American Rifle Company New Archimedes Action, New Xylo Chassis, and major Mausingfield revision

Watch the classifieds for preorder sales for the Archimedes. People sell them. I bought one, and plans changed so I listed it for the same price I bought it.

But, with these changes it has me rethinking whether I go ahead and get the second Archimedes...
 
I ordered a Mausingfield Oct 15, my 16 weeks expired I sent an email and was told they have done a revision and they wanted all new orders to receive the new design. Read the redesign and got very discouraged, I felt it was cheapened by the revisions. I ended up going with a Hunter from LRI, I lost the keyed scope rail I thought would be icing on the cake. Im now happy with my limited edition Mausingfiled and super stoked about the Archimedes having an integral lug.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hereinaz and moshek
older remington's did have a bolt lock feature when the safety was engaged there was a leg on the safety lever that would come up and lock the bolt if you look at older remington bolts you will see a notch for the leg to lock the bolt. I have two remington 40x's that have that feature.

Montrose

I'm not aware of any Rem 700 triggers that have bolt locking capability. If anyone is, I would appreciate a link so that I can have a look. But I am certainly sympathetic to your desire for one. A bolt locking feature is nice. I incorporate a bolt lock into the Model 2 and well as the Model 1, which was never made public outside of the USPTO database. See patent number 7,743,543. I'm not sure how one would pull this off in a Mausingfield but my first guess would be something similar to what your described, that is slotting the bolt in front of the cocking cam and then engaging that slot with a blade sliding along the sear bar of the fire-control assembly. but packaging all of that into a small envelop would be tricky but doable, maybe.

I've though about designing a trigger for the R700 and our actions. I would likely favor a 3-bar configuration similar to the old Canjars (if I'm thinking about those correctly) with no frills. Conceptually, trigger design is mostly about reducing the contact force between the two little piece of metal that slide by one another before releasing the striker. There are a number of ways to do this and all but the TriggerTech use leverage to do it. Three levers, like the Canjars, Anschutz with the long sear bars, or the Jewell with their toggle mechanism are very good solutions. TriggerTech inserted a roller between the two components that would otherwise be sliding against each other nearly eliminate friction therebetween. But as I indicated earlier, nothing is free. TriggerTech paid of for the roller with an increase in stress within the load bearing components and that stress is by no means insignificant, something that I would bet they are very aware of. The TriggerTech Diamond seems prone to dropping the striker if the bolt is cycled very quickly. I like their triggers but with some practice during this past Shot Show, I was able to drop the sear 5 out of 5 times. 3 out of 5 was more typical. But in all fairness to those guys, I had this thing set to a really light weight and I'll be the first to admit that nearly all triggers set to really light weights are accidents weighting to happen. I can't say I understand the Bix'n Andy. They use a ball stack but it doesn't seem (to me) that the balls are rolling over one another. It seems like something must be sliding and maybe the balls just provide very inexpensive but strong and smooth surfaces that are good at sliding. Not sure. I like to take a closer look at one some day.

The trigger described in my patent 7,743,543 reduces the sliding contact forces by means of a roller carried upon the striker assembly and impinging upon the sear. I works but I'm not a huge fan of tiny little parts. It also used a four bar linkage configuration having a sear to trigger movement ratio of about 3:1. That is, move the trigger, say 0.010" and the sear moves 0.030". To get that to work, sear friction must be reduced and hence the striker mounted roller. That arrangement will not function well at very light weights, rather it works great at pull weights of 3+ pounds. What's unique about it is that it provides for a single stage trigger with lots (0.040") of sear engagement. That means its probably pretty safe.

Yeah, triggers. I've done more than just think about them. There is certainly opportunity in that area and I'm sure we will see others enter the space with their ideas, new or old.

Ted
 
Those were known to occasionally fire when coming off the safety to cycle the bolt.

The New Ultralight Arms safety mentioned above uses the same type of receiver and bolt slot but it allows you to unlock the bolt by pressing down on the safety lever (leaving it on safe).
 
I traded an email with ARC. Apparently the online description of the Mausingfield and it's features is correct, but the images are not and will be updated when they can be.

I don't keep up with all of the minutiae of what happens at SHOT every year, so when I saw "Major Upgrade for 2019", and this being May, I thought the new version was out. Point. Click. Order. Willing to wait 12-16 weeks.

Now that I know that's not the case, I am standing by with the rest of you.
 
It seems like there are about three options for you. There is the old 2018 Mausingfield which you can probably find new pre-owned, there is the Hunter version that might still be available from stock or pre-owned and there is the 2019 Mausingfield which should be as Ted described in this thread (it's the most recent info as far as I know).

Figure out which one you want and then proceed accordingly.
 
All right then. I finally got around to updating the Mausingfield images. The images are computer renderings and not actual photos. I wouldn't know which end of the camera to point at whatever it is I wish to photograph which is why I rely on rendering software. I have also updated the bullet points.

The 2019 Mausingfield Bolt Action
The 21st century revival of Mauser’s 19th century masterpiece just got better.
Improvements

  • Short action weight 1.9 pounds, long action weight 2.1 pounds (includes rail)
  • Integral 60° dovetail scope mount for use with included ARC Picatinny rail
  • Optional ARC Ul-Ti-Met titanium scope rings directly engage integral 60° dovetail.
  • 83-degree bolt rotation improves knob to scope clearance and shortens bolt cycle.
  • Bolt-lug guide rail improves anti-binding performance.
  • Dual cocking-cams and reduced cocking-cam pitch eases bolt lift.
  • Bump-free bolt closure improves the feel of the action when closing the bolt.
  • New bolt stop design improves durability and functionality.
  • Enlarged ejection port improves manual access.
  • Heavier striker improves ignition reliability.
  • Rem 700 style mag well accepts AICS style mags and supports BDL and Wyatt bottom metal.
  • Machining in the hardened condition improves final form.
  • Salt-bath nitride finish improves corrosion resistance and reduces friction.
The Persistent

  • Proudly engineered and manufactured in the USA
  • Interchangeable bolt heads support multi-caliber rifles
  • Toroidal locking lugs do not require lapping
  • Controlled-round-feeding improves cycle reliability
  • Battle proven Mauser style non-rotating claw extractor
  • Battle proven Springfield style inertial ejection
  • Extremely strong one-piece bolt construction
  • Machined from high quality steels that are both strong and tough
  • Ergonomically designed interchangeable bolt knobs
  • Integral recoil lug facilitates barrel installation
  • Compatible with Savage pre-fit barrels and locknuts (1.0.625-20 UN 2B thread, small shank)
  • Compatible with triggers designed for the Rem 700
  • Compatible with stocks and chassis designed for the Rem 700
 

Attachments

  • M7A.142.png
    M7A.142.png
    843.4 KB · Views: 340
  • M7A.143.png
    M7A.143.png
    804.9 KB · Views: 303
  • M7A.144.png
    M7A.144.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 371
  • M7A.146.png
    M7A.146.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 372
  • M7A.147.png
    M7A.147.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 337
  • M7A.150.jpg
    M7A.150.jpg
    465.6 KB · Views: 364
  • M7A.152.jpg
    M7A.152.jpg
    411.8 KB · Views: 362
  • M7A.151.jpg
    M7A.151.jpg
    340.1 KB · Views: 336
  • M7A.154.jpg
    M7A.154.jpg
    690.7 KB · Views: 394
  • M7A.155.jpg
    M7A.155.jpg
    690.7 KB · Views: 400
more pics
 

Attachments

  • M7A.156.jpg
    M7A.156.jpg
    575.1 KB · Views: 302
  • M7A.158.jpg
    M7A.158.jpg
    429.8 KB · Views: 304
  • M7A.159.jpg
    M7A.159.jpg
    561.2 KB · Views: 328
  • M7A.160.jpg
    M7A.160.jpg
    427.9 KB · Views: 296
  • M7A.161.jpg
    M7A.161.jpg
    315.7 KB · Views: 266
  • M7A.164.jpg
    M7A.164.jpg
    307.2 KB · Views: 282
  • M7A.174.jpg
    M7A.174.jpg
    427 KB · Views: 266
  • M7A.175.jpg
    M7A.175.jpg
    517.2 KB · Views: 254
  • M7A.176.jpg
    M7A.176.jpg
    373.1 KB · Views: 278
I'll try to visit again within the next couple of days to answer more questions or address concerns. But for now, a brief update is in order. We will be notifying everyone who has ordered a Mausingfield for final payment and FFL info within the next week or two, regardless of when they placed their order. Archimedes is the next proiority, and that's going well, followed by the Xylo chassis. Archimedes customers will likely be notified for final payment and FFL info by mid-June. Back soon...

Ted
 
Ted, that looks great. Will the Ul-Ti-Met titanium rings be available with any cant? Or, are they a 0moa affair? Great aesthetics on the new rings (I’m sure the function is not, nor was ever, in question), as, I relayed on the phone to you some time ago that the original style left me wanting. Again, nice form and design. I’ll contact you, or John, to see about adding a pair.

Lastly, is there any chance the timeline for the titanium bottom metal has been moved-up? Thank you
 
Ted, that looks great. Will the Ul-Ti-Met titanium rings be available with any cant? Or, are they a 0moa affair? Great aesthetics on the new rings (I’m sure the function is not, nor was ever, in question), as, I relayed on the phone to you some time ago that the original style left me wanting. Again, nice form and design. I’ll contact you, or John, to see about adding a pair.

Lastly, is there any chance the timeline for the titanium bottom metal has been moved-up? Thank you
We've only made the Ti rings as a specialty item. They're very expensive and demand reflects that. I'm not even sure how we would add inclination to them. I haven't tried designing them that way. As for the Ti bottom metal, we don't even advertise it. Again, very expensive and not really a production item but we will make more, probably later this year.

Ted
 
Ted, thank you for the update, were you ever able to get the part from Ultra Light Arms to see if it could be made to work with the Mausingfield?

Also is the current lead time still at 12 to 16 weeks for a Mausingfield if ordered in the next few days?
 
Ted, thank you for the update, were you ever able to get the part from Ultra Light Arms to see if it could be made to work with the Mausingfield?

Also is the current lead time still at 12 to 16 weeks for a Mausingfield if ordered in the next few days?
I spoke with Melvin Forbes regarding the three function safety that he developed. He indicated that he hasn't produced those for quite some time. I need to follow up with him to discuss the possibility of commencing production or producing it ourselves but I haven't had a chance to reconnect because you guys want your actions sooner than later. That said, it sounds like a cool little device that the world may appreciate.

We'll likely have a Mausingfield or two left over so if you order soon, like right now, you may get in on this next batch. I expect lead times to come down in the future as setting up for production will soon be a memory rather than the all consuming endeavor that it has been. It's also worth mentioning that Nucleus actions are in stock.

Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: duramaxed
Please do not remove ambidextrous ability from the Xylo. :)
Why not? No one makes an ambi-action. The M2 that I brought to Shot Show back in 2014 was an ambi bolt action rifle but I decided that I wasn't comfortable selling actions which put a gaping hole (ejection port) five inches in front of the shooters face. Why do you want an ambi chassis?

Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cody S
Why not? No one makes an ambi-action. The M2 that I brought to Shot Show back in 2014 was an ambi bolt action rifle but I decided that I wasn't comfortable selling actions which put a gaping hole (ejection port) five inches in front of the shooters face. Why do you want an ambi chassis?

Ted

I shoot left bolt right port actions. It was going to be nice to have a factory stock fit right out of the box and then retain resell value due to being relevant in the infinitely broader right bolt right port market.

More people might shoot them if stock options were easier. Maybe not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MYMP5
Why not? No one makes an ambi-action. The M2 that I brought to Shot Show back in 2014 was an ambi bolt action rifle but I decided that I wasn't comfortable selling actions which put a gaping hole (ejection port) five inches in front of the shooters face. Why do you want an ambi chassis?

Ted
I have found that "ambi" style grips are less comfortable and natural to me, a RH shooter.
let the lefties order a lefty chassis (sorry lefties)
I wont buy another KMW sentinel just because the grips are so "generic" feeling and uncomfortable after using one in matches for a year.
good call on that slick wood grip, idk why but it made that skeleton looking chassis pop.
 
I have found that "ambi" style grips are less comfortable and natural to me, a RH shooter.
let the lefties order a lefty chassis (sorry lefties)
I wont buy another KMW sentinel just because the grips are so "generic" feeling and uncomfortable after using one in matches for a year.
good call on that slick wood grip, idk why but it made that skeleton looking chassis pop.

It’s almost like if you had to bolt on a wood grip to a chassis, you could just produce separate left and right hand grip set geometries and let the end user choose what they want. Maybe even have separate width and depth profiles for more grip customization options than has ever been seen on a stock/chassis, without making permanent mods to the rest of the chassis. We need some top men on this...

giphy.gif
 
Ted, what do you call the new Mausingfield, is it just 2019???

Did you retain the feature on the original Mausingfield that cam's the extractor off the cartridge case rim upon bolt close, in the new Mausingfield? This was a deciding factor in my G1 Mausingfield purchase.

Is the non TI mount still included with the action in the price like it was before?

Will the 2019 Mausingfield need a different receiver wrench than the older one?

I like that you designed in those dual cocking cams the most on the 2019 version.
 
I shoot left bolt right port actions. It was going to be nice to have a factory stock fit right out of the box and then retain resell value due to being relevant in the infinitely broader right bolt right port market.

More people might shoot them if stock options were easier. Maybe not.
left bolt right port? Why? Dont shoot from a rear bag ever?
 
Ted, what do you call the new Mausingfield, is it just 2019???

Did you retain the feature on the original Mausingfield that cam's the extractor off the cartridge case rim upon bolt close, in the new Mausingfield? This was a deciding factor in my G1 Mausingfield purchase.

Is the non TI mount still included with the action in the price like it was before?

Will the 2019 Mausingfield need a different receiver wrench than the older one?

I like that you designed in those dual cocking cams the most on the 2019 version.
renderings show the serial number as M7A
 
I spoke with Melvin Forbes regarding the three function safety that he developed. He indicated that he hasn't produced those for quite some time. I need to follow up with him to discuss the possibility of commencing production or producing it ourselves but I haven't had a chance to reconnect because you guys want your actions sooner than later. That said, it sounds like a cool little device that the world may appreciate.

We'll likely have a Mausingfield or two left over so if you order soon, like right now, you may get in on this next batch. I expect lead times to come down in the future as setting up for production will soon be a memory rather than the all consuming endeavor that it has been. It's also worth mentioning that Nucleus actions are in stock.

Ted

Thank you for the update, I knew you had been investing a ton into machinery and bringing more parts in house so I was just curious if you were only making enough to cover the orders you had or doing a larger batch to cover additional orders as well.

Personally I’ve been waiting for the hunter version for a few years now and plan on keeping this rifle for life so I’m more interested in waiting for the results of the safety project than getting one right away and missing out.
 
I’m curious about a couple things:
  1. With the shift from separate to integrated recoil lug on the Archimedes, is it still compatible with Nucleus-style scope rails?
  2. While there are a handful of unallocated M7 Mausingfields in this first batch, is that also the case with the Archimedes?
  3. Is it possible to get a smaller size extractor for the Archimedes for hand-fitting, and are they mechanically compatible with the larger bolt heads? For example, if I were to fireform 8x68S (13mm rim diameter [0.512in]) brass for 300 PRC (0.532in rim diameter), I might be inclined to start with a 0.473in extractor and spend a while with a file to get perfect extraction.
 
Ted, what do you call the new Mausingfield, is it just 2019???

Did you retain the feature on the original Mausingfield that cam's the extractor off the cartridge case rim upon bolt close, in the new Mausingfield? This was a deciding factor in my G1 Mausingfield purchase.

Is the non TI mount still included with the action in the price like it was before?

Will the 2019 Mausingfield need a different receiver wrench than the older one?

I like that you designed in those dual cocking cams the most on the 2019 version.
The new Mausingfield is M7.

Yes, the extractor is cammed away from the case head as the bolt is closed.

An aluminum Pic rail is include with the action for the $1600 price. 20/30/45 MOA option. Short action extended rails are also available as an option.

Yes, because the new Mausingfield uses a guide rail, not unlike a Rem M700. New Mausingfield wrenches are in stock and they also work with the original Mausingfield actions. Again, the old wrench will not work with M7 Mausingfield.

I think that the dual cocking cams improve cocking efficiency by resolving moments that would otherwise increase friction. However, implementing them does come at the price of reduced bolt support for a fully retracted bolt. This is because the bolt shroud locking pin had to be moved counter-clockwise to the lower left portion of the bolt shroud (looking forward at the back of a right-handed action) and accommodating the resulting shroud design within the receiver required removal of surfaces that would otherwise contact the body of the fully retracted bolt. As it turns out, the bolt can still be cycled very quickly and without binding but it is slightly less forgiving than the original. That's the case even with the short actions having extended mag wells (Wyatt length) designated M7A-SAEM-xxxxx. Short action with extended mag wells (SAEM) require the bolt stop to be moved rearwards by 0.140 inches. I had no difficultly at all rapidly cycling unfinished, and therefore sticky, prototype actions. After nitriding, cycling gets significantly easier. So in the end, I think that the price paid for the dual cams was worth it.

It's worth noting that we did not make the long actions with extended mags. We can easily do so but they can already accommodate CIP length 338 Lapua Mags so I didn't see much point in it and I'd rather maintain a bit more engagement between the receiver and the fully retracted bolt as doing so is more important for a long action.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Mausingfield, a fully retracted bolt feels really loose within the receiver. This is intentional. We run about .010 - .012 inches of diametral clearance between the bolt (0.691") and the receiver (0.702") thus enabling the actions to tolerate contaminants. When the bolt is closed, the clearance between the aft end of the bolt and receiver is reduced to near zero. The forward end is approximately self-centering due to the toroidal-lug spherical-receiver interface. The result is a reasonably quiet bolt capable of accuracy most people find acceptable. I can't quantify accuracy because it depends on things outside of my control like barrels and ammo but I can tell you that customers report 5-shot groups as small as 0.25 inches. Those guys tend to shoot things like 6mm Dasher and take great care in loading their ammo.

Some of our competitors run much tighter clearances. Doing so makes for a nice sales-pitch at Shot Show but it really doesn't offer an advantage and makes the action less tolerant of contaminants. The bench rest actions are different. Those are generally used in very clean conditions. But even with those, one need only to create a zero-clearance condition only when the bolt is fully closed.

I hope the previous few paragraphs help you understand some of the thinking that goes into deciding whether to use a single cocking cam or two cocking cams. Over the years, I have been consistently surprised by how difficult it is to design and profitably produce a functionally rich bolt-action.

Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tartan and steve123
I’m curious about a couple things:
  1. With the shift from separate to integrated recoil lug on the Archimedes, is it still compatible with Nucleus-style scope rails?
  2. While there are a handful of unallocated M7 Mausingfields in this first batch, is that also the case with the Archimedes?
  3. Is it possible to get a smaller size extractor for the Archimedes for hand-fitting, and are they mechanically compatible with the larger bolt heads? For example, if I were to fireform 8x68S (13mm rim diameter [0.512in]) brass for 300 PRC (0.532in rim diameter), I might be inclined to start with a 0.473in extractor and spend a while with a file to get perfect extraction.
1. Yes, until I decide to change the design. The Archimdes rail design is not settled matter at the moment. This is a good time for you to voice and opinion about it.

2. Yes, if you order an Archimedes soon, you will be in the first batch.

3. Yes. I would recommend that you order the action with in size 473, for the 8x68. Modification is on you but take it slowly and you'll likely do fine. I would suggest using the corner of a Bear-Tex or similar wheel for modifying the extractor. https://www.nortonabrasives.com/en-us/product/bear-tex-ao-fine-grit-arbor-non-woven-flap-wheel
Opening the bolt face to 0.514" is also recommended. For that you'll need a milling machine or a lathe, or just send it to LRI. Chad's really good at the sort of thing if you can convince hip to take the work. I know he's busy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnochi
In regards to the ambi or the non-ambi chassis, it sounds like this is an ejection port issue. There is no ejection port cut in the Xylo chassis. A right-handed chassis will work equally well with a right-handed (bolt on right side) action regardless of left or right ejection port. grips are made of wood and can by reshaped by you, thus warming your heart.

Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffLebowski
@karagias

Are there going to be any Mausingfield Lefty long Norma mag available? I'm good with the closed top bolted on rail if you have I've of those too!
Yes, long lefts with 589 bolt heads will be available within the first batch, but they of the new design. I don't understand your second sentence. Please clarify. Thanks.

Ted
 
It’s almost like if you had to bolt on a wood grip to a chassis, you could just produce separate left and right hand grip set geometries and let the end user choose what they want. Maybe even have separate width and depth profiles for more grip customization options than has ever been seen on a stock/chassis, without making permanent mods to the rest of the chassis. We need some top men on this...

giphy.gif
I love it. Aren't we doing exactly this? We are TOP MEN and we do TOP MANLY kind of stuff.

Ted
 
Ted, if you're out looking for opinions;

- Direct-attach Aluminum rings for the M7; I can appreciate the concept of what you have going there with the titanium rings, but would prefer some more square lines-- like the M10 rings, especially on the top. Also hopefully lower-height models.

- M10 QD mounts; A cantilever variant suitable for AR platforms would be the coolest thing that ever happened.

And a question: What kind of support will there be on old Mausingfields? Like if I want a Grendel sized bolt head/extractor down the road, am I better off asking for it now? I have a super early model (SN in the 20's) with the thicker firing pin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clyancey
We've only made the Ti rings as a specialty item. They're very expensive and demand reflects that. I'm not even sure how we would add inclination to them. I haven't tried designing them that way. As for the Ti bottom metal, we don't even advertise it. Again, very expensive and not really a production item but we will make more, probably later this year.

Ted

Have the old Mausingfield, two in fact, one is my prs 6CM and the other is my 6.5 SAUM hunting rifle. Love the new Mausingfield for sure!
 
I'll try to visit again within the next couple of days to answer more questions or address concerns. But for now, a brief update is in order. We will be notifying everyone who has ordered a Mausingfield for final payment and FFL info within the next week or two, regardless of when they placed their order. Archimedes is the next proiority, and that's going well, followed by the Xylo chassis. Archimedes customers will likely be notified for final payment and FFL info by mid-June. Back soon...

Ted

Will my barrels attached to the pre-2019 Mausingfield work with these (same thread pitch etc)?
 
What kind of support will there be for legacy M5 receivers? What about rails and small parts that are obsolete for the M7?

Do I need to do and end-of-life buy for spare parts for an M5?

I bought a couple spare rails some time ago, Justin said they have spares. Nothing is forever.
 
Will my barrels attached to the pre-2019 Mausingfield work with these (same thread pitch etc)?

Extremely likely. Obviously check headspace, but the Pre-2019 MF, Nucleus, and Archimedes all share the same nominal dimensions for barrel interface. I cheat a little with a Barloc (about a .005-.010" headspace window where it will all still work), but I have swapped barrels between my MF and Nucleus with no issues.
 
Seconding the desire for aluminum direct-mount rings for the Mausingfield dovetails. I’d also be interested in lower-height M10 QD-Ls; the 35mm height would put a 56mm objective diameter scope a bit more than half an inch above a truck-axle barrel with the 1.055in dimension from bore centerline to the top-front pic rail edge per the Mausingfield interface drawing. I’d really like to see a 1in height at 20moa in 1in/30mm/34mm, even if I’d need to lose the integrated level, which’ll give closer to 1/8in clearance depending on rail cant.

Separately, it seems a waste that the Archimedes doesn’t get a 0.589in bolt face, when I would think the robust extraction would be excellent for those beefier cartridges. I don’t have all the design details, and therefore haven’t run the numbers, but I would be surprised if the worst-case bolt thrust were anywhere near the shear limit for the lugs, and the front ring expansion should be similar between the Archimedes/Nucleus and the Mausingfield. Is there a substantial strength difference in the steel grades or something?

On a related note to that, are there thoughts to scale up to a BMG/CT size action? Maybe a Mausingfield with Archimedes-style extraction?

With regard to Archimedes scope rails and the integrated lug, I’ll spitball a few ideas.

I would be inclined to go with the M7 Mausingfield rail interface for the Archimedes - part count consolidation, yay - but from the images of it and the Nucleus, it looks like the bolt stop might interfere, and the less-open top might mean a lot more dovetail cutting to slide the rail on from the back. A hybrid approach might be feasible depending on exact dimensions: the rail can drop on with the rear clamp just in front of the bolt stop, then both clamps slide forward into dovetails. I don’t think the extra removed metal there would be critical for strength. If the slide-from-back or drop-from-top approach is feasible, that could presumably carry over to the Nucleus as well - which could shift another set of parts over to legacy status and therefore reduce inventory management (and the number of threaded holes). Even if the numbers aren’t perfect as is to commonize rails, it might still be possible to fudge the dimensions on the M7 Mausingfield to make a single interface workable for the entire ARC action family.

Alternatively, the M5 rail interface requires slightly larger material stock, but not by much (especially compared to, and possibly included in, the stock size requirement for the integrated recoil lug), and still has the advantage of not needing a new part number for an Archimedes-optimized rail. I would assume you moved away from that design for machining cost related reasons, but hey, it’s already designed.

Barring all of that, you may be sensing a common theme here, but sticking with the Nucleus rail that already has a part number and is already in manufacture would almost certainly be fine. I do like that the recoil lug top in the Nucleus and original Archimedes works as a recoil lug for the scope rail, though, and that is an awful lot of extra steel to machine away with the new Archimedes.

I want to be clear here that I’m not critiquing the designs themselves. You’ve put a lot of thought and work into your products, and it really shows. Different engineers have different priorities - I develop multidisciplinary systems at high voltage for mass manufacture, which means that people who aren’t engineers are doing the assembly of lots of fiddly bits, so I need to only have a couple types of interface, make sure everything is poka-yoked, and try to reduce the number of different parts as much as possible. Firearms aren’t too different on the first part - they’re multidisciplinary systems under the other kind of high shock loads - but I would hazard a guess that you’re more focused on “technically manufacturable and assemblable, while meeting exceedingly high intertwined performance requirements” and I’m more focused on “great, how are these idiots going to mess up next”.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 65x55guy