I just got my first 1893 Mauser, a Turk, and it's got me wondering why the M98 Mausers and just about every bolt action since (as well as a few older ones) have been designed to cock on opening? Being used to cock-on-opening rifles, I noticed the little extra push on closing (which I expected, of course), but don't find it distracting or unnatural at all. The action's smooth and slick as they come, and the cocking effort's not great.

Looking at the action, the cocking mechanism is elegantly simple, just a basic ratchet action with the sear letting the striker pass going to the rear but catching it on the way forward. Much easier and cheaper to make than the cocking cams for cock-on-opening. The bolt is much simpler.

With cock-on-closing, the cocking force is not added to the force of extracting a sticky case.

I recall reading as a child some gun writer's assertion that cocking on opening was far superior for rapid aimed fire, because cocking on closing caused the shooter to push the rifle away from the shoulder, disrupting the aim. Now that sounds like poppycock. The forward linear thrust along the axis of the rifle is easy to resist by a matching pull back on the forearm. On the other hand, increasing the force of bolt lift by adding cocking on opening causes a rotational moment that's more difficult to resist. Certainly the British, once known for their very rapid and accurate rifle fire, don't seem to have had much of a problem with their cock-on-closing Enfields. The Boers put in a good showing with their M93s, and the Spaniards certainly did with theirs in Cuba.

The only real advantage I can see to cocking on opening is that it allows faster recocking in case a cartridge requires a second hit to fire it. However, in the heat of battle, if a cartridge goes "Click," I'd just want it out of there and a fresh one in front of the firing pin.

So why did Mauser change to cocking on opening with the M98, and why has nearly everyone since copied it, when it seems that cocking on closing has more advantages? It must have been insisted on by the German generals, since Mauser's previous export models all had cocking on closing. Were they just clinging to tradition, because the Gew. 88 cocked on opening? Am I missing some big advantage?

Let me think about that for a bit , John. roger

Great question. I have wondered myself. I have read all the "stuff" about this subject or at least a lot of it but the facts you stated have always seemed true to me. Slamming forward and down seem more natural than force exerted against ones opposing wrist in a 90 degree angle on the opening movement. A well slicked up action kind of makes this moot but I too wonder if there was something else to the choice to change from closing to opening.

The 98 actually shares cocking with both the opening and closing motions, about 65/35%.

I believe every change that Mauser made, culminating in the Model 98, was based on battlefield reports involving previous models. Here are some things to consider.

Lifting and retracting the bolt uses the bicep muscle, while closing the bolt relies on the tricep. The bicep muscle is stronger on nearly all persons.

Mauser designed the 98 to used by everyone, including poorly trained or small statured troops. This is especially important to many of the Central and South American end users.

By designing the 98 to share cocking between the opening and closing camming motions, I believe Mauser made the rifle more versatile and appealing to a broader range of clients.

I have physical limitations in both arms and can tell you that cock on closing is MUCH harder to use. AFter 20 or so rapid dry firings I hav eto put the rifle down. No such problem with a cock on opening rifle. I can not tell you the physics invoilved, but can atest to the fact that it is less physically demanding to work a cock on opening rifle.

In combat every round is precious, and if you had a misfire and you were armed with a cock on close weapon, you would have to retract the bolt far enough to hook the cocking piece to give the primer another whack, which could eject the case, or, potentially cause a jam. With the cock on open design, you simple raise and lower the bolt handle.

Here is some more gas to add on the fire.

For those who own or have tried cycling the action on a SCOPED cock on close gun, my findings are that they are about 200% harder to function.

When all you have to push against is that tiny ball against only half your palm (as the other half is blocked by the scope) it takes a ton of exertion to overcome that spring.

Now go cycle your favorite scoped cock on opening.

MUCH easier.

-Spencer

Alot of religion.
A little facts
If you cycle the bolt slowly cock on close becon hevy on the last part. If you cyckle the bolt rapidly, you use the inertia to cock.

Cock on open has a tendency to rorate the rifle when opening. This gets worse if your arms are short or your stock long. You are also pretty weak trying to lift the bolt with a straight arm.

The norwegian has for many yers had a competition where the rules was pretty simple.
20 sek
max 10 rd magasin

And the record stil standing is made with an Norwegian Kragh Jørgensen in cal 6,5x55 cock on close
Result 17 hits

Not ewen modern semiautos with 10 rd magasines has beaten it . And the m98 never had a chance in that competition

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
you would have to retract the bolt far enough to hook the cocking piece to give the primer another whack, which could eject the case, or, potentially cause a jam.

Well with the SMLE and Swed, they have a "cocking piece" which can be just pulled back without lifting the bolt. And I guess that would be better than a hang-fire just after a cock on open rifle had the bolt up.

Another handy feature is that with a cock on closing bolt it is uncocked for storage when removed.
Personally, I think it's mainly what one is used to.

the real and true reason (or at least a few of them).

Fact:
Shorter lock time, by about 50%. A cock on closing action has to use a weaker firing pin spring so that it can be easily compressed while closing the action. To get the same impact force to fire the primer you need a longer power stroke on the weaker spring to equal the shorter power stroke on the heavier spring in the cock on opening action.

Some other things to consider is that a cock on closing gun 1) has easier to manufacture bolt goemetry at the rear, 2)the steel for the bolt doesn't have to be as hard to resist the galling from the extra forces involved with cocking the striker with its accompanying heavy firing pin spring accross a relativly short, steep, cocking cam. Remember high-grade, high-volume, steel manufacturing was in its infancy at the time cock on closing guns were being developed. Yes high grade steels were manufacturable but they were hit or miss for exact properties. When the steel manufacturing technology evolved so did firearms design.

Look at the stricker travel on a M700 (true cock on opening), vs a M98 (60/40 ish) vs M96 the striker travels get longer and longer the further one gets from true cock on opening.

I think Specer has a very good point in the modern scoped rifle. I have used both M94's and M98's with a scope, and the M98's are way much easier to reload.

And Jørgen, the competition you are refering to, may have other factors than just the cock on opening/closing. Loading and smoothness of the Krag-action, comes to mind.
Or do you really think a M94 would be superior to a M98 in this game?

"...Shorter lock time, by about 50%. A cock on closing action has to use a weaker firing pin spring so that it can be easily compressed while closing the action. To get the same impact force to fire the primer you need a longer power stroke on the weaker spring to equal the shorter power stroke on the heavier spring in the cock on opening action..."

I think you'll find this to be the major reason for the design change. While important in terms of "modern sporting rifles" any reference to scopes is moot in terms of original design. These were battle rifle designs and form followed function in terms of what worked best. It is true that the COC action is hardly noticable in a battle situation where adrenilin is pushing the bolt home. Many are the veterans who loved the SMLE for this fact. Personally, I like COO and the two pre-98 Mausers I own are so modified.

I've always found the COC easier to use for me.

While I don't really have a clue nor do I remember reading exactly why he changed the cocking function I would bet Mr Mauser had a very good reason. He had a reason for everything he did and he believed that COO was better for a military rifle at that time. Who am I to argue.

All interesting ideas and information. Thanks!

Actually, I've just discovered a disadvantage to the cock on closing Mauser. If the safety's not left on the bolt-locked position, it's easy to bump the bolt handle, and it will open very readily. Then the mainspring will spring the bolt open. That doesn't happen so easily on a cock-on-opening bolt action.

Interesting depending on where you are from! #4 stil wins!

I have shot the Enfields for many years as a boy in the cadet corps etc in India and I now own a Mauser. Never hunted with a scoped gun and my eyes are still in perfect shape (reading glasses only) despite Graves' Disease. I have a Mauser sporter now and as Joergen says, I do find that opening the bolt on it tends to rotate the rifle slightly especially if I work the bolt with the butt on my shoulder.

In shooting fast, I find that the Enfields work much better. The bolts feel much more smooth to operate than on several Mausers that I have shot (a friend in Wisconsin has a huge collection of them, both sporters and military ones) and when we shoot his Mausers and Enfields side by side sometimes when I visit Appleton, it is obvious to me why the Brits won so decisively at Mons with the Enfield.

I am not an expert - I guess the vast majority of occasional, interested shooters would have something similar to say, though, if they shot COO and COC rifles side by side with open sights.

Good hunting!

COC vs COO can only be argued when discussing military or factory actions. Shoot a custom action, such as a Stolle, BAT, Farley, Dodd, etc and you will never again see any advantage to COC. This is the 21st Century. Why argue about what worked or what was best in the 19th??JMHO

Ray

My theory is that the cock on closing operation puts great stress on the sear/trigger mechanism, from the slamming effect. The cock on opening drops the firing mechanism as the bolt is rotated, so more delicate, lighter pull triggers can be installed.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:
COC vs COO can only be argued when discussing military or factory actions. Shoot a custom action, such as a Stolle, BAT, Farley, Dodd, etc and you will never again see any advantage to COC. This is the 21st Century. Why argue about what worked or what was best in the 19th??JMHO


Ray

If you read most posts her on AR, you will soon find out, that the big majority hasn't gon further than last century.
Just look at the praising old outdated mausers, winchesters, remmingtons, and so on.
Also look at the american rifle industri, they all compet on making "replicas" over actions constructed , befor scopes was common
Name me just one American design of any significans designed in the last 50 years.

If you are looking for new designs and features, sorry my freind, you have to look to Europe

I originally didn't "take in" KurtC's comment above about the mauser design partically cocking on closing, but today on my Zustava Mini-Mauser I thought "what's this".

Sure enough, it did a lot of cocking on closing, and it takes a fair bit of effort too.

quote:

Also look at the american rifle industri, they all compet on making "replicas" over actions constructed , befor scopes was common
Name me just one American design of any significans designed in the last 50 years.

If you are looking for new designs and features, sorry my freind, you have to look to Europe

ouch! But, the truth often hurts.

In Europe you have curently 3 mainlines of new designs.
1: Sako / tika, who thinks most of produce simple and reliable constructions, with no real News, but main interest in news is mostly caused bu more eficient ways to produce.

2: Blaser, merkel and Strasser, are mostly concerned in making high accuracy, easy switch barrel system, Based on a wery complex Clockwork like short action, where the scope is mounted on the barrel.

3. More traditionaly looking rifles, still with switch barrelsystems, and in some cases also Real TAKE DOWN wersions. The most common are Sauer 202, Mauser 03, and Schultz & Larsen m97-dl.
The 3 last mentioned doesnt try to make shortcuts on simplicity, materialchoice and accuracy. They also try to make their weapons look like real rifles

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
If you are looking for new designs and features, sorry my freind, you have to look to Europe

What you say is true, Jorgen. Howevr, Features that are really important like improved metalurgy have been incorporated in American design. The name of the game in my view isn't what is new and wonderful; it is what meaning ful contribution does this new and wonderful thing offer to the end user.

The hunting rifle has achieved majority satisfaction a long time ago.There have been changes and modifications in design and process capability in the States. When ,however, you are actually HAPPYwith what you have and find it totally adequate for your intended use, than what gain can there be with what you are calling advanced Euro design?

The advanced processing technology you refered to only comes into play for the consumer if it produces the same high quality at a competetively reduced price.

You may also have noticed that there is an expanding market in black powder fire arms. Now that's kind of old too.

Maybe advanced modern design in the rifle for sporting use isn't a real necessity. roger

Are barrels that blow up a part of the new and improved designs from Sako and Blaser in Europe?

Aren't the premier guns from Europe by Hartman und Weiss, Reimer Johannsen, Karl-Heinz Ritterbusch, Erich Schoder etc all based on the terribly outdated, 19th century designs as well?

Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
In Europe you have curently 3 mainlines of new designs.
1: Sako / tika, who thinks most of produce simple and reliable constructions, with no real News, but main interest in news is mostly caused bu more eficient ways to produce.

2: Blaser, merkel and Strasser, are mostly concerned in making high accuracy, easy switch barrel system, Based on a wery complex Clockwork like short action, where the scope is mounted on the barrel.

3. More traditionaly looking rifles, still with switch barrelsystems, and in some cases also Real TAKE DOWN wersions. The most common are Sauer 202, Mauser 03, and Schultz & Larsen m97-dl.
The 3 last mentioned doesnt try to make shortcuts on simplicity, material choice and accuracy. They also try to make their weapons look like real rifles

Jorgen - To respond to your last post...

1. I have numerous Sakos and Tikkas. My opinion is that the older their rifles, the better I like them. The new ones give me the impression of being built to make more profit, not better rifles.

2. I do not own any of the monkey-motion, more complex new European rifles such as the Blaser, Merkel, or Strasser. Why? Because having worked as an adult in the real world for 60 years now, I understand and appreciate the primacy of the K.I.S.S. principle. More complex is nice if you are looking for the latest toy. If you want something that will last, which can be serviced in the woods or in combat if need be, and which will be reliable, complexity isn't usually the best way to go.

3. I have owned numerous Sauers of the 200 series; even more of the Shultz & Larsen series. (Several S&L rifles are in my vault as we speak.) I really like the S&L rifles, but I don't care for the Sauers. The Sauer rifles seem to have little grasp of the principles of bedding for real accuracy in their construction. Their take-down method of barrel/receceiver joining is not impressive to me either. The S&L rifles do show the result of a lot of good, skilled hand and machine work, using real metal, and are tastefully finished.

Anyway, I suspect there are real reasons why the "newest thing" from Europe seems to be a top seller only in Europe, and the reason is not that the rest of the world is stupid. I personally believe it is because anything traditional does not seem to any longer appeal to European youth to the same degree it used to. They seem to want "new, different, cheap, and fast", maybe as part of their rebellion against the economic caste system which rules those countries.

Anyway, for me, I'll take a Model 70, a Model 98 Mauser, a Model 1903 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, a Farquharson falling block, many other of the old rifles, over any of the new whiz-bangs from Europe. You can have my share of them, and maybe we'll both be happy.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

Name me just one American design of any significans designed in the last 50 years.

Barrett Mk82a1


.................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

If you read most posts her on AR, you will soon find out, that the big majority hasn't gon further than last century.
Just look at the praising old outdated mausers, winchesters, remmingtons, and so on.
Also look at the american rifle industri, they all compet on making "replicas" over actions constructed , befor scopes was common
Name me just one American design of any significans designed in the last 50 years.

If you are looking for new designs and features, sorry my freind, you have to look to Europe

In America sometimes we are smart enough to not fix things that aren't broke.

None of the above mentioned Euro-Rifles are overall superior to a Mauser 98 or derivative as a Hunting rifle, and are in many ways inferior. Yes many of them do have some interesting features, the same guns often have some rather annoying defects.

Europeans enjoy working on Engineering, American's like engineering that works........... .......DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jørgen:

Europeans enjoy working on Engineering, American's like engineering that works........... .......DJ

Oh My ! ! ! But nicely said roger

It's not as if the art of making rifles has remained static in the USA. At the NRA Convention in Milwaukee I met an inventor, Dr Dale Schuerman who has his own rifle action designed from scratch. It looked very different from anything I had seen before to me but the gentleman spent a considerable length of time explaining the various aspects of his patented action. It was a nice, long conversation with a man with his own ideas of what a gun should be like, not different, I am sure from Horst Blaser etc who decided to do their own design work. I am sure there are other American inventors with their own vision of what rifles should be like. The experts here would know more about them than a learner like me.

Good hunting!

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
[ Name me just one American design of any significans designed in the last 50 years.

Dakota Model 10:




..........................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

Name me just one American design of any significans designed in the last 50 years.

Thompson-Center Contender/Encore.................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

None of the above mentioned Euro-Rifles are overall superior to a Mauser 98 or derivative as a Hunting rifle, and are in many ways inferior. Yes many of them do have some interesting features, the same guns often have some rather annoying defects.

I think this post of yours is very well put, DJ. Thank you.

Even where there are no major defects, many of the recent design changes from Europe appear more of a step backward than a leap forward. For one specific example, look at the magazine in the rifles available for about the last 15 years from Steyr Werke. When they moved the bolt handle from the middle of the bolt to the aft end (a good step, but hardly a new one), they also did away with the very nice magazine of the Mannlicher Schoenauer and provided instead the plastic abortion that is now part of the current Steyr. It works sorta okay, but how sturdy is it? Certainly not as strong to my mind as the original steel one the rifle already had. Nor is it as smooth to operate or as reliable in feeding all shapes of bullets. At least my 3 of them sure aren't...

My only fear is that some North American manufacturers are now doing the same sort of trashy engineering to decrease cost of manufacture, while simultaneously increasing the cost of their goods to the purchaser. Spells "greed" or "poor market management" , not "progress", in my dictionary.

quote:

3. I have owned numerous Sauers of the 200 series; even more of the Shultz & Larsen series. (Several S&L rifles are in my vault as we speak.) I really like the S&L rifles, but I don't care for the Sauers. The Sauer rifles seem to have little grasp of the principles of bedding for real accuracy in their construction. Their take-down method of barrel/receceiver joining is not impressive to me either. The S&L rifles do show the result of a lot of good, skilled hand and machine work, using real metal, and are tastefully finished.

If you read betwen the lines, you wil se that i dont fancy all of the details bacicaly on the nr1 and nr2. But there is no doubt that they have looked into some details, who actualy improve accuracy quite a bit.

Acording to Sauer 200, they are wery nice and smooth rifles, but i agre on the doubt on there TD.
According to Schultz & Larsen, I ame quite sure that you have not seen or handeled any of the new ones, that are currently beeing produced. As they are not exported to USA, because of the stupid Lawyer practice over there, Witch make it legaly dangerys to sell rifles with a decent trigger. The rifles you have in that brand is most likely produced in the 60th and 70th, and is way diferent than the new once.

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:
Are barrels that blow up a part of the new and improved designs from Sako and Blaser in Europe?

Aren't the premier guns from Europe by Hartman und Weiss, Reimer Johannsen, Karl-Heinz Ritterbusch, Erich Schoder etc all based on the terribly outdated, 19th century designs as well?

Cheers!

I think that the Sako and Tikka where the barrel blew up, is mainly because that they tried to plesae the american marked, forcing them into using Tubberware stocks, and most dangerosly that soft and brittle rustinhibited automat steel that is sold as SS

Acording to the mentioned companyes rebuilding M98 actions, they make nice work, but those rifles is sold to people that look at them as investments, and practcaly newer use them.
None of them you mentioned produce enough to have any importance.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

If you read most posts her on AR, you will soon find out, that the big majority hasn't gon further than last century.
Just look at the praising old outdated mausers, winchesters, remmingtons, and so on.
Also look at the american rifle industri, they all compet on making "replicas" over actions constructed , befor scopes was common
Name me just one American design of any significans designed in the last 50 years.

If you are looking for new designs and features, sorry my freind, you have to look to Europe

In America sometimes we are smart enough to not fix things that aren't broke.

None of the above mentioned Euro-Rifles are overall superior to a Mauser 98 or derivative as a Hunting rifle, and are in many ways inferior. Yes many of them do have some interesting features, the same guns often have some rather annoying defects.

Europeans enjoy working on Engineering, American's like engineering that works........... .......DJ

If you are smart enough to not fix things that aint broken.
Why are you spending money buying Remmingtons, winchesters and Harley Davidsons, and imediatly you take them completly apart, and changes all the vital parts, to make them work acceptable
About the europeans like to work on enginering, you are right. That was the reason, they stoped plowing with horses, and maked it almost imposible to sell Remmingtons at a decent price

Yorgen, why not start your own Yankee vs Euro thread? Im sure you would get many responses..

Cock on open utilizes mechanical leverage to accomplish spring compression wheras cock on close does not. However in a battlefield situation I think that NOT combining the cocking force with trying to extract a sticky case has real merit.

The cock on open design seems to "feel" more natural to me, however if a guy used COC exclusivly Im sure that would be a non issue.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

None of them you mentioned produce enough to have any importance.

There have been more Thompson-Center Contenter/Encores sold than all of the rifles you mentioned combined.................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

None of them you mentioned produce enough to have any importance.

There have been more Thompson-Center Contenter/Encores sold than all of the rifles you mentioned combined.................DJ

DJ The qoted remark is taken from an answer to mehulkadmar, conserning some wery rare custombuilders.

According to tomson center contender, the reason that there is sold so many of them, is because the price and lifetime is pretty mutch the sane as a bottle of milk

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
According to tomson center contender, the reason that there is sold so many of them, is because the price and lifetime is pretty mutch the sane as a bottle of milk

With all due respect Jorgen you must have never seen a Contender/Encore. They are actually quite well made quality firearms. The Multi-barrel/caliber ability seems to me to be just the kind of thing Europeans would love. They aren't my particualar favorite but they are really nice interesting firearms............DJ