quote:

Long have I coveted an International. They are quite scarce here. I have a number of older Martini's in my collection in various calibers, although only one was ever intended to be a target rifle. My .22 is a BSA Model 15 (like the one shown about half-way down the page here: http://www.adamsguns.com/martini.htm , but it has been fitted with a telescope and I made a new stock for it (to get my head behind aforementioned scope). While it is easily capable of knocking a coke can around shot for shot at 300m, it is not capable of the accuracy shown by your Mk.3. Or more probably I am not.

I only shot once in a 200 yard 22lr match. The elevation it takes from 100 to 200 yards, with a 22lr, is equal to the amount of elevation you add on a 308 Win rifle going from 600 to 1000 yards. I cannot imagine shooting a 22lr at anything at 300 yards and expecting to hit anything but planet earth!

quote:

The ergonomic advantage you mention during the loading cycle is one of the main reasons I like the idea of a falling block in prone competition shooting, but the issues you note with regard to shooting position are now concerning me. What do you feel could/should be done about this, and what do you think of my pistol grip design as shown in one of the pictures I posted earlier in the thread?

My Martini lever requires more clearance under the rifle to load than a bolt rifle. How low a position a shooter can take is important. I would assume an F Class shooter does not want to pick the action up to reload. As for the hand position, it looks better than the BSA, but adjustability of everything has received more importance over the years for shooters.

quote:

How does the time-adjustment work?

My joke must have been too oblique about rifles being adjustable in time and space. Sort of a Dr Who joke. Modern target 22lr rifles are adjustable for pull, cheekpiece, grips are replaceable, grips can be moved up, down, and sideways. Same with the buttplate and forearm.
https://www.feinwerkbau.de/en/...r-Rifles/Model-800-X

You can see a wide variety of stock designs on the same page, within this article

https://precisionrifleblog.com...11/28/rifle-chassis/

A friend had a smallbore action installed in an Eliseo Tubegun Stock, and the setup was amazingly adjustable.

https://www.gotxring.com/smallbore/

quote:

One thing I note with interest is how the barrel-to-receiver connection changed during the development of the International action, from a relatively normal short threaded connection to a much longer clamped connection. To my mind this to some extent vindicates my concerns about the short threaded connection seen in most actions, although of course it doesn't in any way indicate that my solution is any better.

Anschutz presses and pins their barrels to the action, but I have heard of Anschutz rifles shooting loose and Karl Kenyon, now deceased, used to thread Anschutz actions and install threaded barrels for shooters. I am sure BSA went to a clamped in barrels for cost reasons.

quote:

I do believe that action design (and stock bedding for that matter) is far more influential in high-pressure "full bore" rifles than in .22Lr, simply because the forces generated are so much greater.

There are a number of highpower actions out there that use the same barrel extension that the AR15 uses, the action is just something that holds the two, and the common material is aluminum. I don’t have one, and don’t know how rigid they are. For centerfire, I am going to claim that rigidity is a good and desired characteristic as rigid actions will have more consistent vibration modes. Which means they are less ammunition sensitive.

Here is my MK2 martini. I chambered the barrel to K Hornet and use 40 grain jet bullets. It shoots better than Tenex did in the original. Thanks Slam (Dr. Who) for the excellent information.

Sorry, I don't know how to multi-quote.

As a part-time soldier (called Citizen Force here) I used to shoot what we call service rifle, which was a set table consisting of positional shooting exercises at 100, 200 and 300m using issue rifles. At the end of the shoot, it was customary to haul out the chairs and the cooler boxes and have a beer. One of the problems with me is that I don't drink beer. So I would haul out my .22 and carry on shooting. After the first couple of occasions I decided I was too lazy to walk closer, and tried shooting from the 300m position. To do that, I had to wind the scope (an old Tasco 4x44)'s elevation all the way up and aim at the point where the duplex reticle gets thicker, and then obviously apply some windage, but because the splashes were clearly visible against the berm, it proved quite easy to walk the shots on to target. For several years, I did this quite frequently.

With regard to lever clearance under the rifle, is this something you have personally experienced as a problem? I have often heard people opine that this would be a problem, but always suspected that this is from people who have never actually tried shooting a single-shot lever action from prone. My normal prone position is high enough that I never have, with a reasonably wide variety of rifles (including lever-action repeaters which tend to have much longer levers with longer strokes). In this specific design, the end of the lever only drops below the bottom of the pistol grip by 44mm, which is about 20mm less than that of my .22.
In fact, with the rifle standing on the ground (bipod and butt grounded) there is still 34mm clearance under the tip of the lever.
I can see that this could be a problem in a combat situation, where for one's own safety it may be prudent to get down as flat as possible, but I have never seen anyone shoot from a low enough position for that to be a problem on a target range.

If it really is a problem, the under-lever could easily be changed to a side-lever, but then the ambidextrous nature is lost although God only knows why that worries me since I am not ambidextrous.

With regard to making the grip adjustable, that is one area where the under-lever does become a real drawback, because the lever is also the front edge of the grip. Again, a side-lever would solve that problem. I have compromised by using wooden grip panels bolted to an aluminium tang so that they can be re-shaped and/or replaced easily

As for making the stock adjustable for length of pull, comb height and butt angle, this can easily be done. I have designed two stocks for this action, one of which uses the same butt attachment mechanism as that tube-stock you referred to, and one which forgoes such features and instead prioritizes lightness and robustness, as that would better suit the type of use I would probably put the rifle to should I ever be able to get it made.

Once again, this is not something I expect to manufacture or have manufactured in any quantity. In fact, it is unlikely to ever see the light of day, and thus I have taken the liberty to design it to suit me.

With regard to barrel-to-action connection, the current concept is a very long thread with a short section of pin/journal fit to ensure concentricity at the chamber end. Hopefully this creates a situation which incorporates the best features of both methods of barrel attachment.

With regard to using the AR-type setup (and this also applies to rifles like the Blazer and many of the current German designs) it must be noted that the locking lugs are incorporated in the barrel. This is a great system which is unfortunately not possible with a falling block.

quote:

Originally posted by gwahir:
Here is my MK2 martini. I chambered the barrel to K Hornet and use 40 grain jet bullets. It shoots better than Tenex did in the original. Thanks Slam (Dr. Who) for the excellent information.

A beautiful piece of wood! Is this a left-handed action, or is the photo flipped?

Yes, it is left hand. I am right handed but get along well with left hand off the bench.

Well, it's a mighty pretty rifle.

My dad had a .22 hornet built on a small-frame Martini action. Was a lovely walk-and-stalk rifle which took many Impala, but the barrel had some pitting and so it was never spectacularly accurate, and it had to be kept clean to work at all well.

Peter, whereas the international martini is not a falling block, it is a fine example of a single shot designed for accuracy; principles that apply to a potential falling block. IE; lock time, mass, hell for stout through bolt stock attachment which works in the direction of recoil, nice trigger, adequate barrel shank which could easily be designed longer, compact action with no flex problems, excellent gas control with no silly ass raceways.. On the other hand a bolt action is a nightmare for accuracy! The action is long and flexible (floppy) and depends upon attachment to WOOD for stability! And that attachment is at a right angle to the force it tries to contain! I could rant about this for quite a while!

Guess it depends what accuracy level you want to achieve with it. If you are talking about shooting .1"s like in 100yd benchrest comps, that will be a tougher task for sure, they have enough issues with it with bolt actions. Upsetting the gun with the action cycling function is a bit of an issue in itself with a falling block as you have to have higher bags and rests for clearance, and twisting the gun in the bags is an easy thing to do when cycling the lever. Lock time is perhaps another issue, how fast can it be made in comparison to a good benchrest bolt gun. Not really difficult to build an aluminum framed chassis to mount it into, may not be as pretty as you'd like it, but, how much of a consideration is that vs accuracy. Plenty of folk in ASSRA can shoot .2's & .3's with their guns at 100 and stay under 1/2MOA at 200 & 300, with breech seated cast bullets, falling blocks req'd for the Schuetzen comps. Not sure what will happen with the Dean Miller/ Dakota action now, been a few records set using it, with two piece stocks.

quote:

Originally posted by gwahir:
Peter, whereas the international martini is not a falling block, it is a fine example of a single shot designed for accuracy; principles that apply to a potential falling block. IE; lock time, mass, hell for stout through bolt stock attachment which works in the direction of recoil, nice trigger, adequate barrel shank which could easily be designed longer, compact action with no flex problems, excellent gas control with no silly ass raceways.. On the other hand a bolt action is a nightmare for accuracy! The action is long and flexible (floppy) and depends upon attachment to WOOD for stability! And that attachment is at a right angle to the force it tries to contain! I could rant about this for quite a while!

Certainly true if considered within the limits of the caliber it was designed for, and even within the limits of any caliber that this action can accommodate (of which I assume .22 Hornet is about the largest).

The disadvantages of tilting blocks do become apparent when considering the forces generated by high-pressure rounds with larger case diameters though. Once again, there are probably ways to get around these as well.

However, it seems to me that most competitive rifles are now stocked primarily in aluminium alloy or to a lesser extent polymer/composite materials, which in my experience makes a big difference, if not in ultimate accuracy but certainly in the reliability of that accuracy (in other words temperature and humidity changes have little or no effect in the accuracy).

quote:

Originally posted by 209jones:
Upsetting the gun with the action cycling function is a bit of an issue in itself with a falling block as you have to have higher bags and rests for clearance, and twisting the gun in the bags is an easy thing to do when cycling the lever. Lock time is perhaps another issue, how fast can it be made in comparison to a good benchrest bolt gun.

While I agree with most of what you say, I would like to discuss these two points above.

Firstly, do you really need higher bags? Every commercially-available bag I have seen is high enough. As stated before, I only need 40mm below the bottom of the pistol grip.

As for twisting the rifle by manipulating the lever, surely this is MORE of a problem with a bolt-action, particularly a cock-on-opening bolt action, because the rotating portion of bolt movement takes place against significant spring pressure, whereas a lever moves straight forward and back (assuming the forces required to cycle the action are reasonable)?

As for lock time, the striker is considerably shorter and lighter than virtually any bolt-action's, so this should be superior to most in that respect. This and a consistent and crisp trigger pull were the primary reasons for building the entire firing mechanism into the breech block.

With regard to your comment on aesthetics, the intention has always been to mount it in a purpose-built aluminium stock. I hesitate to use the term "chassis", as to me that indicates a modular approach allowing random bits and bobs to be bolted on and off, and that is not really the case here, although it would not be difficult to implement. This will certainly not be a pretty rifle in the traditional sense. Tacticool perhaps, even though I am not a big fan.

I use this simple attachment to bolt action singleshots, here on a 40x. I profile these on the milling machine. Just showing aluminum!

I want to find a diagram of the inner workings of the de Haas Miller and post it here. No joy.

Not a falling block and sorry Peter - way off topic, but my 'shell holder' action is sort of half way between a bolt action and a single shot, hopefully using the best of both worlds. This one on my bullpup, but the 'stock' that I used on the 40x above could be used here.

The bolt is removed to load the rifle.

The butt end. This has to be the ultimate stiff action!

I do have De Haas's 1969 book "Single-shot rifles & actions" in which he published a section-view drawing of his action.
I am not sure what changes were made before production as the sketch does not show the safety catch.

Here is a close-up section of the internals of my breech block:


As can be seen, while there are a number of similarities, there are also significant differences.
The front-most lever is used to cock the striker. When ready to shoot, it is retracted as shown, and thus doesn't influence the acceleration of the striker. The pin behind the trigger's vertical section is an eccentric and is used to adjust sear engagement. With the action in the open position, it can be adjusted with two Allen keys from either side (one to lock and one to adjust). It will be a bit fiddly to adjust but after all it's not something one will be fiddling with on a regular basis.
Each moving component is separately sprung, so that getting the ideal tension on all springs is relatively easy.
A primary objective was to maximize the room allowed for the main-spring, to get as close as possible to a constant force during it's travel.
Sear surfaces are flats rather than notches, which should make it much easier to get them flat, smooth and square. However, the two most important differences from an accuracy standpoint is that mine has "shoulders" on the block, thus the recoil loads are kept in the front of the block (over a much shorter length and where the block is still relatively solid), and the way the action and barrel combination transfers recoil into the shooter's shoulder.

With regard to your bullpup "shellholder" action, I do believe it should be a very accurate action. Perhaps a bit fiddly to re-load (although nowhere near as bad as some others), but there are always compromises. I also believe there is a relatively easy solution, should you want one. From an "ideal accuracy" point of view, the only theoretical drawback I can think of is is that the position of the sear will tend to tip the bolt up at the rear when the action is closed and ready to fire. This is obviously common to all bolt actions, but because your bolt is so short, the effect will be slightly greater. On the other hand, I expect you have predicted that and resolved the concern by using a tighter tolerance between bolt and receiver than found on most production bolt-actions.

To be honest, it is precisely actions like this, the Barnard and so forth that my action is intended to compete with, not actions like the De Haas/Miller or the Hauck. At least on a theoretical level. And once again, I suspect the whole thing is moot because once one gets to this level, any differences in accuracy will be impossible to discern due to the effects of barrel and ammunition consistency.

Peter, I did build the bolt fit rather 'tight' but the way to really resolve the sear pressure issue is to float the bolt head. I have told others that many times, but, of course, have not done it myself! It is the journey, not the destination!

Have you considered a 9 o'clock extractor position? I am designing one for the Hauck.

Your internal block design is the best I have seen; a few simple parts. The forward shoulder concept, however, has me thinking. I might be a bit concerned about the receiver walls 'spreading' behind the shoulders. Any way. Hang in there!

quote:

Originally posted by gwahir:
Peter, I did build the bolt fit rather 'tight' but the way to really resolve the sear pressure issue is to float the bolt head. I have told others that many times, but, of course, have not done it myself! It is the journey, not the destination!

Have you considered a 9 o'clock extractor position? I am designing one for the Hauck.

Your internal block design is the best I have seen; a few simple parts. The forward shoulder concept, however, has me thinking. I might be a bit concerned about the receiver walls 'spreading' behind the shoulders. Any way. Hang in there!

Floating bolt head would solve the problem, if it even is a problem.

My previous action comes from both sides, just under the centerline (so 4 and 10 o'clock). But that is for a rimmed case, and so it can be a single, solid and robust part that can't slip over the rim. I don't like the idea of relying on a spring to keep the extractor from slipping off the rim (even if that's the way it's done on pretty much every bolt action). I did figure out a way to keep such an extractor physically in the groove when extracting without preventing the loading of the next round, but it requires quite a lot of pretty complex machining.

I quite like the extractor setup on the Hagn action. This one does the same (in other words, it gets pushed against the case positively such that the more extraction force is needed, the more it jams into the case but for loading it drops away completely), but in a completely different way (if it works that is). The disadvantage is of course that it won't pull the case out of the chamber as far as one that contacts higher up.

Thanks for the compliment. I have considered that. That is why the receiver side-walls continue to form a stirrup around the back of the breech block.