I received one of these and finally made time to look it over.
I figured I would send some of the bolt parts off for IonBond with a large batch of other parts already going and then barrel it up for a class loaner rifle to see how it holds up.
I have
not fired any rounds through this action yet but already have some opinions*.
*It is noted that my opinion is worth exactly the price you are paying to read this right now…..
Regarding some posts comparing the “feel” of a SOLUS cycling to another brand of action that has already had thousands of cycles.
That is retarded.
Cycling an action many times is a big deal in smoothing out the feel as the bolt unlocks, cycles back and forth and then goes back into battery.
Zero points given to anyone’s feedback on such a comparison.
Regarding some posts comparing the “feel” and force needed to cock a SOLUS to another brand of action that has a 2-lug/90 degree design.
That is retarded.
3 lug actions must attempt to get the same amount of primary extraction camming done with 33% less lug and handle boss rotation. More rotational force needed to accomplish the same rearward movement via the cam surface.
Zero points given to anyone’s feedback on such a comparison.
My perception of the action.
Pros:
Very good receiver and bolt body design.
Great surface finish with few machine marks.
Good bolt stop design.
Good trigger hangar design.
Generous ejection port.
Force to lift bolt during cocking is very favorable compared to similar 3 lug actions.
Double cocking piece design provides 2 separate cam surfaces 180 degrees apart at the rear of the bolt. This allows the camming operation work to be shared across 2 equal camming surfaces. Pretty smart.
Bottom mag feed cut and ramp in the bottom of the receiver is well done.
Cons:
The bolt head has 2 ejectors. Both are too close to the extractor.
Both are too short to operate smoothly in their host holes under repeated load. Both have springs that are too short to allow smooth movement across the ejector’s travel.
Simply moving their location to the other side of the breech face would double the amount of leverage they could provide in relation to the pivot point of the extractor.
View attachment 8070092
Both ejectors have no chamfer at the rear face which when combined with their short length and no center spring guide feature allows the ejectors to try to twist and bite in their respective holes.
View attachment 8070093
The existing bolt head has ample room and material available to change the ejector position, go to a larger diameter/ deeper depth hole that would allow a Rem700’ish ejector with spring guide feature and longer spring. Even a single ejector with such a proven design and location would far outperform their current double ejector design.
The Extractor is small and is not smooth in its movement. I believe the spring needs to be longer and the host hole deeper for a smoother function within the load range it will live at.
View attachment 8070094
My current feeling is that they did a LOT of things right with this design.
Seemingly all the hard shit was designed and machined quite well
and then they dropped the ball with the ejector and extractor details.
Both are going to be hard to service.
Both are going to cause issues and make their phone ring.
Both could be addressed and improved upon at the same or less production $.
When these bolt parts get back from IonBond, we will run the crap out of it and see if any of my worries are warranted.
./