Recent discussion raised the question; what is a rifle Action? I researched a few of the books I have, and found the following definition. I have been collecting Mausers and doing gunsmithing for just 6 years, so I might have missed one. Here are just some of what I found:
FN ad from 1960.

From Speeds book on Oberndorf Sporting Rifles:

From Kuhnhausen's book on Mauser Bolt Actions:
From de Haas book on Bolt Actions:
Otteson's book:
I got tired of looking because they ALL show and describe only one thing as being a bolt action, Action.
I see a mistake, I meant 6 decades.

Alright, now ask the ATF. No telling how many answers you’ll get…

There are complete actions. All the parts to make a rifle go bang.

There are stripped actions. Just the part that the rest fit into.

There are actions with a stripped bolt and no other parts.

And others when buying one needs to ask the proper questions.

We are talking bolt guns here

The legal definition would be the serialized part that all the other parts fit into to make a working firearm.

The ATF lost a case in Ohio because a lower AR receiver does not meet the legal definition.

say -- Tom ... my eyes must be getting weaker and I can't find my cheaters -- what does it call the top, large ring mauser?



and i get your point -- "action" CAN be used as "receiver" which is what the ATF is worried about -- which, and you know it to be true, is the serialized part --

A receiver without all the parts to make it "act" is NOT an action by any definition. Applying modifiers to the term Action, automatically makes it NOT an action; but components of one. And a striped receiver is never an action; can't be. Once you place a caveat on the term Action, it ceases to be one. It is just parts of an action. So, a complete action, and only a complete action, is an Action.
The legal definition of the serial numbered part is the frame or receiver. Not an action.
What Kuhnhausen called the top action is not germane here. Point it, it is an Action.
A lower AR receiver is the receiver; not the action. I do not know what the ATF lost in that case. Anyway, I only showed examples of Bolt Action rifle, Actions.

Many industries suffer from the imprecise use of "labels". IT and firearms being big culprits.

For example in IT, I have seen, system, platform, technology and application used interchangeability, but I digress. Communicating clearly is often difficult in the best of circumstances.

Everyone in the industry I have ever interacted with seems to accept that the pictures at the top of the page are actions and I have never seen the above pics described as any thing other than an action.

I have seen many other descriptions of items that are subsets of the above pictures; i.e., receiver and bolt, stripped action, action without bottom metal. Additionally, I have also never heard of anyone being "disappointed" when Person A says to Person B - I am sending you an action and then sends the item as pictured above to Person B. I have heard of many people being "disappointed" when they were told they were going to be sent an action and they got less than the picture above.

Why anybody chooses imprecise communications over precise communications if there is even the possibility of misunderstanding is something I will never understand.

BTW, retirement is a scary thing because you actually think someone will take the time to read your reply

In your text you stated "the following definition", but I see no definition of what an action is, other than a number of pictures labeled as action. Are the photo's your definition?

If the pictures are the definition, lets focus on one in particular. Speed's picture of a solid bottom "action", "although it is fitted with a complete magazine box.

Why do you think this statement is made? If we remove the magazine box, which it does not need to facilitate feeding or function since it is a single shot, that makes the action, no longer an action? Does this rule only apply to bolt action magazine rifles? Why is "magazine" specified in the title, in addition to "bolt action"?

A car, without an engine, can no longer be called a car? Because it cannot preform it's primary function, ie going, it can only be called, frame, doors, dash, seats, etc. a combination of the parts contained.

A Martini cadet action, is of course an action, because it, as you say, acts. It fires. It does all the things. It does not need a magazine to do all the things. Does a single shot Mauser need a magazine to do all the things? Is it still an action?

Let's pose another question since you brought in your 60 years of experience to validate your argument. There are numerous pervasive errors in our gun collecting community that no amount of "facts" will dissuade the masses from using, many have existed longer than 60 years, the fact that they have existed that long does not make them "correct". Does the age, or period of time in error, make the error correct? What about broad general acceptance?

Semantics? Petty obsession with nomenclature? I have customers call "things" all sorts of squirrely things. Over the years accepted terminology changes. Terminology in subsets of groups differs, even in our trade. I have a friend, that like Tom, feels the obsessive need to correct everyone with nomenclature errors. More than once I have gotten to chuckle when I showed him that he was wrong. Maybe. Depending? If an endmill holder that uses a set screw is called a "side lock holder" today, is it wrong to call it a "Weldon Holder". What if for over 60 years that's what they were called? What if Weldon invented the holder? What if no one uses that term anymore? Woodruff cutter? Doesn't exist. Trepan tool? Not likely unless your over the age of 60. Does that make the terminology wrong?


Let's look at some Mauser Terminology from an original Mauser Magazine Sporting Rifle brochure.

"The Magazine, holding five cartridges, is situated beneath the action".

Now, someone who is better with mechanical descriptions, how does one situate something beneath itself? Seems straight forward to me.


Lets take this new fangled thing apart. Start with:
A. The Action.
Hm... no mention of the magazine... that's odd since it is a part of the action....



Ah, here it is in a separate section!
B. Magazine and repeating mechanism.

All of you are welcome to call a Mauser action a "complete" Mauser action if and only if it includes the "Repeating Mechanism". I really have no problem with it. You can call it a Sausage as long as your check doesn't bounce when I am finished working on it.

However, if you feel the need to correct someone for what you view as a "nomenclature error" you might check yourself first, and verify your position. I find asking questions as to why someone uses a particular terminology very enlightening. Often, they have a good reason. Sometimes they don't know. Or in many peoples case, as maybe Tom will recognize, they've just always done it that way.

I agree with Tom…
It is my belief that an action is the sum of the parts, i.e., receiver, bolt, trigger, magazine, triggerguard, etc. To call a receiver an action is misleading, especially if trying sell the “action”.

Just like an engine is the sum of all its parts, block, cylinder heads, crank, pistons, etc.

Opinions may vary, but the facts remain the same.

A receiver is in an action, can an action be a receiver, na.

a bullet is a cartridge but a cartridge is not a bullet, but bullets are also heads.

:-)

.

Yes, the pictures are the definition.
Clearly, the Action, must be complete to be called an Action. I knew NM would pick up on Speed's single shot action, with TG; not germane here; it is still an action.
Just parts of a bolt action, is not. and can not be, an Action. How can it; it can't "act" when missing some of it's parts.
Yes, correct nomenclature matters. I know that some people will continue to call things whatever they want.
It's just more clear to use the term Action, to mean, everything needed to make it work. Act.

Ok, so just to be clear, the literal book published by Mauser is just opinion, but your statements are fact?

An actin is a receiver with ALL the parts! Missing parts it is just a receiver. Same a rifle is not a rifle with out a receiver or without a barrel. it is just different parts. A stripped action is just a receiver not an action.
Not sure but these terms were probably in use before the ATF was even thought of.

You can use terms like stripped action but you are qualifying that it Was an actin but no more due to parts being missing.

Hip

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Recent discussion raised the question; what is a rifle Action? I researched a few of the books I have, and found the following definition. I have been collecting Mausers and doing gunsmithing for just 6 years, so I might have missed one. Here are just some of what I found:

I got tired of looking because they ALL show and describe only one thing as being a bolt action, Action.
I see a mistake, I meant 6 decades.

By, ”Doing gunsmithing for 6 decades,” do you mean that is your profession whereby you made a living?

I ordered a magnum boltfaced MK X action from a distributer for a project. I never thought to ask if it came with a trigger, TG and floorplate, mag spring and follower. I would have been pissed if it had shown up without them.

Another wrinkle: FZH acions come unhardened and without a trigger...So do we actually have an action?


Most likely not a point to debate with a BATF agent.

Not my statements; the clear preponderance of evidence in the use of the term. I do see the page; ok, one data point, obviously unknown/ignored/forgotten since it was written.
That much is very clear. Although I do wonder what the original German words were that got translated like that. I am pretty sure Mauser did not write it in English first.
Yes I ddciddd not to change my (and 99% of others') definition and usage of the term, Action.
Of course, as I always say, everyone is free to continue what they want; do not do or listen to anything I say or do.
Please stop sending me PMs; I have enough now.

The fact that Mauser themselves said that the magazine is situated below the action does not convince me that they didn't themselves consider it to not be part of the action.

They sold many actions to other gun-makers, and I am pretty convinced that the magazine was part of the supply and did not need to be either ordered separately or specified to be part of the order.

On the other hand, consider an AK (or a whole host of other self-loading weapons with detachable magazines which are not assembled from upper and lower receivers) action. I don't think anybody expects the magazine to be part of this.

Which means that there is a grey area in terms of modern bolt actions with detachable magazines.

Further complicating the matter is that in modern single-shot bolt actions intended for target rifles the bottom metal is not part of the action as it has no function other than as a big "washer" for the action screws and a trigger guard and is often omitted when that action is installed in a chassis-type stock.

Not helping, just complicating.

Unless you want to make your argument from inside a cell, the only thing that matters is what the ATF calls an action or receiver. Of course, than changes daily depending on some pointy headed bureaucrats interpretation.

John

Doesn’t the ATF consider a firearm to be the receiver, i.e. the part with the serial number?

quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Grinch:
Doesn’t the ATF consider a firearm to be the receiver, i.e. the part with the serial number?

https://www.federalregister.go...fication-of-firearms

Enjoy.

The ATF only used the term, Action, once; here:

"ACTION:

Final rule."

They otherwise do not use the term, Action. (That I could find)
Just frame or receiver. And we all know what those are, on a bolt action rifle. It is the ARs that cause the confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The ATF only used the term, Action, once; here:

"ACTION:

Final rule."

They otherwise do not use the term, Action. (That I could find)
Just frame or receiver. And we all know what those are, on a bolt action rifle. It is the ARs that cause the confusion.

nah, bruh -- the "frame" of an autoloader pistol, dating before the 1911, had always been the serialized part -- if you VERY loosely compare the frame of a 1911 to the configuration of the AR, you can see where they made that decision

Just an FYI on that newer Sig Pistol the Fire Control Group is the serialized part.

From Websters:
7
a
: an operating mechanism
b
: the manner in which a mechanism or instrument operates

Link to the page
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/action


It would appear by this definition that the use of "action" to describe a rifle part or parts is a misnomer on our part.

Brownells is (wrongly) calling receivers with bolts; Actions. You do realize that they are just selling parts and some guy in Montezuma wrote those ads. Obviously oblivious to the common use of the term.
Jeff; Of course the 1911 frame is the realized part of the pistol. And the AR lower receiver/frame too. No confusion there, for me.
And we all know what a bolt action rifle Action is.
I've got to stop this mess and go do some work. I am making a barrel for a 1919 Browning today. Oh, guess what the serialized part of those is: the right side plate. Not the lower, upper, bolt, barrel extension, or anything else. Just a big flat piece of steel.

BATFE personnel can in no way be deemed experts. One of their top “experts” could not even disassemble a semiautomatic pistol with plenty of time to study and do it. It was caught on TV just the other day.

An action consists of the complete receiver, bolt, trigger, magazine and bottom metal. I thought everyone knew that.

If you claim to be selling an action and any of those things are missing, then you are mistaken and your buyer will not be happy.

Most definitely the term Action is probably the worst Noun that could have been ascribed to the combination of parts we all know as a bolt rifle "action". But, fortunately, or unfortunately, it is already in common use and knowledge by most gun guys and girls. Read all the posts here from those who use it.
Too late now to change. And no, a receiver and bolt is still not an action!

I think that we are all missing one point. That is PEOPLE named these things. Nobody/nothing told us these things.

How do we know if fact that a car is not a house or that a fence is not a pot?

These names were all agreed upon by the people.

So I vote to call an action is a group of parts such as receiver, trigger, bolt and any bottom metal.

Hip

Hey. I was gonna say that. Hah. And how Mr. Grinch.

Might I add ... it ain't pound feet. It's foot pounds. Dammit.

quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Grinch:
I agree with Tom…
It is my belief that an action is the sum of the parts, i.e., receiver, bolt, trigger, magazine, triggerguard, etc. To call a receiver an action is misleading, especially if trying sell the “action”.

Just like an engine is the sum of all its parts, block, cylinder heads, crank, pistons, etc.

Opinions may vary, but the facts remain the same.

How about complete action or incomplete action? Then there's the more general type description such as bolt action, lever action, break action, etc.

To quote Jim Kobe - confused yet?

All the other definitions of the word "action", are far more interesting.
I liked her action, so I married her.