Steve,
Please elaborate on "bolt bind". I want to understand your concern.
Ted
Please elaborate on "bolt bind". I want to understand your concern.
Ted
- Thread starter karagias
- Start date
Im in...
Two friends and fellow competitors both bought the same brand of the offending new custom actions. So I had a sample of two to compare. The best way to describe the bolt binding issue they had was that when the bolt was open and all the way back in rearmost position and then pushed forward using the bolt knob it became nearly impossible to push the bolt forward again with any natural sideways force put on the bolt, this caused (bolt binding)- like if in a hurry to cycle the bolt during a match. To push the bolt forward reliably I/they had to push on the bolt shroud instead to avoid the bolt binding issue.
On the same table were 4-5 various other actions, some customs and some factory stock that all of us played with for a few minutes to see how they felt. None of the other actions had a bolt binding issue. I'd be really pissed if I had just paid $4000 to have a new rifle built only to find out the heart of the build "the $1300 custom rifle action" had this issue.
Hi Steve,
We shot a quick video of Ted discussing bolt bind and also discussing our options with regards to bolts.
We shot a quick video of Ted discussing bolt bind and also discussing our options with regards to bolts.
Last edited:
Thanks for the video!
Looks like the Mausingfield worked fine. I could tell the bolt was nice and slippery when Ted tilted the rifle back a few degrees causing the bolt to slide back under it's own weight.
Thanks Bohem for answering previously. I'm looking forward to peoples impressions about the Mausingfield. Please post a range report later.
My M700 custom has a PTG bolt and the race way reamed for a low tolerance fit. It had a annoying bolt binding issue which I believe stemmed from this. I had the bolt handle modified so it was angled back about 20 degrees which fortunately solved the problem, I have to try hard to make it bind now. Just something I want to avoid in the future is all.
Looks like the Mausingfield worked fine. I could tell the bolt was nice and slippery when Ted tilted the rifle back a few degrees causing the bolt to slide back under it's own weight.
Thanks Bohem for answering previously. I'm looking forward to peoples impressions about the Mausingfield. Please post a range report later.
My M700 custom has a PTG bolt and the race way reamed for a low tolerance fit. It had a annoying bolt binding issue which I believe stemmed from this. I had the bolt handle modified so it was angled back about 20 degrees which fortunately solved the problem, I have to try hard to make it bind now. Just something I want to avoid in the future is all.
The best standard against which to evaluate a Mausingfield is an original Model 1898 Mauser. There's none other. Nothing else was ever in the M98's class until now with the development of the Mausingfield, and yes, I know, that's saying a lot during this early stage, but the Mausingfield is a true Mauser derivative. The M98 was designed for use in conditions so awful, they are difficult to describe and impossible to fully appreciate unless you fought in the trenches of WWI.
The M98 was the product of a 27 year evolutionary process during which Paul Mauser shaped his rifle after learning countless lesson taught on horrific battle fields. That counts for something. And if short comings in the Mausingfield design are discovered, I will address them, just as Mauser did. But I have significant advantages that Mauser did not. I have CAD and CAM systems at my disposal, some of the most sophisticated manufacturing equipment in existence, modern steel and heat treatment, a modern engineering education, and most importantly, I have Mauser's work to look back on. I can pick it up where he left it, and yes, I believe that he left something for people like me. Good engineers know that they're never really done.
Since Mauser's time, all manufacturers of bolt actions were either too stupid or arrogant to take the time to understand Mauser's work or they the understood it simply resigned themselves and their work to the fact that Mauser's are difficult and expensive to produce and therefore not suitable for their targeted market. The Remington M700 was designed so that it could be mass produced at low cost. The designers of it never set out to solve the problem statement Mauser was faced with. They solved a different problem and one that is every bit as valid, that is to design, produce, and market a bolt action rifle that nearly everyone could afford. And what was their pitch? You older guys will remember "three rings of steel". Strength is all they had to go on as if a Mauser was not strong enough. The M700 was never a functional match for the Mauser. It wasn't intended to be. "Oh, but the Remingtons are more accurate," some may say. Really? I once owned a custom hunting rifle built on an '09 Argentine Mauser in 280 Ackley that was easily a 1/2 MOA stick. The actions are not responsible for accuracy but they are responsible for everything else, which is really important if you want a rifle that will reliably function in adverse condition.
And here is where I think things get really funny. Remember, the venerable Remington Model 700 was to be an affordable rifle of reasonable performance and in that regard, it has faithfully served countless shooters and hunters. Sincere kudos to Remington. So I have to ask all of those out there producing "high end" Remington clones? What the are you thinking? Did you wake up one day and think to yourself, "Eureka! I'll knock off a Remington Model 700 and make it cost three time as much!" Wow, great idea. And what did you do to improve upon it? Reduce the clearance between the bolt and the receiver so that there's room for only the Ebola virus and none for the dirt you'll encounter in the field. Atta' boy. Good job.
My goal is simple. I want to make a real and substantive contribution to the state of the bolt action rifle art and I want you, the consumer to understand that so that when you're faced with the decision of what to buy, your choice will be clear. A friend once told me that big companies do some form of "Good. Better. Best." and use profits to drive R&D and then let the technological innovation trickle down to the low end of the product line. To hell with that. I only want to do best. If you want the best, you'll buy a Mausingfield, because I took what was previously the best, the Mauser 98, and built upon that.
The M98 was the product of a 27 year evolutionary process during which Paul Mauser shaped his rifle after learning countless lesson taught on horrific battle fields. That counts for something. And if short comings in the Mausingfield design are discovered, I will address them, just as Mauser did. But I have significant advantages that Mauser did not. I have CAD and CAM systems at my disposal, some of the most sophisticated manufacturing equipment in existence, modern steel and heat treatment, a modern engineering education, and most importantly, I have Mauser's work to look back on. I can pick it up where he left it, and yes, I believe that he left something for people like me. Good engineers know that they're never really done.
Since Mauser's time, all manufacturers of bolt actions were either too stupid or arrogant to take the time to understand Mauser's work or they the understood it simply resigned themselves and their work to the fact that Mauser's are difficult and expensive to produce and therefore not suitable for their targeted market. The Remington M700 was designed so that it could be mass produced at low cost. The designers of it never set out to solve the problem statement Mauser was faced with. They solved a different problem and one that is every bit as valid, that is to design, produce, and market a bolt action rifle that nearly everyone could afford. And what was their pitch? You older guys will remember "three rings of steel". Strength is all they had to go on as if a Mauser was not strong enough. The M700 was never a functional match for the Mauser. It wasn't intended to be. "Oh, but the Remingtons are more accurate," some may say. Really? I once owned a custom hunting rifle built on an '09 Argentine Mauser in 280 Ackley that was easily a 1/2 MOA stick. The actions are not responsible for accuracy but they are responsible for everything else, which is really important if you want a rifle that will reliably function in adverse condition.
And here is where I think things get really funny. Remember, the venerable Remington Model 700 was to be an affordable rifle of reasonable performance and in that regard, it has faithfully served countless shooters and hunters. Sincere kudos to Remington. So I have to ask all of those out there producing "high end" Remington clones? What the are you thinking? Did you wake up one day and think to yourself, "Eureka! I'll knock off a Remington Model 700 and make it cost three time as much!" Wow, great idea. And what did you do to improve upon it? Reduce the clearance between the bolt and the receiver so that there's room for only the Ebola virus and none for the dirt you'll encounter in the field. Atta' boy. Good job.
My goal is simple. I want to make a real and substantive contribution to the state of the bolt action rifle art and I want you, the consumer to understand that so that when you're faced with the decision of what to buy, your choice will be clear. A friend once told me that big companies do some form of "Good. Better. Best." and use profits to drive R&D and then let the technological innovation trickle down to the low end of the product line. To hell with that. I only want to do best. If you want the best, you'll buy a Mausingfield, because I took what was previously the best, the Mauser 98, and built upon that.
That action looks great. I like the features and all the engineering in it. Good work Ted. Also, A.R.C. has some of the absolute best customer service in the industry. Do you have any info on pricing and availability of the long action with a magnum bolt face?
Best,
Justin
Best,
Justin
