Anschutz 54.18/ 1727 AI AT-X
- Thread starter NoLegs24
- Start date
I remember seeing your posts about your 1727F!
This rifle is going to be the ideal solution for a mag fed 22 that is reliable and set up for these Precision rifle matches!
The chassis systems have landed as of now at ANA. 2 of us are in Germany so it’s the office manager and 2 sales guys there. They are working as fast as they can to get all the preorders out.
For all of you European guys, the gun will be displayed at IWA and I highly encourage you to email the sales email at the German factory. They are going to catalog it and any and all encouragement from EU consumers and dealers will make them move faster.
Here is their contact form to let them know the interest of the ATX chassis.
For all of you European guys, the gun will be displayed at IWA and I highly encourage you to email the sales email at the German factory. They are going to catalog it and any and all encouragement from EU consumers and dealers will make them move faster.
Here is their contact form to let them know the interest of the ATX chassis.
Had West Michigan Cerakote paint up these Accuracy International AICS and some weights. Top is my AT-X AICS for my RimX, ignore. The 1727F needed some camo to really fit in around here 
How does the 1727 compare with the RimX accuracy wise? Particularly past 100yards?Had West Michigan Cerakote paint up these Accuracy International AICS and some weights. Top is my AT-X AICS for my RimX, ignore. The 1727F needed some camo to really fit in around here
View attachment 8496388View attachment 8496389View attachment 8496390
I’ve heard some people claiming that the R700 style actions are inherently the most accurate 22lr actions on the market, but considering how long Anschutz have been in the 22lr “game” I’m not sure I quite believe it.
I have two RimX rifles, both with Bartlien barrels spun up by TS Customs one with over 18,000 rounds. Right now I feel my newest Bartlien is the most accurate by the slimmest of margins. More testing is needed. Weather and work have limited my testing to 100, 200 & 300 yards The Anschutz is more than accurate enough to win any match. None of the three are picky about ammunition.
There is nothing that makes Rem700 footprint inherently accurate rimfire .If anything prior attempts at competitive Rem700 footprint rimfires , yielded rather dismal resoults, Anschutz has been running circles around them for past50+ years
Anschutz makes damn good barrel and for decades their triggers were second to none, their repeaters are basically same basic action slightly evolved over 50 or so years and work flawlessly. Rise of competitive Rem700 repeaters like Voodoo, RimX owes much to great barrels availible in US from host of manufacturers. Second, you are comparing factory built to custom smithed.
Next factor is PRS kinda leaned into fat 1.20 barrels here smaller size receiver of an Anschutz is a bit at an disadvantage as they were never meant to carry such barrels. Other disciplines that do not have same forward balance point requirements settled on 0.8-0.9' barrels and acordingly went for smaller tennons as not to create a choke just after the chamber. Custom RFBR actions all use small diameter tenon for same reason . Ultimately rise of Modern Rem700 rimfire popularity is mostly down to Rem700+AICS compatibility with aftermarket parts.
Fun fact 'new' Anschutz like 54.18 are decades old Runing Boar/Deer models ,sometimes branded as 54 MSR , they literally had jack shit to develop ,just clean some cobwebs from actions and rifles that were gathering dust for couple of decades.
1727 is not my favorite due to its two finger two step repeating action that is often somewhat obstructed by modern chassis where you often can't push the bolt closed with your Thumb. I just do not see much of an advantage in the straight pull action.
Anschutz makes damn good barrel and for decades their triggers were second to none, their repeaters are basically same basic action slightly evolved over 50 or so years and work flawlessly. Rise of competitive Rem700 repeaters like Voodoo, RimX owes much to great barrels availible in US from host of manufacturers. Second, you are comparing factory built to custom smithed.
Next factor is PRS kinda leaned into fat 1.20 barrels here smaller size receiver of an Anschutz is a bit at an disadvantage as they were never meant to carry such barrels. Other disciplines that do not have same forward balance point requirements settled on 0.8-0.9' barrels and acordingly went for smaller tennons as not to create a choke just after the chamber. Custom RFBR actions all use small diameter tenon for same reason . Ultimately rise of Modern Rem700 rimfire popularity is mostly down to Rem700+AICS compatibility with aftermarket parts.
Fun fact 'new' Anschutz like 54.18 are decades old Runing Boar/Deer models ,sometimes branded as 54 MSR , they literally had jack shit to develop ,just clean some cobwebs from actions and rifles that were gathering dust for couple of decades.
1727 is not my favorite due to its two finger two step repeating action that is often somewhat obstructed by modern chassis where you often can't push the bolt closed with your Thumb. I just do not see much of an advantage in the straight pull action.
Last edited:
Yeah my 1727f AI wears a 24.5” Bartlein with a diameter of 1.05”. I was told I could have gone 1.15” if I had wanted to wait for a special order, but was impatient. I actually have an order for that barrel in at Bartlein right now should the need arise. The only thing the thicker barrel does between a 1.25 and the 1.05 is add weight for balance sake. That is easily remedied on the AI chassis with add on weights. As mine stands right now it is at 20.3lbs. My 6 Creedmoor prs rifle sits at 21.5lbs both balance pretty well 4 inches in front of the mag well. If I use the extra barrel on a new rig it will be one of my spare 54:18 MSRs also into an AI, probably about a 26” barrel.
Wish they had made a chassis system specifically to work perfectly with the 1727F via naturally pushing back of bolt forward with thumb to close action which was how this action was meant to be operated to begin with.
They had a bolt on flap to aid thumb 'forward assist' on the concept gun .
Folks might say its perfect , but you often see them out of battery at comps as folks fail to close the action completely , Like it or not Fortner action was always meant for thumb 'forward assist' , even more so with now popular shorter chambers where bullets engrave into rifling
Last edited:
What I have heard is that they are extremely complex, tons of hand fitting and thus expensive for a limited market. Others that have tried have had accuracy and reliability issues. The Fournier action owns biathlon as it is fast strong and meticulously fitted. Courtney’s are about twice the price of a voodoo or rind that have a huge selection of triggers and stocks. Pair that with rem 700 commonality is a real tough nut to crack.
It would require re-thinking the concept, overcoming the inevitable comparisons to Kidd et all and being funded long enough.
Its down to market size , Fortner builds what 400-500 actions per year for Anschutz, Ball lockup patents are long expired and there are a bunch of centerfires using them. Having worked on a design of an action or two , i do not see these as overly complex to do. I just do not see them as top choice for precision action, lacking both extraction and locking cam in reciever itself ,this is where it gets complicated more so in centerfires as you design a cam inside the bolt , with rimfires you are still just straight line pushing it but particularly now as we are getting more bullet engraving than in the past.
That is not the current Fourtner action. But I am not sure what you mean by they "lacking both extraction and locking cam". The bolt extracts cases with ease. The bolt contains a cam that moves the sleeve allowing the balls to sink into the bolt to unlock the action and then as the bolt is moved forward it hits the bolt face and the cam forces the sleeve forward moving the balls into the extended position to mate with the recesses in the action locking the bolt. It is a fast and excellent action, just pricey and lacks things other action have. There have been several 1827F non-repeater actions made into BR rifles and they can produce excellent scores. They just don't beat the top actions enough to get top shooters to try them and to overcome the cost, availability and proven success of the more common custom actions. This means that the market is going to be very limited and force the Return on Investment calculations to become extremely unfavorable.
Last edited:
No that is not a extraction and locking cam like in typical rotating bolt action , even on rimfires but much more prominent on centerfires , these ramps give you leverage closing and opening .
What you are mentioning is internal lock to lock the balls in place so you do not get bolt thrown in your face ,from my limited time with fortner it relies on inertia for primary extraction and umph for closing
Centerfire ball locking actions thus utilise a cam on the handle , kinda like Archimedes action to aid primary extraction
Primary extraction cam is part of a the bolt handle machanism.
I recognize that you do not understand some of these terms or cannot see how they are accomplished in another action type. That what I meant when I said " re-thinking the concept". There are multiple ways to satisfy each and every requirement, some work, some don't. often the test is the use case. In a BR use case there are reasons that the traditional bolt rifle action fills the need better. In the olympic positional sports the Anschutz/Walther/Bleiker/G&E rifles rule. In Biathlon the Fourtner Rules and in PRS/NRL the 22LR R700 clones rule. Our use of the AI/Fourtner guns can play as well but I have outlined the reasons they are not going to ever dominate, but there is no reason they cannot compete because they do have all the needed pre-requisites.
