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

[Ledzep]

I guess my experience with ARC isn't necessarily representative of the "average", and even the "average" can vary significantly from the extreme ends, but from what I've seen and the interactions I've had with ARC and their support of their product... You could do a lot worse, especially with the size of company they are. That's not to suggest they shouldn't improve.

As far as the Barloc, it was I think fairly clear from the get-go it was something of a side project to provide an alternative to the WTO switchlug to keep people from drilling receiver faces. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it's unreasonable for ARC to hold sales and conduct testing after hearing reports of POI shift. Now after some preliminary testing is done, we have results. What's the beef?

And for product design changes, it gets more specific. I would hazard to guess there are a myriad of details you're not aware of or privi to (not talking down on anyone, it's business. I'm not affiliated with ARC and 100% understand if they'd tell me to fuck off if I asked what material, heat treat, manufacturing process, tolerance, etc.. they use for a specific part). And I don't want to come off as an uppity snobby college educated type, but there is truth to the idea that providing too much specific information to the public is just going to cause problems. The ratio of good ideas and feedback to people pointing out "Problems" they find, and getting mad at the reply because they don't fully understand what they're looking at is very small. And honestly at the end of the day, because Ted decides to go with A, while you think B is better... it's not because Ted thinks B is retarded and anyone that thinks B is better is retarded, it's because from his point of view, history, experience, whatever, A looks better for the company.

There's no reason to be insulted because Ted flip-flopped on a recoil lug... I guess is another way to put it.

 

[flyer]

Yes, I think a recoil lug is a nothing issue, just something big spenders look down on since Mauser did integral.

The fact that Ted was willing to delete the integral lug from his flagship product is telling.

But arguing with your target market rarely works out.

Now I get to look like a big spender with my Archimedes which is ok but I don't really care about that.

 

[BurnOut]

What you're proposing makes sense conceptually but there are two issues that are immediately apparent to me. First, the second 50% of cocking from the reward pivoting of the handle may take place when the bolt is fully retracted if there was not enough friction between the cartridge and the chamber to hold the bolt in place immediately after it has been rotated to unlock. While it may be OK to do that cocking work on a fully retracted bolt, the bolt cycle may have a significantly different feel from shot to shot depending on the variability of the forces required to extract the cartridges. The shooter would have to make a conscious effort to forcefully pull back on the bolt handle when the bolt was fully retracted to ensure the that bolt is properly cocked for the next shot.

Secondly, deflecting the spring significantly within the confines of an Archimedes bolt is very difficult if not practically impossible. The bolt can certainly be redesign for this purpose but that would require a new action all together. That's doable, but one of the goals of the Archimedes was to keep it within the Rem 700 envelop so that it plays wells with all of the aftermarket goodies.

When designing manually operated guns, it's certainly fun to think of new ways to cycle the action, and I would encourage people to do so. But when the time comes to compare ideas on functional merit, serious respect has to be payed to evolved designs that have stood the test of time. Time is an incredibly effective arbitrator of mechanical design. Let's consider the straight pull actions again. The Steyr M95 predates the Mauser 98 by three years yet the Mauser and its derivatives have ruled the world since 1898. Why is that? I would argue that Mauser has two enormous advantages over the straight pulls, efficiency and simplicity. If a straight pull bolt is to use a rotating bolt head for lockup, then linear motion must be converted to rotation by mean of a helix. After firing a hot load, the case head is forcefully impinging upon the bolt face thereby increasing the friction forces resisting its rotation. Superimpose the helix upon that and one may find it very difficult to retract the bolt. Increasing the lead angle of the helix may alleviate this but that would increase the length of linear motion required to rotate the bolt head for unlocking. With a Mauser style bolt, one simply rotates the bolt by means of lever. But extraction is the next challenge and people have overcome it by smacking the bolt knob with anything available to get the case pop free of the chamber. The Archimedes puts and end to that.

What makes the Archimedes really hard to beat, is that it works with you in a bio-mechanical sense and it performs its function as directly and a simply as they can be performed. Use the leverage of the handle to rotate the bolt against the friction forces of a stuck case. Easy. Use the leverage of the handle, which pivots, to pry the case from the chamber. Easy. This work has to be done and if anyone can think of a simpler and more direct way of doing it, then you have the potential of designing an action that is better than the Archimedes. The Heym SR30 is likely the best challenger because it completely eliminates the bolt rotation. However, I'd need to understand everything else about it to fairly asses it because the actions have to do much more than just extract a cartridge. The Archimedes certainly checks all of the functional boxes and does so with simplicity.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, the bolt of the Archimedes is certainly more complex that those of the conventional turn bolts but not much more and I think that the small increase in complexity is justified by the functional enhancement derived from it. In the end, time will tell. It always does.

Ted

Understood, and I appreciate your reply. I must not fully understand the operation of the Archimedes; from the sound of your post, it seems like the only time the bolt handle will pivot is in the event that case extraction effort is enough to overcome the (firing pin) spring preload that keeps the handle from flopping back and forth. Is that correct? I understood (again, freely admitting to my lack of experience) that the bolt handle needed to pivot rearward each time the action is cycled in order to fully unlock the bolt from the action and allow its rearward travel; it is this (handle pivoting) action that I was thinking could be used to complete the cocking process. However, after reading your post and thinking about it some more, I can see how what I was proposing would be difficult to achieve without having the bolt guts be very mechanically complex (and therefore more prone to failure than a mechanically simple design). Further, as you mentioned, given form factor constraints (R700 footprint), it gets even more challenging.

 

[Ledzep]

I'll just add this one last thing, and it applies to pretty much anything you do or buy. If you look at the product today, and decide that the price of the product TODAY is worth it, then it's worth it. If a single day passes after you get it, and a new version is released, or the price is dropped, or it goes on sale, whatever... That shouldn't matter if you seriously thought about the money/time you're spending and decided it was worth it. Hindsight will make you bitter if you don't keep it in context.

In some cases I've bought a LRF, then a couple months later a new version of it comes out for the same price that goes almost twice as far. Oh well. In other cases, I got a very early MF, and I personally like the feature set better than what followed. I am still interested in the new MF as a hunting rifle, if I could get direct attach rings that are not $800+ . Can't win 'em all.

 

[diverdon]

Imagine a rifle fed through two tubes, one for projectiles and another for propellant, an electronic ignition system, and a camera feeding sighting info to your brain. You'd wear this thing along with the rest of your Iron Man Suit. Just say'in.


Ted

Sign me up for the introductory buy. I'll take mine with three tubes rather than two. Split the propellant tube into two tubes, one for coal powder and one for liquid O2. Please design it so that both continue to feed the chamber and maintain peek pressure until the projectile exits the muzzle. I always knew ARC was headed for big things. Can you promise September delivery?

 

[Winny94]

Hahaha, you know. In this industry I know that we, as consumers, like to shit on ourselves a lot for being 'beta testers' and 'test dummies' but it's still a bit, how can I put this, 'galling' to hear a major company's owner outright say that he developed a product he didn't believe in and only because he was peer-pressured in to doing so. It makes it all sound like we were trying to get him to smoke in high school.

I don't know Ted, I do remember your flashy youtube video demonstrating the Barloc and how you sold them like hot cakes for months....

But then again, I also remember the absolute radio silence that came from you and ARC the moment someone raised any questions of return-to-zero




Hey, don't go calling us retards all at once.

This is pretty rich, though, given how you sold the Barloc and advertised (or at least heavily implied its incredible reliability). Also, FWIW, it's not like our expectations of what the Barloc could do were unreasonable since both AI and now the Vector have the same functionality.


And for what it's worth, some of the ARC fanboys may not get it, but removing a feature that everyone loved (the integral lug) and then being only a month behind promised production schedule because you added it back, isn't really a net victory.


I was a fan of the Mausingfield early on but the lack of CS, the constant feature change for cheaper features (for example going to Nitriding now from DLC even though you bad-mouthed Nitriding to begin with) has me a bit leery.


Either way. I'm glad I held off on a purchase of the nucleus and archimedes and ended up going to a competitor.

Maybe you weren't around when the barloc was introduced, but Ted was never a proponent of switch barrel setups and was very candid about it. However, if you spoke with him on the matter, the barloc addressed shortcoming of other switch barrel setups (from an engineering theory perspective, not necessarily a practical functionality perspective.)
He was responding to a market demand from his customers, and instead of saying "i know better than you so im not doing it", he did it, and now we're seeing some validation for his orignal position - and has already been mentioned, bash any barrel, and theres a good chance of POI shift.

 

[karagias]

Hahaha, you know. In this industry I know that we, as consumers, like to shit on ourselves a lot for being 'beta testers' and 'test dummies' but it's still a bit, how can I put this, 'galling' to hear a major company's owner outright say that he developed a product he didn't believe in and only because he was peer-pressured in to doing so. It makes it all sound like we were trying to get him to smoke in high school.

I don't know Ted, I do remember your flashy youtube video demonstrating the Barloc and how you sold them like hot cakes for months....

But then again, I also remember the absolute radio silence that came from you and ARC the moment someone raised any questions of return-to-zero




Hey, don't go calling us retards all at once.

This is pretty rich, though, given how you sold the Barloc and advertised (or at least heavily implied its incredible reliability). Also, FWIW, it's not like our expectations of what the Barloc could do were unreasonable since both AI and now the Vector have the same functionality.


And for what it's worth, some of the ARC fanboys may not get it, but removing a feature that everyone loved (the integral lug) and then being only a month behind promised production schedule because you added it back, isn't really a net victory.


I was a fan of the Mausingfield early on but the lack of CS, the constant feature change for cheaper features (for example going to Nitriding now from DLC even though you bad-mouthed Nitriding to begin with) has me a bit leery.


Either way. I'm glad I held off on a purchase of the nucleus and archimedes and ended up going to a competitor.

I can understand your position. I'm not perfect, far from it. Maybe we should have tested the Barloc more thoroughly but I can say that even back then I wouldn't have thought to smack the rifle with anything and I'm not sure that's a valid test considering the fact that zero shifts happen happen with or without a Barloc. The question then becomes what is a reasonable smack for a valid test. Comparison of the Barloc to either the Vector or the AI is meaningless unless we know what happens to those when smacked. That said, people still enjoy the Barloc. It's still a value judgement on their part. Since we learned about the zero shift, we suspended sales of the Barloc but people are still ordering the Barloc spare parts individually to assemble the whole. People want what they want and they have their reasons for wanting it. For some it's fine. For others, it's not.

But flashy videos? Really? The production quality of every video we have ever made can only be described as shameful. I'd love to be able to do flashy.

Regarding DLC versus nitriding, this is where facts would serve you well. I never bad-mouthed nitriding but I did bad-mouth nitriding actions made from steels that I know don't play well with nitriding. You wrongfully assume nitriding is cheaper than DLC. DLC is expensive to apply but it can be applied to inexpensive steels without much of a metallurgical effect. The same can not be said for nitriding. The reason we used to use DLC was because we couldn't figure out how to safely nitride the actions. Moreover, controlling DLC quality is tough and generally requires parts to be blasted with abrasives and that significantly reduces DLC's anti-friction benefits. We still use DLC for only our bolt heads and we return many to the supplier because of quality problems related to adhesion. We spent lots of money to get nitriding to work and did so by going to a steel that typically costs three times more than what we previously used. In fact, we had to order a large amount of this steel to bring down the price which tied up lots of cash. So the financial implications of switch to nitriding were and still are very significant.

Now, you may not be happy with me or with ARC for your own reasons and that's OK. But it's not OK to misrepresent facts that are largely a matter of historical record on a public forum. That will only reflect poorly on you as it has here.

Ted

 

[karagias]

Sign me up for the introductory buy. I'll take mine with three tubes rather than two. Split the propellant tube into two tubes, one for coal powder and one for liquid O2. Please design it so that both continue to feed the chamber and maintain peek pressure until the projectile exits the muzzle. I always knew ARC was headed for big things. Can you promise September delivery?

You need to work here.

Ted

 

[BeAccurate]

I can understand your position. I'm not perfect, far from it. Maybe we should have tested the Barloc more thoroughly but I can say that even back then I wouldn't have thought to smack the rifle with anything and I'm not sure that's a valid test considering the fact that zero shifts happen happen with or without a Barloc. The question then becomes what is a reasonable smack for a valid test. Comparison of the Barloc to either the Vector or the AI is meaningless unless we know what happens to those when smacked. That said, people still enjoy the Barloc. It's still a value judgement on their part. Since we learned about the zero shift, we suspended sales of the Barloc but people are still ordering the Barloc spare parts individually to assemble the whole. People want what they want and they have their reasons for wanting it. For some it's fine. For others, it's not.

But flashy videos? Really? The production quality of every video we have ever made can only be described as shameful. I'd love to be able to do flashy.

Regarding DLC versus nitriding, this is where facts would serve you well. I never bad-mouthed nitriding but I did bad-mouth nitriding actions made from steels that I know don't play well with nitriding. You wrongfully assume nitriding is cheaper than DLC. DLC is expensive to apply but it can be applied to inexpensive steels without much of a metallurgical effect. The same can not be said for nitriding. The reason we used to use DLC was because we couldn't figure out how to safely nitride the actions. Moreover, controlling DLC quality is tough and generally requires parts to be blasted with abrasives and that significantly reduces DLC's anti-friction benefits. We still use DLC for only our bolt heads and we return many to the supplier because of quality problems related to adhesion. We spent lots of money to get nitriding to work and did so by going to a steel that typically costs three times more than what we previously used. In fact, we had to order a large amount of this steel to bring down the price which tied up lots of cash. So the financial implications of switch to nitriding were and still are very significant.

Now, you may not be happy with me or with ARC for your own reasons and that's OK. But it's not OK to misrepresent facts that are largely a matter of historical record on a public forum. That will only reflect poorly on you as it has here.

Ted

Thanks, Ted.

That's a pretty informative response and does answer a number of my questions. Flashy videos were meant in terms of described performance. I was not saying you were putting out the latest Marvel movie.

 

[BurnOut]

But flashy videos? Really? The production quality of every video we have ever made can only be described as shameful. I'd love to be able to do flashy.

Gotta admit, this made me laugh quite a bit.

 

[Dooby]

I'll take 2 of those IronMan armour pls...maybe 3

 

[Steel head]

Maybe you weren't around when the barloc was introduced, but Ted was never a proponent of switch barrel setups and was very candid about it. However, if you spoke with him on the matter, the barloc addressed shortcoming of other switch barrel setups (from an engineering theory perspective, not necessarily a practical functionality perspective.)
He was responding to a market demand from his customers, and instead of saying "i know better than you so im not doing it", he did it, and now we're seeing some validation for his orignal position - and has already been mentioned, bash any barrel, and theres a good chance of POI shift.

lol!
remember laughing watching ted complain that he made it just to satisfy customer requests and that he didn’t like the idea.

Stuff like that is one reason I spend money on his products.

 

[CMP70306]

While you’re here Ted I wanted to ask if there was any trigger you knew of that had a 3 position safety with the bolt locking feature capable of working on the Mausingfield?

I know previously you had stated you are not a fan of using a Winchester style 3 position safety due to the limited sear engagement on a modern 700 trigger and I know they used to have the old walker style 700 triggers that locked the bolt by having a tab on the trigger slide into a slot on the bolt however that wouldn’t be applicable to the Mausingfield and it was only a two position safety.

The reason I ask is because I hunted with my Nucleus last year and had the bolt get knocked open a couple times when it was slung across my back. Not a deal breaker by any means but since I’mplanning on replacing my Model 70 with a second Mausingfield this year I figured it was worth checking here to see if there was a way.

Also just to clarify I noticed that the rail stuck way past the end of the action on the 3D model you posted and I was wondering if that was how it was going to be produced or if it was just for the model? I was planning on using either the barloc or a barrel nut so I wanted to know any limitations prior to ordering parts.

Any info is greatly appreciated.

 

[hereinaz]

@karagias

Is the headspacing going to remain the same between the Nucleus and the Archimedes now that you are going to an integral lug?

 

[karagias]

@karagias

Is the headspacing going to remain the same between the Nucleus and the Archimedes now that you are going to an integral lug?

Yep. 0.825+/-.001

 

[hereinaz]

lol!
remember laughing watching ted complain that he made it just to satisfy customer requests and that he didn’t like the idea.

Stuff like that is one reason I spend money on his products.

I laughed hearing him say the same thing, and I use Barlocs... He wasn't pushing Barloc as the next best thing, he was pushing it as a way to do the switch barrel thing which he didn't really believe in. I also buy his stuff, cause as "bad" as CS may be, he is always working to improve stuff and making practical decisions. I don't see him selling snake oil. The Xylo may be kinda goofy looking, but it is honestly the only chassis I would own, cause he made it so sensibly and it most closely reproduces the feel of a stock, which I prefer. I got to handle it at SHOT. I guess he doesn't win "pretty" awards for it cause he is working on form and function first.

My Barloc rifle has never given me fits, but I don't go around banging the barrel on stuff. I did test it, and got a shift for only the first shot after I smacked the barrel. Then, it went back to perfect zero.

ARC M10 rings are awesome. Enough said.

ARC was slow on delivery of the Nucleus, but their CS has always been good to me. They have answered emails and have picked up the phone or called me back. I have gotten my free firing pin springs, have gotten my bolt heads switched (even though I don't think they needed it) and I got new Barloc wrench cause I lost mine like an idiot.

I can see why people might not want ARC products, but there are lots of options.

I can't wait to see what my Archimedes come in like. Handling them at SHOT show made me feel confident in having two pre-orders. I am curious what they will feel like in real life. But, if they function equal to my Nucleus, which are awesome feeling in the field, I will be happy.

 

[Steel head]

I own a few ARC products and will definitely buy more for some of the same reasons

 

[hereinaz]

When it comes to my "test" by smacking my barrel, there is no way to even say it was the Barloc that moved. I mean, everyone knows that we bed rifles and mess with torque on action screws cause all of the matters from shot to shot because of recoil.

It very well could have been my action moved in the chassis, or the suppressor on the mount, or...

My point is that whatever it came from, Barloc included as a possibility, it returned to zero. Frankly, I have never tested any rifle before and don't intend to smack any of my other rifles to expand the "test" to a control group.

 

[karagias]

While you’re here Ted I wanted to ask if there was any trigger you knew of that had a 3 position safety with the bolt locking feature capable of working on the Mausingfield?

I know previously you had stated you are not a fan of using a Winchester style 3 position safety due to the limited sear engagement on a modern 700 trigger and I know they used to have the old walker style 700 triggers that locked the bolt by having a tab on the trigger slide into a slot on the bolt however that wouldn’t be applicable to the Mausingfield and it was only a two position safety.

The reason I ask is because I hunted with my Nucleus last year and had the bolt get knocked open a couple times when it was slung across my back. Not a deal breaker by any means but since I’mplanning on replacing my Model 70 with a second Mausingfield this year I figured it was worth checking here to see if there was a way.

Also just to clarify I noticed that the rail stuck way past the end of the action on the 3D model you posted and I was wondering if that was how it was going to be produced or if it was just for the model? I was planning on using either the barloc or a barrel nut so I wanted to know any limitations prior to ordering parts.

Any info is greatly appreciated.

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

 

[ForgeValley]

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

I'd like to see you bring a trigger to market.

Two stage, of course.

 

[flyer]

The New Ultra Lite Arms two position three function safety has the bolt locking feature for Remington 700 triggers (I think it works on a Timney).

That would require a slotted receiver and bolt but I bet you are clever enough to make it work.

 

[karagias]

The New Ultra Lite Arms two position three function safety has the bolt locking feature for Remington 700 triggers (I think it works on a Timney).

That would require a slotted receiver and bolt but I bet you are clever enough to make it work.

That thing looks super clever but Brownells indicates they are no longer available. I'd order one right now if I could. Does anyone else know where one can be sourced?

Ted

 

[karagias]

I'll contact Ultra Light Arms tomorrow morning. I want one of these.

 

[TSpork]

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

Ted,

As we’ve seen from the Nucleus, all though many of these triggers are designed to work with Remington 700 pattern guns, some work better than others. Is there one you recommend that works best with your actions?

I have a Triggertech Diamond waiting for my Archimedes

 

[karagias]

I'll contact Ultra Light Arms tomorrow morning. I want one of these. This thing looks promising and the mod to the reciver seems straight forward enough. It doesn't looks like it affects anything if it's not used. We'll see...

 

[flyer]

Cool.

I'm not sure which trigger it works with but I don't think it works with my Bix 'n Andy so I didn't order one.

Perhaps you could license the idea for your trigger if it is encumbered by patents.

 

[missed]

@karagias

Any plans of Norma mag bolt head on the Archimedes? I'm going back and forth on a Lefty long action for a Norma mag.

 

[CMP70306]

The New Ultra Lite Arms two position three function safety has the bolt locking feature for Remington 700 triggers (I think it works on a Timney).

That would require a slotted receiver and bolt but I bet you are clever enough to make it work.

That’s actually pretty slick, kind of works similar to the Browning X-Bolt but doesn’t require a hole through the bolt handle to do it. I admit when I was contemplating possible ways to make the safety work I hadn’t considered one that actually pushes the safety down as a way to disengage the bolt lock while keeping the trigger block of the safety engaged.

If Ted can make a version that works on his actions it would pretty much make them my go to custom actions.

 

[JMattJ]

The reason I ask is because I hunted with my Nucleus last year and had the bolt get knocked open a couple times when it was slung across my back. Not a deal breaker by any means but since I’mplanning on replacing my Model 70 with a second Mausingfield this year I figured it was worth checking here to see if there was a way.

Regarding the 3 position safety, the problem of a cocked bolt getting knocked open while the rifle is slung is not unique to the Nucleus. Perhaps there are other smart ways to solve the issue. On one of my rifles I embedded a neyodeum magnet into the stock to help hold the bolt down, a ball detent would be another possible solution. Definitely an issue that's worthy of a solution IMO.

 

[lennyo3034]

Would it be possible to just get rid of the trigger mounted safety (safetyless 700 triggers) and mount the safety on the bolt shroud for your next design?

I hate the location of the safety on the 700 anyways, I’m constantly flipping it when cycling bolt on my Nucleus.

 

[Winny94]

I’m constantly flipping it when cycling bolt on my Nucleus.

How?

 

[Steel head]

How?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[lennyo3034]

How?

That is a great question. I’ve never had it happen at the range. Only under pressure at a match. Probably once per stage which is really annoying.

I can’t blame the action for it, I know it’s just me and something I’m doing while manipulating the bolt.

I had a guy watch and he said he saw my finger hit it several times. Only happens at a match.

 

[lennyo3034]

My thoughts exactly.

If I had to guess, it’s because I’m not blading the bolt knob. I’m just grabbing it and some of my fingers extend past the base of the knob, which then activates the safety as I pull back.

I’ve swapped out the knob for a different one and we’ll see if it happens at the next match.

Again, not blaming the design at all, it’s just something I’m doing. Next step is to just cut off the safety.

 

[CMP70306]

Regarding the 3 position safety, the problem of a cocked bolt getting knocked open while the rifle is slung is not unique to the Nucleus. Perhaps there are other smart ways to solve the issue. On one of my rifles I embedded a neyodeum magnet into the stock to help hold the bolt down, a ball detent would be another possible solution. Definitely an issue that's worthy of a solution IMO.

The magnet is an interesting idea and one I haven’t heard of that before. As for it being a common issue I’ve only hunted with a Browning A Bolt, 1903 Springfield and various Model 70’s all of which lock the bolt with the safety on so the Nucleus is the first time I experienced the issue.

Would it be possible to just get rid of the trigger mounted safety (safetyless 700 triggers) and mount the safety on the bolt shroud for your next design?

I hate the location of the safety on the 700 anyways, I’m constantly flipping it when cycling bolt on my Nucleus.

Ted has stated in previous posts that he is not a fan of the shroud mounted safety on rifles using modern triggers and as such will not add it to his actions. He can explain his reasoning better than I can.

 

[Ledzep]

You can put the safety completely on the shroud, check out M70s and Mausers. I think the reservation for m700 triggers is the sear engagement is considerably less than those rifles. Less margin for a slip-past event on the Sears.

There's a M700 aftermarket shroud assembly that has a 3 position safety. I've not been impressed with them. Very stiff/bitey compared to a M70.

 

[flyer]

If Ted would do the cost reduced Mausingfield I suggested and adds the single stage trigger with lots of sear engagement that he described and the bolt locking type safety, he could have a damn good dangerous game rifle that could fit in R700 stocks, available Pre-fit barrels and lots of other triggers for people not concerned with bolt locking.

 

[Jmoesdad]

My crew and I have 6 Nucleus...Nuclei? What ever, I had 3 light strikes before I cleaned the firing pin, now 1000 rounds later still 3 total. None of us had rtz issues and all use the barloc system and I’m on the preorder with the Archimedes.
I’m thrilled that the design changed to include the integrated recoil lug. When torquing a barrel nut the fixed lug is one less thing to monitor for shift.
Keep it up Ted, I’m still a big fan.

 

[Ledzep]

Concept idea for the EFR on the Xylo. I'm sure the initial release is subject to change anyway, and I admit I don't have a great sense of the scale of placement, but I think you could get away with shortening it and having it end square with the chassis. Vent holes never hurt, either. We all know about opinions but I think this looks better.

 

[Lexington]

The following design changes have been made to the Mausingfield since Shot Show 2019:
1. Integral recoil lug has been added
2. Integral dovetail scope mount has been added enabling direct connection with American Rifle's titanium scope rings, priced at $800 - $1000 per pair. These rings are a favorite among some customers who like high-end Mauser-based hunting rifles.
3. A newly designed Picatinny rail will be included with each action enabling the use of any Picatinny-style scope mounting system. The rail engages the receiver's integrally machined dovetail.
4. The tang of the receiver has been modified to improve stability of a fully retracted bolt. This makes the action a bit easier to run.
5. The bolt stop design has been tweaked to better cooperate with the newly added integral dovetail.

View attachment 7070496

This evening I placed a deposit on a Mausingfield and then meandered over to this thread and started from the beginning. And then I got to the above.

I don't understand what is going on here. It now has a dove-tailed Picatinney rail? And that rendering looks like the receiver has an open top. Am I not buying what is shown on the ARC web site as of this date, May 10?

 

[flyer]

I would send ARC an email to ask them what you can get.

I'm sure they don't want to bait and switch you but things are changing.

 

[m6z]

So we decided that both the Mausingfield and the Archimedes will have integral recoil lugs

Had this of been announced at SHOT show I would have got in on the preorder.. Somewhat frustrating, but I understand.

 

[missed]

This evening I placed a deposit on a Mausingfield and then meandered over to this thread and started from the beginning. And then I got to the above.

I don't understand what is going on here. It now has a dove-tailed Picatinney rail? And that rendering looks like the receiver has an open top. Am I not buying what is shown on the ARC web site as of this date, May 10?

The open top action is a Mausingfield . Hunter. Those are a limited production run.

 

[Ledzep]

To my understanding it's going to be the rendering above with the dovetail.

 

[CMP70306]

This evening I placed a deposit on a Mausingfield and then meandered over to this thread and started from the beginning. And then I got to the above.

I don't understand what is going on here. It now has a dove-tailed Picatinney rail? And that rendering looks like the receiver has an open top. Am I not buying what is shown on the ARC web site as of this date, May 10?

To my knowledge they are changing the Mausingfield entirely to that new design but since the changes have not been finalized they have yet to update the rendering on the website. I’ve been bugging Jon about it for months because I wanted to see the new version before I bought it (I wanted the changes for a hunting build) and he said they would update it when the design was finished.

Long story short based on the changes and new introductions I’ve seen over the years along with my pestering them on when they were going to offer a hunter version of the Mausingfield it appears that going forward the Archimedes and the Nucleus will be for the tactical rifles with DBM set ups while the Mausingfield will be a hunting/tactical Hybrid able to either top load with a BDL floor plate or use a DBM. The change from the fixed Picatinny rail gives more flexibility in the design and allows for the open top for hunting rifles and integral scope rings.

Plus it opens the action to the high dollar custom hunting rifle market, that’s why the only rings and bottom metal Ted has for it are titanium.

If you truly want the older version without the changes I would talk to Ted and see if he still has the parts available for an old version. If not your only alternative is to check the PX here or one of the dealers to see if they have an old one.

Had this of been announced at SHOT show I would have got in on the preorder.. Somewhat frustrating, but I understand.

Yeah that was an unexpected change due entirely to the feedback after shot show. A welcome change but a bummer for those like yourself who missed out due to that feature. I personally am happy that the Mausingfield is keeping its lug.

The open top action is a Mausingfield . Hunter. Those are a limited production run.

Nope, that rendering appears to be the new Mausingfield based on the proposed 2019 changes on the website. Previous versions supplied to LRI and Griffin & Howe were limited production but this one looks like it’s going to be the new standard going forward.

 

[Lexington]

I am treating myself to my first high-end receiver. I am attracted to the Mausingfield in part because ARC has thought of EVERYTHING. Being an engineer myself, I can appreciate the elegance of a solution and the attention to details.

But at some point design and improvements have to stop and production has to begin, turning out a consistent product that the market knows what to expect. Running changes can kill a product line, and in ARC’s case, have halted production, which halts revenue. That’s bad for business growth. Forgive me, Ted, but the saying in the profession is that sometimes you have to shoot the engineers and ship the product.

ARC already has caveats depending on the Mausingfield’s range of serial numbers. The more these running changes occur, the more unique configurations there will be across more serial number ranges. (Can you imagine the overused “gen” designations? Mausingfield Gen1, Gen2, Gen 3.2.1a.)

I liked the original Mausingfield. I like the version now posted on the web site. But based on the info in this thread I am unsure of the version I will get in 12-16 weeks. I don’t want an open-top receiver with a dovetail Picatinny rail, and I’d like not to wait 4 months to find out that’s what I’ll get.

 

[CMP70306]

I am treating myself to my first high-end receiver. I am attracted to the Mausingfield in part because ARC has thought of EVERYTHING. Being an engineer myself, I can appreciate the elegance of a solution and the attention to details.

But at some point design and improvements have to stop and production has to begin, turning out a consistent product that the market knows what to expect. Running changes can kill a product line, and in ARC’s case, have halted production, which halts revenue. That’s bad for business growth. Forgive me, Ted, but the saying in the profession is that sometimes you have to shoot the engineers and ship the product.

ARC already has caveats depending on the Mausingfield’s range of serial numbers. The more these running changes occur, the more unique configurations there will be across more serial number ranges. (Can you imagine the overused “gen” designations? Mausingfield Gen1, Gen2, Gen 3.2.1a.)

I liked the original Mausingfield. I like the version now posted on the web site. But based on the info in this thread I am unsure of the version I will get in 12-16 weeks. I don’t want an open-top receiver with a dovetail Picatinny rail, and I’d like not to wait 4 months to find out that’s what I’ll get.

I understand where you are coming from as I was in the exact same position 4 years ago. I liked the action so much I put a deposit on a LA before it was officially released and a full year before the first one was shipped. I had an idea that it was going to simply be longer than the SA ones that were currently in production but I had no idea if any other changes were going to be made. I got one of the first 10 produced and since then the actions following it have only had a few minor changes over the years. Feed lip modifications to accept Magpul AICS mags, DLC coated as the standard, switching to a shortened lightened aluminum top rail for use with the Barloc rather than the steel one mine shipped with. All minor changes done to keep up with the current market trends and advancements.

This will be the first major overhaul that the action has seen since it was created and is being done as a major shift in the design on purpose which is why production was halted. The one consistent complaint about the Mausingfield I've seen over the years is that it is too expensive and people would buy it if they put most of the same features into a cheaper package. Ted has done that with the Nucleus and Archimedes both at a cheaper price point than the Mausingfield. This left the Mausingfield in an odd position and I'm sure Ted was listening to myself and others when we were asking for a hunter version that was closer to a hunting style action. With the tactical market leaning more towards cheaper, lighter bolt lifts and shorter bolt throws it makes sense to move the Mausingfield into more of a hybrid role that opens itself up to the custom hunting market like they did with LRI and G&H.

The serial number caveat is for the barrel threads which was only the first 24 produced, those people know who they are as they were most likely part of the development group, not really a concern there.

So long story short based on your statements your best bet would be to find a dealer with an old action in stock or someone on the PX that has one.

 

[Lexington]

The Mausingfield was my holy grail receiver for the last two years. All the reading I did was about that version. Apparently it is no longer what I thought it was, as the "Major Upgrade for 2019" has morphed into something else. I am a bit disappointed that the web site (official information outlet) does not allude to it and that I am finding current information from the manufacturer on a gun forum. I have plunked down $250, ready to spend $1600, on something that doesn't and won't exist.

 

[craigos]

If someone wants the older style i will swamp them for the newer style I have 2 of the older style ...

 

[Steel head]

The new bolt release and rail interface for the Mausingfield is pretty sweet.