I have a lot o forthopedic problems, including having 6 operations on my right wrist. WOrking a bolt action that cocks on closing puts a lot more stress on the wrist joint. It does not take that many cycles for my right wrist to get out of whack in a hurry. THankfully, few people have to worry about this. But for those like me, cock on close is a pain to use (literally).
Posts: 2509 | Location: Kisatchie National Forest, LA | Registered: 20 October 2004
I think most people would change to cock on opening only because the're used to that on their commercial rifles. When I was used to cock on close it seemed normal,and when the bolt was removed it was left in an uncocked condition. Also the 2 stage Mil trigger seemed good and safe, with a heck of a lot of sear engagement until taken up. Ah the good old days. John L.
Posts: 2355 | Location: Australia | Registered: 14 November 2004
The one, and only, reason to change to "cock on opening"is to allow the use of a much stiffer mainspring in conjunction with a shorter striker travel to reduce lock time. A very stiff spring and short travel just doesn't work well when cocking on closing. It works much better to cock the striker using a cam. The cock on closing feature of the Lee Enfield, Enfield, or 96 Mauser, does nothing as far as assisting the extraction of a fired case is concerned. It could be said that, since the striker is cammed back only very slightly and, since the spring is relatively light, the cock on closing action does less to impede the primary extraction of the cartridge by the extraction cam. Assist it does not. Reducing the strength of a striker spring to improve function is a novel idea but certainly opposite to the accepted way of doing things. In a hunting rifle, it is usally considered desirable to increase striker energy to make ignition more reliable not less. Reducing spring weight increases lock time and decreases striker energy. Hardly desirable achievements! I shoot a couple of Lee Enfields and like them fine. In field use the cock on closing is unnoticable to me. In general though, I think the cock on opening is a bit better system for most use. The slightly greater stress placed on trigger components is an OK trade for the reduced lock time and striker travel. Regards, Bill.
Bill, have you ever seen one of these old milsurps that cock on close with a protruding firing pin? I had one, either through too much dry firing or poor gunsmithing, the firing pin extended a couple of thousandths when the bolt was opened.
Many years ago, and not knowing better, and not knowing about the firing pin issue, I was unloading live ammo (.308 win) and the bolt slipped out of my hand. The firing spring pushed the bolt back with some force, the firing pin came forward, and the cartridge blew up in my face. A close inspection showed tiny dents in all the primers of cartridges I ever worked through that action. Luckily the scope stopped the brass fragments heading up to my face, so no harm was done to anything but my hearing...ringing ears for a couple of days.
Posts: 1780 | Location: South Texas, U. S. A. | Registered: 22 January 2004
I disagree with you very slightly as to whether the cock-on-closing helps with extraction. It may not provide a mechanical advantage on the cams, BUT, it DOES mean one does not have to both pry against a stuck case AND slightly compress the mainspring when lifting the bolt handle and initiating extraction.
It does also ease and speed retraction of the bolt to the rear when unlocked, which in combat can be important. It was no error that the Brits stuck with the Lee-Enfield for as long as they did. As far as combat bolt guns go, it may possibly have no peers.
As to those who asked when the Brits used a cock-on-opening bolt, I did not say they had. I said they had learned their lesson about the problems of rifles which do not have good (and easy) extraction in the field...as in the short lever Martinis....mainly an ammo problem in that instance, but also the causal ancestor of the long-lever Martini if we can believe what was in print contemporaneously.
Alberta Canuck
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001
I think most Americans are used to cock on opening because when the U.S. built its copy of the M98 Mauser, we made it that way. Then after WWI, G.I. had gotten used to cock--on-opening, so the ones that demanded a commercial bolt action wanted it to cock on opening. So Rem. and Win. obliged by making theirs cock-on-opening.
I am not convinced that the cock-on-opening is any better than, or has any advantage over, cock-on-closing designs. The fastest military bolt action rifle ever built, the SMLE, cocks on closing!
I agree with Bill Leeper. I changed my m96 with the Traister speed lock system, only to quicken the lock time. It shorteded the stiker fall by more than half, with stronger spring, should have quickened lock time by 75%, I would think. I do not regret doing it one bit.
Posts: 53 | Location: Meadow Lake, Sask., Canada | Registered: 21 January 2002
The main reason the Brits stuck with the SMLE,they couldn't afford to up grade,besides it worked better than the Mauser.The first World War left them broke,then their economic policies made things worse.Bad economic policies can ruin a nation.
Posts: 480 | Location: B.C.,Canada | Registered: 20 January 2002
Quote: The main reason the Brits stuck with the SMLE,they couldn't afford to up grade,besides it worked better than the Mauser.The first World War left them broke,then their economic policies made things worse.Bad economic policies can ruin a nation.
If the SMLE worked better than the Mauser, why would they 'need' to upgrade??????
Fact is, the SMLE is possibly one of the best bolt action 'battle rifles' ever produced.
Try dropping a Mauser, (or any of it's derivatives), and a SMLE in mud, dust or sand, and see how long it takes you to clean the action up enough to defend yourself (or attack).
It's also quicker to cycle, and has a ten round magazine...
THAT's why the SMLE was kept for so long.
Posts: 1275 | Location: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia | Registered: 02 May 2002
I'm putting a cock on opening kit on my Chilean Short Rifle that I got partially sporterized. I'm putting it on cause I'm also changing the bolt hanlde to a Manlicher style and this style gives me less purchase on the bolt handle. That's the only reason.
My Turk in 8mm-06 is still cock on closing and I have no intention of changing it, or don't at least until I decide to put a scope on it as well.
Posts: 37 | Location: Virginia Beach, VA | Registered: 15 June 2004
Quote: Fact is, the SMLE is possibly one of the best bolt action 'battle rifles' ever produced.
I believe it is THE very best of such rifles for both rapidity of fire and accuracy. When Ike got to England to assume command of Operation Overlord, there was a shooting contest, speed & accuracy, between a British platoon and a U.S. platoon. The Brits used the No. 4 and the Americans used the M1. The Brits won. The reason given (by us!!) was that the U.S. troops were not that experienced shooting the M1!! No-one suggested that the No. 4 might just have been better than the M1 for a combat weapon - but maybe it was!! At least in 1944.
The Brits have always believed,correctly I think, a 280 was better caliber.Before the WW I ,the Pattern 12 and after WW II,they tried,but the Yanks wanted a 30 caliber for NATO.
Yes, I was amazed the first time I cycled a SMLE.
Posts: 480 | Location: B.C.,Canada | Registered: 20 January 2002
I don't think the SMLE was superior to anything. It is typical british made, and that is overly and unnessarily complicated. Give me a mauser any day to go to war with!!! That little puny bolt makes me scared. why did they get away from the p14 anyways. The mauser for its day is pure perfection simple and reliable to a fault. Actually If I had to fight in a war with a bolt gun I would pick the swiss k31.
As for cock on opening, I hate it to me it takes much longer to cycle the bolt. I have a 1917 eddystone and it is much more difficult to be fast with. Even compared to a typical mauser the 1917 and p14 are very clunky in comparison
Posts: 1755 | Location: slc Ut | Registered: 22 December 2002
Quote: The Brits have always believed,correctly I think, a 280 was better caliber.Before the WW I ,the Pattern 12 and after WW II,they tried,but the Yanks wanted a 30 caliber for NATO.
Yes, I was amazed the first time I cycled a SMLE.
I agree about the .280 being a superior bore size. The Spanish demonstrated this to us in 1898, the .30/40 ut we didn't listen. of copurse! As a matter of interest only, the very first Garands were chambered for a .280, the .276 Pederson. But instead of adopting this rifle so chambered, then Army Chief of Staff GEN Douglas MacArthur said "You misunderstood me, boys! We're NOT dropping the .30/'06 cartridge!"
I use a swede for RMS and recently converted it to CoO in addition to the Bold trigger. It has improved my OH shooting considerably with the bonus of increased confidence.
Posts: 336 | Location: Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia | Registered: 09 March 2001
I am no expert on guns and the only rifle that I own at the moment is a custom Mauser in 8x57JS. However, as a former colonial, I have some experience with the Lee Enfield and it is a rifle that I really like. At the relatively short ranges Indian hunting was at, it didn't really matter whether someone used the Enfield or the Mauser and both have taken a lot of game in the past.
As far as a direct comparison of the Enfield vs the Mauser as a military rifle is concerned, there was one - at Mons in 1914. And it is clear which rifle outperformed which one on that day. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/mons.htm
Just one of many write ups about that magnificent battle.
Good hunting everyone and Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year.
I changed my m96 with the Traister speed lock system, only to quicken the lock time. It shorteded the stiker fall by more than half, with stronger spring, should have quickened lock time by 75%, I would think. I do not regret doing it one bit.
