Coup De Grace vs Nucleus or Origin

[YoungBuck94]

So umm... Hate to bring up an old(ish) thread, but is the general consensus the CDG then? Unfortunately there is absolutely zero chance of seeing any of these in a store near me, possibly (although unlikely) to see someone at the Hibbing or Virginia gun clubs in Minnesota that have one.

Ideally I'd like to get a long and short action of the same type, I'm leaning towards the CDG but this will be a first custom for me so trying to make the most informed decision I can.

 

[Supersubes]

There’s no good answer for this. They cost the same. Just ask yourself if the extra features of the CDG(there are many) are what you want.

 

[PRSDietitian]

I'd say, a good question to ask is if you plan to use AW on the short action. or if you want flutes or not(CDG obviously gives both options)

 

[Supersubes]

I'd say, a good question to ask is if you plan to use AW on the short action. or if you want flutes or not(CDG obviously gives both options)
[/QUOTE.

The Origin has flutes.

 

[PRSDietitian]

The Origin has flutes.

I'm half awake hahaha I was only thinking CDG or nucleus, then i read the thread title and face palmed

 

[YoungBuck94]

I'd say, a good question to ask is if you plan to use AW on the short action. or if you want flutes or not(CDG obviously gives both options)

Yeah I wouldn't really care about the flutes one way or the other. I haven't really decided on an initial short action caliber, but I'm strongly considering one of the first barrels being 6 Dasher. Can anybody confirm if that runs well in AW mags? I did a quick search and seems like MDT 6br mags work well, anything else is iffy.

 

[midwestoffroad]

I run AW in one of my Dashers with AW cut actions flawlessly. My other 3 are no go. The MDT or AI 10 round with HRD kit works great.

It's hit or miss tuning is always required.

GT is another great option. I'm in debate which route I will go with the CDG. Aa I have 4 dasher and only 1GT

I'm in MN also if you want to check one out

 

[physguy88]

Can someone explain why the conical breech on the CDG versus the flat breech on the nuc and Origin? I did enough reading to see how they are different but not the reason for the change from nuc.

 

[Tokay444]

Can someone explain why the conical breech on the CDG versus the flat breech on the nuc and Origin? I did enough reading to see how they are different but not the reason for the change from nuc.

No feed ramp in the action. Need one in the breech.

 

[b6graham]

No feed ramp in the action. Need one in the breech.

also AW

 

[YoungBuck94]

I run AW in one of my Dashers with AW cut actions flawlessly. My other 3 are no go. The MDT or AI 10 round with HRD kit works great.

It's hit or miss tuning is always required.

GT is another great option. I'm in debate which route I will go with the CDG. Aa I have 4 dasher and only 1GT

I'm in MN also if you want to check one out

I appreciate that! GT isn't one I had considered, but I haven't looked a whole lot into the short action calibers.

Which actions do you currently have?

 

[midwestoffroad]

I appreciate that! GT isn't one I had considered, but I haven't looked a whole lot into the short action calibers.

Which actions do you currently have?

I have 3 Curtis Valors 2 Vectors 2 axioms a impact and the newest is the CDG coming . Besides my RimX

 

[4O6shootist]

An origin VS nucleus 2.0 is pretty much apples to apples comparison, both crf, both mechanical blade ejection designed for aics centerfeed mags, only real difference is 2 lug VS 3 lug. The bolt lift is lighter on the origin even with lighter fp springs in the nuc due to the nucs reduced lift angle. I feel the nuc has less binding if you're not running the bolt completely straight, this is because the bolt body diameter on the Nuc tapers, and the faster you run an ARC action the smoother it feels. The origin feels very smooth no matter what speed you run it, however with bolt fully open, it can bind when side loaded. The newer origins seem a less sensative than my other one that's 4-5 years old. The CDG is a total different animal, inverted 3 lug design VS the nuc or archimedes, this is for better feeding from AW. If you're not stocked in or planning to use AW mags, I see no reason to go with the CDG, the bolt lift will be lighter VS the nuc for sure, as there is Def a lighter feel in my archimedes VS my gen2 nuc. The adjustable trigger hanger is a novel idea as long as it maintains proper fp fall distance when adjusting from trigger to trigger. ARC does a lot of innovative engineering, the archimedes bolt however is overlu complex similar to the new CDG. Lot of shit going on in there. The origin is dead simple, bayonet firing control release, breaking down a CDG requires a fair bit more attention. These are my observations, owning a few origins, a gen2 nuc, archimedes, and having a pair of CDG on order.

 

[Tokay444]

I touched a Bighorn TL3 once, which is a step up from the Origin, and it was the grittiest, most heavily binding action I’ve ever touched. Sample size of one.

 

[Supersubes]

I touched a Bighorn TL3 once, which is a step up from the Origin, and it was the grittiest, most heavily binding action I’ve ever touched. Sample size of one.

There’s definitely variance from action to action from all the manufacturers. My TL3 is amazing, for example.

 

[PRSDietitian]

Installed a Bartlein CF shouldered prefit, made up by Southern Precision Rifle, on the Aero SOLUS and it headspaced perfect. 50ft lbs. just FYI.

Any issues with binding?

 

[FredHammer]

Any issues with binding?

Can you clarify please?

 

[PRSDietitian]

Can you clarify please?

Seen a lot of fb groups with videos of any little lateral movement causing binding when cycling

 

[acudaowner]

while I love the bighorn I am really looking forward to the Coup De Grace @ 900.or what ever it will be for my next build but no matter which modern action I get I would love any of them for the mater pieces they all are , and not feel like I was missing anything picking one of them over the others .

 

[Tokay444]

None at all using natural bolt manipulation. I can make practically any action bind if I try to. My No4MK2 Enfield is the only bolt gun that won’t bind even if trying!

Sounds like a challenge. I cant make my Nuke or Archimedes bind.

 

[FredHammer]

Sounds like a challenge. I cant make my Nuke or Archimedes bind.

That’s awesome! You don’t want binding anyway!

 

[ABC1000]

Proof Prefits are a better option over savage barrels at a slightly higher price point. The Origin has been a great Action. That said I have a CDG ordered

Don't get me wrong on Proof barrels. I have many proofs and have/had several steel proof barrels that all shoot/have shot no doubt. They’re a good value.

I’ve also bought a dozen ish savage small shank barrels in criterion/shilen for my bighorns and TL3s… everyone of them has shot equally as well as my proofs (whether shouldered or ed). My comparison is steel vs steel not CF.

Cartridges I’ve shot in Criterion/Shilen are: multiple 223s, 7 PRC, 300 WM, 284 Win, 280 AI, 6CM, 22 CM, 25 CM 6.5 CM, 20 Prac… and more.
Every single one of these barrels has shot at least in the .1s through load dev which I know is subjective… I don’t compete though. Most of these I’ll print 3 shot groups in the 0s during load development (100y).

They’re also the cheapest solution for a guy who shoots a lot and wants to try as many cartridges as he can.

I haven’t noticed a drop off of in barrel
Life but haven’t actually compared to be honest.

The cost difference between the two is substantial enough that I don’t buy proof prefits in steel anymore. CF yes.

 

[ABC1000]

I get that, I do. I already have multiple barrels for the origin action, I personally don’t like the barrel nut because then I have to re set headspace each time i swap barrels, or major POI shift when I put a barrel back on. Plus when a product is advertised as something, I expect it to live up to that.
Also, the action to me was very not smooth. I couldn’t get over it. It bugged me a lot.

I’ve changed dozens of nutted and shouldered prefits on fixed and pinned actions and haven’t noticed what I’d consider “major” POI shifts, especially isolated in nutted actions. There is always a POI shift, but major to me would be many clicks… I usually find a click or two maybe three is in the region for both. YMMV but that’s mine.

 

[FredHammer]

Don't get me wrong on Proof barrels. I have many proofs and have/had several steel proof barrels that all shoot/have shot no doubt. They’re a good value.

I’ve also bought a dozen ish savage small shank barrels in criterion/shilen for my bighorns and TL3s… everyone of them has shot equally as well as my proofs (whether shouldered or ed). My comparison is steel vs steel not CF.

Cartridges I’ve shot in Criterion/Shilen are: multiple 223s, 7 PRC, 300 WM, 284 Win, 280 AI, 6CM, 22 CM, 25 CM 6.5 CM, 20 Prac… and more.
Every single one of these barrels has shot at least in the .1s through load dev which I know is subjective… I don’t compete though. Most of these I’ll print 3 shot groups in the 0s during load development (100y).

They’re also the cheapest solution for a guy who shoots a lot and wants to try as many cartridges as he can.

I haven’t noticed a drop off of in barrel
Life but haven’t actually compared to be honest.

The cost difference between the two is substantial enough that I don’t buy proof prefits in steel anymore. CF yes.

Nice informative post. My CBI nuts have shot stellar too. Wasn't sure about Shilen so good to know.

 

[ABC1000]

That’s a ton of torque! Aero told me 80, I do 80 on my origin. 150 seems extremely excessive to me. That’s gotta be a bigger to break loose. I already have to get a breaker bar on mine.

In full disclosure and for the sake of preventing a catastrophic injury or death… I hand torqued a CF 300 PRC CF barrel which lasted for a couple - few hundred rounds. I’d talked to several PRS shooters who said that’s what they do…. I was always nervous about it and hand checked it was tight. Was headed to South Africa and went to validate my zero and it was loose!?!? DO NOT DO THIS!!!!

I’ve been told by several barrel manufacturers and my go to action manufacturer that you don’t want less than 70lbs of torque on a shouldered barrel, so that’s what I do on all of mine whether SA or LA. Magnum or not. I’ve never had an issue @ 70lbs shouldered.

 

[ABC1000]

Nice informative post. My CBI nuts have shot stellar too. Wasn't sure about Shilen so good to know.

I buy all mine through NSS and to be honest, most people who are in the know will tell you they both shoot the exact same, though one is roughly $50 ish more than the other. They’re both great and the most cost effective thing going that doesn’t sacrifice value IMO.

As far as the difference in Shilen vs Criterion… In the beginning, I thought Shilen shot better than CBI, but after buying a bunch of criterion’s, they’ve all shot equally as well in my experience.

I have high end customs as well. Most of them shoot amazing. A couple don’t. My experience is almost everybody’s ETAs are not realistic and I hate waiting over a year (sometimes well over a year) to get my build back. If I’m trying to break a record (that’s not me), the full custom is the surest way I believe.

To be fair to the ultra high end custom barrel manufactures and smiths, I did gladly fork out extra $$$ for a full Alex Wheeler custom on my fclass build that I’m waiting on my stock. Im Sure it’ll be a tac driver.

 

[EotS]

Origin only

"Compatible Actions for Savage Small Shank (others may exist, these are known to work)

All Bighorn/Zermatt TL3 and Origin, TL2 with 20 TPI tenon
All American Rifle Nucleus, Archimedes and Mausingfields post 2014
American Rifle Coup De Grace magnum bolt face, not 308 or 223 bolt face
Savage Small shank actions are typically 2 digit models IE 10/11/16 except the Model 12 Target Action
AeroPrecision Solus"
Impact 787

 

[EotS]

So, according to this thread, I can't take my Origin action, and simply torque on a PVA Prefit (Savage Small Shank) and go shooting?

 

[EotS]

Origin just seems like the easy button. No frills, all business, and can do whatever you want with barrels. Prefit, Nut, shimmed, ect.


I just wish the Origin had integrated rails and lug

 

[rijndael]

I just wish the Origin had integrated rails and lug

That's called a TL3

 

[Supersubes]

That's called a TL3

The tl3 doesn't have the integral rail, only lug.

 

[EotS]

That's called a TL3

$900 Vs $1,300

It's probably also easier to machine it as one piece as opposed to having 3 seperate pieces.

 

[rijndael]

It's probably also easier to machine it as one piece as opposed to having 2 seperate pieces.

It requires larger material, since it now has to be big enough to go all the way from the bottom of the lug to the top of the rail.

 

[Supersubes]

$900 Vs $1,300

It's probably also easier to machine it as one piece as opposed to having 3 seperate pieces.

Traditionally, no. Which is why prior to the Solus and CDG, an integral lug and rail action a year ago started at $1350 and went up from there. I seem to recall my first Surgeon was $1200 back in 2006. I think only Bat receivers were more expensive at the time.

 

[EotS]

Noted, thx.


It requires larger material, since it now has to be big enough to go all the way from the bottom of the lug to the top of the rail.

How does it require more material when you're separately producing the lug and rail that are the same size?
Overall,the material dimensions are near identical.

It requires larger material, since it now has to be big enough to go all the way from the bottom of the lug to the top of the rail.

How so? You're just machining the rail and lug seperately. There's no less material being used in making them integrated. You just added the step of producing 2 more pieces.

 

[EotS]

Traditionally, no. Which is why prior to the Solus and CDG, an integral lug and rail action a year ago started at $1350 and went up from there. I seem to recall my first Surgeon was $1200 back in 2006. I think only Bat receivers were more expensive at the time.

Modern CNC should eaisly be able to knock out an integrated action piece very eaisly. By doing it as one piece, you are able to eliminate the steps of separately machining the bottom of the rail, and backside of the lug, as well as eliminating the steps of machining mounting holes in the rail, as well as threading the receiver for the mounting screws.

 

[Supersubes]

Modern CNC should eaisly be able to knock out an integrated action piece very eaisly.

Well obviously, but its way easier and cheaper still to spit out a 1.35” metal tube with a raceway in it, like an Origin for example.

 

[rijndael]

How does it require more material when you're separately producing the lug and rail that are the same size?

Think of all of the waste material behind the lug, all along the action, because you had to start with stock big enough to account for the lug (and rail). Now think of the waste when you start with a ~1.400" round bar, and produce a 1.350" round action, and do the lug in a separate process, it's way less.

 

[Supersubes]

Think of all of the waste material behind the lug, all along the action, because you had to start with stock big enough to account for the lug (and rail). Now think of the waste when you start with a ~1.400" round bar, and produce a 1.350" round action, and do the lug in a separate process, it's way less.

Dont forget the half million dollar 5 axis mill it takes to do it, which is roughly 5x the cost of the CNC lathe they’d been making standard round receivers with previously.

 

[EotS]

Think of all of the waste material behind the lug, all along the action, because you had to start with stock big enough to account for the lug (and rail). Now think of the waste when you start with a ~1.400" round bar, and produce a 1.350" round action, and do the lug in a separate process, it's way less.

The material has to come from somewhere, and the ammt to be removed by doing it as 1pc minimal.

 

[Maurygold]

Origin vote here.

 

[rijndael]

The material has to come from somewhere, and the ammt to be removed by doing it as 1pc minimal.

Sure bud. Good luck.

 

[EotS]

Dont forget the half million dollar 5 axis mill it takes to do it, which is roughly 5x the cost of the CNC lathe they’d been making standard round receivers with previously.

No argument there, but from an engineering standpoint, it's easier to do it as one pc than 3.

Sure bud. Good luck.

Good luck?
Post a pic of your machine shop and experience, and I'll do the same, bud.

 

[Supersubes]

No argument there, but from an engineering standpoint, it's easier to do it as one pc than 3.

Good luck?
Post a pic of your machine shop and experience, and I'll do the same, bud.

The reality is they have always been 40-50% more expensive that typical round actions though, and its not because the makers are dumb or greedy. The execution and materials are more costly.

 

[midwestoffroad]

Don't get me wrong on Proof barrels. I have many proofs and have/had several steel proof barrels that all shoot/have shot no doubt. They’re a good value.

I’ve also bought a dozen ish savage small shank barrels in criterion/shilen for my bighorns and TL3s… everyone of them has shot equally as well as my proofs (whether shouldered or ed). My comparison is steel vs steel not CF.

Cartridges I’ve shot in Criterion/Shilen are: multiple 223s, 7 PRC, 300 WM, 284 Win, 280 AI, 6CM, 22 CM, 25 CM 6.5 CM, 20 Prac… and more.
Every single one of these barrels has shot at least in the .1s through load dev which I know is subjective… I don’t compete though. Most of these I’ll print 3 shot groups in the 0s during load development (100y).

They’re also the cheapest solution for a guy who shoots a lot and wants to try as many cartridges as he can.

I haven’t noticed a drop off of in barrel
Life but haven’t actually compared to be honest.

The cost difference between the two is substantial enough that I don’t buy proof prefits in steel anymore. CF yes.

In a PRS senario. The Proof Comp contour prefits will add a addition few beneficial pounds over a 1.06 diameter barrel. Sure accuracy will be about the same.

 

[Tokay444]

The material has to come from somewhere, and the ammt to be removed by doing it as 1pc minimal.

It’s far easier, and far more efficient in both material savings and machining time to do it in 3 pieces. I’m a machinist and a senior applications engineer for one of the biggest CNC machine tool manufacturers in the world.
When you buy material for the receiver, you buy it just over the receiver size. When you buy material for the lug, you buy it just over lug size. You make a lug, part of off, and make the next. You’re not throwing out a whole receiver lengths worth of material for each lug as you would be for a one piece. Cutting a cylinder on a lathe is far easier, cheaper, and carries I higher degree of success than 3D milling or 5 axis machining a radius on the bottom of a one piece action.

 

[midwestoffroad]

In shops it's more cost effective to buy nominal sized materials and cut them down . So starting with a 1.5 round stock vs special sizes like 1.4 cost less

 

[Tokay444]

In shops it's more cost effective to buy nominal sized materials and cut them down . So starting with a 1.5 round stock vs special sizes like 1.4 cost less

You’re not cutting a one piece an action from 1.5” material.

 

[midwestoffroad]

Don't over think my reply .... it's a statement of nominal materials save money 1.5 reference I'd for when someone mentioned round actions. No rail no lug

 

[Tokay444]

They do. But the bigger the nominal size, the more expensive it is, and a one piece action needs to come out of 2.5” or 3” material. Where as it takes one rough cut in 1.5” bar to get within finishing size of a 1.35” receiver body.