Bolt Action Rifles: So behind the times, here is what I want...

Obviously you've never been in manufacturing. It would be wonderful if a rifle could come from the factory blueprinted but in real life there are tolerances that exist because its not possible to make things in volume as tight as a gunsmith can make them one at a time.....unless you want to spend twice what it normally costs. All shooters don't need or want sub MOA performance and they really don't want to pay for it. That means remington makes a reasonably accurate rifle for the masses and if you want something special you pay for it. Works pretty well that way. Same goes for chassis systems.....most don't want them or don't want to pay for them so if you want to spend the extra cash have at it. Lastly, AR bolts are not that great. Their locking system is most definitely not the best for a bolt gun. Its more complex to make, more likely to break and not better than a 2 lug bolt or any of the other types. Its made the way it is to allow a short rotation to open up or lock up in a semi or full auto. Maybe ideal for that but not for a bolt gun. The idea of using a barrel extension is on the other hand a great idea. Why headspace the receiver when the bolt and barrel extension can do it better and more consistently? Well after looking around we find that Desert Tactical is doing just that with their SRS and HTI series rifles. They are planning to do the same with their new semi auto rifle. Its been done for years with a number of other guns like the MG34, MG42, Johnson semi and light machineguns (where the AR bolt and barrel extension came from) and others. So you do have some choices and thats a wonderful thing. I don' really want a remington style chassis system but I do like my DT SRS where the receiver is the chassis. I do like my lightweight remingtons though so I'm glad I've got a choice...


Frank

So is there a bolt barrel extension for the R700 so you wouldn't have to headspace the bbl again when you swap it?
 
Bolt Action Rifles like the R700 are so behind the times. I am sure all the GunSmiths loves Remington though, since people pay hundreds to have them worked on for things that should already be included in the gun.

There is no need to design a rifle from the ground up either, just use existing parts that are out there. Things a Bolt Action Rifle should already have:

Go spend the money and buy yourself one of the new Accuracy International AX-MC rifles & be a happy camper (except for your wallet)
 
Blaser R8 Professional
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ejOyGe7yfok?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Wow! That gun does just about everything I mentioned. The way you mount the scope is truly unique, very solid, and very simple. The design of the bolt even has more lugs than an AR and appears it is inherently more accurate. One thing that is a turnoff is the barrel is proprietary, but at least it is pre-headspaced.

Found more info on that gun here: Real Guns - Blaser R8 Modular Rifle Part I
 
still the most reliable way to feed a round, and accuracy is also tops, neck sizing custom cases is not an option with semi-auto.

You are wrong on all counts.

a) Feeding: gas operated gun will feed more reliably than a bolt gun on a any meaningful data sample.
b) Accuracy: there is nothing inherently less accurate about auto-fed gun.
c) Neck sizing is a benefit if the goal is .... well, neck sizing itself. Lots of top tier shooters use full body sizing (Tubb comes immediately to mind): proper chamber, dies and reloading technique will work just as well in a semi.
 
-I agree. Intigral or pinned recoil lugs make this possible and actions like this are widely available!



-Bolt actions and semi-autos bolts lug designs can't be fairly compared. Keep in mind ARs have a hammer that your bolt carrier cocks when 45,000 C.U.P.'s are unlocking and cocking your firing mech. You think a 60 degree bolt throw is heavy?!! Try the 22.5 degree throw that 8 lugs would require...



- Considering the way the market is going, an action that the user can't dictate which chassis or stock it may go in could be a bad thing, unless ofcourse you can get AI to put thier name on your shit.




Would be a good idea but considering that not all actions have your #2 attribute, bedding usually has more repeatability when disassembly/ assembly is part of the picture.



Think again, very few are STRAIGHT. Quality vs. Quantity... Spend the money on a quality trued action or buy a mass produced action and have it trued.

However, the way things are now, no refunds.. if the action is not, the gun will suffer and there is no real way to correct this by the buyer other than taking it to a smith and having him straiten it out. At least with AR's, the AR style bolt always guarantee the bolt to lock tighter even if it is a little off. Savage made a great enhancement in that their bolts have a floating bolt head.

Pretty much agree with everything here. Floating bolt head is certainly an advantage. I couldnt see any of the other things cartman mentions making a significant difference in accuracy or performance. In the case of more bolt lugs, as said, thats gonna be some steep camming. As far as a one piece chassis/action, sure it may catch on in the tactical community. But I doubt itd take over anywhere else. Savage already has the barrel nut system in which any monkey can swap barrels. And its popular but not exactly dominating. Not to mention the majority of modern bolt actions are stronger than AR15s and AR10s. But if you(cartman) just want a really fast manually operated rifle then do like you said and block off the gas on a AR10 and work the bolt yourself everytime. Gonna be a lot cheaper than a Blaser and should shoot damn near just as good.
 
You are wrong on all counts.

a) Feeding: gas operated gun will feed more reliably than a bolt gun on a any meaningful data sample.
b) Accuracy: there is nothing inherently less accurate about auto-fed gun.
c) Neck sizing is a benefit if the goal is .... well, neck sizing itself. Lots of top tier shooters use full body sizing (Tubb comes immediately to mind): proper chamber, dies and reloading technique will work just as well in a semi.

All a matter of perspective. When we manually chamber the round ourselves, we know it is done, and we do not rely on the gas system.

ARs can be accurate, but when they get hot, groups tend to spread faster, most likely because the harmonics of the barrel is more effected do to the gas system touching the barrel.

Neck sizing is the cheapest way to guarantee a custom fit for the case, and all my bolt guns do shoot better with neck sized cases. I am sure Full sizing is just as effective if the dies and chamber are a close match with each other.
 
I vote that American rifle Co make their new M5 rifle action a integral interface (the chassis itself) which accepts AR grips, rear stocks and hand guards.

FYI, the most awesome action I've ever used is a rimfire action, the Anschutz 1827 Fortner biathlon. Take this concept and the integral interface, which accepts AR grips, rear stocks and hand guards, then bullpup it like DTA has done and you've got the most bad ass rifle that hasn't been invented yet.

How's that for forward thinking!

Pls don't forget this one :

Lynx Rifles

LYNX RIFLES by RACKNLOAD - YouTube
 
Just don't forget that ARs we get are a cluster-f**k abortion ... I meant to say "civilian version" of a full-auto combat rifle; the fact that they are as accurate as they are, is simply mind boggling, since there is so much emphasis on reliable full-auto operation in the design itself.

Fix the lock-time (hammer fired rife .. in 21st century), proper sized extension, decent barrel profile and gas block - and you might yourself at the next level.

P.S. Chassis is the new "hot stuff" - but the way of the future is the barrel block.
 
Mcree just introduced something along the lines of an AR barrel extension for 700s in the new chassis. Takes any std AR handguard.

Manufacturing is really what has kept many of the ideas you ask for out of the market. It is a shame that the AR-company-that-shall-not-be-named (sounds like LC Offense) thread is gone, because while jackassery occurred, there was some interesting material there. The owner claimed to have spent how much bringing his product to market? $5k? 10k? $100k was what I remember, which really is pretty par for the course. If you want a quality item it is going to take time and money to develop. This cost is to be recouped by sales. Which along with facilities, material, labor, insurance, etc., etc., etc. constitutes the unit cost. Then add your profit. If you bond the action to the chassis then you decrease your modularity. High modularity means the customer can get more of what they want. This translates into higher sales as you increase the scope of your market. Ever hear of someone who said the AICS didn't fit them? While AI has used bonded actions for a long time, that does not mean that they are ideal for every user (finances not considered).

While the barrel extension idea is great, and is gaining traction, there really needs to be a single industry standard design, granted once the evolution of the concept has furthered. Otherwise, you run into issues with GS's that aren't familiar with it, make mistakes, sloppy tolerances, etc. The 700 action is simple. It has few parts. While not always true, a simpler design comes hand in hand with reliability, as there are fewer things to go wrong/break. For instance, to have a straight-pull bolt you're going to have to increase the number of moving parts, moving parts that all move relative to each other. Everything that moves experiences friction. Increase the friction coefficient via environmental conditions and most likely you have a design that will fail before the simpler design. Granted, this is all in theory, but these theories are not taught for naught.

As for factory-true actions, that is laughable. You've probably heard the phrase "it can be done well, fast, or cheap; pick two." If you've ever worked with machinery you understand tolerances. All machinery has their own. Increase the speed of a process, increase backlash, decrease precision. Decrease backlash by decreasing the mechanical tolerances of the machines parts, you're going to increase the chance of something breaking down/increase maintenance costs. Buy higher quality to avoid both, well you automatically increased your costs. While Remington's QC as of late is deplorable, to ask for custom action precision for the same price is asinine. They could just do it, and increase the costs of all their rifles, most of which would go unappreciated, and they'd be throwing money out the window. There's a reason why custom actions cost more. Why truing an action costs money. It is more expensive to decrease tolerances on parts, period.

Most of your points for evolution I agree with, as there is always room for improvement. That is true, and someone will have to be the guinea pig for it. We also have a vast knowledge of the existing systems, some of the peculiars are quite fine, and the gunsmiths who know them really know how to make a working rifle. And at some point in your argument you transitioned from advocating that we demand evolution as a community of consumers and started saying that you simply shouldn't have to pay as much. The latter is purely at the whim of market conditions and microeconomics.

Take a look at American Rifle Company's new offerings, they seem to be on the forefront of action evolution now.
 
Mcree just introduced something along the lines of an AR barrel extension for 700s in the new chassis. Takes any std AR handguard.

Manufacturing is really what has kept many of the ideas you ask for out of the market. It is a shame that the AR-company-that-shall-not-be-named (sounds like LC Offense) thread is gone, because while jackassery occurred, there was some interesting material there. The owner claimed to have spent how much bringing his product to market? $5k? 10k? $100k was what I remember, which really is pretty par for the course. If you want a quality item it is going to take time and money to develop. This cost is to be recouped by sales. Which along with facilities, material, labor, insurance, etc., etc., etc. constitutes the unit cost. Then add your profit. If you bond the action to the chassis then you decrease your modularity. High modularity means the customer can get more of what they want. This translates into higher sales as you increase the scope of your market. Ever hear of someone who said the AICS didn't fit them? While AI has used bonded actions for a long time, that does not mean that they are ideal for every user (finances not considered).

While the barrel extension idea is great, and is gaining traction, there really needs to be a single industry standard design, granted once the evolution of the concept has furthered. Otherwise, you run into issues with GS's that aren't familiar with it, make mistakes, sloppy tolerances, etc. The 700 action is simple. It has few parts. While not always true, a simpler design comes hand in hand with reliability, as there are fewer things to go wrong/break. For instance, to have a straight-pull bolt you're going to have to increase the number of moving parts, moving parts that all move relative to each other. Everything that moves experiences friction. Increase the friction coefficient via environmental conditions and most likely you have a design that will fail before the simpler design. Granted, this is all in theory, but these theories are not taught for naught.

As for factory-true actions, that is laughable. You've probably heard the phrase "it can be done well, fast, or cheap; pick two." If you've ever worked with machinery you understand tolerances. All machinery has their own. Increase the speed of a process, increase backlash, decrease precision. Decrease backlash by decreasing the mechanical tolerances of the machines parts, you're going to increase the chance of something breaking down/increase maintenance costs. Buy higher quality to avoid both, well you automatically increased your costs. While Remington's QC as of late is deplorable, to ask for custom action precision for the same price is asinine. They could just do it, and increase the costs of all their rifles, most of which would go unappreciated, and they'd be throwing money out the window. There's a reason why custom actions cost more. Why truing an action costs money. It is more expensive to decrease tolerances on parts, period.

Most of your points for evolution I agree with, as there is always room for improvement. That is true, and someone will have to be the guinea pig for it. We also have a vast knowledge of the existing systems, some of the peculiars are quite fine, and the gunsmiths who know them really know how to make a working rifle. And at some point in your argument you transitioned from advocating that we demand evolution as a community of consumers and started saying that you simply shouldn't have to pay as much. The latter is purely at the whim of market conditions and microeconomics.

Take a look at American Rifle Company's new offerings, they seem to be on the forefront of action evolution now.


Love your posts! Lots of valid points and we are on the same page.

If R700 can't be massed produced for cheap and for quality, the way I see it, the design is too complicated. Savage with the floating bolt head kinda already addresses this issue, don't know why R700 does not go this route.

Henry Ford figured out to mass produce quality and for cheap, I DO NOT EXPECT THE GUN INDUSTRY TO DO THE SAME.
 
I'm glad we do see eye to eye, as even through the trolling (of which I am a fan, along with the prolific VJJ), you always do come with good information and points.

Savage with the floating bolt head kinda already addresses this issue, don't know why R700 does not go this route.

Henry Ford figured out to mass produce quality and for cheap, I DO NOT EXPECT THE GUN INDUSTRY TO DO THE SAME.

That is probably one of the better points made on this site in recent history, but alas, we should stop there before the Rem vs. Savage thread spills over, that pot is still stirring itself. It would be interesting to see what the increase in cost would be for Rem to upgrade all the 700's to 40xb's a la their custom shop procedure at the scale of the 700's production. Yet unfortunately, Cerberus has made it quite clear they have no interest in the firearms industry, other than profiting off of it. It is interesting that Savage has been able to undersell them with a more accurate rifle out of the box, especially since they are a much smaller operation.

The big issue you point to is the industries resistance to change, which is presenting much bigger issues than why bolt guns aren't evolving. Issues like, where the hell is all the damn .22LR ammo? The answer is that they just don't see the long-term market growth to validate buying more tooling and hiring/training new employees. While it is very obvious that firearm sales are WAY up, along with the number of gun owners, the political spectrum is very unstable, and without knowing what their overhead is going to be down the road in regards to EPA zoning, taxes, regulations, etc. they aren't convinced that ammo consumption is going to increase through the workable future. Although I wish they would.
 
The problem is, what level of quality.

Is the Rem 700 from the factory quality? Yes, for 99.9% of the buyers, it is great. But why would you produce a product for 0.1% of your market? Especially when you will not be able to sell for a much higher price? The people that want a trued action from the factory rifle, do not want to pay the price for that level of quality. What they are really asking for is make me a much higher level of product FOR THE SAME PRICE.

Henry Ford developed procedures to make parts that were interchangeable. NOT that they fit perfectly.

I am also into racing cars. Back in the 80s I talked to a guy who worked on a Showroom Stock Corvette. As he put it, they spent over $25,000 (base price was $24,891) making a stock Corvette, STOCK.