Hi all,

Had a chat with my gunsmith yesterday about the single shot 450/400 he will be building me. He is going to copy a Ruger No1 action but remanufacture it from a solid billet, thereby creating tighter tolerances etc. Now the thing is he says he cant incorporate the ejector mechanism, it will only be an extractor. So is this a deal breaker, or am I being too picky? Are the Hagn actions extractor or ejector? And what about the old original Farq's, did they eject or extract?

Any input appreciated, thanks!

It would not be a deal breaker for me at all.

I think the double rifle group hash this out every now and then.

I like the ejector personaly. My Browning single shot has an adjustment that will stop the case from ejecting. You can have both with that system.

I don't think you are being to picky. It's your money and your gun, get it made how you want it.

The Ruger #1 is a rather complicated single shot. Perhaps a simpler design could be copied.

Regardless, he might be able to incorporate the extractor used on some of the Farqs, the Gibbs I believe. Between the finger lever and the extractor lever, there is an intermediate lever; it changes the total leverage part way through the stroke. Operated slowly at the range, you have a strong extractor which leaves the cases on the action. Operated smartly in the field, the case is ejected clear for a quicker reload. In the Ruger, though, the hinge for the finger lever may be too far rearward; I'd have to go look at some pictures.

Take a look at the Browning b-78 action. I think it is the best of both worlds. Left or right eject and center extract.

Thanks for the replies, some interesting points to consider. Ill have a look at the Browning action and suggest the Gibbs extractor to him, perhaps he might be able to incorporate it as that system sounds like the best of both worlds.

Matabele, I should have noted it is possible to get an effect similar to the Farq scheme with a simple L shaped extractor. In such an action, the short leg of the L is longer than in Winchester and Sharps. Contact with the falling breech is first made to the rear of the breech block, giving better leverage. As the breech falls a bit further, the contact point shifts to the front of the breech to produce a flick of the extractor, which when done smartly can eject the case. The Farq scheme works on the same principle but is better for actions where the finger lever hinge is further ahead of the breech face. Karl

No ejector is definitely a deal breaker for me. One of the features of a Sharps is that it will do either, depending on how you work the lever.

If you hunt things that bite, an ejector is a must, as far as I am concerned. I had an encounter with a huge water moccasin a number of years ago and was using a Remington rolling block that is an extractor only action. After that near debacle, I said never again, and have never gone afield with an extractor only rifle since.

I agree sharpsguy, I would feel a lot better if an ejector system could be incorporated.

Karl would you have any schematics or pictures of the Gibbs system you might be able to share? I've never seen a Farq or examined its internals so Im having trouble imagining what you're saying. That system though sounds like a good one! Thanks for the info!

Just a question - why would start from scratch? Why couldn't you "true" up a receiver, just make a new block etc. and keep the ejector system? Short of bragging rights it would seem a better option. --- John303.

Matabele, google has copies of all the US patents, and Farquharson and Gibbs patented their action and its extractor/ejector in the US. Their patent can be found here.

This topic has come up before on another forum. Check this page starting at Reply #26, by me as KWK.

sharpsguy, my No.1 style rolling block readily ejects a spent case. It has the rotary extractor; the spring which holds the breech closed will snap open the breech and extractor near the end of the breech's travel. The rimless military models have a strong ejector (which warranted its own patent).

John, Ive seen an action that my gunsmith has produced and it just looks great. Being machined from scratch it has better tolerances etc and fixing up a Ruger action would bring them into the same ballpark in terms of cost. So Im going to see what he says about the ejector issue, but if its not possible then I may well go with a fixed up No 1 action.

Karl thanks for the link to the patents, appreciate that! That explains things a lot better. Im sure there is a solution to this problem.

Won't a rimmed cartridge simply fall out if you raise the barrel? Open the action, and a quick twist of the (left or wright depending on how you hold the rifle) wrist and it's empty.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym SR20:
Won't a rimmed cartridge simply fall out if you raise the barrel? Open the action, and a quick twist of the (left or wright depending on how you hold the rifle) wrist and it's empty.

Maybe maybe not it might fall out. I perfer ejectors but that depends on how fast one needs to reload.

I hunted with a No.1 and No.3 and Contenders for years shot dozens of heads of big game with them.

There was only once that a repeater would have been better.

But I perfer ejectors they make for faster follow up shots.

It would not be a deal breaker for me.

I have used single shots, drillings, double rifle drillings and double rifles that were ejectors and some that were extractors.

My main elephant and cape buff 450 No2 is an extractor gun.


On a new made gun I would get ejectors if it was an option.