I've been researching straight-pull bolt guns lately and have run across some frightening accounts involving the Blaser R93--the bolt being blown back into the face of the shooter. Made me rethink the whole idea of straight-pull guns!

I'm not really interested in the Blaser rifles, however, but am more interested in the Heym SR30 straight-pull rifle. It was designed by Peter Fortner, with ball-bearings acting as the locking lugs. I have a Fortner-designed rimfire, the Anschutz 1727F, and have been happy with it. So I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone who has first-hand knowledge of the Heym SR30 rifle as to their safety and performance.

Yes, I heard of a guy getting a bolt in his face at the local range.

This is why turnbolts held sway in military rifles across the world for 60 years: though they add a moment or two to the cycling time, the user input removes a lot of parts and mechanical vulnerability, not to mention danger such as came from wrong assembly of the Ross bolt.

Every case of the R93 action failing have been attributed to pistol powder being loaded in rifle cases, and multiple shots before failure.

Whenever I see a question about this issue, I suspect a Troll.

I used a Heym SR30 extensively for the three years I lived in Sweden. My hunting partner owns it and it was my loaner for most of my hunting over there. Lots of game was taken with that rifle while I was there. Never any sort of issues. I love the action. The fit and finish is impeccable. Nothing bad to say at all.

Also, Heym bolt action rifles typically have the reputation of excellent accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Yes, I heard of a guy getting a bolt in his face at the local range.

This is why turnbolts held sway in military rifles across the world for 60 years: though they add a moment or two to the cycling time, the user input removes a lot of parts and mechanical vulnerability, not to mention danger such as came from wrong assembly of the Ross bolt.

How many Schmidt Rubins and M95 Mannlichers sent their bolts through operators faces during their decades of service?

There are a variety of straight pulls in current production:
Steel action HS & HM
Blaser R8
Browning Maral
Merkel Helix
Heym SR30
Strasser RS14
Rossler Titan 16

Hunt with an SR 30 HPPR, 300Win.
Accurate (sub MOA)

BTW, SR30 action has been tested to over 155,000 PSI without spitting out the barrel or rupturing the action.
At that pressure, it did flow brass into the extractor recess and break the extractor.

I had a chance to handle a Heym SR30 yesterday (a .270 Win.), and I must say it's a very nice rifle. The fit and finish is just first-rate, and the action operates with ease--really no hesitation in any part of the reloading cycle. The one I handled had the Bavarian hog-back butt stock with schnabel forend tip. It was nicely done, although it wouldn't be my first choice of stock design if I had a choice. Evidently, other stock styles are available from Heym. My choice would be the American Classic style with no Monte Carlo butt treatment, but instead a straight comb with cheekpiece.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
This is a interesting debate:

There are some who have asked the question whether the sun is setting on the era of the Mauser bolt action and its derivatives.

For 148 years now ( starting with the M1871 Mauser ) the "Mauser effect" has ruled in sport rifle design world and for good reason ! Cheap to manufacture, uncomplicated, absolutely reliable and customization to a wide array of shooting styles genres and off coruse ammunition , form the smallest to the largest !

In spite of this however, there are some who are of opinion the era of the "Mauser bolt" is coming to an end.

If we look at the modern European gun design trends we see a movement away from the Mauser Type bolt. There is no questioning it ! Complex , hyper engineered and expensive alternatives are on offer. As rifles they all share a common theme ! Direct bolting to the barrel, multiple caliber choices for a single rifle platform with scopes mounted to the barrel and out the box they are all quite accurate !

The demands of the genre of hunting commonly seen as the driven hunt for wild boar has largely driven the trends to deigns that are faster to operate than a conventional Mauser type bolt.

A example of this trend can be found in the shooting sport world the Biathlon where today 95% plus of shooters are shooting straight pull action rifles and specifically the Anschutz Fortner action rifles albeit in small bore.

Some great points there. As you say, many of the new European designs have the bolt locking up in the barrel. The newer Anschutz centerfire rifles and the new Schultz & Larsen models are good examples. With the S&L, this facilitates easy barrel-swapping with no need for a trip to the gunsmith.

I have a Fortner-actioned Anschutz rimfire (17 HMR) rifle, the 1727F. It's just a superb rifle in every respect. the Heym SR30 (whose action was also designed by Peter Fortner) uses the same lockup principle--ball-bearings that spring out into recesses in the receiver ring. With the Anschutz 1727F, these recesses are back close to the bolt handle, whereas with the Heym SR30, they're up front in the receiver ring (a better location for centerfire cartridges, particularly if reloading is in the picture). However the method of camming the ball-bearings out seems to be similar in the two actions. The SR30 does not lock up in the barrel, but rather more conventionally in the receiver ring.

In theory and in practice straight pull bolt guns with rotating bolt heads are no less safe than pump, semi/full auto, or lever guns of like design. How many millions of rounds have been fired with those? The only difference being on straight pull bolt guns there is no receiver housing to act as a stop/shield if things go bad. But this is mitigated by good design that prohibits firing out of battery. So maybe we need a force multiplying rack and pinion geared pump action rifle with a free floated barrel and enclosed receiver.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
What is interesting about the Euro gun trade is that when compared to the US trade they Euros are innovating with new and progressive designs where the Americans are stuck and beholden to the old ( not necessarily bad) however the US gun trade is downgrading with each model range released.

No longer can one recommend a favorite scope model in say the Leupold range or perhaps you favorite Ruger No 1 rife..... simply because they don't make them anymore !

This is by no means a endorsement from my side of modern Euro guns however it is sad and frustrating in a way to see where the US trade is headed.

We see trends down to cheaper builds and offerings and many have dropped or are dropping their premium lines while in Europe the high end market is where they are heading, perhaps it is because the ordinary middle class person in Europe no longer hunts and its only the very wealthy that can afford to hunt !

Its not just in rifles ! Euro scopes, binos, hunting clothing everything is very well made and very very expensive !

+1

European hunting reflects rich people hunting - which is the traditional model.

The us is everyone is entitled to hunt and where is my socialized public lands to hunt on.

There is a Florida Facebook hunting group with 20k members. Their average gun and optic will be sub $1k.

Academy does not stock tikka anymore - too high end. No issues stocking $1k handguns.

Everybody mocks blasers on ar and most times blaser USA is sold out of 30/06 6.5cm and other on the run barrels

The blaser r8 is the pinnacle of the modern hunting rifle.

Blaser has a Facebook group with 18k global members from Sweden to Pakistan to Australia. Most gun pictures posted have expensive rifles and expensive scopes - no Nikon pro staff.

Rich Americans get their guns outside the mainstream big box retail system and distributor wholesale/retail model than sells most guns.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
What is interesting about the Euro gun trade is that when compared to the US trade they Euros are innovating with new and progressive designs where the Americans are stuck and beholden to the old ( not necessarily bad) however the US gun trade is downgrading with each model range released.

No longer can one recommend a favorite scope model in say the Leupold range or perhaps you favorite Ruger No 1 rife..... simply because they don't make them anymore !

This is by no means a endorsement from my side of modern Euro guns however it is sad and frustrating in a way to see where the US trade is headed.

We see trends down to cheaper builds and offerings and many have dropped or are dropping their premium lines while in Europe the high end market is where they are heading, perhaps it is because the ordinary middle class person in Europe no longer hunts and its only the very wealthy that can afford to hunt !

Its not just in rifles ! Euro scopes, binos, hunting clothing everything is very well made and very very expensive !

I guess, to some extent, what we're seeing in American rifles reflects the relatively-new interest in "tactical" rifles, along with the growth of associated shooting disciplines like F-Class and PRS. Here utilitarian rifles with plastic stocks are dominant and this really works against the finely-made and finished blued-steel and walnut rifles that many of us prefer. Given that a particular US gun company can turn out X-thousand rifles per year, an increasing proportion of them will be of the “tactical” type, and the company sees more and more of its profit coming from these guns.

At the risk of sounding snobbish or old-fashioned, these “tactical” rifles have few of the design characteristics that long-time, traditional gun-lovers cherish, like beautifully-finished blued steel and stocks with good lines, precise inletting, and fine walnut.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
What is interesting about the Euro gun trade is that when compared to the US trade they Euros are innovating with new and progressive designs where the Americans are stuck and beholden to the old ( not necessarily bad) however the US gun trade is downgrading with each model range released.

No longer can one recommend a favorite scope model in say the Leupold range or perhaps you favorite Ruger No 1 rife..... simply because they don't make them anymore !

This is by no means a endorsement from my side of modern Euro guns however it is sad and frustrating in a way to see where the US trade is headed.

We see trends down to cheaper builds and offerings and many have dropped or are dropping their premium lines while in Europe the high end market is where they are heading, perhaps it is because the ordinary middle class person in Europe no longer hunts and its only the very wealthy that can afford to hunt !

Its not just in rifles ! Euro scopes, binos, hunting clothing everything is very well made and very very expensive !

+1

European hunting reflects rich people hunting - which is the traditional model.

The us is everyone is entitled to hunt and where is my socialized public lands to hunt on.

There is a Florida Facebook hunting group with 20k members. Their average gun and optic will be sub $1k.

Academy does not stock tikka anymore - too high end. No issues stocking $1k handguns.

Everybody mocks blasers on ar and most times blaser USA is sold out of 30/06 6.5cm and other on the run barrels

The blaser r8 is the pinnacle of the modern hunting rifle.

Blaser has a Facebook group with 18k global members from Sweden to Pakistan to Australia. Most gun pictures posted have expensive rifles and expensive scopes - no Nikon pro staff.

Rich Americans get their guns outside the mainstream big box retail system and distributor wholesale/retail model than sells most guns.

Mike

You both are correct of course but I think the real driver in American sales of cheap rifles is because less young buyers actually hunt. Instead they are content to bang away at paper at the range. Reliable functioning at all costs doesn't matter there.

I think American shooters and Australian shooters are similar in the sense many are blue collar or from blue collar backgrounds.

Also both are far more inclined to improve an out of the box rifle or hot up car. Often they will get someone else to do most of it but at the back of the mind when buying is what can you do with this thing.

On both AR and Australia's biggest guns/hunting forum you see so often a Rem 700 for example given lots of praise or points because of what you can buy for it and gunsmiths, especially accuracy, being geared up for the Rem 700.

I think where the blue collar or blue collar background comes into play is the bloke is used to tools etc. and so on.

Personally, I would take an M70 or Rem 700 over any Blaser or similar where the bolt locks into the barrel. I know what I can do with the M70 etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
I think American shooters and Australian shooters are similar in the sense many are blue collar or from blue collar backgrounds.

Also both are far more inclined to improve an out of the box rifle or hot up car. Often they will get someone else to do most of it but at the back of the mind when buying is what can you do with this thing.

On both AR and Australia's biggest guns/hunting forum you see so often a Rem 700 for example given lots of praise or points because of what you can buy for it and gunsmiths, especially accuracy, being geared up for the Rem 700.

I think where the blue collar or blue collar background comes into play is the bloke is used to tools etc. and so on.

Personally, I would take an M70 or Rem 700 over any Blaser or similar where the bolt locks into the barrel. I know what I can do with the M70 etc.

I live in 22 largest msa in the us. Larger than 10 percent of Australia’s population.

Probably more guns than Australia here.

There is not a gunsmith who does wood metal ect.

Best you get is scope sighting and maybe trigger work.

Most gunsmithing is armorer level stuff.

Us is a country of guns and few gunsmiths. The gun knowledge in society for the massive number of guns owns is massively and fast declining.

Guns (new ones) will follow the low information buyer base.

I need to drive 45-1 hr to my gunsmith who does no metal or wood work.

15 min from me is the world largest indoor shooting facility. The gunsmith there charges $90 an hour and i doubt he knows the difference between push feed and crf.

I will take no gunsmith service required blasers everyday over anything that needs gunsmithing.


Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

I will take no gunsmith service required blasers everyday over anything that needs gunsmithing.


Mike

I am not arguing the merits of one over the other but rather what people are far more inclined to do in America and Australia than Europe.

Both countries have a lot of the "do it myself or fix it myself" mentality. Modern cars have changed a lot of things in the car world but guns like Rem 700, M70 etc. are still basically the same.

The type of approach you have with guns would be many many many times more common in Europe.

If we talk very expensive rifles then look at D'Arcy Echols and David Miller. They both start as the M70.

On a per capita basis both Australia and America is where the wildcats are done. If the forums are any guide then wildcatting (per capita) is more common in Australia than America.

Unless there is a ban on reloading, changing rifles in configuration etc. and etc. I don't think Blaser type rifles will ever be more than a very small niche market in America and Australia.

Again, I am not arguing the merits of one over the other, just the nature of the people.

I have several good European friends who are great guys and excellent hunters, but there is one thing that is true of virtually all European hunters: They don't actually shoot very much. That's not to say that they are not good marksmen, just that circumstances in Europe, including high ammunition costs and limited places to shoot, mean that European hunters simply don't have the opportunity to try out multiple guns under a wide variety of circumstances. Thus, European hunters are even more subject to advertising, hype, promotion, and fads than are American hunters who have more opportunity to actually try and use rifle systems. This observation, which I in no way mean as critical, is a preface to my comments on European rifle and scope designs.

There is largely one thing that is driving the demand for rifle designs that lock the bolt directly to the barrel. That thing is the fact that in most European countries individuals are limited by law to the number of guns they may own and possess. With an interchangeable barrel design you can own several calibers but it only counts as one gun. Therefore, the popularity and demand for such guns.

It is laughable to suggest that the highly specialized rifles used in Biathlon shooting have an influence on hunting rifles. The Biathlon straight-pull ("flip bolts") are made to allow the fastest operation from one, and only one, particular position (which is almost never used in the hunting fields.)

If the need of speed of operation were a key factor in rifle design (such as when shooting at driven boar), then the most popular (non-self-loading) design would be the pump. European forests would be full of Remington 760's!

When someone tells me that such-and-such is going to take over the rifle shooting world I always ask them to take a look at what the most serious, most innovative, shooters who probably spend the most money on their shooting use. Yeah, whenever the straight-pull, barrel-locking designs take over benchrest shooting from the basic turnbolts then I'll start being a believer.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I have several good European friends who are great guys and excellent hunters, but there is one thing that is true of virtually all European hunters: They don't actually shoot very much. That's not to say that they are not good marksmen, just that circumstances in Europe, including high ammunition costs and limited places to shoot, mean that European hunters simply don't have the opportunity to try out multiple guns under a wide variety of circumstances. Thus, European hunters are even more subject to advertising, hype, promotion, and fads than are American hunters who have more opportunity to actually try and use rifle systems. This observation, which I in no way mean as critical, is a preface to my comments on European rifle and scope designs.

There is largely one thing that is driving the demand for rifle designs that lock the bolt directly to the barrel. That thing is the fact that in most European countries individuals are limited by law to the number of guns they may own and possess. With an interchangeable barrel design you can own several calibers but it only counts as one gun. Therefore, the popularity and demand for such guns.

It is laughable to suggest that the highly specialized rifles used in Biathlon shooting have an influence on hunting rifles. The Biathlon straight-pull ("flip bolts") are made to allow the fastest operation from one, and only one, particular position (which is almost never used in the hunting fields.)

If the need of speed of operation were a key factor in rifle design (such as when shooting at driven boar), then the most popular (non-self-loading) design would be the pump. European forests would be full of Remington 760's!

When someone tells me that such-and-such is going to take over the rifle shooting world I always ask them to take a look at what the most serious, most innovative, shooters who probably spend the most money on their shooting use. Yeah, whenever the straight-pull, barrel-locking designs take over benchrest shooting from the basic turnbolts then I'll start being a believer.

Not meaning to be critical here, but I don't think ALF was suggesting that Biathlon rifles are having an influence on hunting-rifle preferences. Nor do I think that anyone believes that straight-pull hunting rifles are going to come anywhere near to taking over the rifle-shooting world. Nor, for that matter, do I think that benchrest action designs have a great deal of influence on hunting-rifle preferences (not that you said they do). I doubt that anyone is going to gravitate towards Turbo, Stiller, or Hall features for a hunting-rifle action. The criteria of success are quite different in the two cases.

Your explanation for the popularity of actions that lock the bolt into the barrel (and the accompanying switch-barrel capabilities) makes a lot of sense, and is something I hadn't thought of. Much appreciated, as are your other thoughts. (I might add that the Heym SR30 is not such a rifle, instead locking in the receiver ring.)

Just out of curiosity, Stonecreek, I'd be interested in what you've observed the most serious, most innovative shooters to use. I'd probably guess Remington 700s or modifications of them, or maybe Ruger 77s, given their low cost. (However, you were probably alluding to a more generic concept.) But what do you think? Possibly Sakos?

I think that the various straight-pull rifles satisfy a niche demographic. They tend to be more expensive than traditional turn-bolt guns, and so probably swing somewhat towards the more well-heeled in society. In many cases, I think, they are seen as neat designs that are fun to own--perhaps in addition to the more conventional turn-bolt workhorses in the safe.

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I have several good European friends who are great guys and excellent hunters, but there is one thing that is true of virtually all European hunters: They don't actually shoot very much. That's not to say that they are not good marksmen, just that circumstances in Europe, including high ammunition costs and limited places to shoot, mean that European hunters simply don't have the opportunity to try out multiple guns under a wide variety of circumstances. Thus, European hunters are even more subject to advertising, hype, promotion, and fads than are American hunters who have more opportunity to actually try and use rifle systems. This observation, which I in no way mean as critical, is a preface to my comments on European rifle and scope designs.

There is largely one thing that is driving the demand for rifle designs that lock the bolt directly to the barrel. That thing is the fact that in most European countries individuals are limited by law to the number of guns they may own and possess. With an interchangeable barrel design you can own several calibers but it only counts as one gun. Therefore, the popularity and demand for such guns.

It is laughable to suggest that the highly specialized rifles used in Biathlon shooting have an influence on hunting rifles. The Biathlon straight-pull ("flip bolts") are made to allow the fastest operation from one, and only one, particular position (which is almost never used in the hunting fields.)

If the need of speed of operation were a key factor in rifle design (such as when shooting at driven boar), then the most popular (non-self-loading) design would be the pump. European forests would be full of Remington 760's!

When someone tells me that such-and-such is going to take over the rifle shooting world I always ask them to take a look at what the most serious, most innovative, shooters who probably spend the most money on their shooting use. Yeah, whenever the straight-pull, barrel-locking designs take over benchrest shooting from the basic turnbolts then I'll start being a believer.

I don't think ALF was suggesting that Biathlon rifles are having an influence on hunting-rifle preferences. Nor do I think that anyone believes that straight-pull hunting rifles are going to come anywhere near to taking over the rifle-shooting world. Nor, for that matter, do I think that benchrest action designs have a great deal of influence on hunting-rifle preferences (not that you said they do). I doubt that anyone is going to gravitate towards Turbo, Stiller, or Hall features for a hunting-rifle action. The criteria of success are quite different in the two cases.

Your explanation for the popularity of actions that lock the bolt into the barrel (and the accompanying switch-barrel capabilities) makes a lot of sense, and is something I hadn't thought of. Much appreciated, as are your other thoughts. (I might add that the Heym SR30 is not such a rifle, instead locking in the receiver ring.)

Just out of curiosity, Stonecreek, I'd be interested in what you've observed the most serious, most innovative shooters to use. I'd probably guess Remington 700s or modifications of them, or maybe Ruger 77s, given their low cost. (However, you were probably alluding to a more generic concept.) But what do you think? Possibly Sakos?

I think that the various straight-pull rifles satisfy a niche demographic. They tend to be more expensive than traditional turn-bolt guns, and so probably swing somewhat towards the more well-heeled in society. In many cases, I think, they are seen as neat designs that are fun to own--perhaps in addition to the more conventional turn-bolt workhorses in the safe.

What is the weight of a benchrest rifle?

17 pounds to ?

My blaser r8 6.5 cm with a proper target scope and cheap $17 federal non typical ammo at academy with a total shooting novice like myself will shoot a lot closer to a benchrest rifle than one moa guaranteed hunting rifle. But again we are basically splitting an moa up.

The blaser won’t win any specialized benchrest matches but it will be shooting under the .5 moa mark. And I will be able to switch barrels to another caliber in 5 minutes and scopes in 30 seconds. And even change the trigger if needed.

When you lock directly into the barrel and mount the scope directly unto the barrel - it’s makes for a very accurate rifle.

I think the direct barrel scope mount of the blaser over its same assembly line Sauer 404 is the reason blasers are a little more accurate.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
When you lock directly into the barrel and mount the scope directly unto the barrel - it’s makes for a very accurate rifle.
Mike

I've wondered about that--the locking the bolt into the barrel vs. having it lock up in the receiver. Is there some evidence that this enhances accuracy? I can see how it makes for easy switch-barrel capability (as Stonecreek elucidated), but is there some inherent gain in accuracy? And, if so, why?

One rifle of which I'm aware has this feature--the Schultz & Larsen. However, with S&L rifles, the barrels are cut-rifled and lapped. I think that with the Blaser, Sauer, Mauser setup, hammer-forging is used. I'd guess that the S&L rifling method (which is considerably more expensive on a per gun basis) contributes to better accuracy, rather than the bolt/barrel lockup. Just a thought.

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
When you lock directly into the barrel and mount the scope directly unto the barrel - it’s makes for a very accurate rifle.
Mike

I've wondered about that--the locking the bolt into the barrel vs. having it lock up in the receiver. Is there some evidence that this enhances accuracy? I can see how it makes for easy switch-barrel capability (as Stonecreek elucidated), but is there some inherent gain in accuracy? And, if so, why?

One rifle of which I'm aware has this feature--the Schultz & Larsen. However, with S&L rifles, the barrels are cut-rifled and lapped. I think that with the Blaser, Sauer, Mauser setup, hammer-forging is used. I'd guess that the S&L rifling method (which is considerably more expensive on a per gun basis) contributes to better accuracy, rather than the bolt/barrel lockup. Just a thought.

More accuracy than blaser barrel for me is again splitting less than 1/2 a moa.

I like hammer barrels. I like cz barrels and ruger barrels. Blasers are just a step above.

I have little interest in doing all the process other more experienced shooters use on breaking in barrels, cleaning barrels ect. I shoot them from day 1 and clean em occasionally with foam cleaners.

I do plan to shoot my blaser a lot and if anything happens over next 10 years I will send it back to get fixed/replaced under warranty. I don’t think there are too many shot out blaser barrels - I am planning on having one of the few.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
When you lock directly into the barrel and mount the scope directly unto the barrel - it’s makes for a very accurate rifle.
Mike

I've wondered about that--the locking the bolt into the barrel vs. having it lock up in the receiver. Is there some evidence that this enhances accuracy? I can see how it makes for easy switch-barrel capability (as Stonecreek elucidated), but is there some inherent gain in accuracy? And, if so, why?

One rifle of which I'm aware has this feature--the Schultz & Larsen. However, with S&L rifles, the barrels are cut-rifled and lapped. I think that with the Blaser, Sauer, Mauser setup, hammer-forging is used. I'd guess that the S&L rifling method (which is considerably more expensive on a per gun basis) contributes to better accuracy, rather than the bolt/barrel lockup. Just a thought.

The most closely engineered part on the blaser is the bedding block. Just needs to be completely dry with no oil - biggest mistake is having oil in the bedding. I use an air can to blow the surface and barrel part dry before building the rifle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tprze2nggS4

A good barrel, a good bedding, a good scope mounting system directly on barrel and a good trigger. Pretty much guarantees accuracy with good ammo.

Mike

The silliest invention since Fred Flintstone invented the wheel!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The silliest invention since Fred Flintstone invented the wheel!

Don’t lie Saeed - I know you sneak off at night and shoot your blaser

How many blaser do you have ?

Mike

quote:

Just out of curiosity, Stonecreek, I'd be interested in what you've observed the most serious, most innovative shooters to use. I'd probably guess Remington 700s or modifications of them, or maybe Ruger 77s, given their low cost. (However, you were probably alluding to a more generic concept.) But what do you think? Possibly Sakos? Wink

I think that the various straight-pull rifles satisfy a niche demographic. They tend to be more expensive than traditional turn-bolt guns, and so probably swing somewhat towards the more well-heeled in society. In many cases, I think, they are seen as neat designs that are fun to own--perhaps in addition to the more conventional turn-bolt workhorses in the safe.

I'm sure that the Remington 700 or its clones are used by more bolt action shooters (of benchrest and various other ilks) than anything else, but this is largely due to so very many accessories (barrels, lug washers, bedding devices, stocks, modified bolts, triggers, ad infinitum) being available for it. It is a very sturdy and cheap to produce design that uses a simple section of pipe for its basic receiver.

Of course, the Mauser 98 design has been produced by dozens of factories around the world and its DNA shows up in virtually every other front-locking bolt action ever made. It is certainly present in the genes of high quality actions like the Sako (wink, wink).

I agree that the straight pulls and other barrel-locking actions fill a niche. Shooters of a certain age and disposition tend to eschew traditional designs and feel it is more avant garde to shoot more recent and trendy (not to mention expensive) rifles. And of course there is always the attraction with some designs of having a single rifle serve for several calibers and purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The silliest invention since Fred Flintstone invented the wheel!

Yep.

And the silliness continues with their goofy stocks. If you think it ends there, they are now outfitting those silly contraptions in full leather complete with contrasting color stitching.





Just not my idea of a serious rifle platform.

i have a very modest ross rifle collection and have done a decent amount of research on them.

the first thing i have to say is FORGET ANYTHING YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT ROSS RIFLES IN WW I. start fresh and learn from a ross researcher, one more knowledgeable than myself. i have heard mors BS stories told and retold about rosses in the trenches than any other gun myth out there.

an issue with straight pull rifles is that you lose the primary extraction given to you by proper camming surfaces on a 90 degree turn bolt. even with brand new ammo, you just don't have the power of a manualy turned bolt action that many of us expect. it is no different than loading a slightly oversized, dirty, maybe long, whatever round into the chamber of a semi-auto.

pull the bolt back and let it fly over a magazine with the top round even a little bit dirty and the bolt may or may not fully chamber the round. and it does not take much diirt, or a little bit oversised in any measurement, and the round partially seats. partial seating can gum up the works on the best of semi autos. the forward assist on the M16 was desigend to overcome this inherent weakness.

extracting a round that is dirty, slightly oversized, a little bit hot, brass a touch too soft, whatever is far more difficult in straight pulls.

btw - , i, an american, and one living in the Deep South at that, rountinely watches biathalons. especially ones in finland. the new anschutz's are true wonderful works of engineering.

but remember this - we had the browning T-Bolt in the US since when, the '40's or '50's? there was not a mass conversion to the straight pull .22's over here.

straight puls are interesting and the more modern ones can be cool engineering rifles to own and hunt with. i will stick with the rifles that have at least a 60 degree bolt throw. and i like 90 degrees even more. the powerful force in your hands greatly assists in chambering and extracting ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The silliest invention since Fred Flintstone invented the wheel!

Yep.

And the silliness continues with their goofy stocks. If you think it ends there, they are now outfitting those silly contraptions in full leather complete with contrasting color stitching.





Just not my idea of a serious rifle platform.

Best $800-$1000 I spent was upgrading to the leather on my blaser success. Love it.

I buy high end leather cleaning stuff from coach to clean it.

Love the leather upgrade. Blaser is just so awesome


Mike

What ever you do, do not buy a Merkel. It is the biggest piece of shit in the ratchet rifle world.

I have had multiple unintended discharges with them, and they don't fire when you pull the trigger everytime.

Even when racking the bolt with full force.

Known joke in the German hunting world.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

quote:

And, if so, why?

Reduction of the number of links in the parts chain that makes up the gun platform.

Much has been made of so called barrel "harmonics"; Reality is that the popular representation of barrel harmonics is way to symplystic and usually the focus is only on one motion mode in one plane. There are numerous modes not only for the barrel but each of the parts that make the gun platform. It includes the scope and its mounts. By reducing the key parts and links that are directly involved during the firing chain precision is enhanced.

The Mauser type of action has a barrel screwed into a action frame, the bolt in turn bolts to this action frame. Action stiffness has been shown to play a role in precision. In addition the scope is mounted on the action frame as well.

By direct bolting to the barrel the action frame plays no role other than that it's a carrier for the bolt.

Interesting explanation. However, I'm having some difficulty in seeing how locking the bolt up in the barrel really reduces the number of components of the setup that vibrate or create "motion modes." You still have barrel harmonics to deal with. As for attaching the scope to the barrel, the only advantage I see for that is that barrel-switching can be done more efficiently, with a scope set up for each barrel so that the scope doesn't have to be re-zeroed with a barrel switch.

It seems to me that, if locking up in the barrel did, in fact, improve accuracy, the benchrest crowd would have discovered this and converted to this system. However, as far as I know (and I could be wrong about this), BR guns today all use the traditional lockup of the bolt into the receiver.

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

quote:

And, if so, why?

Reduction of the number of links in the parts chain that makes up the gun platform.

Much has been made of so called barrel "harmonics"; Reality is that the popular representation of barrel harmonics is way to symplystic and usually the focus is only on one motion mode in one plane. There are numerous modes not only for the barrel but each of the parts that make the gun platform. It includes the scope and its mounts. By reducing the key parts and links that are directly involved during the firing chain precision is enhanced.

The Mauser type of action has a barrel screwed into a action frame, the bolt in turn bolts to this action frame. Action stiffness has been shown to play a role in precision. In addition the scope is mounted on the action frame as well.

By direct bolting to the barrel the action frame plays no role other than that it's a carrier for the bolt.

Interesting explanation. However, I'm having some difficulty in seeing how locking the bolt up in the barrel really reduces the number of components of the setup that vibrate or create "motion modes." You still have barrel harmonics to deal with. As for attaching the scope to the barrel, the only advantage I see for that is that barrel-switching can be done more efficiently, with a scope set up for each barrel so that the scope doesn't have to be re-zeroed with a barrel switch.

It seems to me that, if locking up in the barrel did, in fact, improve accuracy, the benchrest crowd would have discovered this and converted to this system. However, as far as I know (and I could be wrong about this), BR guns today all use the traditional lockup of the bolt into the receiver.

The blaser k95 has fewer pieces than a r8. The r8 has a bolt that can be switched in the same bolt housing to go from 204 ruger to 500 Jeffries. There are plenty of moving pieces.

The blaser will get you between .20-.5 accuracy. Most benchrest guns want to go for .10-.2.

Most benchrest gun weight more than what would constitute a firearm under the Supreme Court definition of arms under the heller ruling. They are not bearable

If you want .20-.50 accuracy, switch barrels, best scope mounting system, best safety system, removable trigger, something that can literally be transformed/ customized in a mil plus combinations - get a blaser. If you want a super accurate alternative hunting rifle get Wes at rifles inc to make you one. It won’t do any of the above things and will sell poorly in the secondary market.

I wish blaser make a precision rifle for prs or target shooting but they have zero intentions of being anything but a hunting rifle and competition shotgun company.

Blaser will shoot as good or better than most sniper rifles.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:

It seems to me that, if locking up in the barrel did, in fact, improve accuracy, the benchrest crowd would have discovered this and converted to this system. However, as far as I know (and I could be wrong about this), BR guns today all use the traditional lockup of the bolt into the receiver.

I think a bolt locking into the barrel whereby part of the barrel now becomes the action allows for a cheaper gun and good accuracy. Remember the Remington 710.

In Australia a rifle called the Omark 44 was made and for the full bore shooting and as replacement for SMLE 303. Many of these were converted so they could be rebarreled in the normal way. I think the factory barrel was cut off in front of the locking lug recesses and then the locking lug recess part of the barrel was attached to the action/receiver. In Australia you can get the Sauer converted. Obviously there are enough people who want a barrel/calibre combination that you can't get from Sauer.

I think for bench rest whether it be the 100 and 200 yard PPC world or the 1000 yard plus stuff I can't see the normal action being replaced. A couple of reasons. First and obvious is barrel and calibre choice. Secondly the action for bedding (or for a "glue in") needs to be long enough. Also, you don't want a scope mounted on the barrel. A simple problem with the scope mounted on the barrel is if you want to alter head space. For example you might have washer type recoil lugs that vary by .001 or .002 in thickness and so on.

Alf mentioned above action stiffness as an aid to accuracy. This is true BUT not an action that is too short.

A key requirement if you want serious accuracy is the ease of doing things and availability of things. The bedding configuration of the action is very important.

Although I would never want a Blaser I think they are excellent but for me and my requirements they are useless but for the person who likes what the Blaser can do they would find the rifle type I like to be useless.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

The blaser will get you between .20-.5 accuracy. Most benchrest guns want to go for .10-.2.

Most benchrest gun weight more than what would constitute a firearm under the Supreme Court definition of arms under the heller ruling. They are not bearable

I suggest you check the weight of Sporter and LV class.

When you say the Blaser is a .2 to .5 rifle are you talking about the average of five 5 shot groups at 100 yards and five 5 shot group at 200 yards?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

The blaser will get you between .20-.5 accuracy. Most benchrest guns want to go for .10-.2.

Most benchrest gun weight more than what would constitute a firearm under the Supreme Court definition of arms under the heller ruling. They are not bearable

I suggest you check the weight of Sporter and LV class.

When you say the Blaser is a .2 to .5 rifle are you talking about the average of five 5 shot groups at 100 yards and five 5 shot group at 200 yards?

Yes, excellent point. Too often we hear of rifles that will shoot .50" groups "all day." When I read this, I imagine a shooter shooting a bunch of groups, and when his wiggles match the wobbles, he manages to get one .50 (or maybe .60" or so) group out of all the groups shot with the rifle and concludes he has a "1/2-inch rifle." This does not index that rifle's accuracy--far from it. The only meaningful accuracy criterion is something approaching what you have indicated, Mike, the average of 5 consecutive 5-shot groups shot at a sitting. the "consecutive" part of this is important so as to rule out cherry-picking groups, under the assumption that "I must have pulled a shot out in that larger group." An average over 10 consecutive groups would be even better. The NRA staff when accuracy-testing in the American Rifleman use the 5 consecutive 5-shot-group average in their rifle evaluations.

Frankly, it flies in the face of what we know about hunting-rifle barrel/action quality to expect any hunting-weight rifle to be a true .2" to .5" rifle, in the sense noted above. I would consider any hunting-weight sporting rifle that produced 1 MOA groups using the proper, stringent criterion described above to be an extremely accurate rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

The blaser will get you between .20-.5 accuracy. Most benchrest guns want to go for .10-.2.

Most benchrest gun weight more than what would constitute a firearm under the Supreme Court definition of arms under the heller ruling. They are not bearable

I suggest you check the weight of Sporter and LV class.

When you say the Blaser is a .2 to .5 rifle are you talking about the average of five 5 shot groups at 100 yards and five 5 shot group at 200 yards?

Yes, excellent point. Too often we hear of rifles that will shoot .50" groups "all day." When I read this, I imagine a shooter shooting a bunch of groups, and when his wiggles match the wobbles, he manages to get one .50 (or maybe .60" or so) group out of all the groups shot with the rifle and concludes he has a "1/2-inch rifle." This does not index that rifle's accuracy--far from it. The only meaningful accuracy criterion is something approaching what you have indicated, Mike, the average of 5 consecutive 5-shot groups shot at a sitting. the "consecutive" part of this is important so as to rule out cherry-picking groups, under the assumption that "I must have pulled a shot out in that larger group." An average over 10 consecutive groups would be even better. The NRA staff when accuracy-testing in the American Rifleman use the 5 consecutive 5-shot-group average in their rifle evaluations.

Frankly, it flies in the face of what we know about hunting-rifle barrel/action quality to expect any hunting-weight rifle to be a true .2" to .5" rifle, in the sense noted above. I would consider any hunting-weight sporting rifle that produced 1 MOA groups using the proper, stringent criterion described above to be an extremely accurate rifle.

I own 9 r8 barrels and 4 k95 barrels. The accuracy on them is simply amazing.

Buy a blaser r8, find the ammo your barrel likes, get a proper target scope not a hunting scope and find a place to shoot 100 meters/yards (indoors like Saeed does is even better). You will be surprised how accurate blasers are.

Mike

https://www.heymusa.com/rifles/hppr.html

Accuracy Guarantee
Each HEYM HPPR is guaranteed to shoot five, successive shots
(no barrel cooling between shots)
into 20mm or less at 100 meters before leaving the factory.
(.2 MRAD , roughly .69 MOA)

(SR30 straight pull or SR21 turn bolt)

quote:

Originally posted by Clan_Colla:
https://www.heymusa.com/rifles/hppr.html

Accuracy Guarantee
Each HEYM HPPR is guaranteed to shoot five, successive shots
(no barrel cooling between shots)
into 20mm or less at 100 meters before leaving the factory.

(SR30 straight pull or SR21 turn bolt)

Yes, I've read that. It seems pretty optimistic to me, given the very light barrel contour I witnessed on the Heym SR30 I saw in .270 Win. It's hard to imagine 5 shots without barrel cooling going into 20 mm (.8")

Other rifle companies have similar guarantees; Sako, for example, talk about 5-shot groups under MOA. With all these accuracy guarantees, I have to wonder just how they operationalize accuracy. Do they shoot a bunch of groups in a tunnel, for example, perhaps continuing until they get one that meets the "guarantee"? I'd be shocked if they used the NRA standard of 5 consecutive 5-shot groups at 100 yard.

So I just ignore these guarantees. I'm a handloader, so expect to do some serious load development before discovering the rifle's true accuracy potential, and do so using the more stringent (and, in my opinion, proper) criterion.

I'd buy a Heym if I lived in Germany, they gave all the Americans a pretty good discount on them.

I think there is about a 30-40% markup on a Heym SR30 here.

The accuracy is real-
Not optimistic at all in my rifle - 300Win SR30 HPPR

Hornady 200gr ELDX factory,or my hand loads, meet the promise.

As well as other HPPR's I have fired.

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:
Yes, excellent point. Too often we hear of rifles that will shoot .50" groups "all day." When I read this, I imagine a shooter shooting a bunch of groups, and when his wiggles match the wobbles, he manages to get one .50 (or maybe .60" or so) group out of all the groups shot with the rifle and concludes he has a "1/2-inch rifle." This does not index that rifle's accuracy--far from it. The only meaningful accuracy criterion is something approaching what you have indicated, Mike, the average of 5 consecutive 5-shot groups shot at a sitting. the "consecutive" part of this is important so as to rule out cherry-picking groups, under the assumption that "I must have pulled a shot out in that larger group." An average over 10 consecutive groups would be even better. The NRA staff when accuracy-testing in the American Rifleman use the 5 consecutive 5-shot-group average in their rifle evaluations.

Frankly, it flies in the face of what we know about hunting-rifle barrel/action quality to expect any hunting-weight rifle to be a true .2" to .5" rifle, in the sense noted above. I would consider any hunting-weight sporting rifle that produced 1 MOA groups using the proper, stringent criterion described above to be an extremely accurate rifle.

We used to have an aluminium stock in Australia that has the same shape as a Rem 40 XB but was skeleton in the butt and forend. There were originally made because in the early days of bench rest it was the start of not just the PPC but the fully hollow fibreglass stock. Such a stock is why the "glue in" started. So the allow stock was made with a solid middle. Out of the mould they were basically set up for inletting a short or long Rem 700 but you have others and I have had among Remington one for a Model 70 and also a Mark V. all mine were done as repeaters.

Blair338RUM on AR will confirm all of this.

I have always had a very strong interest in getting top accuracy BUT with hunting calibres and loads and normal chambers don with JGS reamers. The Remingtons and M70 had Jewell triggers. One Rem 700 was a magnum bolt face action and the other 3 were 30/06 actions. All actions were faced off so barrels could be swapped between actions. 6mm/06 and 270 were two common chamberings. I would go to the trouble of getting different sets of dies as not all dies will give the same results even if the same brand.

One of the pluses of the skeleton forend was the rifle oould look good whether it had a number 5 barrel or an HV barrel. Our Number 5 was .72" at muzzle of 26", almost the same as Wby Accumark.

Most of the time I had "glue ins" onto Devcon bedding.

One day at the range, a range where we could reload in a shed or on the bench, a bloke came up to me who had a HB Sako 243. He asked me what the 6mm/06 I was using at that time with number 5 barrel would shoot. I said very close to half inch at 100 yards. He said his Sako would beat that and why did I go to so much trouble

So I said lets compare them but with a few conditions. First shot from a clean barrel. Then we wait an hour and then a shot from a cold hard fouling barrel. Then a shot loaded in new brass (for me that was necked 25/06 Winchester brass) then a shot from Full Sized fired brass and then a shot from a neck sized case. I can't remember his exact words but they were along the lines of "what you call 1/2 inch groups is very different to what I call 1/2" groups and your rifle shits all over mine.

I offered him one more comparison and he was getting quite keen. I said we fire a 5 shot group and then wait and hour and then another 5 shot group on same target (same aiming mark) and an our later another 5 shot group on same target.

I then said to him would like to shoot the gun yourself and they way you shoot normally. The loading gear was all set nd I said go for life. I went up to the other end of the range to talk to some bloke and about 15-20 minutes later he came up and said "you know I owned that rifle I would call it a one hole rifle".

By the way, with a HV PPC. to do .2 MOA of 5 groups at a 100 and 5 groups AT 200 you need a lot of skill. Need to be able to read the conditions and hopefully get the shots off when conditions are the same. I can't do it.

With the very accurate guns they do it all easy. Like cruising around in a big V8 manual. Barrels will usually have been selected. You need to be prepared to dump a barrel.

The 6mm/06 (and 270s) I referred to above you could mix a bunch of loads with lots of different bullet weights, different powders and a composite group of 15 shots would be under an inch.

Beretta682E said his Blasers will do .2 to .5. The ones that do .2 would run right the top in HV bench rest competition and win some LV competitions and probably win all Sporter class Bench rest competitions.