OK since (so far) it has been unanimous to stay W/the classic Oberndorf style W/a black walnut stock, http://forums.accuratereloadin...41/showpollresults/Y the question now is whether to modify the bolt handle from the swept back Harris pattern to something different.

Here is the stock I just purchased. I know the grain structure is not running very straight through the grip, but the rifle will be a 6.5X55 so I don't think recoil will fracture the stock through the grip.




Here is the bolt handle that is currently on the action.






Since I already have one Classic style Oberndorf Mauser W/a Butterknife bolt handle, I'm leaning away from that option.

Also, this will not be an exact copy of an early Oberndorf pattern. It will not have any iron sights & the comb will be high for scope use only, similar to this rifle.

Question:
What type of bolt handle should I have on this rifle?

Choices:
Leave it as is, form follows function
Straighten it out & recountour it a bit
Cut it off & weld a straight handle of a more appropriate style
Cut it off & weld on a Butterknife handle, anything else would be sacrilege

 

I kinda skewed the results by voting myself to straighten & re-contour the existing handle. I figured that I could always cut it off if I didn't like the results.

Upon further consideration & the fact that other respondents are 3:1 for starting W/a new bolt handle when my vote is discounted, I think I will opt to start W/a fresh bolt handle.

What about something like this?





I think it's a Talley.

I think it's mighty straight-down. IMO a slight sweepback, about 1/4 to 1/2 the knob diameter, would be more attractive. Not too much, just enough to be noticable. JMO.
Regards, Joe

My answer? I'd not let "style" dictate to me in such matters!

So, just as (when handguns were legal in the UK) I preferred the Colt 1911 with its long trigger and flat spring housing to the 1911A1 I'd go on what suits YOUR hand size and style of shooting best.

That way it really is "custom" to you.

Boy, I LIKE that rifle and the sight/scope setup on it, perfect for hunting/working in BC mountain country.

What is it, who built it and what is it chambered in, looks to me as thoug some practical person customized a Mauser the way it should be done and built one fine piece as a result.

Grins,
I'm the vote for leaving it the way it is. I find the closer to even with the trigger a bolt handle is the easier and faster it is for me to cycle.
Sure a pretty peice of wood, what ever you decide you should end with something great.

SSR

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
My answer? I'd not let "style" dictate to me in such matters!

I'd go on what suits YOUR hand size and style of shooting best.

That way it really is "custom" to you.

Well, seeing as how I am going to closely follow the lines of my 8X57IS that is pictured on the bottom of the 1st post, other than the butterknife bolt handle, I'm not STRICTLY following any "style".

I did/will not have iron sights on either rifle & the combs will be high to allow proper checkweld when using optical sights. The high comb & angle of the butplate also greatly reduces muzzle rise.

Even W/60,000 psi full power 3300 ft# Me loads in 8x57, I am still able to recover soon enough after the shot to see the deer's reaction on shots of 200yds or more that are the norm from my elevated stands that overlook a 15 acre cut over area.

I do however, like to stay whithin certain boundaries as far as asthetics. Since the actions had lever style floorplate releases, I chose to go the classic Oberndorf "LOOK".

My shooting style is deliberate when I have the time & the only time I would even considered a fast 2nd shot is when I know the deer is hit poorly/mortally & is liable to escape. I have only had to do that 1 time in some 35 or so Whitetails I have harvested on my farm & the surrounding area over the last several years. That was a large 160# dressed doe running full out across an open field @ about 75 yds. I still had time to make deliberate shots & conected twice before she went down.

Usually, on standing or walking shots, if the deer is not DRT, I am usually confident that I have made a good hit & seldom even chamber another round until I climb down from my stand. If I miss, I don't take shots @ running game unless it is a high % situation.

If/when I miss & know I have missed, I do not shoot again unless in the case of a dumb deer that stands for another shot. That has happened on 1 occasion.


Having the bolt handle in the absolute optimum position for quick cycling of the action is not of utmost importance. This will be a 6.5X55, not really a DGR.

I am 1st & foremost a form follows function sort, but I also like things that are pleasing to the eye in rifles. (as well as women)

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I think it's mighty straight-down. IMO a slight sweepback, about 1/4 to 1/2 the knob diameter, would be more attractive. Not too much, just enough to be noticable. JMO.
Regards, Joe

I agree. Trying to make something perfectly straight/square is sometimes full of pitfalls.

I'm sure that bolt handle is perfectly square W/the bolt, but optical "delusions" (pun intended) make one wonder if it really is.

Just a hair of sweep back would eliminate that.

quote:

I am 1st & foremost a form follows function sort, but I also like things that are pleasing to the eye in rifles.

The "nub" of it IMHO. If form does follow function then it will naturally be pleasing to the eye!

I once showed my Colt 1911 to an old engineer. He had never held a gun in his life. He looked and handled it for about ten minutes.

Then the verdict "There's not one thing there that doesn't need to be and nothing missing that ought to be".

My shooting style with a rifle on live game is to always do a fast reload (once the shot is away) as a matter of course, even when being "deliberate" and the animal drops.

And, for that, I prefer the bolt knob in the same relationship to the "bow" of the trigger as on a classic Enfield...directly above or only just slightly behind where the finger pad falls on the trigger.

Never in front! So I'd vote leave it as in your picture in the very first post. As you say...form follows function.

quote:

Originally posted by thirdbite:
Dewey, the rifle pictured was built by Mark Stokeld and is a .416 on a CZ action. I can't find the reference when I search for it, but it was posted in 2006.

I found that picture when I did a topic search for "bolt handle"

HERE is the thread, it's the 2nd post.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

I am 1st & foremost a form follows function sort, but I also like things that are pleasing to the eye in rifles.

The "nub" of it IMHO. If form does follow function then it will naturally be pleasing to the eye!

I once showed my Colt 1911 to an old engineer. He had never held a gun in his life. He looked and handled it for about ten minutes.

Then the verdict "There's not one thing there that doesn't need to be and nothing missing that ought to be".

My shooting style with a rifle on live game is to always do a fast reload (once the shot is away) as a matter of course, even when being "deliberate".

And, for that, I prefer the bolt knob in the same relationship to the "bow" of the trigger as on a classic Enfield...directly above or only just slightly behind where the finger pad falls on the trigger.

Never in front! So I'd vote leave it as in your picture in the very first post.

Your point/points are well taken.

I guess 16 years of hunting deer almost exclusively W/a muzzleloader in southern Indiana, the last several years a flintlock, have conditioned me to watch the game 1st & reload after shot evaluation.

I never had much faith in shotguns, @ least not W/the technology avaiable then.

It has only been the last 13 years that I have been in NY state where I can hunt W/a centerfire rifle.

I just got a call back from Jim Baiar @ the Half Moon Rifle Shop.

He's sending me some info on his Oberndorf (& other) bolt handles.

IMO it somewhat depends upon the recoil generated. A heavy recoiler, in my mind, should bave the bolt knob placed far enough forward to avoid impacting the shooter's index finger during recoil.

The pre-64 M70 is a prime offender in this respect, my 458 would make a gorilla flinch!
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
IMO it somewhat depends upon the recoil generated. A heavy recoiler, in my mind, should bave the bolt knob placed far enough forward to avoid impacting the shooter's index finger during recoil.

Yep, that's what I've always heard. I think for a light caliber like the 6.5x55 it should be straight. But as the Greeks taught us, perception is everything. A slight 1-3 degree rear sweep may be in order to compensate for the human eye.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:
I kinda skewed the results by voting myself to straighten & re-contour the existing handle. I figured that I could always cut it off if I didn't like the results.

Upon further consideration & the fact that other respondents are 3:1 for starting W/a new bolt handle when my vote is discounted, I think I will opt to start W/a fresh bolt handle.

What about something like this?





I think it's a Talley.

IMHO this one is just about perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
The pre-64 M70 is a prime offender in this respect, my 458 would make a gorilla flinch!

Joe,

Your experience with the pre-64 Model 70 is not universal. I have a .450 Watts built on a pre-64 action with a magnum length magazine and have never experienced any problem with the bolt handle hitting my index finger.

As a long time High Power target shooter, I only use the first joint of my index finger to pull the trigger, however. I could see how hand position would make a difference.