quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
What has been quoted is a mere two sentences from an entire chapter on the subject of extractors, controlled-round feeding and related matters.

I have read Boddington's book, including the chapter in question. Would anyone care to read the next sentence before jumping to conclusions?

"Such catastrophic failures [of older actions] are incredibly rare, and with safe handling procedures that avoid barrel obstructions, and sane reloading procedures that eliminate overloads of wrong powders, they're almost impossible . . . "

Or a few paragraphs further along, after reporting on his stepson's FN Mauser extractor failure when after a cape buffalo (the extractor separated from the bolt collar and jammed the action shut with a fired cartridge in the chamber):

"Well, that [extractor failure] isn't to imply that Mauser actions are prone to failure. Of course they aren't--but neither are the more modern actions. What type of bolt-action, then, is really the most reliable and the most desirable for African hunting?

"All things being equal, I'd have to give the nod to controlled-round feeding, especially with the wonderful new actions available . . . . But I wouldn't pick them by a significant margin."

That conclusion is rock-solid, in my view. CRFs have a slight advantage. Push feeds do, however, work just fine. The rest is the merest theory, and not worth the time to debate.

In this chapter, Boddington makes it clear, in his always straightforward, clear and polite way, that he doesn't buy the loads of dramatic life and death crap slung in the controlled-round feed versus push feed, strong action versus weak action advantage/disadvantage debate.

That's because, unlike most, he has enormous experience with both controlled-feed actions and push feed actions, and because of his experience he knows the difference between theory and reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:

If someone is having trouble with exploding rifles, maybe it isn't the sport for you.

quote:

Accept it or not, your choice. Unfortunately, some people might actually believe what Bod wrote, which has some safety implications.

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
I natually reconize Boddington as an authority but I just had these questions on my mind!

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:
By 1898, there was not much left that needed to be changed.
IMO, ALL alterations that have been made since 1898 to Mauser's final action design have been steps in the wrong direction.

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
I had no idea that this thread should become that long... but to make an opion is that everthing that is made by the humanhand do fail sometime, some more than other! The old boer president Paul Kruger believed only in God and the Mauser(in that order)!.

quote:

Originally posted by carcano91:

I am sorry, but I think this is not correct. Indeed, Mauser and FN have constantly improved the original 1898 action in many tiny steps. One of the best known developments is the improvement of the striker (firing pin). Please be not oblivious of this constant evolution. The myth of the "perfect original design" is... just a myth. Carcano

quote:

Originally posted by carcano91:

Boddington is a prolific gunwriter, and he certainly has a great deal of practical hunting experience. Many US Americans also esteem him for his unusual military career.

But this does not necessarily infer any expertise in gunsmithing and materials science, as the thread shows :-).

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Could you please qualify on how the M98 "striker pin" was modified in small steps and when ?

quote:

You cannot speak of the action as being a M98 when the modification is by FN or anyone after !

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
what did Mauser change that significantly What do you mean by breaching style ?

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:


Boddington is neither a gunsmith nor an engineer, and this statement only reinforces that fact. If he had ever tried to blow up a Mauser (pre-war), he would have found that a case full of Bullseye just sets the lugs back and seizes the action with no injury to the shooter.

Try that with a new Model 70, and the hand grenade effect is demonstrated.

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:
Although conducted many years ago, it seems to me that Ackley's tests of the actions that were then available were the most definitive as far as resulting information released to the public is concerned. There may be better, newer information, but I have not seen much of it!