Can't believe I missed this thread... lol. Anyhow, I thought I would add my belated two cents to the matter.
Devil is in the details on patents, and until you've examined what is "patent pending", there is no way to really guess. So many crazy statements have been made that are really irrelevant on whether it infringes. Most comments appear ignorant of the tech and law. That was displayed when the Gamechanger bag got its patent and discussions followed. The Gamechanger patent had to be so specific because of "prior art" that it is difficult to infringe on the patent unless it is almost an exact duplicate of it. I won't be going into analysis of it any more than that. But, with two lever extraction methods you'd also have to look at all the "prior art" of similar lever extraction methods.
From the immediate looks of it, the Ascalon has a sleeve on the end of the bolt, and the bolt lever pushes against the sleeve to pull the bolt rearward through the sleeve. See pics below. On the Ascalon, there is no direct contact between the lever and the action, which is how the Archimedes operates to force the bolt back. The Ascalon has a self contained lever system in the bolt and has more parts. The Archimedes is much simpler. So, just from my initial review, I see at least one significant technical difference between the operation of the lever on the bolt.
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/11/2...tion-system-from-dutch-gunsmith-pim-de-waard/
I handled the Archimedes and own three Nukes. Bolt lift and close was smoother than the Nucleus, by a small but noticeable margin. I got in on a pre-order, but am not planning on replacing any Nukes right now.
Given the Nucleus runs so well in actual field conditions, I gotta believe the Archimedes will be better, but it is hard to improve the Nucleus feel during a match where it matters, IMO. If you are running one on a bench, yeah, you might have complaints, but I don't think the Nuke was designed that way. Bench actions will fail much more quickly in field conditions than a Nuke ever would.
Only thing I wonder in practical application is how extraction will feel, but understanding leverage and seeing how little is needed for cam extraction, I don't think you'll notice much difference with a fired case. I think the change will yield a better feel.
The new Mausingfield tool free bolt disassembly was pretty nice. I didn't practice off camera, so my first very first attempt I missed getting the shroud twisted correctly and didn't get the pin cocked. Right after I fumbled and the video was shut off I got it right. Sounds like it will make its way to Nucleus and Arcmedes as they unify production details. It can't be retrofit to the current bolts though.
The bolt head exchange program sounds like you will confirm with ARC, ship them yours and you get a new one back. Doesn't matter whether you are original buyer or not. When it comes to that, I don't worry about the bump on close much at all, but it did seem improved. I don't know that I will be in a hurry to change the bolt head, but will eventually.
Xylo is an interesting chassis. I was probably the guy you saw "break" the cheek adjustment in the video. LOL. it was a prototype and a simple washer and clip will keep it assembled. I am a stock guy, generally. I have had several chassis and run one right now till my A6 stock is done cause McMillan didn't have the inlet program (they have my Nucleus in house now to write the program). Anyhow, I would consider using the Xylo because of the options and stock like configuration. The length of pull adjustment felt pretty solid, the levers in the bar were a little wonky at first, you have to pull it centered for it to work. But, it seems like a Ted sort of solution that will work and is actually quick once you work it a couple times.
Here are two videos that I took at SHOT in the ARC booth.
Xylo chassis
three actions
