Do you think there is enough of a market for someone to build single shot actions?

If so what actions would you like to see built?

These are the ones I'd like to see made.

1. Heeren

2. Side lever falling block

3. Farqharson

4. Hagn system but with slightly different styling, something internally similar to the Hagn and externally similar to the Dakota M10.

5. I'd also like to see a break action offering that looked like the K95, Merkel and Krieghoff

I think if the action was affordable to the average Joe (like me) there would be a market, you can get a Ruger No1 complete rifle for less than a $1000 and they are very popular in a variety of calibres. But that's the conundrum...to produce a single shot action is time consuming and expensive to manufacture without big investments in machinery to push out large volumes...its a catch 22.

Personally the only single shot action Id like to see is a Gibbs Farquharson style, with sliding tang safety (with styling like a Sorocca...beauftiful lines IMO). I'd buy an action if it was $750 or less.

I'd like to see an affordable side lever that would be easier to reload prone or off a bench theN a bottom lever or break open.

I'd buy an action that permitted quick takedown and reassembly, such as a breakopen. However the breakopens I've seen were either too expensive, too weak, or too cheap-looking. I want something that would be suitable for a short-as-possible hard case as well as multiple barrels.

Have built 1 or 2 takedown Martini Cadets and they worked out OK but the action is slightly too small and awkward for larger cartridges. The Win high wall TD is OK but not rigid enough for best accuracy. The Stevens 44 1/2 TD is, again, OK but not quite rigid enough to suit me.

IMO to make a success of a new SS action, you need to offer something that's not available anywhere else. Examples include lower expense, better looks, better accuracy, more charisma, better ergonomics, or easier stocking, things like that.

Rugers look as good and cost as little as any, but they are difficult to stock for accuracy and they have no charisma (TOO inexpensive, everyone can afford one). Soroka is fairly good-looking with plenty of charisma but would bankrupt me to purchase, ditto the Hagn (perhaps my favorite). T-C had a splendid idea with their TCR but it looks like a Wally World special. Dakota 10 IMO is not quite good-looking enough, especially around the lever and the head of the stock.

For Dakota lever improvement suggestions, please see Steve Hughes' book Custom Rifles in Black and White. Another absolutely splendid example of shape improvements can be found in the same book; Ed Webber's Hagn, IMO the best-looking full-bore SS rifle in the book.

I like SS rifles, good luck with your efforts!
Regards, Joe

My goal would be to have them turn out at around $1200-1500. That way they are at least $500 cheaper than any other custom single shot action and within a few hundred dollars of a number one.

I don't know that it can be done at that price point. And honestly I am probably 4-5 years from having them ready to sell, but I have most of the plans. Or I own the rifle itself and can make plans.

Since I am still in Australia for another year I can't experiement building them yet.

My goal is to use EDM instead of CNC or investment casting.

MOA...is that price you are quoting for the action or a complete rifle? If you are just talking about the action I think that is putting it into the upper end market and consequently low volume sales. $1500 is what Butch Searcy sells his actions for and while they are sublime actions and rifles, you hardly find any info on them...I think because they are pricey and only a few can afford them.

Just my $0.02, and it may well still be very profitable for you.

Good luck for your venture, the shooting world can always use another good single shot action, regardless of price!!

A Dakota M10 is $2500, a Dakota Miller is $2000, a Hagn is $3500 or more.

We aren't doing it yet, so I don't know what the answer is.

sharps-borchert - i do have one and that is in 22 ppc. would be expensive to duplicate for sure

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
sharps-borchert - i do have one and that is in 22 ppc. would be expensive to duplicate for sure

Aside from the trigger, perhaps THE BEST of all the designs for strength and accuracy. I have had them and built them in cals from Improved Zipper to 300 Magnum to 45-70 with absolutely splendid results.

The lever is ugly however, and the original-design trigger needs attention.
Regards, Joe

Sharps Bochart?

Not really interested in those, but I'll put some feelers out.

I have been taking EDM shop classes at night after work in hopes to be able to make this work.

Investment in a EDM machine is the expensive part, well besides telling the wife.

here's a sharps borchardt

Cool! Very nice single shot rifle!
Is it a old action or is it new? In Germany, such rifles are very rare. Befor a few years, I saw a Colt-Sharps, but the original Borchardt style is more pleasing.

Martin

First off, I'll list what I WOULDN'T want:


1. Anything where the overall cost of the whole basic rifle with plain walnut stocks is more than $1,400.00. I don't care how expensive the rifle gets with all kinds of options added, so long as the basic rifle is no more than that.

2. Any side-lever falling block. I have owned some of the best (like Fraser's) and they simply don't have the extraction leverage, sometimes, that I want.

3. Anything with "unusual" works, such as Frank de Haas' experimental models which had a round falling block and a side-swinging hammer. I've shot Frank's own .444 Marlin rifle using his "improved" design of that system for a several weeks trial and found nothing about it which I felt provided any improvements over many other conventional designs.

4. Any falling block which has a little "spur" on the trigger guard so the guard can be "swung" and be used as the lever actuating the action. I would much prefer something with a loop lever such as is found on lever action rifles. A Ruger No.1-style opening lever is also okay with me, but definitely not anything like a No.3 style lever.


SOME OF WHAT I WOULD LIKE would include

1. Easily interchangeable barrels requiring no tools more complex than a screwdriver to change (not necessary, but nice).

2. iron sights...including a fixed front sight, and an adjustable rear sight provision...even if that was just drilling and tapping for a receiver sight.

3. A buyer's choice of either 22" or 27" barrel.

4. A simple, adjustable single-lever trigger, and an extra cost optional single-set trigger.

5. Factory drilled and tapped for scope mounts, both ON the barrel IF it has easily switched barrels. That way each barrel can carry its own scope and not require sighting-in every time a barrel is replaced.

6. Action size and materials quite safe and suitable for cartridges to at least the length and diameter of the .348 Winchester case.


OF THE EXISTING ACTIONS OUT THERE, possibly the cheapest to make and the best working from my own experience have been (FOR ME!)...

1. The Remington Rolling Block when converted to loop under-lever configuration. Of course it is still not among the strongest of configurations possible, and needs a very precisely heat-treated action body, a very strong and larger diameter cross pin, and a modern, tightly dimensioned firing pin/striker hole.

2. The military Sharps Borchardt.

3. The original TCR '83 Aristocrat. (Though I would much prefer that rifle with a single-set trigger or a close-coupled double-set trigger instead of the standard widely spaced double-set triggers it first came with.)

---------------

I also very much like Winchester Hi-Walls, and would like the Fraser even better IF it was built as under-lever instead of side-lever rifle.


You'll notice I have left out both the Farquharson and Alexander-Henry rifles. I have owned orginals of both makes/designs chambered for African and Raj cartridges and did not care for them. They were built like semi-trucks or D-10 Cats and to me were needlessly heavy and frankly, rather ugly. Slimmed down and made of modern steel alloys, they might be very nice though.

[COLOR:RED]PLEASE NOTE: I am expressing my own likes and dislikes, opinions, and feelings here. I am NOT trying to speak for anyone else and do NOT pretend to do so or to have any idea whatsoever what others might want or not want. I am sure they will all tell you their likes and desires.[/COLOR

Thanks for the photos of the Sharps.

Nice looking rifle.

Price point is everything isn't it. I don't know how a small company could produce a rifle for $1400.

MOA single shot pistols are $1000, and Freedom arms pistols are $1500-2000 so maybe it is possible, but I don't know.

Single shot actions will come after I figure out what the financial money making niche is.

Right now I think it is:

1. Supressors/moderators/silencers whatever you want to call them.
2. high quality AR15/AR10 receivers/guns
3. high quality M700 clones with integral rails
4. 1913 compatable scope mounts made out of quality materials.
5. Zombie bullshit

quote:

Rugers look as good and cost as little as any, but they are difficult to stock for accuracy and they have no charisma (TOO inexpensive, everyone can afford one).

What I get from your comment is Rugers are too common and and so the average Joe can afford to buy one should he want to hunt with one. I'm quite sure that there are quite a few people like me who would love to own something like a Dakota Model 10. I've had the pleasure of holding and shooting and would dearly love to get one of my own.
I'm guessing that Ruger #1s just don't give you enough snob appeal. So be it.
I've only had one that gave serious accuracy problems and sending it back to Ruger got that squared away just fine and that little #1A in 7x57 is in a close heat with my #1S in .300 Win. Mag. for first place in my eyes. Probably be a tie till the day I die.
Ok, enjoy what ever one you like because I don't care whether you approve, I'll be enjoying the hell out of my common Ruger #1s for I hope, one hell of a long time.
Paul B.

quote:

Originally posted by MOA TACTICAL:

Price point is everything isn't it. I don't know how a small company could produce a rifle for $1400.

Single shot actions will come after I figure out what the financial money making niche is.

Right now I think it is:

1. Supressors/moderators/silencers whatever you want to call them.
2. high quality AR15/AR10 receivers/guns
3. high quality M700 clones with integral rails
4. 1913 compatable scope mounts made out of quality materials.
5. Zombie bullshit

I guess that depends on how many custom options you want to make available within the basic price. I would suggest NO free options other than the chamberings available. Your fancy-dancy customers can always order all the options they can afford, either from you or from some custom 'smith. But first you need to make them want to be CUSTOMERS by offering a reasonably priced, good working, attractive (but not fancy) basic firearm.

It certainly IS possible to make rifles for less than $1,400, though. Single shot rifles need be no more complex than good bolt rifles, and there are scads of those out there for $1,400 or less.

Likewise, Ruger and Browning both make very nice single shots for well under that sum. Current dealer price for Rugers is under $800...that may not be what they quote, but that is what they sell to dealers for in the real world.

True, they are big companies with economies of scale in their favor. BUT, a small company does not have the advertising costs, the plant overhead, the employee benefits, all the other big ongoing nuts to crack before they turn a profit. Good rifles sell themselves by word of mouth, especially if they are reasonably priced. And the lower the price, the bigger the potential market.

One of the reasons Bill Ruger was successful is that he didn't make what everyone else was making, but he did make some things lots of folks wanted! Like a nice single shot rifle at a decent price! And he used his brain to figure out how to provide that at a reasonable price.

Hi-Standard .22 automatic pistols were as much as $100 at full retail when Bill put his .22 auto on the market for $39.50. Turns out the Ruger pistol shot just as well as the pricier Hi-Standards too, and SCADS of .22 competitiors accurized and used them to win many big matches over the ensuing years.

That, of course, is everyone's real challenge, no matter what they decide to make. The trick is not to just make the same thing every one else does and hope for a share of their market, but to come up with useful stuff which can be made inexpensively with the proper new innovations applied to production and QC.

Anyone who can't figure out how to do that, might want to consider staying out of the business as an independent, and just try for some sub-contracts from the folks who have.

BTW, none of this is intended nastily, but as business advice for those hobbiests who don't realize the gun making business is just that....a competitive, tough business where one needs to fill real wants with good products at a reasonable price, delivered on time. There is lots of room for the small guy/small company, but only if they are willing to produce to meet their selected market and don't expect instant acclaim or riches.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with the original sharps actions/rifles used during the buffalo hunting period in the west.

But after having owned 2 Ruger No.1's, I just really can't get into single shots. As much as I would like to get ahold of one of the Chiappa Sharps in 38-55, to me it would be more of a novelty than something I would actually hunt with.

I hope you can work up something that will attract some attention MOA. It mioght be good to have a quality new design SS at a reasonable price. My biggest problem with the 2 No.1's I had, a .375 H&H and a 338 Win.Mag. is the barrel was too short and too heavy. I can say the same thing for 2 of the Model 77 Ruger's I owned.

Best of luck with your projects.

I'd like to see that small Fraser that Cape Outfitters was selling come back with the kinks worked out.

I want to be the small guy.

I have a military retirement and enough capitol that we don't want to borrow ourselves into financial destitude to make this work.

I don't have any dilusions of grandeur on being the next fortune 500 gun company or being the next John Browning.

Right now the exacting details of what we are going to produce besides actions are state secrets. I am not really interested in putting a lightbulb in someone elses brain.

I agree that an rifle could be produced for under $1500. If a person is building it by hand it's not going to be a $1500 rifle. I talked to Tony Galazan about this a few years ago, he told me that the only way he could offer his new shotguns at the price point he was at, was by not touching a single part with human hands.

My own back ground in manufacturing comes from running a Navy Paraloft. Granted we are talking about stiches per inch not thousands of an inch in manufacturing details, but none the less I made it work, had production lines and kept work flowing.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul B:

quote:

Rugers look as good and cost as little as any, but they are difficult to stock for accuracy and they have no charisma (TOO inexpensive, everyone can afford one).

What I get from your comment is Rugers are too common and and so the average Joe can afford to buy one should he want to hunt with one. I'm guessing that Ruger #1s just don't give you enough snob appeal. So be it.
Paul B.

Paul, it's not ME I'm talking about, it's many of the higher-end consumers who would never stoop to own what they call an 'agricultural-grade' product.

Personally, except for the honkin' big ejector spring hanger and excessive action length, IMO the Ruger is BY FAR the best buy for anyone's money, and the snobs who denigrate it are too blind to see it. Sure, it's not perfect, and I greatly prefer my original high walls and Borchardts and Cadets, but the Ruger is still THE best buy for the money that anyone's likely to find any time soon.

But, because of the moderate price point, many Conspicuous Consumers don't think it's really a quality item even though it's about twice as strong and twice as good-looking as its competitors.

Conspicuous Consumers? The Doctrine of Conspicuous Consumption was first termed as such at around the turn of the 20th century, in the era of the robber barons. Conspicuous Consumers are the ones who think that the price tag determines the braggin' rights of an item, and that their excessive spending somehow makes them and their possessions 'better' than lesser-cost items and not-so-fortunate people.

Personally, I find that bragging about how MUCH you spent is kinda stupid; I'd MUCH rather be able to brag about how LITTLE I spent!

But, different strokes....
Regards, Joe

Well, it I misunderstood your comments I certainly do apologize. I just happen to be a Number One Junkie. I do have more than a few running from .22 Hornet to .416 Rigby. Some do have their problems but I usually can iron them out. The only one that was so bad that it had to go back to Ruger was my #1A in 7x57. It had a throat that was 2.5" long as determined by my gunsmith. It took Ruger 7 months to get it back to me and now it is a tackdriver. As far as looks, I much prefer the ones with the Alex Henry forearms.
Paul B.

MOA - I'm actually tracking 100% with the suggested designs in your original post, all #1-#5.

I would just add that the only thing which might keep me away from purchasing any of these bare actions at or below about $1500 is if they are made in "one-size-fits-all" proportions. Seems as though folks have plenty of large/capable actions to choose from compaired to the scarce smaller-sized actions that fit the ".308W and under" class of chamberings so well.

Sincerely wishing you the best if you choose to go for it.

-Ian

Side lever falling block for sure !
I would like to see a Farqharson as well, but there are options out there now that are "close"

O

quote:

Originally posted by richj:
I'd like to see that small Fraser that Cape Outfitters was selling come back with the kinks worked out.

That was a VERY attractive little action, and they also had the sights and quarter-rib to go with it!

I agree that an action of that size and shape would sell like hotcakes IF it worked properly. Unfortunately Frank de Haas concluded that that particular design was not satisfactory, at least not for mass production with no idividual fitting/polishing.

As I said above, I'll bet that a properly-designed action of that size and general shape would sell like hotcakes!
Regards, Joe

I would look at something generally similar to the Ruger No 3 or Winchester Hi Wall in a series of different sizes that scale from rimfire to BMG. There are some in the middle range but not much choice on the large and small end.

Coming up with a rifle as you describe at a +/- $1400 pricepoint will prove to be all but impossible. An action, maybe, but not a complete rifle.
I do agree though that small frame falling blocks are great and something missing in most maker's lineup except really Stevens.
I would like to see a hammerless version of the Stevens Favorite with a more contoured frame and stocked to adult proportions.

The Heeren is a personal favorite regardless of how weak the ejection is, so it is the first one I am going to work on when we get set up.

Then probably the side lever falling block.

Farqys and Hagn type single shots are well represented, so we will just see how it goes.

I think 3 sizes of each system we make will be enough.

They are only going to be for rimmed cartridges, only in chrome steel, and as low as a price point as is possible to make it work. Hopefully $1200-1500.

I have hunted with Ruger No1's, I like them, and I have shot and handled several other single shots, from the various Sharps to the Dakota.

My personal favorite, hands down, is the Blaser K 95. It is a takedown, and once you hunt with a takedown, you will not be happy with any other non takedown, at least IMHO.

AND the Blaser K 95 is one of the MOST accurate of rifles, regardless of action type...

I don't agree, the take down feature isn't even something I consider mandatory.

I have a k95 with 3 barrels, and a Sauer 202 with 2 barrels. At one time I had 4 R93 receivers and 13 barrels.

Takedown is just another gimick.

Personally I'd rather have 3 K95s than have 3 barrels. Or 2 Sauer 202's or what have you.

Too much gadget effect on the concept.

Problem with the taken down concept is that you never have the right barrel on the rifle.

Krieghoff and Merkel single shot rifles being a much bigger pain in the ass to get set up for swap barrels, probably make you a little cooler headed in deciding what caliber is the right caliber.

Not even remotely interested in 'swapping' multiple barrels, but AM VERY interested in keeping the hard-cased package as short and sturdy as possible, for transportation protection and ease of baggage handling.

Of course, if your rifles are safe queens then you might not care about protection traveling to the field (grin).

Might be a 'gimmick' to you, but it's the main thing I'm seeking in a new action. There are already far, far more single shot actions out there than necessary, and most of them will fall by the wayside soon enough IF they don't offer something unique AND affordable.

Think about it, please.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Not even remotely interested in 'swapping' multiple barrels, but AM VERY interested in keeping the hard-cased package as short and sturdy as possible, for transportation protection and ease of baggage handling.


Might be a 'gimmick', but it's the main thing I'm seeking in a new action. There are already far, far more single shot actions out there than necessary, and most of them will fall by the wayside soon enough IF they don't offer something unique AND affordable.

Think about it, please.
Regards, Joe

The practicality of what Joe is saying in this quote should be as obvious as a Freeway Billboard.

One of the rifles I always really enjoyed was a little Savage 219 I had in its original canvas carry "sock" with three barrels. (.30-30, .22 Hornet, and .410 shotgun). For years that went with me just about everywhere I traveled, by train, plane, private vehicle, horse, snowmobile, or shank's mare.

It went when many "better" (higher status) guns didn't because it was a very small package, was dirt cheap, was plenty accurate for use in the field . And had it gotten broken or stolen, "Oh well..." In those days one could always get another tuit suite.

These days, I like the concept of switch barrels now that the wife and I have "down-sized", just because they take up so much less storage space at home. I always have the right barrel on whichever take-down rifle I am using out in the field, 'cause I hunt specific animals, not just whatever gets up in front of me, and I have enough experience to know what I will be best off taking. That's no different than choosing which rifle to take if one has a bunch which aren't take-downs.

The idea of different size actions is nice, but first a guy has to make a success of his business, before he starts trying to please everyone, unless he has Bill Gates as his silent partner.

The biggest chunk of the market probably lies somewhere between the small varmint cartridges and the "whumper-dumper" magnums. so the middle size is what I would pick to begin with.

Most of the long term privately owned business successes I know or have taught started out as "small-time operators". That is, they started with things like a tiny 12-cent carbon receipt pad, rather than a $3,000 cash register, and they only spent money on "deluxe" after they had enough to pay cash and not hurt their business finances.

Most of the guys who started out with visions of being "big-time operators" and spent money up front for things that weren't absolute neccesities ended up as "big-time-broke" former operators after just a couple of years or so when both their working capital and credit were gone.

So, simple, sound, and inexpensive production of one thing people want is how I believe will work for just about anyone who really wants to start working toward long-term viability.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Not even remotely interested in 'swapping' multiple barrels, but AM VERY interested in keeping the hard-cased package as short and sturdy as possible, for transportation protection and ease of baggage handling.

Of course, if your rifles are safe queens then you might not care about protection traveling to the field (grin).

Might be a 'gimmick' to you, but it's the main thing I'm seeking in a new action. There are already far, far more single shot actions out there than necessary, and most of them will fall by the wayside soon enough IF they don't offer something unique AND affordable.

Think about it, please.
Regards, Joe

I'm very interested in swapping barrels and I'm also very interested in falling block actions. Especially something in the Gibbs Farquharson style.Similar to the Soroka Model 07. Single set triger would be an ideal option.I'm not a fan of side levers. Medium and small action sizes that would take up to 30 cal bullets.
I'd want the scope mounted to the action not the barrel, and no iron sights.

Considering the additional cost involved if the actions are only supplied in the white $750+ would be about my limit.

I have never been a fan of break open actions like the K95

You guys that are looking for a cheaper rifle should look at the EAB Co 97 rifle. They start around $800.

The only way I am going to be able to make this work at my price point goal of $1200 is to not have to touch any of the parts by hand.

I can only do this if I can get wire EDM set up and going.

Single shot actions are not going to keep an EDM Machine fed, nor bought. So they will be one of the side lines.

The wonderful thing about EDM is that you can cut Titanium like it is made out of butter. I still don't know what damage the EDM does to the metal.

So we are flying on speculation alone at this point.

So nothing like this then?

quote:

Originally posted by MOA TACTICAL:
You guys that are looking for a cheaper rifle should look at the EAB Co 97 rifle. They start around $800.

Only problem is, they're uglier than homemade sin! I'd much rather start with a TCR but they're mighty plain-looking...
Regards, Joe

I prefer this ugly 1800s contraption to that one, but to each his own.

I don't really understand why anyone would not like the K95.

The R93 lost it's shine on me very quickly. I wish I wouldn't have bought into them so hard and drank so much of the cool aid. Expensive lesson in reselling guns.

When you have an 1874 Sharps in your gunsafe, every other rifle in there cries itself to sleep at night hoping it will be a Sharps when it wakes up.

I said that only partly in jest. The 1874 Sharps is a remarkable instrument, and I have frankly hunted everything with one for years. Don't sell one short.

No that Heeren is not mine, I used to have photos of the Heerens made by Dorleac in France. They are wonderful.

There are some design issues on the Heeren I want to hammer out, but I have drawings, and the pattent of the thing so I should be able to make it work.

A friend of mine has one for me to go over when we move back to the United States.

Farqy's are also wonderful, I don't own one of those either right now. We have a couple folks making them, a guy in New Zealand and one in Texas. Both are expensive.

Hi Moa,
There is a reason that those that make single shot rifles charge what they do. As Matabele pointed out early on in this thread you either need to spend many hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment to get the unit cost down to levels that the average person can afford, such as Ruger, and as you know they are cast (for a few dollars per action and then machined to finish for minimal profit). As you also have ascertained the manufacture of single shot rifles will not sustain a rifle maker, alone. If you choose to be the Mother Teresa of single shot rifle/ action manufacture, and sell your rifles or actions for a loss then fine. But understand that you cannot SELL a decent quality falling block single shot action made from blocks of steel for $1200 unless you are prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of your own tax paid money on buying very expensive equipment and then running it at a commercial loss. If you doubt what I say, then you need to get on the phone and speak with Allan Hall, Wal Winfer, Clay Barker, Martin Hagn, Stuart Satterlee and myself to find out what is really invloved in making a rifle from chunks of steel, from your own design. All of the above people will be more than happy to share with you their experiences of what is involved. I can assure you that those that are commenting here do not know what those above know, from wading through the "waist deep snow" of commercial reality.
Not trying to rain on your parade, just wanting to make sure you speak to those that are wearing the tee shirt before you jump into the deep end. It's not just getting the mechanical design right, or the aesthetics, or the wood supply or the stock maker, or the spring manufacturer, or barrel supply, or your advertising budget, or where to advertise in the first place. It's doing all of the above very well, to ensure the project succeeds.

If you are wanting to do it as a "bucket list" thing then by all means have a go, but make sure you have an alternative income source if you want to have a decent life style, whilst developing it. If you are happy to be strapped to a workshop till you fall off your perch then enjoy the path that lays ahead. If nothing else it is very satisfying creating beautiful single shots.
Feel free to ring on my free phone if you wish to discuss.
All the best
Glenn