A very different way to look at the 700 action and multi Caliber systems from American Rifle Company.
I'm sure many of you already saw the section I wrote on American Rifle Company in my Shot Show blog in the optics forum. This is a mash of that material with some new thoughts, impressions, and pictures from my second, more in depth, visit to the booth on Friday with Frank. No doubt the better thoughts are his. Bottom line, I'm far from done thinking about the new ARC stuff as it is different in so many ways from everything else and when I think I tend to write.
Last year I wondered why a company that made scope mounts picked out the name American Rifle Company. Turns out, they always planned on making rifles. Ted is kind of an evil genius. He's at least a cranky genius, but I prefer evil. In any case, he certainly thinks well outside of the box. His new products are rifles are difficult classify. They are completely unique designs. First off, you have a custom Remington 700 footprint action that is nothing like any other 700 action you have ever seen. He calls it the Mausingfield because, in combination with the 700 footprint, it has a Mauser 98 type extractor and a Springfield 03 type ejector. You will note that this solves two of the largest failure points on the 700 action. Incidentally, he also solves the primary complaint about the Mauser action by giving it enough underside to easily bed. This action is fully compatible with Remington 700 accessories and can be fed with AICS mags, However, it takes its own, better, keyed rail which I don’t expect you will mind one bit. It runs $1,500.
American Rifle Company Mausingfield action prototype (final will have larger ejection port)
You would think the Mausingfield action to be a huge release but it’s actually not his badass product of the year. The evil genius has also released the M2 Precision Rifle (I know, from great name to really?? I think M2 is taken, forever.) The M2…. No, I think I’m going to call it the “SwitchFieldMause” is a very unique multi-caliber platform. I’m not sure where to start with this thing. There are 5 patents, all presumably utility, just on the handout. I’ll just give you some highlights:
1) It features the Mauser action / Springfield ejector but with a custom footprint, trigger, and chassis
2) It ejects right but the bolt handle can be field switched to either side
3) It is far lighter than any other multi-cal system, 12 lbs with 27” barrel
4) Has a unique toroidal bolt head interface with a spherical lugs that requires no lapping
5) The stock can be folded either way depending on configuration
6) Unique action / chassis interface prevents stress from being transmitted from the chassis to the action.
7) The barrel does not have an extension to interface with the bolt lugs yet also is not threaded and torqued into the action where the lugs are. More on this later.
Really, the SwitchFieldMause is just not a whole lot like any gun I have seen before. I mean its got recognizable elements from different designs but there all mixed in with a whole lot of things I have no reference point for. Color me interested.
American Rifle Company SwitchFie…. Err M2 multi-caliber platform
The two ARC switch caliber M2 platforms on the ends with the Mausingfield in the middle. Yes, that is Kelley from Top Shot demonstrating the M2. He is one of the testers.
Friday, as usual, was a bit less busy and, being done with the optics booth visitations that I needed to do I headed back to the ARC booth and dragged Frank with me. Ted had some more time, had located the previously missing allen wrenches in his own pocket, and completely broke down the M2 for us explaining all the way. This gave me a chance to see the trigger unit and the barrel lock up.
If I remember correctly the first of many patents Ted filed relating to technologies in the M2 was actually a trigger patent. The trigger unit is unique from others I have disassembled in a variety of ways that I will attempt to describe for you accurately enough that Ted won't have a cow. Just as on the Remington 700 and every other bolt action rifle I have disassembled, the M2 has an inline hammer located in the bolt, the bottom of which bears against the sear pushing it forward and down. In most of the designs I have encountered the angle of the hammer / sear engagement looks to be between 65 and 45 degrees. This makes for a good deal of downward pressure in addition to the forward pressure and, because the downward component of this force adds to friction at the point of sear engagement, it adds weight to the trigger pull and can also give it a gritty feel if things get dirty of the surfaces aren't smooth. The angle, in the case of the M2's trigger, is more like 85 degrees. This, in combination with the fact that the sear pivot pin is only slightly offset below the bearing point of the hammer on the sear, means that there is very little resistance due to friction force as a result of the hammer spring in this design. Another notable facet of the design is that the trigger does not directly interface with the sear. This is not uncommon in better triggers which, often feature compound linkages. In Teds design, this is done so that very little trigger movement can be translated into much greater movement at the sear engagement surface. This is accomplished though the relative placements of the pivot pin between the link and the housing and the (not visible) pivot pin between the link and the sliding trigger. Despite the trigger having extremely large sear engagement (this will make it safe and not failure prone) the pull is very short. I really tried to perceive movement before the break but simply could not on this trigger. Lastly, you will note that there is a sear stop on the link that determines one end of the trigger stroke as apposed to a take up, or sear engagement, screw. This trigger cannot be adjusted for lower sear engagement. You cannot make it less reliable in that way and, given the magnification of pull in the linkages and the already imperceptible trigger movement before firing, you wouldn't want to anyway. You can still futz with the over travel and the pull weight though. Pull weight was definitely on the heavy side the way it was adjusted at the booth. I'm not sure the range. The trigger unit on this display did not accommodate different shoes or movement of the location of the shoe but it seems that may be on the way. I will also note that, if I remember correctly, Ted said that the safety blocks both sear and trigger movement.
The patented ARC M2 trigger unit removed. Labels are mine. I don't know what Ted calls the parts in his patent.
Now we will talk a little about the barrel to receiver lock up. Unfortunately, I was to boneheaded to photo this so you have to use your imagination. Many of you know that the locking lugs are located in the receiver of a 700 action with threads holding the barrel to the receiver. Conversely, all of the switch barrel designs I have seen outside of Ted's have the locking lugs in a barrel extension similar to that of an AR15. The barrel on these designs is then secured to the receiver in a variety of not particularly strength demanding ways as the critical bolt-barrel lock up is in the extension and not the receiver. Ted's receiver on the M2 is not threaded to the barrel despite the fact that the locking lugs are in the receiver. The barrel is smooth except for two half rounds machined in the bottom and slides into the receiver very precisely. Two very precisely machined (done in house) very strong bolts fit through each of these rounds and thread into the receiver on the other side of the barrel. The receiver has cut in the bottom to allow these bolts to pinch the receiver tightly around the barrel in the manner many after market gas blocks do on an AR15. Ted informs me that the exact torque on these bolts is not vital though they should be tight. The barrel is held in the receiver by a combination of the friction between the smooth barrel and receiver due to the squeezing of the receiver about the barrel and the bearing of the cross bolts on the half rounds cut in the barrel. I'll admit to being worried about this barrel attachment mechanism. I will also admit that, just like me, most rifle designers are not really engineers and, lacking the knowledge base necessary to really know what kind of barrel attachment mechanism is strong enough, they go with proven systems. Ted is not most rifle designers, he is a far more qualified engineer, and he has made and interesting decision here departing, once again, from conventional thinking. I am intrigued as his design suggests that for a great many years a lot of designs have gone to a great deal of trouble for no gain. It wouldn't be the first time that is found to be the case.
I'm sure many of you already saw the section I wrote on American Rifle Company in my Shot Show blog in the optics forum. This is a mash of that material with some new thoughts, impressions, and pictures from my second, more in depth, visit to the booth on Friday with Frank. No doubt the better thoughts are his. Bottom line, I'm far from done thinking about the new ARC stuff as it is different in so many ways from everything else and when I think I tend to write.
Last year I wondered why a company that made scope mounts picked out the name American Rifle Company. Turns out, they always planned on making rifles. Ted is kind of an evil genius. He's at least a cranky genius, but I prefer evil. In any case, he certainly thinks well outside of the box. His new products are rifles are difficult classify. They are completely unique designs. First off, you have a custom Remington 700 footprint action that is nothing like any other 700 action you have ever seen. He calls it the Mausingfield because, in combination with the 700 footprint, it has a Mauser 98 type extractor and a Springfield 03 type ejector. You will note that this solves two of the largest failure points on the 700 action. Incidentally, he also solves the primary complaint about the Mauser action by giving it enough underside to easily bed. This action is fully compatible with Remington 700 accessories and can be fed with AICS mags, However, it takes its own, better, keyed rail which I don’t expect you will mind one bit. It runs $1,500.
American Rifle Company Mausingfield action prototype (final will have larger ejection port)
You would think the Mausingfield action to be a huge release but it’s actually not his badass product of the year. The evil genius has also released the M2 Precision Rifle (I know, from great name to really?? I think M2 is taken, forever.) The M2…. No, I think I’m going to call it the “SwitchFieldMause” is a very unique multi-caliber platform. I’m not sure where to start with this thing. There are 5 patents, all presumably utility, just on the handout. I’ll just give you some highlights:
1) It features the Mauser action / Springfield ejector but with a custom footprint, trigger, and chassis
2) It ejects right but the bolt handle can be field switched to either side
3) It is far lighter than any other multi-cal system, 12 lbs with 27” barrel
4) Has a unique toroidal bolt head interface with a spherical lugs that requires no lapping
5) The stock can be folded either way depending on configuration
6) Unique action / chassis interface prevents stress from being transmitted from the chassis to the action.
7) The barrel does not have an extension to interface with the bolt lugs yet also is not threaded and torqued into the action where the lugs are. More on this later.
Really, the SwitchFieldMause is just not a whole lot like any gun I have seen before. I mean its got recognizable elements from different designs but there all mixed in with a whole lot of things I have no reference point for. Color me interested.
American Rifle Company SwitchFie…. Err M2 multi-caliber platform
The two ARC switch caliber M2 platforms on the ends with the Mausingfield in the middle. Yes, that is Kelley from Top Shot demonstrating the M2. He is one of the testers.
Friday, as usual, was a bit less busy and, being done with the optics booth visitations that I needed to do I headed back to the ARC booth and dragged Frank with me. Ted had some more time, had located the previously missing allen wrenches in his own pocket, and completely broke down the M2 for us explaining all the way. This gave me a chance to see the trigger unit and the barrel lock up.
If I remember correctly the first of many patents Ted filed relating to technologies in the M2 was actually a trigger patent. The trigger unit is unique from others I have disassembled in a variety of ways that I will attempt to describe for you accurately enough that Ted won't have a cow. Just as on the Remington 700 and every other bolt action rifle I have disassembled, the M2 has an inline hammer located in the bolt, the bottom of which bears against the sear pushing it forward and down. In most of the designs I have encountered the angle of the hammer / sear engagement looks to be between 65 and 45 degrees. This makes for a good deal of downward pressure in addition to the forward pressure and, because the downward component of this force adds to friction at the point of sear engagement, it adds weight to the trigger pull and can also give it a gritty feel if things get dirty of the surfaces aren't smooth. The angle, in the case of the M2's trigger, is more like 85 degrees. This, in combination with the fact that the sear pivot pin is only slightly offset below the bearing point of the hammer on the sear, means that there is very little resistance due to friction force as a result of the hammer spring in this design. Another notable facet of the design is that the trigger does not directly interface with the sear. This is not uncommon in better triggers which, often feature compound linkages. In Teds design, this is done so that very little trigger movement can be translated into much greater movement at the sear engagement surface. This is accomplished though the relative placements of the pivot pin between the link and the housing and the (not visible) pivot pin between the link and the sliding trigger. Despite the trigger having extremely large sear engagement (this will make it safe and not failure prone) the pull is very short. I really tried to perceive movement before the break but simply could not on this trigger. Lastly, you will note that there is a sear stop on the link that determines one end of the trigger stroke as apposed to a take up, or sear engagement, screw. This trigger cannot be adjusted for lower sear engagement. You cannot make it less reliable in that way and, given the magnification of pull in the linkages and the already imperceptible trigger movement before firing, you wouldn't want to anyway. You can still futz with the over travel and the pull weight though. Pull weight was definitely on the heavy side the way it was adjusted at the booth. I'm not sure the range. The trigger unit on this display did not accommodate different shoes or movement of the location of the shoe but it seems that may be on the way. I will also note that, if I remember correctly, Ted said that the safety blocks both sear and trigger movement.
The patented ARC M2 trigger unit removed. Labels are mine. I don't know what Ted calls the parts in his patent.
Now we will talk a little about the barrel to receiver lock up. Unfortunately, I was to boneheaded to photo this so you have to use your imagination. Many of you know that the locking lugs are located in the receiver of a 700 action with threads holding the barrel to the receiver. Conversely, all of the switch barrel designs I have seen outside of Ted's have the locking lugs in a barrel extension similar to that of an AR15. The barrel on these designs is then secured to the receiver in a variety of not particularly strength demanding ways as the critical bolt-barrel lock up is in the extension and not the receiver. Ted's receiver on the M2 is not threaded to the barrel despite the fact that the locking lugs are in the receiver. The barrel is smooth except for two half rounds machined in the bottom and slides into the receiver very precisely. Two very precisely machined (done in house) very strong bolts fit through each of these rounds and thread into the receiver on the other side of the barrel. The receiver has cut in the bottom to allow these bolts to pinch the receiver tightly around the barrel in the manner many after market gas blocks do on an AR15. Ted informs me that the exact torque on these bolts is not vital though they should be tight. The barrel is held in the receiver by a combination of the friction between the smooth barrel and receiver due to the squeezing of the receiver about the barrel and the bearing of the cross bolts on the half rounds cut in the barrel. I'll admit to being worried about this barrel attachment mechanism. I will also admit that, just like me, most rifle designers are not really engineers and, lacking the knowledge base necessary to really know what kind of barrel attachment mechanism is strong enough, they go with proven systems. Ted is not most rifle designers, he is a far more qualified engineer, and he has made and interesting decision here departing, once again, from conventional thinking. I am intrigued as his design suggests that for a great many years a lot of designs have gone to a great deal of trouble for no gain. It wouldn't be the first time that is found to be the case.
