Haenel KK Sport rifles with varying stock and sight configurations, but I really like this version I have best, with the tasteful Schnabel and tall comb, and it is one reason I decided to buy this one. And, where are you going to find another in such nice condition?
At the range, the BSA was at a disadvantage (with my eyes, anyway) since I could not mount a scope. I did use the PH7A with the appropriate aperture size and the post front insert, the only one I have, and was able to shoot some very nice groups, about ¼" at 25 yards. My targets were too small for using the post at 50 yards. Nonetheless, I am optimistic about how it will shoot when I make a scope base for it…if I ever do that. Frankly, I'm afraid the rifle is just not well suited to scope use, even with some creative engineering. Having to insert the thumb deep into the receiver walls to seat the cartridges might be a scope deal breaker. On the other hand, for a smaller shooter using the aperture sights, however, it is truly delightful. Imagine that: a rifle that performs exactly as is was intended.
The Haenel was a delight to shoot and outclassed the BSA ergonomically. With the exception of its creepy trigger, the Haenel functioning was more refined, with loading and extraction/ejection more convenient and positive. The rifle did not like Wolf MT, which threw a number of fliers, although I managed some ½" 50-yard 5-shot groups. The Eley Edge was more consistent, but the Eley Match was exceptional. Using the latter, the rifle shot as well as most of my best bolt-action .22s; namely, it shot a few ¼" groups, and a number of 3/8" and ½" groups. I would say it averaged about 3/8".
So, the question is: Will I be "Haenel" retentive? I don't know that either. I have a standing offer from a friend to buy the rifle from me for more than what I paid. Many rifles I buy have a very short shelf life, due to my very high quality standards for my rifles, and aesthetics play a large role in whether or not a rifle can earn its keep. I guess we'll see. I think the Haenel has a better chance of staying with me, though.
TBR
). The Ruger "nub" on the bottom of the rings is removable on the Burris version, which is ideal. It's a much cheaper solution than the Talleys for those searching for a way to mount a scope on one of these rifles.
