I've got this thing working. Definitely the best valued action I've ever seen and my favorite tactical short action at any price.
Attachments
Last edited:
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Coup De Grâce, New Action from American Rifle Company, $899 WOW!
- Thread starter karagias
- Start date
Yep, new trigger hanger is available… supports timney and others…
You can even send your action back for modification to accept the pin revision.
The primary issue with every trigger, except for trigger tech has been that the safety lever does hit the trigger hanger.
Nothing wrong with the Timney, you just have to make sure you have a later model action or get the most recent version of the trigger hanger.
I have a Timney and I modified my trigger hanger and it works just fine. (I also have a trigger tech, Huber, and a Bix and Andy… with the original trigger hanger. None of those other ones would install properly without modification.)
Not on the website, you have to email them and they will create an invoice for you and ship them.
That being said, I bought three so I could give you one.
From what I understand the revision allows placement of the rear retaining screw while adjusting. Playing with the adjustment screw in the original configuration would cause the hanger to pull away from the body if locked in with the rear screw, tensioning the pins. Or at least that’s how I interpreted it.
Makes sense.
With the original pointy pin design, if you crank on the front pointed set screw while the rear screw is locked down you might mess up the pointed pins or the V groove cut in the action for the pins before the threads in the trigger hanger strip out, as the pointed set screw tries to force the front of the trigger hanger and the pins up and out of the action.
With the new tabbed trigger hanger if you try to adjust the front set screw without loosening the rear screw you might damage or shear the tabs off the aluminum trigger hanger but the steel action shouldn't be damaged.
Sounds like Ted might have revised it to be more "customer proof", lol
Basically. Though I argue it makes more sense this way anyway. Human factors design is a thing for a reason.
Has anyone moved to the 80N or 100N firing spring?
Current actions ship with 80N, first orders had 70N.
Current actions ship with 80N, first orders had 70N.
Last edited:
I have. I have all 3 springs, and the 100n spring was the only one that gave the primer penetration my smith was looking for. I owe him a 50 shot group size test on each spring to see if the difference is noticeable.
I bought and tried all of them, I'm currently running the 80N. A while back I tested and posted the measured bolt lift with each. The 100N was a bitch to install and added a lot of weight to the bolt lift, so I went back to the 80N so the action was nicer to run. For ultimate reliability when dirty and the most energy delivered to the primer I'd install the 100N spring and live with the heavier bolt lift (being an owner of 3x AIs I'm familiar with heavy bolt lift, lol)
I didn't notice any difference in accuracy or SD between the 3 springs with a 22GT and CCI 450s, but your experience may vary.
My old post with the lift weights was here, and a few posts down are the numbers for the 100N spring: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/coup-de-grâce-new-action-from-american-rifle-company-899-wow.7155247/post-11323015
This is another area where I prefer the Archimedes to the CDG, with an equivalent striker spring weight the Archimedes has a much lighter and smoother bolt lift than the CDG. The Archimedes comes with a 98N striker spring standard and the bolt lift on it is noticably lighter than the CDG with the 100N spring; the CDG with the 80N spring feels about the same as the Archimedes with the 100N spring. If you dry fire them side by side the Archimedes "snaps" noticably harder and louder that the CDG with the 70N or 80N spring. Put the 100N spring in the CDG and they sound and feel very close but now the bolt lift on the CDG is noticeably heavier than the Archimedes. The Archimedes not having any provision for a standard extraction cam has more degrees of bolt lift rotation dedicated to cocking the striker spring so it has a less aggressive cocking ramp than the CDG, so bolt lift is reduced for the same weight spring.
Archimedes can't run AW mags though, so it's not all roses...
It’s an either sweep it yourself or send it to someone who can affair right now. I just got mine back recently. Had Fritz at Black Canyon Customs do it
Attachments
That barrel and can: the guy she told you not to worry about
That barrel and can: the guy she told you not to worry about
“My wife loves me because I am hung like a tuna can.”It’s girth that counts anyway
-USAF TACP, 2006, Afghanistan
there are so many triggers that already work with the cdg
I’m aware. Pretty sure Ted has mentioned before how the all the available ones could be better. That’s why I asked.
He’ll come out with it and we’ll hate it, then he’ll never make a trigger again.
Three position that actually blocks the firing pin vs relying on the safety only stopping the triggers internal sears.
I know Ive read where Ted expanded on that subject sometime in the last decade and Im pretty sure thats his ideal but dont quote me
American Rifle Company New Archimedes Action, New Xylo Chassis, and major Mausingfield revision
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...
www.snipershide.com
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
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
When ARC originally came on the scene he had a trigger patent and a rifle chassis/concept. https://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/01/28/american-rifle-company-m2/#google_vignette
Anyone have issues with extractor makes on almost every piece of brass? I’m shooting factory 6.5 prc ammo, both hornady and Norma and seeing it on both. Barrel is clean as a whistle and bore scoped. I was single loading so not sure if that has anything to do with it. Just very confused at this point.
The popped primer was before the cleaning as I thought maybe I had a carbon ring. Borescoped, saw a minor ring forming so I scrubbed it. Borescoped after and it was squeaky clean. Shot some more hornady after the cleaning and still showed pressure. Norma was all shot after cleaning and it showed pressure as well. I think it’s something with the barrel, but curious if the extractor marks are normal for the CDG
The popped primer was before the cleaning as I thought maybe I had a carbon ring. Borescoped, saw a minor ring forming so I scrubbed it. Borescoped after and it was squeaky clean. Shot some more hornady after the cleaning and still showed pressure. Norma was all shot after cleaning and it showed pressure as well. I think it’s something with the barrel, but curious if the extractor marks are normal for the CDG
Attachments
Yep, I get marks on my brass even at book minimum load (H1000). No other pressure signs, headspace gauges check out (go and no-go) so I just don't worry about it.
I had minor extraction issues when I started exceeding book pressure. Backed down one node (if you will) to another lower load, still over pressure, that works even in the roasting sun after many rounds here in Florida on a sunny day. Still getting 2920 with Berger 190s in a 30” 7PRC.
Typically, no matter what the load info is, pressure will manifest itself with signs. The chamber has very much to do with when you will see pressure. In the magnum type cartridges, this becomes evident before it might in the .308 based cartridges.
I’m shooting factory hornady and Norma. Both I’d expect to be well below max pressure.
Preferred didn’t have much other than make sure it’s clean as they were surprised it’s swiping. They did mention I could back down to 70 ft lbs, but it likely won’t do anything from the 110 it’s at
Do some reading and you’ll see that some factory Hornady 6.5 PRC was hotter than many of the later batches. Search and you’ll find references and maybe even lot numbers. There are some shooters that really loved the hot 6.5 PRC stuff and are unhappy that they’ve backed the load down.
Like I said, the chambering makes a difference.
If anyone is having feeding issues with 6GT I guess?
GT AW Magazine
GT AW MAGAZINE DISCLAIMER: PLEASE READ Our Billet AW magazines have a (12) round capacity and cannot be shipped to the following states. Please check out our (10) round compliant version: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island...
grayopscnc.com
Factory AW mags have been flawless for me in my 6GT CDG.If anyone is having feeding issues with 6GT I guess?
GT AW Magazine
GT AW MAGAZINE DISCLAIMER: PLEASE READ Our Billet AW magazines have a (12) round capacity and cannot be shipped to the following states. Please check out our (10) round compliant version: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island...grayopscnc.com
American Rifle Company New Archimedes Action, New Xylo Chassis, and major Mausingfield revision
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...
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
I remember that, I asked him if there was a way to lock the bolt like the Model 70’s I had been hunting with prior to switching over to ARC actions. Further in the discussion someone brought up NULA as he had Timney make a trigger that would lock the bolt on safe but pushing the trigger lever down would disengage the lock.
If I remember correctly Ted called the owner but was informed that said trigger was no longer being manufactured. He expressed interest in reproducing it but I’m sure it’s a back back burner project at this point as the CDG has no provision for it.
FYI, pictures of the different kind of trigger hangers…
Top, the original one that came with the initial actions. Middle, the version with a slight relief on it. Bottom, the latest one that has little lugs on it and a deeper general relief cut.
I don’t think the bottom one will work on my actions because they use pointy pins…
(note that I had already modified the other side of the top one… So it does not come that way)
Top, the original one that came with the initial actions. Middle, the version with a slight relief on it. Bottom, the latest one that has little lugs on it and a deeper general relief cut.
I don’t think the bottom one will work on my actions because they use pointy pins…
(note that I had already modified the other side of the top one… So it does not come that way)
Last edited:
You mean the action?
I’m not disassembling my rifles because arc made a design change.
I’m not disassembling my rifles because arc made a design change.
Mine are in a constant state of disassembly so it’s no bother.
Hawkins hunter short action dbm and hunter mag for 6:5 prc working in the cdg? Manners ph stock if it matters. My initial setup just now was a MDT dbm and there 300wsm aics mag and I can’t get it to work. Switch to Hawkins? 6.5 prc suggestions welcome.
I’m sure someone can chime in with exactly your fix, but I notice that you said AICS mag and know that the short action CDG is designed and cut specifically for the AW magazine. MDT should have another mag latch option for AICS single feed magazines.
I do know that it’s for aw. I have one in 6.5 creed I’m using ai aw mags with and it’s flawless from the drop. This one I was just trying to use the 3 round 300wsm aics mag cause I dont want a ten round mag for this hunting rifle. I actually loaded 7 prc rounds in one of my aw mags and it worked awesome just don’t want that high cap mag for this rifle. Need a solution. Going to call Hawkins tomorrow if no one chimes in here and see what they say.
For me, the Accurate 300 WSM AICS mag is working fine in an original design CDG short action in 7 SAUM. It's a bit hard to load the magazine, but that's my only complaint.
The Hawkins Hunter will not work with the original long action CDG, but it will work with the newer, lighter action with the two short scope rails. I just built two in long action. They work fine. You still need to modify the stock to fit the trigger hanger.
Last edited:
